# Do We Still Need "Race" in D&D?



## Christopher Olson

Both are fine to me, they both sum up that stage in character development.


----------



## Scrivener of Doom

Yes.

If anything, RPGs more accurately use the term "race" than we do in real life.

(I'm known to fill in forms that ask for race with "human".)


----------



## The White Sorcerer

The concept of race is pseudoscientific nonsense that doesn't have a place outside fantasy.


----------



## Fore Shame

Where are you drawing the line here between race and species?


----------



## Rhianni32

_"The term "race" is a staple of fantasy that is now out of sync with modern usage"_
It was out of sync with the very first game Gygax played. 
Personally, I want my game different than a 1951 United Nations declaration. Of course it is out of parlance with reality. Setting aside 67 years of change in our world, here we have 1 human race with many cultures/backgrounds where as most games will have many races. If there is a problem with being accurate with the real world then switch race to species.

When making your average fantasy RPG character you have a series of choices. Some are based on the physical body (racial bonuses like elf longevity, or darkvision) others are learned traits in what you did with your time and the environment you lived in (background). Mechanic wise you still have to make the same choices whatever you want to call them.

Race+background+culture is bad. 
Ancestory is ok?


----------



## Malshotfirst

Theres literally NO sound argument above as to why fantasy RPGs should ditch Race. Especially a quote from the Angry GM, "because I can’t speak for what happened in the Cinnabon or whatever that other book was called". Really? Thanks for your words of wisdom.


----------



## Dungeonosophy

D&D 6E could just adopt the PF2 SRD?....;-)
Now that'd be some unity.


----------



## DammitVictor

The use of the term is technically incorrect, and _that is the worst kind of incorrect_. The socjus implications are way below my sensitivity threshold, but the misuse of the word _bothers_ me.

Likewise, its most common replacement, "species". _Also wrong._


----------



## Paraxis

Need, no, but should we change to match the whims of a small group of people because it upsets them, also no. 

Race is a perfectly fine term, and used the way it is in rpg books is more accurate than modern use when talking about skin coloration.


----------



## jrowland

I once had a discussion with a gamer friend of mine about race (in our world). We had just finished playing D&D but (IIRC) the rodney king riots were fresh on our minds. Mind you, I am white, he is not. 

I said something to the effect of, "Black people, unlike humans..."

Imagine my embarrassment. We had a good laugh, he knew what I did (thinking D&D race, and in my mind, humans were white, but in his they were black), but it could have been worse. Especially today. 

I think Fantasy racial tropes are a nice shorthand. I'd prefer if they went to "specieis" rather than "ancestry". I'd also prefer a cultural layer (nurture) in addition to the racial/species layer (nature).

Ultimately though. I don't care. A rose by any other name smells just as sweet.


----------



## TrippyHippy

I'd prefer 'Culture' to 'Race'.


----------



## Morrus

Rhianni32 said:


> So are there any non SJW reasons to change this?




That was quick. Please don't post in this thread again, and please review the rules regarding usage of derogatory terms like "SJW".


----------



## Morrus

It's an interesting discussion. Pathfinder now uses "ancestry", I used "heritage" in modern WOIN (but that was because the four choices were human - Augmented, Mutant, Chosen, and Human) but "race" in fantasy WOIN (where it refers to elves, dwarves, orcs, etc.)

D&D uses race. I don't see that changing any time soon.

I think the word has a different connotation when referring to fictional species, as opposed to human ethnicities. The latter speaks to who the actual _players_ are, since they will be one of those ethnicities, while the former does not.


----------



## Rhianni32

Morrus said:


> That was quick. Please don't post in this thread again, and please review the rules regarding usage of derogatory terms like "SJW".




My apologies Morrus. I've edited out the comment and won't be posting in this thread apart from admitting I crossed the line.


----------



## DammitVictor

TrippyHippy said:


> I'd prefer 'Culture' to 'Race'.




Seems an odd choice to me. A demihuman's "racial" abilities in _Dungeons & Dragons_ surely aren't the product of cultural differences, are they? They're not learned behavior.

Otherwise, I would dearly love to learn the changeling's shapeshifting "habits", and the sensory "mindset" of the draconic heritage.


----------



## Sunseeker

It'll be interesting to see if PF2's "Ancestry" sticks with players.


----------



## Celebrim

> You still pick a race, even though it is now called your ancestry.




I think this says it all.  I don't really care in some sense.  You just replaced one word with its synonym.  Big deal, right?  The problem is why in the heck would they bother to do this in the first place?

First, it's the same thing, but they are giving it a new name.  They even say that.  That shifting language in order to attempt to be more sensitive never works, because the meaning follows the term and quite soon all the things attached to the old word are also part of the baggage of the new term.  "Moron" was invented in an attempt to be clinical and sensitive to a difficult and challenging problem.  It's not sensitive anymore.  "Mentally Retarded" was invented in an attempt to be clinical sensitive.  It's not sensitive anymore.  Now we are using the new term "intellectual disability", and I have to wonder how many years will go by before elementary kids are hurling that as an insult across playgrounds.  I appreciate the sentiment, but so often it feels like running from a problem rather than confronting it head on.

Ancestry is at least an actual synonym for race, so things could have been a lot worse.  They could have used things like 'Culture' which don't mean the same thing at all.  I'm also a bit worried because the article seems to assume what is nature and what is nuture based on assumptions about what is nature and nurture in humans, despite the fact that we are using race precisely because the other here is not human.  Is it really the case that an elf knows how to use a bow because of his upbringing?  Are you sure that it works that way?  Why would it have to work that way?

I'm worried that this is going to create more problems rather than less.  Switching to the term 'ancestry' opens up the designer to the idea that different human ethnicities should get different racial modifiers because they have different 'ancestry'.   I doubt the designer would ever think that way if the more loaded term 'race' was still employed, but give it a nice softer sounding synonym like 'ancestry' and suddenly the unthinkable becomes thinkable.   The article seems to even call this out as a good thing.

Fundamentally, I think what we are seeing here is complete discomfort with the idea of inhuman or even with the idea of diversity.  We want things to be 'diverse' as long as they are all exactly the same as we are, and any suggestion that diversity really means diversity of thought, beliefs, desire, and culture tends to frighten us.   So we hide that fear behind softer sounding words like 'ancestry' thinking that it is going to go away if we blind ourselves to it, like a kid hiding under a blanket.   And behind all of that I think is we've lost the reasons why we think all people are of equal worth, or deserve to be equal before the law.  Instead, we tend to think of equality as being based on weaker ideas like equality of ability and so forth, instead of a stronger and unshakable basis.  My equality of worth better not be based on equality of ability.  There are certainly people who are stronger, faster, and smarter than I am.



> "In Middle Earth, unlike reality, race is objectively real rather than socially constructed."




If it turns out that we humans are not actually alone in the universe, then we are going to have to deal with the reality of diversity in a mature manner.  Yet we seem to lack the ability to do this even with the most minor diversity seen amongst humanity.  Likewise, if it turns out that we really are different, if we are only basing our respect, compassion, and valuation of others on the idea that there are no objective differences from each other, then we are in big trouble.  If on the other hand we actually value diversity and actually value people of diverse backgrounds, then regardless of whether there are objective differences between us - or maybe even because there are objective differences between us - then we will continue to have respect, compassion and valuation for others.  I feel this whole construction is just a house built on sand, and the first hard test of it will blow it all down.

The fact that we are now afraid of the term 'race' even in an RPG where there are different sentient beings objectively lacking in a common ancestry and common origin and so fully justify the term, makes me worry about our ability to think rationally even in a situation where we as humans all objectively have a common ancestry and common origin.  If anything, in an RPG we ought to be least worried about this, because we will probably demand for game reasons if nothing else for the 'races' to be balanced with each other in terms of potential and ability.  Out in the real world, if we were to really meet something inhuman visiting us from beyond the world, we couldn't guarantee this was the case. 



> "Ancestry" is not just a replacement for the word “race.” It’s a fluid term that requires the player to make choices at character creation and as the character advances. This gives an opportunity to express human ethnicities in game terms, including half-elves and half-orcs, without forcing the “subrace” construct.




I can't recall the last time the "subrace" construct was forced.  But I guess based on this statement we can "look forward" or the writer is looking forward to humans in fantasy given the same sort of "many races" treatment that elves and dwarves get.  I'm certainly not.

I guess I will answer the question the article asks with, "Yes."  And my reason for that is that race in the game world is objectively real.  Moreover, even the switch to the term "ancestry" isn't actually denying the idea that the word "race" represents in the game.  It's just trying to hide it.  There is a certain lack of courage in that which bothers me far more than the new word "ancestry" does.


----------



## Shadow Demon

Absolutely yes! There is one human race with multiple ethnicities and cultures in the real world. In the fantasy world, this is still true but I challenge anyone to come up a better descriptor for the differentiation between humans, elves, dwarves, and halflings.

It is total nonsense to be offended by the use of race in this context.


----------



## Maxperson

Yes, keep race.  There's no need for political correctness to interject itself into gaming where race isn't a problem.


----------



## Jacob Lewis

Here's what had bothered me for the longest time, and I am quite serious on this: 

"Race" is largely acceptable in fantasy genres where they were once classified in older games as "human" and "demi-human". The connection was the assimption that all human-like races were evolved or created from the same mold in the same world by different deities as different expressions and aspects of the world created. I find this acceptable and meaningful and not overly concerned with modern alertism and hyper-sensitive overreactions.

My only beef, speaking strictly in game terms, is how there is little emphasis on actual cultural differences for humans. Elves have come in all kinds of flavors, complete with significant changes in character packages, options, midifiers, etc. Elves being the primary example, of course, as we see similar treatments for dwarves, halflings, and other fantasy staples. But humans, who traditionally dominate the landscape as the most numerous, most varied, and most adaptable race on nearly every world is left flavorless, untouched, and purely vanilla. Is it caution to err with a conservative approach so as not to offend real-world races with interpretations that might be construed as offensive if viewed in the wrong light? Or something else?

 I know Forgotten Realms did make some very compelling sub-cultures based on real world ones, as does Golarion (Pathfinder). I think the latter has more in-game influence of mechanics than the former. Perhaps PF2 may expand this more with their new design.

And for the record, "species" is very appropriate for sci-fi settings where creatures are completely alien.


----------



## lewpuls

Biologists have settled meanings for these terms, of course. Races (of birds, for example - yes, some have races) can interbreed. Species rarely can interbreed successfully (mules, from horse and donkey, are sterile). Humans, dogs, and cats are three species, not races. All human races are part of one species.

D&D indulges in sloppiness using race where species was usually meant. Humans often indulge in sloppiness with words, to a point that most people use the "new" meaning (such as "gay", which used to mean happy-go-lucky, or "verbal," which used to mean "with words" (written or oral). Now it's frequently used as a substitute for "oral" (spoken word only). The word "silly" meant "touched by god" 500 years ago. And so on. 

It's a case of ignorance overcoming standard meanings. Don't say "bi-annual" any more - about half the people think it means twice-yearly (i.e., semi-annual) instead of once every two years (the older meaning).


----------



## LordNightwinter

I can't believe that this is even a question. What does it matter? Gamers don't need social justice in their games, for the most part we're one of the most accepting groups there is. We don't care who or what you are, we just want to play.


----------



## Warpiglet

My understanding is that the dwarves and elves etc are as different from humans as neanderthals or some hominid might have been.  

I think it makes sense to in some way make this clear.  how you do it I don't entirely care.  if you use scientific language matters little me (because fairies and dragons) but let's not dilute the archetypes that have come to be.

humans are of course humans...color and custom changes nothing.  I like that the PHB has a list of different ancestries for humans (even though not into FR).  

I think it would be cool to have some direction about differences in humanity to consider for making your own races (ahem) ancestries or whatever.


----------



## mykesfree

In Adventure in Middle-earth, which is D&D 5e based, it is called Cultures.  Cultures cover Elves of Mirkwood, Men of Bree, and Hobbits of the Shire.


----------



## Celebrim

Jacob Lewis said:


> My only beef, speaking strictly in game terms, is how there is little emphasis on actual cultural differences for humans.




Yes, but I wouldn't touch that with a 31 1/2 foot pole.   

I agree that there are cultural differences between humans, and I've even experimented with allowing players to choose "culture" when they choose race.  (Unlike most games, all elves in my game belong to the same race.  There are no packages for wood elves, snow elves, or high elves.)   The problem is that I started listing out culture packages for Concheeri, Averni, Har, Destrian, Tumeesi, and things were fine but as soon as I started working on ethnic groups in the fantasy world with darker shades of skin color, I realized that someone would come along and assume that my fantasy culture packages were in some way commenting on the real world.  And to avoid that I'd have to go out of my way to explode expectations and that would put constraints on my fantasy world that were still based on the real world, in the same way that a fantasy writer that goes out of there way consciously to be different than Tolkien is still being influenced by Tolkien.

The writer of the original article seems to hint that the move to the term "ancestry" is good in part because it sets up the ability to differentiate human ethnicities the way that elven or dwarves (or even Halfling) ethnicities are differentiated.  I think that's just a huge can of worms we aren't nearly mature enough as a society to actually deal with.

I think I'd be happier with race + background, as in 5e than 'ancestry' + anything.  I feel that's a safer ground where our subculture, the culture of gaming, has built up some maturity and capabilities that moving to ancestry is just going to toss out of the window.   Maybe nothing will come of it, but change lacking in a rational basis just seems more likely to go wrong than go right.


----------



## Aguirre Melchiors

Try to portray real world etnicities in D&D is a hornest nest, a big one.
Just look at the tomb of anihilation controversy


----------



## Michael Silverbane

Shadow Demon said:


> Absolutely yes! There is one human race with multiple ethnicities and cultures in the real world. In the fantasy world, this is still true but I challenge anyone to come up a better descriptor for the differentiation between humans, elves, dwarves, and halflings.
> 
> It is total nonsense to be offended by the use of race in this context.




I prefer the convention used in Type III D&D of Type (Humanoid, Dragon, Aberration, etc.) and Subtype (Elf, Human, Orc, Shapechanger, etc.), though it was inconsistently applied.


----------



## Celebrim

lewpuls said:


> Biologists have settled meanings for these terms, of course. Races (of birds, for example - yes, some have races) can interbreed. Species rarely can interbreed successfully (mules, from horse and donkey, are sterile). Humans, dogs, and cats are three species, not races. All human races are part of one species.
> 
> D&D indulges in sloppiness using race where species was usually meant.




I strongly object.  We have no reason to believe that any of the basis of real world science applies to a fantasy world.

Species is a slippery enough term in the real world, and put a dozen Ph.D.'s in biology in a room and ask them what the definition of a species is and you'll probably get more than a half-dozen different answers and a conversation as convulted and impassioned as "Who is better, Kirk or Picard."

Fantasy worlds tend to have science with a basis in the beliefs of the ancient world.  In fantasy worlds, DNA doesn't exist and there are generally no barriers to interspecies breeding at all.  In a fantasy world, species isn't a term for an isolated breeding population, but if it is a term at all (and it's not likely that it is) then it's a term for groups divided by their phenotype.   That is, we know things are cows because they look like cows.  But in a fantasy world, nothing prevents any two things despite radically different appearance from hybridizing successfully.  Humans and dragons aren't the same fantasy species, but they readily hybridize in many or most fantasy worlds to produce offspring that are not sterile.  In the same way that the Merovingian Kings of France could boast to their vassals that one of their ancestors was a Sea Serpent, in a fantasy world the logic of the world is not based on the scientific.  

Thus scientific terms like species have no basis in a fantasy game world, and if they appear then they will have no connection to the scientific terms.  Pixies, dragons, humans, and elves may all interbreed, but their success in this endeavor doesn't make them scientifically the same species.  Chromosome count has nothing to do with it, because chromosomes likely don't exist in the fantasy world.


----------



## Dualazi

Unambiguously yes, we still need race. Or rather, stupidly trying to swap various synonyms in place of it is just people trying to eat their narrative cake and have it to, and we really shouldn't be engendering intellectual dishonesty when we have the choice not to. Frankly, a lot of this discussion seems only centered on the fact that many stock fantasy races are superficially similar to humans; trying to sugarcoat the differences between Thri-kreen and humans in Dark Sun as "heritage" is simply ridiculous. Even for the more conventional ones the large number of mechanical differences certainly allude to enough physiological disparities to qualify for racial distinctions. 

Simply put, if it isn't broke, don't fix it, and neither the OP nor anyone else has given compelling evidence as to the current nomenclature being broken.


----------



## Aguirre Melchiors

Aguirre Melchiors said:


> Try to portray real world etnicities in D&D is a hornest nest, a big one.
> Just look at the tomb of anihilation controversy




i wouldnt touch with a 25 foot pole. 
Tomb of Anihilation had a lot of controversy and political correct people writing pieces about the portrait of ''african fantasy''
disregarding intention or context.


----------



## Shadow Demon

At a glance, species could be a possible substitute but as Celebrim stated above it is too scientific for a medieval fantasy world. 

The use of ancestry makes it seem like all PCs come from a common ancestor. Is the next step to eliminate deities? Is it now time for evolution of species from the protozoan?


----------



## Mercule

TrippyHippy said:


> I'd prefer 'Culture' to 'Race'.



But it's not 'culture', any more than it's race. Culture implies the social heredity, rather than genetic heredity. Just because a human is raised among dwarves, he isn't going to get darkvision. 'Culture' could certainly include things like the elven knack with a bow, but it can't cover everything currently covered by 'race' -- at least not without bastardizing the word at least as much as 'race' has been.

Do we need "Race"? Well, it depends on what you mean. 

Can we get rid of the in-game "subsystem" (for lack of a better word) that it represents? Not without making a major change to the game. The most obvious example of why not is the darkvision example I used above. Another would be racial modifiers.

Can we use a different term? Sure. I'm not sure there's a better term readily available. Shadowrun uses "metatype", which sounds distinctly non-fantastic. "Ancestry" actually makes me think the different "races" are more closely related than "race" does -- which is not desirable, IMO.

Really, I find the first question (mechanics) much more interesting than the second, which I find extremely strange to spend much time on, at all.

Many games are moving away from explicit racial stat modifiers in favor of an attitude of "a 15 dexterity is worth 9 character points, whether you're a human or an elf -- typical elves just spend more points on dexterity than constitution". That's something I gone from being somewhat put off by to a stance I fully support. I'm not sure it would work as well for D&D. If nothing else, I think it'd cause problems for people who like to roll dice for stats. But, it's strictly possible as a mechanical option to getting rid of (or modifying) racial packages. 

I'm less sure about things like darkvision. I'd definitely support having a "background" and an "upbringing" (name may need work), though, with the former representing the sort of career-ish things that background currently represents and the latter representing the sort of social heredity of things like elven knack with a bow. Just reduce racial packages to things like darkvision and use a free feet or extra character (point buy) points to balance things out for the others.


----------



## RSIxidor

I like the Adventures in Middle Earth tack of separating them as cultures rather than races (I've not played The One Ring, so it may also work this way). While a wood elf and high elf are technically part of the same "race" in the concept of "species," their cultures are ultimately quite different. This is likewise true for the different mannish cultures. A woodmen of Mirkwood and a man of Dale could have similar physical traits but their cultures are more defining of why and how, rather than what.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty!

Just switch to "Identifies as" and the player can write whatever they want in that spot though it will have no mechanical effect on games.  Just get rid of mechanical differences between the identities and make them all equal, then players can roll play anything else.


----------



## ShinHakkaider

LordNightwinter said:


> I can't believe that this is even a question. What does it matter? Gamers don't need social justice in their games, for the most part we're one of the most accepting groups there is. We don't care who or what you are, we just want to play.




As a black man who is 46 and has been playing RPG's since I was 12 I can tell you that in an overwhelmingly white hobby? This is just not true to my experience. AT ALL.

Let me clarify. Gamers are a subset of the population. If there are bigots and sexists in the general population? There are bigots and sexists in the gaming community. I'm not saying anything controversial by saying that the hobby is overwhelmingly white. Any Youtube video of streamed games or of GenCon Coverage will back this up. When you have a dominiant demographic there can and will be gatekeepers who decide that if you dont fit a certain look that you do not belong there. Gamers DO want to just game. But there are enough of these people out there that can make it a difficult proposition if youre not white and / or male (although it's getting better if youre not male).


----------



## MacConnell

It is nice to see such uniformity in the desire to maintain accuracy of vocabulary over the political drive for social unrest. Politics of real life should not intrude upon fantasy gaming. It would only mar the impetus for entertainment.

It is offensive enough that politics has already driven away grammatical nomenclature in favor of mitigating propaganda promoted by parasites who have almost no exposure, much less any interest in fantasy gaming.


----------



## Shadow Demon

RSIxidor said:


> I like the Adventures in Middle Earth tack of separating them as cultures rather than races (I've not played The One Ring, so it may also work this way). While a wood elf and high elf are technically part of the same "race" in the concept of "species," their cultures are ultimately quite different. This is likewise true for the different mannish cultures. A woodmen of Mirkwood and a man of Dale could have similar physical traits but their cultures are more defining of why and how, rather than what.




I think culture works for Middlle-Earth because of their insular nature. However, half-elves, half-orcs, dragonborn, tieflings, gnomes, and others really don’t fit using culture.


----------



## kenmarable

Mechanically, it is a very useful and interesting design space, and I'm glad it's there. As for calling that design space "race," I'm reminded of a certain Princess Bride quote.


----------



## Mark Craddock

It's a game. Do we need it? It works fine for me and my table. I've decided that ENWorld is just trying to stir the pot to get traffic. And it's working.


----------



## Mark Craddock

Talien, you make the assessment that "Race" will fall out of favor. D&D dominates this industry and always has. Why do you assume WotC will move away from it because Paizo has?

WotC tried an edition with "no sacred cows" and it wasn't as successful as 3.x or 5.

I believe your assessment to be incorrect, but by the time we see 6E, both of us will have forgotten about this article.

But in my assessment, "Race" isn't going anywhere.


----------



## Gradine

I mean, not to align myself with the folks whining about "political correctness" and "social justice", but... as someone else mentioned, this is so far down on the list of things that should probably be addressed that I literally cannot see the purpose of this besides to give folks some low-hanging fruit to rally around and, well, whine about "political correctness" and "social justice". Who does this actually help?

I game and have gamed with some pretty radical people. Prison abolitionists, anti-racist queer activists, _literal anarchists_, etc. And I have seen a grand total of zero of them bat so much as an eyelash over the fantasy usage of the term "race". It's just not really on the radar. It's not that I can't imagine someone actually being legitimately upset over the term, but it's just... there so many other, way bigger fish to fry, you know?

As has been mentioned before, no, not everyone in the hobby is open and inclusive and welcoming, and yes, there are plenty of bigots and misogynists and other gatekeeper gamers who *do* care who you are and what you look like, and we would be *much* better served as a community as a whole to devote our time and energy rooting out and correcting or removing those problems than we would be quibbling over what honestly amounts to little more than semantics.


----------



## MechaTarrasque

Flexor the Mighty! said:


> Just switch to "Identifies as" and the player can write whatever they want in that spot though it will have no mechanical effect on games.  Just get rid of mechanical differences between the identities and make them all equal, then players can roll play anything else.



<br>
<br>Testify.&nbsp; If racial bonuses were needed (and I would say they aren't), something like 5e's backgrounds would be a good place for them (even better if there were some more backgrounds), and if "racial powers" are needed (I can buy this), then something like 4e's themes would be good (or give everyone a feat at 1st level and make feats that are similar to the racial powers).<br>


Testify.  If racial bonuses were needed (and I would say they aren't), something like 5e's backgrounds would be a good place for them (even better if there were some more backgrounds), and if "racial powers" are needed (I can buy this), then something like 4e's themes would be good (or give everyone a feat at 1st level and make feats that are similar to the racial powers).


----------



## epithet

I think this is an example of an issue that is an issue only to those who are looking for issues to make an issue out of. All of us know perfectly well that "race" in the context of D&D means a combination of genus, species, and culture. Even someone completely new to D&D will get it immediately when they see the list of dwarf, elf, half-orc, human, etc., so changing terminology to try to cushion the brittle spirits of the sensitive twitterati is foolish and futile. Hell, at any moment a pack of rabid 5th graders can seize upon a previously innocuous word and turn it into a terrible insult; there's no point in trying to ride that wave.


----------



## Arilyn

Ignoring all the emotional pleas, ancestry works better as soon as all those DnD races/magical beings started getting frisky with each other. Half-elves, half-orcs, tieflings, etc. are far better served with the word ancestry over race. In most of the d20 lore, a half-elf or trifling, for example, can pop up generations after the non-human blood was introduced. This is ancestry, not race.


----------



## delericho

shidaku said:


> It'll be interesting to see if PF2's "Ancestry" sticks with players.




This. If PF2 does turn out to be a massive success, and/or the wider player base latches on to 'ancestry' as the term to use, WotC will probably go with the prevailing wind and make the change.

If PF2 does a bit less well than PF1 has done (which is the most likely result, given the history of multi-edition games), it will remain little more than a blip on 5e's radar, and this whole discussion will have no impact.


----------



## AmerginLiath

“Race,” in games such as D&D, actually has a proper meaning that can’t be replaced with Species or Culture (or fully with Ancestry). If you read any of background materials on the various worlds that the game has produced or watch the recent D&D Beyond videos talking current multiversal storyline assumptions, the “races” that players use have separate origins, created by different gods or via different processes (thus bearing distinct traits showing up mechanically and culturally in the game). This is quite literally worlds away from “racial” arguments in our actual human history, among populations with a shared genetic heritage deriving from common ancestry (such that even peoples like the Neanderthals shared common ancestors to the H. sapiens they encountered despite distinctions far greater than those any two modern humans might possess today). To use the bracketing terms of Species or Culture for something that is, in the game world, something of non-bracketed order is simply poor use of actual terms. Before about two hundred years ago, the term Nation would actually be useful for these distinctions, but that’s been claimed by geopolitics, so now Race really remains the best term for differentiating the elves split from Corrolan from the dwarves forged by Moradin (Ancestry striking me as a useful metric of “do you have a dragon in your lineage that makes you a potential sorcerer?” but useless when exploded into an end-all category).


----------



## ShinHakkaider

Race in fantasy TTRPG's (specifically D&D and its offspring) is an easy/lazy shorthand. We all know what it means in reference to the game mechanics so most people are loathe to give it up or even question changing it. And if the level of derision in this thread is any indication maybe it's easier not to question it and let it be, lest youre labeled as a politically correct rabble rouser. 

Personally, it's always bothered me even from a young age because I just felt that there could be a better word for what it was trying to describe? 
The word "race" felt WRONG. If elves can interbreed with humans, and humans can interbreed with orcs and all of these humanoids can basically interbreed with each other and can share language and even culture to an extent there has to be a better word to describe what they all are in the world right? I mean "race" works becasue like I said it's an easy/lazy shorthand that's been around for decades at this point.


----------



## DRF

Wait, so I can just compile a bunch of almost-related citations and write an "article" where the citations take up more words than my own input? Interesting.


----------



## Celebrim

> I game and have gamed with some pretty radical people. POC...




*face palms*

I have no words.


----------



## thexar

Race in D&D has always had a positive influence on me, because it demonstrated that WE are all human.


----------



## MNblockhead

Personally, I like ancestry. It is flexible without being overly ambiguous. 

The term "race," however, as it is used in D&D, doesn't bother me much. It is far more inclusive than the real world. In D&D black and white humans are not different races. The existence of Dwarves, Elves, etc. make human one race, regardless of color. 

The whole black as evil among monstrous races (e.g. drow) is problematic. While evil comes in all colors in D&D, I can't think of any dark creatures that are good in the game. I'm sure that there are, but fact that I'm flipping through the MM and Volo's all the time and none come to mind is telling.


----------



## Gradine

Celebrim said:


> *face palms*
> 
> I have no words.




Yeah I was missing a word there. Thanks for the catch.

Edit: Just gonna re-write that whole awkward statement.


----------



## DemoMonkey

Do we still need "Race" in D&D.

Yes.

Is there a compelling reason to change the name?

No.

Is there a practical alternative?

Sticking with the 5E model, have 2 different backgrounds instead of a race and a background,

"Biological Background" (what is currently called race) and "Cultural Background" (what is currently called just background).
...

Fun note: "background" starts to sound like nonsense syllables surprisingly quickly with repetition.


----------



## neobolts

I do not see race in D&D, where it is used in the same sense as "the human race" to be problematic.  The fantasy of humans interacting with other intelligent beings is of value. That said, synonyms for race work just as well, and keeping/ditching race as a term would be of little consequence.


----------



## Celebrim

[MENTION=5100]Mercule[/MENTION]: It's a very good post, so don't think that by my quibbles I think otherwise.  Still, I have a lot to quibble with.



Mercule said:


> But it's not 'culture', any more than it's race. Culture implies the social heredity, rather than genetic heredity.




That realization is so rare these days.  So many people think culture just means music, food, clothing or other superficial cultural artifacts.  Even worse, so many people conflate culture and race these days it makes me want to cry - as in, "You are black so you like Rap." or "You are white so you like Heavy Metal."  Usually these are the same people who'd never think things like, "You are black so you like watermelon." 



> 'Culture' could certainly include things like the elven knack with a bow, but it can't cover everything currently covered by 'race' -- at least not without bastardizing the word at least as much as 'race' has been.




Culture could include the elven knack with the bow but it's not required, and explicitly in my homebrew the elven knack with the bow has never been cultural, but explicitly racial.  Elves know how to use a bow or a sword without being taught how, so that an adopted elf raised among goblins or dwarves or humans, will still get their racial bonus to bows and swords.  The knowledge is built in and intuitive to them.  Other campaigns could make different choices, but that's how it works in mine.

In general, the issue of nature versus nuture is complicated and debatable and most of the answers are unknown.  There is good reason to suspect that complicated behaviors we think of as being learned, like the ability to walk and the ability to use language are in fact mostly products of nature rather than nurture.  Babies learn these skills way too fast, for one thing.  There is good evidence that babies are born knowing how to walk and they just have to wait for their bodies to catch up and their legs to get long enough to successfully employ the built in algorithm.  Likewise, there seems to be slots for language built into the brain and all the baby has to do is figure out which sounds to plug into the basic slots, and this automatically happens at a certain point in brain development. There is no reason to think that things that humans aren't automatically wired to do are culture in another species just because in humans that they are complicated, and vica versa.   For example, humans seem to have a hard wired club instinct that a hypothetical alien might lack and need to learn.

In a fantasy world, there is even stronger reason to believe in racial gifts based on the fantastic origins of the species.



> Really, I find the first question (mechanics) much more interesting than the second, which I find extremely strange to spend much time on, at all.




I find the first question much more interesting than the second as well, but I don't find the move from 'race' to 'ancestry' strange because - to pick on myself - I've done similar things for similar reasons.   For example, in my game the servitor races of the lower planes are called 'fiends' and never 'demons' or 'devils'.  Yet they are basically still the same servitor races of the lower planes and occasionally on the rare occasion that they show up in the story I'll even for convenience employ the same stat block.   On some level that seems like a purely irrational and purely cosmetic change, until you consider that I consider the words 'demon' or 'devil' problematic for religious reasons.   If you share the same religious convictions as I do, then the change seems rational and reasonable; but, it is rational and reasonable only if you have the same religious convictions I do and thus consider the words problematic.   The same sort of thing is going on with Paizo. 



> Many games are moving away from explicit racial stat modifiers in favor of an attitude of "a 15 dexterity is worth 9 character points, whether you're a human or an elf -- typical elves just spend more points on dexterity than constitution". That's something I gone from being somewhat put off by to a stance I fully support. I'm not sure it would work as well for D&D. If nothing else, I think it'd cause problems for people who like to roll dice for stats. But, it's strictly possible as a mechanical option to getting rid of (or modifying) racial packages.
> 
> I'm less sure about things like darkvision.




Yes.  Because if you are supporting darkvision similar physiological differences (like being a quadruped or not being a humanoid or even a demi-human at all) as part of a racial package, then suddenly the whole notion of a point buy race starts to seem really unreasonable.  Beyond that, if you are really actually having a point buy race, then you are basically allowing a 'build your own' race and race starts to be really meaningless.  What does it mean to be a member of a race of one, and to not share any features necessarily in common with anyone?  

The races in my campaign are thematically really different.  Sidhe are literally immortal and most of them have never been born and will never age.  They have a mindset that is alien in some ways to the other races, and they are divergent in origin from the other six PC races.  Elves live for centuries and age slowly, so that they are children for more than a century.  They have inherent deep connections to the natural worlds and passions that are cool and strange to humans.  They literally die when deprived of beauty, the way a human starves without food.  Idreth are born with the memories of past lives and ancestors and regularly reincarnate, something rare in the other races.  Orine are somewhat avian in appearance and have passions that run far hotter than humans, so that to the other races they seem insane to the point of being dangerous - an insulted Orine will basically fight to the death unless the insulting party backs down.  Goblins have been bred into different social castes that are radically different physically, and not only are seen as physically repulsive by other races but see themselves that way.  The eyes of a goblin work like radar, emitting light that they then see upon reflection - giving them the ability to see in the dark but making them nearly blind in direct sunlight.  Elves don't need to eat meat and most are vegan; goblins can't really digest vegetable matter.  Pixies are 2' high and have wings.  Changlings inherently can shape change into animals.  You can't change those things with 'culture'.  

If race stops being a package, we are doing away with the alien.  If we do away with the alien, we lose the ability to learn from our stories what it means to be human by comparing and contrasting humanity with things that are different than humanity.  None of my races are merely human tropes.   They are fantastic.   I don't want to lose that, and I sure as heck don't want do it yourself races.


----------



## Celebrim

DemoMonkey said:


> Fun note: "background" starts to sound like nonsense syllables surprisingly quickly with repetition.




That's because it's a redundant word.  In this case, "Biology" and "Culture" would be equally meaningful without adding the word "background" to the idea.


----------



## Negflar2099

So I read the Angry DM article that this bit links to and I found it interesting. Even leaving aside the idea of keeping the term "race" or changing it to something more palatable to modern audiences, Angry presents an interesting idea that could broaden the game in fascinating ways. 

He basically uses a Pathfinder sourcebook (the _Advanced Race _guide) to break down every traditional "race" into inborn biological traits and cultural traits based on a point system. The whole idea that starts this rant, that it's silly that an elf who grew up on the streets of a human city somehow knows how to use a longbow, is correct. It is silly. It's ridiculous. That alone makes this sort of breakdown almost worth it by itself, but it also improves the game in some great ways. 

First, it makes the races more balanced (so half-orcs, which were weak in 3.X get a boost) and second it allows some interesting new possibilities. You could, for instance, be a dwarf raised by elves, an elf who grew up in a human city or a human who was part of a nomadic tribe, all with mechanical abilities to back it up. Those would all be interesting characters. 

Finally it makes the game more compatible with other settings. Maybe elves in my game are all noble lords who rule from on high. Why would such a group know how to use bows and swords? Using his system they wouldn't have to.

Or maybe my game is a Shadowrun port set in the near future. In such a game knowing how to use a bow or a sword is useless. In the core game I'd have to just accept it, but using his rules I can swap those abilities out with more appropriate and useful ones. 

In short, whatever your thoughts on the terms, breaking inborn traits out from cultural ones can't help but make the game better. In 5e I even think you could still have backgrounds. They would just represent some modifications to your culture. So you might be an elf (ancestry/race), raised in a high-elven society (culture) with the noble background, or you might be a human (ancestry/race), who grew up as part of a tribe (culture) with the criminal background (maybe you were even exiled for stealing from the tribe). 

It would make culture an additional thing you would have to choose at character creation but the advantages might make it worth it. Now I just need to figure out how to do this point breakdown for 5e races.


----------



## Celebrim

Negflar2099 said:


> He basically uses a Pathfinder sourcebook (the _Advanced Race _guide) to break down every traditional "race" into inborn biological traits and cultural traits based on a point system. The whole idea that starts this rant, that it's silly that an elf who grew up on the streets of a human city somehow knows how to use a longbow, is correct. It is silly. It's ridiculous.




No, on the contrary, the idea that an elf who grew up on the streets of a human city somewhere doesn't know how to use the longbow is silly and ridiculous.  And it's silly and ridiculous for a very important reason - it assumes that elves are basically humans and that we can extrapolate from what we know of humans what is nature and what is nurture for a wholly alien fantastic species.  In humans we know for certain that the ability to wield a longbow is a product of nurture and not nature.  But we cannot extrapolate from that what is true for a non-human in either the general or the specific case.

Just to confine myself to your language, to think otherwise is silly and ridiculous.  

I'd like to go much further into that though, because frankly I find 'Angry DMs' assumption here to be so wrong-headed as to be dangerous, but I'm afraid if I really go into that the thread would go down in flames even faster than it is going to.  

It's fine to assume that there are things that are nuture and that there are things that are nature, but to make the assumption that we can know what those are for certainty is wrong.  And to make the assumption that for a given non-human race, that they are fundamentally in this area identical to humans is uninteresting, unimaginative, and close-minded.  Fortunately, at the moment it doesn't really matter, because we aren't sharing this reality with another sentient race.  But if that were to change, that sort of unconscious humocentricity would be dangerous in the extreme.



> First, it makes the races more balanced (so half-orcs, which were weak in 3.X get a boost) and second it allows some interesting new possibilities. You could, for instance, be a dwarf raised by elves, an elf who grew up in a human city or a human who was part of a nomadic tribe, all with mechanical abilities to back it up. Those would all be interesting characters.




Sure.  But there is no need to mess with the racial archetypes to accomplish that.



> Finally it makes the game more compatible with other settings.




Not mine.  Not the historical D&D settings.



> In short, whatever your thoughts on the terms, breaking inborn traits out from cultural ones can't help but make the game better.




Maybe, but not if it comes at the cost of actual diversity.  Again, what bothers me about this trend is that in the name of diversity it seems to be mostly motivated by fear of diversity.


----------



## Dire Bare

talien said:


> The term "race" is a staple of fantasy that is now out of sync with modern usage. With Pathfinder shifting from "race" to "ancestry" in its latest edition, it raises the question: should fantasy games still use it?




Thanks for the article Talien, I think this potentially makes for a great discussion. I'm saddened, but not surprised, that we've already had some cranky gamers try to shut down the conversation by claiming it's nothing but political correctness and social justice "nonsense".

If you feel that the use of the term "race" in D&D is not problematic at all, I disagree with you, but that's fine. Let's have a reasoned discussion about it. But don't be disrespectful and dismiss the concerns of those who DO feel it's problematic. Then you are just being, well, a jerk. We have way too much of THAT in our hobby. If you feel that the term isn't used well, but it's not that big of a deal, I'll disagree there too, but again, that's fine as long as you are not trying to dismiss the discussion or the opinions of others.

The problem with the term "race" is that it's use in the "real world" IS problematic, and while it changes somewhat when ported into fantasy gaming, remains problematic. Using the concept of race in the real world to stereotype, misunderstand, and discriminate is still a very real problem. A problem that we should try to avoid in even our leisure activities, such as fantasy gaming. In fantasy gaming, it's subtle and kinda baked into the DNA of the genre, but something that we should find a way past. It's a way of describing people, real or fantasy, based on stereotypes, lazy thinking, and that easily leads to xenophobia.

Race in D&D describes peoples by a combination of cultural traits and physiological traits, and that mish-mashing of the two makes it hard to distinguish between the two. We've already had one post in the thread claiming that essentially racial traits in D&D are all physiological and not cultural . . . like learning the use of the longsword and longbow?

The way race is used in D&D has bothered me since I was a kid, but I'm not advocating we storm WotC headquarters and demand immediate change. But I am very interested in how Paizo's take on the issue pans out with Pathfinder 2. If it is an improvement on "race", I just might port it over to my 5E game. Might also make for a good DMs Guild product, an alternate take on race in D&D.


----------



## Negflar2099

Celebrim - I hear what you're saying and I agree that we shouldn't make assumptions about how fantasy creatures, like elves, would behave in the real world. Just because knowing how to use a longbow would be a thing a human would have to train for doesn't mean elves also have to. 

The problem is that in every other aspect of the game those assumptions hold true. In 5e if an elf wants to get better at any other weapons they have to take a level in a given class. They level up the same way as humans, they learn new abilities the same way as humans. In every other aspect learning skills works the same for humans as it does for elves. We've long ago left behind the idea that humans and other playable creatures in the game are inherently different in how they learn, or what they can learn. 

Why would this one thing, using a longbow, be different when everything else is the same? It's not a magic power. It's a skill. It just doesn't make sense. That's why I called it silly. Even the descriptions of these abilities in the PHB make them all sound like they are cultural and not inherent. 

And sure, for your campaign and other settings having race and culture tied together works, but the entire idea of D&D is that DMs can build whatever campaign world they might want to. All I'm saying is that splitting these two components of traditional races out makes it easier if a DM would want to deviate from those standard assumptions.

Maybe you don't need that, and that's fine, but for those who do this would be super helpful.


----------



## ShadowCat5

Political Correctness is nothing more then Marxist gaslighting of Western Culture to give up any social/moral norms.  When gaming turns Socialist Justice Warrior, then im out.

Glad to leave.


----------



## Gradine

ShadowCat5 said:


> Political Correctness is nothing more then Marxist gaslighting of Western Culture to give up any social/moral norms.  When gaming turns Socialist Justice Warrior, then im out.
> 
> Glad to leave.




You will not be missed.


----------



## Aguirre Melchiors

wait and see 
human etnicities with game mechanics, and the ourage


----------



## Stacie GmrGrl

All of this just makes me think that humans in fantasy games are missing a human racial trait... It has to do with how humans seem to be the only race that can breed and have Half-kids with other races. Half-elf. Half-orc. Etc. (I know there have been a few rare instances in a few fantasy rpgs that have expanded this to beyond humans, but its really rare with it happens). 

But this extends to some non fantasy settings too, like Star Trek. Humans can be with Kilngons, Vulcans, Romulans, Cardassians... etc. (I think Kilngons can get it on with Vulcans and have kids, but I've never seen it happen on any Star Trek tv show. I could be wrong.)

So why are humans the only race that can produce mixed race kids? 

Elves and Orcs are distinct races... Yet both can be with humans but not each other. 

If Race is meant to imply distinctly separate races (species) than changing the nomenclature to Ancestry works better.  Especially when it comes to races like Half-orc or Half-elf. Ancestry works a lot better for this. I mean, you have a base stock human who has even or orc ancestry/lineage as part of the characters genetic makeup. 

Or the human is born with demonic heritage and isn't a human, but a tiefling. I mean, that's pretty much how many of these fantasy races are seen, aren't they? Half-elves, Half-orcs, tieflings, aasimar, many D&D "races" all were offshoots of Humans that were ... For lack of better terminology... mixed with non-human genetic encoding.

So what is race in these games? 

Currently, all the races are species + cultural influences.  At least in D&D. Because of this, there are a lot of possible characters you can't make as per the rules as written, because the RAW never takes into conderation Upbringing as an influencer.  An elf that grows up in a human village most likely won't have Elven Training with their favorite weapons. That training is a cultural aspect of the elf race package, but its not innate to their species.

Pathfinder has it right. The use of ancestry is more accurate. But better than ancestry the word Lineage would probably be the best.


----------



## timbannock

Stacie GmrGrl said:


> Pathfinder has it right. The use of ancestry is more accurate. But better than ancestry the word Lineage would probably be the best.




Are lineage and ancestry interchangeable? I don't know the real, true definitions well enough, but I always thought they were the same thing, or that lineage was somehow a subset of ancestry. But I have no reason for that; it was just something I thought was right.


----------



## pming

Hiya.

I'm giving this whole thing a big, uninterested, uncaring " ...shrug... ".

PF2 can use whatever word they want to describe something. Me? I'll continue to call the Human, Elf, Gnome, etc choices for PC's "Race". If someone doesn't like it...well, sucks to be them. I'm SO-O-O _*done*_ with even attempting to keep up with what term is or isn't used, what word is or isn't offensive, what belief is or isn't "correct". I'm going to use terms I use and keep believing whatever I believe. If it upsets someone...not my problem. Deal with it.

So, "Ancestry? Oh, you mean Race. Ok". 

^_^

Paul L. Ming


----------



## Jester David

Paraxis said:


> Need, no, but should we change to match the whims of a small group of people because it upsets them, also no.
> 
> Race is a perfectly fine term, and used the way it is in rpg books is more accurate than modern use when talking about skin coloration.



Absolutely. It’s just a term. Just like negro, retard, Eskimo, oriental, and Indian. 

The fact of the matter is “race” was a term used too apply to certain ethnic groups under the assumption they were physically and biologically different from other groups. The implication was that the “Arabic”, “mongoloid”, and “Caucasian” races were different in some way and largely unrelated. This was proven to be false, as genetically, there’s very little difference between ethnic groups and quite a lot of overlap and crossover. 

The term “race” strongly implies that there are inherent difference between ethnic groups. Differences that do not actually exist. It’s a term that was being phased out a century ago and no longer has any value scientifically. It’s a linguistic relic from a much more racist time. 

We might as well use “breed”...


----------



## Over the Hill Gamer

I prefer Ancestry. I am not offended by Race but given the great number of meanings and controversy over its use in our own culture, it might be best to move on to something else.  What I am offended by is the increasing tendency of this website to raise divisive topics and then censor the responses. I can tell you that I don't play RPGs as a way to increase my participation in the US culture wars. If you don't want to hear people's opinions then don't raise the topic. I view fantasy RPGs as a respite from the politicization of everything that is currently in vogue in our culture. Maybe I am insensitive but I don't come here to have my political views (left leaning) affirmed.


----------



## ART!

Stacie GmrGrl said:


> Currently, all the races are species + cultural influences.  At least in D&D. Because of this, there are a lot of possible characters you can't make as per the rules as written, because the RAW never takes into conderation Upbringing as an influencer.  An elf that grows up in a human village most likely won't have Elven Training with their favorite weapons. That training is a cultural aspect of the elf race package, but its not innate to their species.





This is exactly how I feel about this. I would love to see biology and culture separated - with an option to just say that elves just magically all know how to use longswords, shortswords, longbows, and shortbows.  

In 5E, the culture aspect could (partially or completely) replace Backgrounds.


----------



## Jester David

pming said:


> Hiya.
> 
> I'm giving this whole thing a big, uninterested, uncaring " ...shrug... ".
> 
> PF2 can use whatever word they want to describe something. Me? I'll continue to call the Human, Elf, Gnome, etc choices for PC's "Race". If someone doesn't like it...well, sucks to be them. I'm SO-O-O _*done*_ with even attempting to keep up with what term is or isn't used, what word is or isn't offensive, what belief is or isn't "correct". I'm going to use terms I use and keep believing whatever I believe. If it upsets someone...not my problem. Deal with it.
> 
> So, "Ancestry? Oh, you mean Race. Ok".
> 
> ^_^
> 
> Paul L. Ming



[FONT=&quot]_I was reading a book (about interjections, oddly enough) yesterday which included the phrase “In these days of political correctness…” talking about no longer making jokes that denigrated people for their culture or for the colour of their skin. And I thought, “That’s not actually anything to do with ‘political correctness’. That’s just treating other people with respect.”_[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]_Which made me oddly happy. I started imagining a world in which we replaced the phrase “politically correct” wherever we could with “treating other people with respect”, and it made me smile. _[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]_You should try it. It’s peculiarly enlightening._[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]_I know what you’re thinking now. You’re thinking “Oh my god, that’s treating other people with respect gone mad!”
_[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]_-_Neil Gaiman
[/FONT]


----------



## Dire Bare

Over the Hill Gamer said:


> I prefer Ancestry. I am not offended by Race but given the great number of meanings and controversy over its use in our own culture, it might be best to move on to something else.  What I am offended by is the increasing tendency of this website to raise divisive topics and then censor the responses. I can tell you that I don't play RPGs as a way to increase my participation in the US culture wars. If you don't want to hear people's opinions then don't raise the topic. I view fantasy RPGs as a respite from the politicization of everything that is currently in vogue in our culture. Maybe I am insensitive but I don't come here to have my political views (left leaning) affirmed.




Have to call BS on this. Morrus and the other moderators most certainly do not "censor" opinions on the site. What they do is block the insulting behavior of some bad actors.

You'll find plenty of opinions in this very thread on all sides of the issue whether the term "race" is used problematically in D&D or not. The OP certainly positions "race" as an outmoded and somewhat racist term that we should consider abandoning, but if you post your disagreement, politely and respectfully, you'll be fine.

If you start spouting off with insulting and demeaning terms like "political correctness" and "social justice warrior", yeah, you're gonna see some mod action, and rightfully so.

If you just can't have reasoned and polite discussions over this and other similar topics on race and culture in D&D, then stay out of those threads. Sooooo easy to do!

Morrus, Talien, keep up the good work pushing us to think about concepts we often take for granted without realizing the deeper implications!


----------



## JonnyP71

Over the Hill Gamer said:


> I view fantasy RPGs as a respite from the politicization of everything that is currently in vogue in our culture.




Hear hear.

Gaming is an escape from 'real life', and I cringe when I see certain topics pushed to the fore.

... and now I return to pondering the next adventure theme for my insensitive, bigoted, often misogynistic 'pseudo-medieval' fantasy world.  Because that's where I want to escape to when running a game...


----------



## The Crimson Binome

Jacob Lewis said:


> My only beef, speaking strictly in game terms, is how there is little emphasis on actual cultural differences for humans. Elves have come in all kinds of flavors, complete with significant changes in character packages, options, midifiers, etc. Elves being the primary example, of course, as we see similar treatments for dwarves, halflings, and other fantasy staples. But humans, who traditionally dominate the landscape as the most numerous, most varied, and most adaptable race on nearly every world is left flavorless, untouched, and purely vanilla.



Going back to 3E, humans were given an extra skill point and an extra feat _specifically_ for the purpose of reflecting their many varied cultural backgrounds. Where _all_ elves are proficient in swords and bows, because there's only one elven culture and this is a feature of that culture, there's such a wide variety of human cultures that _some_ of them are going to have proficiency in Swimming and the Trident while _others_ are proficient in Rope Use and Toughness. The idea was that the DM would actually go through, during the worldbuilding phase, and assign these bonuses out to the various human cultures.

And then that ended up not happening, because people are lazy. Much like how prestige classes were supposed to represent special organizations that were unique to a given world, but someone didn't get the memo, and they ended up as generic advanced classes that were balanced against obscure pre-requisites.

And now we're left with the idea that humans have _no_ culture, because the mechanics for representing those cultures have been misappropriated into humans being universally adaptable as a trait.


----------



## Jester David

I chastised Starfinder in my review for using “race” rather than “species”, which works nicely in a science fiction/fantasy context. But “species” doesn’t work for a fantasy type genre, being more scientific. 

Race is a problematic term, that isn’t accurate and we’ve known is inaccurate for a century. People don’t fit into those categories. 

“Ancestory” is as good a term as any. “Origin” would work too. It’s also broader, and would allow it to cover your species (elf, orc, etc), but also some categories of humans, such as an erudite city dweller, a rural farmer or rancher, a tribal barbarian, a wealthy noble, and the like.


----------



## Celebrim

JonnyP71 said:


> Hear hear.
> 
> Gaming is an escape from 'real life', and I cringe when I see certain topics pushed to the fore.
> 
> ... and now I return to pondering the next adventure theme for my insensitive, bigoted, often misogynistic 'pseudo-medieval' fantasy world.  Because that's where I want to escape to when running a game...




And yet, you think you are being polite and reasonable and treating other people with respect?

Are we just allowed to call anyone that disagrees with us bigots and misogynists now, or is it only if we are being sarcastic and passive aggressive about it?

Do you really think that OtHG deserves that sort of response, and that even if you think he does you are just allowed to express that sentiment?  

In this context are those claims anything other than meaningless and insulting terms?  Because I certainly don't see anything in the post you are responding to that suggests that those claims are valid.


----------



## The Crimson Binome

Celebrim said:


> No, on the contrary, the idea that an elf who grew up on the streets of a human city somewhere doesn't know how to use the longbow is silly and ridiculous.  And it's silly and ridiculous for a very important reason - it assumes that elves are basically humans and that we can extrapolate from what we know of humans what is nature and what is nurture for a wholly alien fantastic species.  In humans we know for certain that the ability to wield a longbow is a product of nurture and not nature.  But we cannot extrapolate from that what is true for a non-human in either the general or the specific case.



Fair enough, _if_ you make the further assumption that elves are some sort of inhuman alien species, rather than basically just humans with pointy ears.

Personally, I go with the assumption that the different races are all basically human, from the pragmatic perspective that _all_ players are human and it would be nigh-impossible for a human to successfully role-play as a wholly alien fantastic species. If elves don't learn to use a bow through practice, then the elven brain is so far different from anything a human can _pretend_ to be, that there's no point in even trying.


----------



## Celebrim

Jester David said:


> Race is a problematic term, that isn’t accurate and we’ve known is inaccurate for a century. People don’t fit into those categories.




Let's say that I grant that that is true, for the reasons that you stated in your earlier post about the scientific validity of race.

What in the world would those reasons have to do with orcs, elves, merfolk, centaurs and lizardmen?   Are you claiming that there are no meaningful differences between orcs, elves, merfolk, centaurs and lizardmen?  Why do we have to extrapolate that what applies to humans is true of non-humans?   If this was a thread about applying the RPG concept of "race" to people of different human ethnic groups, and especially those human ethnic groups had some sort of mapping to real world ethnicities even in the loosest sense (Keleshite = Arabic, for example), then I would totally be in agreement with you.  That would be problematic and should be avoided.

But we're talking about applying the concept of race to things that are objectively different, and not to human ethnic groups.



> “Ancestory” is as good a term as any. “Origin” would work too. It’s also broader, and would allow it to cover your species (elf, orc, etc), but also some categories of humans, such as an erudite city dweller, a rural farmer or rancher, a tribal barbarian, a wealthy noble, and the like.




Among other objections I have to both terms is both seem to be giving semantic cover precisely to applying the concept of race to different human ethnic groups, just as you are hinting at here.  I mean, both you and the literal poster have basically stated that the concept is the same as 'race', but now I get to apply it to humans and it is somehow magically made not problematic thereby.  How is that supposed to work?


----------



## DM Magic

There is literally a person of color in this thread explaining why the use of race is problematic, but all you see are a bunch of people saying "nope, not needed" without trying to figure out why this conversation is being had. And stop using "social justice" and "politically correct" as pejorative buzzwords. You don't sound smart or cute. You sound ignorant.


----------



## DM Magic

DRF said:


> Wait, so I can just compile a bunch of almost-related citations and write an "article" where the citations take up more words than my own input? Interesting.




What an obnoxious post. Do you not have anything to add the conversation besides a swipe at the author?


----------



## Celebrim

Saelorn said:


> Fair enough, _if_ you make the further assumption that elves are some sort of inhuman alien species, rather than basically just humans with pointy ears.
> 
> Personally, I go with the assumption that the different races are all basically human, from the pragmatic perspective that _all_ players are human and it would be nigh-impossible for a human to successfully role-play as a wholly alien fantastic species. If elves don't learn to use a bow through practice, then the elven brain is so far different from anything a human can _pretend_ to be, that there's no point in even trying.




I get where you are coming from, but if I really thought the races were all basically human, I'd consider it pointless and problematic to include them in the game.  If all races have to be basically human, then we should just have humans and eliminate the idea of racial diversity (in the since of real racial diversity, and not just ethnic groups).  Elves are not just humans with pointy ears.  If they were, they'd not only be utterly uninteresting, but I'd find them vaguely racist in their very existence because I'd fear someone might mistake my intention with elves as something like 'whiter than white people' or some other stupidity.  

My intention in having non-human races is for the players to attempt to stretch their imagination and attempt to empathize with and articulate something alien from who that they actually are.  That's why when someone wants to play a non-human race, I give them a document explaining how different that they are and why their cultures are what they are because of it.  As a DM, that's why I have such beings in my game world.  I want to attempt the act of thinking as an elf or as a dwarf would think as a matter of my own entertainment.  I'm challenging myself to this act of imagination.  I'm not making them some sort of stereotype wish fulfillment or vague stand in for some real world racial group.  I kind of get where say 'Bright' was trying to go with that, but even as gutsy and delicately as it tried to be about it, I don't think it actually worked.  But at least 'Bright' actually made them more different than just humans with bumps on their head, and actually tried to make them something other than direct analogies.


----------



## Jester David

Celebrim said:


> What in the world would those reasons have to do with orcs, elves, merfolk, centaurs and lizardmen?   Are you claiming that there are no meaningful differences between orcs, elves, merfolk, centaurs and lizardmen?  Why do we have to extrapolate that what applies to humans is true of non-humans?



Should we use “breed” then? Or “type”? Pick your background, breed, and class. 
:/

Just because orcs are centaurs are different from humans doesn’t mean we need to use an antiquated term loaded with the baggage of imperialism, slavery, racism, and white supremacy. 

English is a robust language. We can find a better word. Heritage. People. Nation. Etc.


----------



## Morrus

*Do We Still Need &quot;Race&quot; in D&amp;D?*



ShadowCat5 said:


> Political Correctness is nothing more then Marxist gaslighting of Western Culture to give up any social/moral norms.  When gaming turns Socialist Justice Warrior, then im out.
> 
> Glad to leave.




Allow me to assist. My general policy is that if you loudly proclaim your departure, you don’t get to take it back. We refer to it backstage as the “Golden Flounce”.


----------



## Celebrim

Jester David said:


> Should we use “breed” then?




Breed?  How in the heck is breed less problematic than race?  Breed as a term never applies to people; it applies to livestock.

How's that for loaded with baggage.  You've just gone from designating the groups as equal to humans to make them subhuman.  And you are doing this in in the context of a thread where people are arguing that we need to get rid of race explicitly because it will allow us to have different human "breeds"/"ancestories"/"types" or what ever.

I'll take race thank you very much.  It's a lot less insulting.



> Just because orcs are centaurs are different from humans doesn’t mean we need to use an antiquated term loaded with the baggage of imperialism, slavery, racism, and white supremacy.




How in the world is calling the choice of 'dwarf', 'elf' or 'human' 'race' carry all that baggage.  I mean, if the word itself really is that problematic, how in the world are we going to talk about 'racism' without being equally problematic?  I thought just recently we needed to have an honest discussion about 'race', and 'race relations' in this country?  Now all the sudden are those statements problematic?  

I really get the feeling that consistency or respect for others isn't at the heart of this conversation.



> English is a robust language. We can find a better word. Heritage. People. Nation. Etc.




No, we can't.  You keep making that obvious at every step.


----------



## Ancalagon

Scrivener of Doom said:


> Yes.
> 
> If anything, RPGs more accurately use the term "race" than we do in real life.
> 
> (I'm known to fill in forms that ask for race with "human".)




Correct.  By having all humanity be a single race, it is a denunciation of real-world racism, by showing that the differences some people put so much importance on are meaningless.


----------



## DM Magic

Celebrim said:


> Breed?  How in the heck is breed less problematic than race?  Breed as a term never applies to people; it applies to livestock.
> 
> How's that for loaded with baggage.  You've just gone from designating the groups as equal to humans to make them subhuman.  And you are doing this in in the context of a thread where people are arguing that we need to get rid of race explicitly because it will allow us to have different human "breeds"/"ancestories"/"types" or what ever.
> 
> I'll take race thank you very much.  It's a lot less insulting.




Sounds like you missed his point.


----------



## Jester David

Celebrim said:


> Breed?  How in the heck is breed less problematic than race?  Breed as a term never applies to people; it applies to livestock.
> 
> How's that for loaded with baggage.  You've just gone from designating the groups as equal to humans to make them subhuman.  And you are doing this in in the context of a thread where people are arguing that we need to get rid of race explicitly because it will allow us to have different human "breeds"/"ancestories"/"types" or what ever.



Yes. That was _*exactly*_ my point, thank you. Breed is a hugely problematic word. One loaded with baggage designed to dehumanize people. That’s literally why I used it. 
It’d be super insulting to use “breed” and it _is_ super insulting to use “race”.



Celebrim said:


> I'll take race thank you very much.  It's a lot less insulting.



Which is the issue. It’s not. Race and breed effectively have the same negative connotations. One isn’t less insulting. *That the whole damn point.*


----------



## Ratskinner

Before I get too enraged at any of the responses...

I prefer the term "Heritage" or "Species" depending on what game mechanical weight is in it.

EDIT: Just saw "Origin" another post, love it.


----------



## Arilyn

Jester David said:


> Should we use “breed” then? Or “type”? Pick your background, breed, and class.
> :/
> 
> Just because orcs are centaurs are different from humans doesn’t mean we need to use an antiquated term loaded with the baggage of imperialism, slavery, racism, and white supremacy.
> 
> English is a robust language. We can find a better word. Heritage. People. Nation. Etc.




I agree. Race isn't a word with meaning. Originally, a more informal synonym with species, it was quickly seized upon to divide humans into "races", because having a European species and an Indian species wasn't going to fly. We don't have dog races and elephant races either, so the two words did quickly come to mean different things, and race was used purely, in well, racist terms. So yes, we should completely flush the term. 

Elves are completely different from lizardfolk, of course. They are different species, but species is an awkward term to use. And then what to do with the mixes, like half-elves? You can't have a race or species of half-elves or half-orcs, but saying I have a character whose ancestry includes human and elf just works better. Being called a half-elf is actually rather insulting. "Excuse me, I'm not half of anything!"

Claiming that words are just words is simply not true. Words come loaded with meaning, and need to change continuously as our culture matures (hopefully). Expanding our daily vocabulary to be more inclusive, and changing words that become negatively charged, is a positive result of an ever changing linguistic process.


----------



## Ancalagon

Mark Craddock said:


> It's a game. Do we need it? It works fine for me and my table. I've decided that ENWorld is just trying to stir the pot to get traffic. And it's working.




.... but why post a reply then?  Shouldn't the proper "move" be to *not post at all*?

Seriously speaking, Paizo is doing this, it's why it's now a conversation.  EN World didn't pull it out of thin air.

Edit... aaaaand isn't your post implying that the OP is somehow "in league" with the website?


----------



## Anthro78

I think ancestry is an improvement over race and I expect WotC will adopt something similar in their next iteration of D&D, for the simple fact that companies like Hasbro and Paizo realize that being insensitive to the concerns of people leads to excluding large swathes of them from becoming part of the hobby, and spending their money on those products.  Also because, and I am ashamed it has to be said, it's the right thing to do.


----------



## LazarusKane

I think the using of "race" is not a bug, it´s a feature - meaning:
Using "race" in the real world for human categorization is wrong (we all are one subspecies of the species Homo Sapiens) or at least debateable in scientific context  (it seems to depend on the scientific field).
But there a several species in your standard RPG world and "human" is one of them, so using the term "race" only solidifies the simply truth: "We are all one race", it doesn´t matter if your ancestors came from Arabia, Northern Europe or South-Asia (or somewhere else - and the funny thing is in any case that all our ancestors came originally from Africa).
Using this word in the correct context feels right for me, as if the RPG Community is reclaiming the word.
And that´s IMHO important because I think *Celebrim* is right "(t)hat shifting language in order to attempt to be more sensitive never  works, because the meaning follows the term and quite soon all the  things attached to the old word are also part of the baggage of the new  term" a.k.a. the euphemism treadmill.

PS: Mabye using "ancestry" instead of "sub-race" for "Half-Elves", Tieflings etc. would be better but that´s an different topic.


----------



## Celebrim

Jester David said:


> Which is the issue. It’s not. Race and breed effectively have the same negative connotations. One isn’t less insulting. *That the whole damn point.*




I don't think I'm reasonably supposed to expect to realize that race and breed have the same negative connotations, because they don't.  

However, I'm glad you recognize how problematic the alternatives are.

Rather than fight this ludicrous fight, if you really believe that, I'd suggest you spend your energy convincing the various governmental statistic bureaus to stop collecting the information that they collect as 'race', since you find the term so problematic.  Tell the census bureau how problematic it is that they have a category of 'race' and convince them that ancestry, heritage, or nationality is exactly the same thing but less loaded.

Because I'm having a hard time taking seriously the idea that terms like 'human race', 'elven race', 'dwarven race' and in general 'race' itself is so loaded with baggage that we have to do away with it, when you are happy with it in far more problematic real world contexts.  And that's to not even get into the general problem of consistency of philosophy in this, because I'm sure there are plenty of cases when you'll demand race be acknowledged.


----------



## Mallus

Of course my first reaction to this is picturing an Elf and a Dwarf discussing sociology in a bar. 

"Race is a social construct."
"Really? Were you aware my kind are functionally immortal?"
"You don't say. Did you know Dwarves are part metamorphic rock?"
"I did not."
[...]
"So race is a social construct."
"Oh, sure, absolutely. Next round's on me. Ale?"
"Actually I'll try some of that fairy wine you're always going on about." 

My second reaction is: while I don't find the word 'race' overly, ahem, _problematic_, I'm fine with it falling out of favor as the preferred term. Kinda like my response to the word 'oriental'. If someone called me the 'o-word' I wouldn't get angry, I'd just shoot them a look that says "Did you just fall off the turnip truck?", then gently remind them the term is out-of-date and offensive to some. 

As for replacements: species, -kin, -kind, -folk (or -volk), or simply 'people' would all work fine.


----------



## Ancalagon

There is a risk of "euphemism treadmill".  A new term may acquire loaded, negative connotations fairly quickly...


----------



## Shadow Demon

Maybe the problem is that modern society acquires loaded, negative connotations fairly quickly without any reasonable justification.


----------



## the_redbeard

I agree that gaming is escapism.  However, if we use the term race, then gaming ISN'T escapism for people who are stereotyped according to the social construct that is race because it could be one more f'ing reminder of the real world.  Just like D&D moved on from gender/sex attribute penalties decades ago.  Yes, there are plenty of people of color who still game.  But that percentage is less than representational.  If one more person of color feels welcome gaming because gaming moves on from this term, then why wouldn't we remove the term?  Why hold on to it?

Humans are over 99.5% genetically identical and our variations in populations have zero to do with the skin color phenotype.  Even the sickle cell trait, associated in popular culture with black skinned people, is actually only prevalent in people who originated in regions with malaria - which includes Mediterranean cultures, people on different continents and doesn't include people with black skin who have ancestry other than West Africa.  Race is a social construct, an idea, and it is an idea that changed over time.  The Irish, for example, were not considered "white" by the original conception.

Using terms that refer to biology, like species, is genre breaking.  Many fantasy world creation stories have the various humans, elves and dwarves created by different deities.  I think a genre specific term could reference that and feel appropriate.  Origin? What's your character's origin?  I think my next campaign might use that.


----------



## TreChriron

I like ancestry as a term, this is what they call it in Shadow of the Demon Lord IIRC. Cool term, and it invokes a nice fantasy feel to me.


----------



## Sunseeker

I think one reason I'd like to see race go away is that I'd like to see human "subraces" like we have for dwarves that represent major socities which have perhaps bred for different traits.  Part of the reason I want to get rid of race for this reason is I _really_ don't want to see human-variants referred to as "subraces".  I think a fantasy game like D&D, unlike real life, has room to say that X humans developed differently from Y humans because of the magical nature of their environment.  Maybe "north" humans really are stronger.  Maybe "island" humans are smaller and faster.  Maybe "jungle" humans are more hearty.

As someone who is familiar with historical racial stereotypes, it is a little cringe-worthy to constantly see those stereotypes replayed in non-human racial variants.  It would of course be _worse_ to see them get replayed in what are supposed to be human race variants.

Though I think, at least with 5E, since there are no negative score modifiers, there is perhaps room to say "some humans are better at XYZ" without on the same token, saying they are _worse_ at something else.


----------



## Jester David

Celebrim said:


> Rather than fight this ludicrous fight, if you really believe that, I'd suggest you spend your energy convincing the various governmental statistic bureaus to stop collecting the information that they collect as 'race', since you find the term so problematic.  Tell the census bureau how problematic it is that they have a category of 'race' and convince them that ancestry, heritage, or nationality is exactly the same thing but less loaded.



I'm Canadian. 
Statistics Canada has decided the term "race" is not to be used and is an old standard, and uses the term "ethnicity" in its place. 

I don't know what your backwards ass country does with its census, and there's little I can do about it.



Celebrim said:


> Because I'm having a hard time taking seriously the idea that terms like 'human race', 'elven race', 'dwarven race' and in general 'race' itself is so loaded with baggage that we have to do away with it, when you are happy with it in far more problematic real world contexts.



If you don't see the problem then maybe you should defer to the opinion of people who DO see the problem and DO have problems with the term. Human beings who DO feel dehumanized by the world. 

I don't have a nut allergy. I don't see the problem with peanuts. I love me some peanut butter. But that doesn't means I'm going to eat peanut products in a crowded elementary school, while picking at my teeth before touching doorknobs and faucets. 
Because, as someone with basic human empathy I'm going to defer and modify my behaviour to not harm others.


----------



## Lanefan

While 'race' might not be the best term, all the suggested-thus-far alternatives are worse either via inaccuracy or awkwardness; leaving race as the best of the bad.

'Ancestry' for example is more accurate (particularly because it elegantly includes the various half-xxx's and part-xxx's which none of the other suggestions do) but also more awkward to say, use and parse.


----------



## The Crimson Binome

Celebrim said:


> I get where you are coming from, but if I really thought the races were all basically human, I'd consider it pointless and problematic to include them in the game.  If all races have to be basically human, then we should just have humans and eliminate the idea of racial diversity (in the since of real racial diversity, and not just ethnic groups).  Elves are not just humans with pointy ears.



Is it not significant enough, to you, if there's this cool group of humans with perfect hair and great eyesight and this specific long and rich history? I mean, is the game world _more_ interesting to you for only having normal humans in their regular variants, than if you also include other playable peoples that are still _mostly_ human?



Celebrim said:


> My intention in having non-human races is for the players to attempt to stretch their imagination and attempt to empathize with and articulate something alien from who that they actually are.  That's why when someone wants to play a non-human race, I give them a document explaining how different that they are and why their cultures are what they are because of it.  As a DM, that's why I have such beings in my game world.



Honestly, that sounds like a lot of work, and I'm not sure that I (or any other player) could do it justice. 

It's hard for me to guess how much we're actually disagreeing on this point, but when I look at elves, the main thing that jumps out at me is how they live for a very long time. If elves were _exactly_ like humans, except in that they had a significantly longer lifespan, then that would already require the player to adjust all of their thinking to take that into account. They would be _different_, but not _so_ different that a player couldn't understand them, if they put in a little effort.

The more alien you make something, the less capable a human is off playing it. Thri-kreen are probably the most obvious example of something that _shouldn't_ be playable, because there's absolutely no way that a player could ever get their primate brain to mimic the responses of an insect brain. They simply aren't compatible. It makes me suspicious whenever I see someone want to play an _actually_ alien race, because it feels like they care more about the mechanical benefits or something like that, rather than _actually_ trying to role-play the impossible.


----------



## Jester David

Shadow Demon said:


> Maybe the problem is that modern society acquires loaded, negative connotations fairly quickly without any reasonable justification.



Yes, the because the Ancient Greeks never used slurs to negatively talk about neighbouring lands 3000 years ago. 

(Spoiler alert: they totally did.)


----------



## Lanefan

shidaku said:


> I think one reason I'd like to see race go away is that I'd like to see human "subraces" like we have for dwarves that represent major socities which have perhaps bred for different traits.  Part of the reason I want to get rid of race for this reason is I _really_ don't want to see human-variants referred to as "subraces".  I think a fantasy game like D&D, unlike real life, has room to say that X humans developed differently from Y humans because of the magical nature of their environment.  Maybe "north" humans really are stronger.  Maybe "island" humans are smaller and faster.  Maybe "jungle" humans are more hearty.



Yes, and sub-races is a fine term for this whether applied to Humans, Dwarves, Elves or Shoggoths.  "Sub" in this case does not mean lesser in quality, it means lesser in number - just like in math you'd use the terms 'set' for all of something and 'sub-set' for a specific portion of the set.


----------



## Sunseeker

Lanefan said:


> Yes, and sub-races is a fine term for this whether applied to Humans, Dwarves, Elves or Shoggoths.  "Sub" in this case does not mean lesser in quality, it means lesser in number - just like in math you'd use the terms 'set' for all of something and 'sub-set' for a specific portion of the set.




Uh, no.

Absolutely _zero_ people are going to buy that, especially if your imagery reflects traditional western ideas of what color or style of dress an "islander" or "jungle" person has.


----------



## Celebrim

Jester David said:


> I'm Canadian.
> Statistics Canada has decided the term "race" is not to be used and is an old standard, and uses the term "ethnicity" in its place.




Are you suggesting that centaur, dwarf, elf, and lizardfolk are ethnicities?

Ethnicity in my opinion matches much more closely to "culture" than it does to anything else.  That might be appropriate for distinguishing humans, but if it was, then my ethnicity would be "American" or perhaps "Jamaican-American" or "American-Jamaican".  

And I'm sure somebody would have a problem with that as well.  



> If you don't see the problem then maybe you should defer to the opinion of people who DO see the problem and DO have problems with the term. Human beings who DO feel dehumanized by the world.




I see the problem, I just don't see a legitimate solution being proposed.  Nor do I necessarily agree with what the problem actually is.


----------



## Shadow Demon

When I think of ancestry, I think of lineage, then I think of nobility, which in turn makes think of the British monarchy. It is all too humanocentric. It doesn’t work for me.


----------



## Over the Hill Gamer

Dire Bare said:


> Have to call BS on this. Morrus and the other moderators most certainly do not "censor" opinions on the site. What they do is block the insulting behavior of some bad actors.
> 
> You'll find plenty of opinions in this very thread on all sides of the issue whether the term "race" is used problematically in D&D or not. The OP certainly positions "race" as an outmoded and somewhat racist term that we should consider abandoning, but if you post your disagreement, politely and respectfully, you'll be fine.
> 
> If you start spouting off with insulting and demeaning terms like "political correctness" and "social justice warrior", yeah, you're gonna see some mod action, and rightfully so.
> 
> If you just can't have reasoned and polite discussions over this and other similar topics on race and culture in D&D, then stay out of those threads. Sooooo easy to do!
> 
> Morrus, Talien, keep up the good work pushing us to think about concepts we often take for granted without realizing the deeper implications!




That's pretty sad if they actually censor people for using the term political correctness. I know it's a term of the right and I largely disagree with the people who use it but still, it's a thing. The term is a legitimate expression of opinion.  Heavy-handed censorship of legitimate poltical discourse is unfortunate.  Your solution that these people should "stay out of those threads" is another kind of censorship.  Political censorship is anti-1st amendment and anti-American in my opinion.


----------



## TrippyHippy

Mercule said:


> But it's not 'culture', any more than it's race.



To be sure, the acuity of the language is not as much an issue as the offensiveness of using the term 'Race' being used in this sort of context. They've used 'Culture' in other games - The One Ring/Adventures in Middle Earth and also RuneQuest 6/Mythras. It worked OK for them. 

If you want a more acute word then maybe 'Heredity'.


----------



## Jester David

Okay, it's tricky to keep changing your language and dropping old terms from your vocabulary. 
But as Einstein is reported to have said: “once you stop learning you start dying”. 
I'm not ready to get dying, so I guess I'll keep learning new ways to speak. I'm not the elderly grandfather on a pouch speaking trash because that was the era I was raised in. I'm capable of changing how I talk and the words I use. And I am responsible for what I say, not society. 


Whether or not I agree if a word has negative connotations is largely irrelevant. Because I'm not the one being offended or upset. The person offending _cannot_ be the judge of whether or not something is offensive or upsetting or causing emotional distress. Life just doesn't work like that. 
While there is very much an outrage culture occurring online, we cannot live life assuming that people are upset over nothing. That's not how society works. We have to assume people are being honest about their feelings and their outrage. 

Purposely saying or doing things that upset people has another name. No, not "triggering". That's label people doing the upsetting use to veil their actions. Deliberately causing negative emotions is bullying. People who knowingly and unrepentantly make other people feel bad are bullies. Plain and simple. 

I don't personally have a problem with the term "race". No emotions there. But I learned in college, waaaay back in my 2000-01 term, that the word is inaccurate as there's no real biological distinction between human cultural groups and that ethnicity, culture, and nationality were the proper terms. 
And since then I'm aware that other people _do_ have a problem with the term. So I try to use "ethnicity" when discussing real world groups. Because I don't want to be a bully. Bullies suck. Bullies made my life hell in junior high and that's not the kind of person I want to be. 


Being carefully how I speak doesn't hurt me. And it doesn't hurt other people. 
Not being careful how I speak hurts other people. Which makes me a bully. 

As choices go, that's a no-brainer.


----------



## Aldarc

Celebrim said:


> Are you suggesting that centaur, dwarf, elf, and lizardfolk are ethnicities?



Are you seriously trying to strawman him with this loaded argument? He told you the term that the Canadian Census uses, much as you expressed the term that the US Census uses.


----------



## Shadow Demon

Jester David said:


> Yes, the because the Ancient Greeks never used slurs to negatively talk about neighbouring lands 3000 years ago.
> 
> (Spoiler alert: they totally did.)




Don’t you think this was a case where the neighboring lands were more concerned with the “sticks & stones” than the “words”?

In modern society with the advent of social media, words have been upgraded.


----------



## jasper

When I was growing up I played with an half-orc flute band, my mother was half-orc , my father was a half-orc. I grew up raiding the local villages for hobbits eating second breakfast.
Now that I got my results back from Ancestry . scroll, I discovered 1/4 Halfling ( um human under 3 feet who used to be fat now are thin and have darkvision), 1/4 high elf, and 1/2 Canadian Human. Any one what dwarven bacon it is nicely marbled.


----------



## Celebrim

Lanefan said:


> 'Ancestry' for example is more accurate (particularly because it elegantly includes the various half-xxx's and part-xxx's which none of the other suggestions do) but also more awkward to say, use and parse.




I agree that ancestry is the best of the bad examples being proposed, because it literally is a synonym for race.  But I don't think it is better than race, because "human race" is more accurate in my opinion than "human ancestry".   I actually have a Trait 'Human Ancestry' that is available in my 3.X homebrew where you have a distant ancestor that is human, allowing you to be in some sense both whatever your race is and also a human.  For example, if you are a goblin with human ancestry, then both goblinbane and humanbane weapons proc when hitting you.  And on the other hand, you can take both human and goblin racial feats.   However, you can't take "human ancestry" if you are in fact already human.  

An example of the problem using real world comparisons would be that I IRL have Creek ancestry, but it is so comparatively minor that I'd never claim to be Creek - doing so would be an act of hubris.  Likewise I have more significant Irish ancestry but I would not claim to be Irish in any sense, nor is Irish actually a race in either the modern sense of the term or in the technical sense that RPGs use the term.   

Being a lizardfolk is a race.  Ancestry is more ambiguous and more problematic in its meaning.   But if we must do this, ancestry is better than anything else I can think of; it's just worse than race for several reasons.


----------



## Dire Bare

Saelorn said:


> And now we're left with the idea that humans have _no_ culture, because the mechanics for representing those cultures have been misappropriated into humans being universally adaptable as a trait.




Interesting aside . . . here in the States white folks of European descent often feel like we have no ethnicity or culture. That's not true, of course, but we often look to others, those who are different, as people with ethnicity or culture. The same is true of linguistic accents, those in the US with the midwest accent (the one you hear most often from newscasters, politicians, and other "educated" folks), often feel like it's those "other" people who talk with a funny accent, not us. Also, not true, we all have language accents just like we all have culture.

IMO, as most fantasy gamers are white men of Euro descent, it was too easy to see "humans" as not having culture in the game, that's for elves, dwarves, and maybe those "oriental" or "arabian" humans just off the map . . . A more rich D&D would embrace the cultural diversity of "humans" in the core rules (although we do often see improvement in campaign specific products). And why not a similar cultural diversity in non-human peoples as well?


----------



## Jester David

Celebrim said:


> Are you suggesting that centaur, dwarf, elf, and lizardfolk are ethnicities?
> 
> Ethnicity in my opinion matches much more closely to "culture" than it does to anything else.  That might be appropriate for distinguishing humans, but if it was, then my ethnicity would be "American" or perhaps "Jamaican-American" or "American-Jamaican".
> 
> And I'm sure somebody would have a problem with that as well.



According to the US Census, race is "a person’s self-identification with one or more social groups."
https://www.census.gov/mso/www/training/pdf/race-ethnicity-onepager.pdf

Are you suggesting centaur and lizardfolk are a social group one identifies with?


----------



## Afrodyte

Gradine said:


> I game and have gamed with some pretty radical people. Prison abolitionists, anti-racist queer activists, _literal anarchists_, etc. And I have seen a grand total of zero of them bat so much as an eyelash over the fantasy usage of the term "race". It's just not really on the radar. It's not that I can't imagine someone actually being legitimately upset over the term, but it's just... there so many other, way bigger fish to fry, you know?
> 
> As has been mentioned before, no, not everyone in the hobby is open and inclusive and welcoming, and yes, there are plenty of bigots and misogynists and other gatekeeper gamers who *do* care who you are and what you look like, and we would be *much* better served as a community as a whole to devote our time and energy rooting out and correcting or removing those problems than we would be quibbling over what honestly amounts to little more than semantics.




This is pretty much where I am. I'm a gay Black woman, and that in itself seems to make me far more fantastical in some games than actual elves and dwarves.

My major concerns about the hobby cannot be reduced to the use of a single word. I won't weep if someone replaces race with some other word, but when I think about what the hobby needs to do to be more inclusive of people who are not straight white dudes, this specific terminology is way down the list of priorities. I'm far more concerned about how the hobby responds to criticism of this sort than I am about the word itself. Unfortunately, I've grown used to disappointment.


----------



## Jester David

Shadow Demon said:


> In modern society with the advent of social media, words have been upgraded.



Because pejoratives and slurs never existed prior to social media? People didn't get upset about words like "negro", "Eskimo", "Gypsy", and "retard" until Twitter was invented?


----------



## TrippyHippy

It's not an issue, per se, of political correctness. Language has always evolved in ways that reflect changing times and attitudes without any legislation or strong arm tactics involved. 

'Race' is just a bit of an archaic term, that doesn't have the same meaning it did for Tolkien or whoever. 'Class' is a bit problematic too, because the actual game design has moved away from the original classifications of 'fighting man' and 'magic user' to a series of fantasy archetypes. 

In the former case, 'Race' also puts too much emphasis on non-humans in the game. One of the reason why I like the term 'Culture' in games like The One Ring and RuneQuest is that it allows the game to focus on multiple types of humans, with demi-humans being just alternative side-cultures with a few extra physiological advantages/disadvantages.


----------



## Afrodyte

Over the Hill Gamer said:


> That's pretty sad if they actually censor people for using the term political correctness. I know it's a term of the right and I largely disagree with the people who use it but still, it's a thing. The term is a legitimate expression of opinion.  Heavy-handed censorship of legitimate poltical discourse is unfortunate.  Your solution that these people should "stay out of those threads" is another kind of censorship.  Political censorship is anti-1st amendment and anti-American in my opinion.




The 1st amendment means that you can't be thrown in jail for running your mouth about the government. It doesn't mean that private citizens who own or maintain a product or service owe you a platform.


----------



## Tranquilis

Tempest, meet teapot.

Again, I’d have no real problems with these “posts” if they weren’t cloaked as articles. All of these - especially by this freelancer - have a definitive position.  They should be marked as editorials if they are to be placed in the News section.


----------



## Mallus

the_redbeard said:


> Using terms that refer to biology, like species, is genre breaking.



Depends on where your genre-breaking point is. D&D traditionally has a fair amount of genre-bending stuff in it. Psionics, spells like "Telekinesis", "Reverse-Gravity" and "Clone". Monsters that are less myth and more pulp science fiction. I'd say it helps define what D&D-style is as a sub-genre.


----------



## Shadow Demon

Jester David said:


> Because pejoratives and slurs never existed prior to social media? People didn't get upset about words like "negro", "Eskimo", "Gypsy", and "retard" until Twitter was invented?




Oh, they existed and people dealt with it face-to-face. Now, it is all amplified in a meaningless, trivial vacuum.


----------



## Dire Bare

Over the Hill Gamer said:


> That's pretty sad if they actually censor people for using the term political correctness. I know it's a term of the right and I largely disagree with the people who use it but still, it's a thing. The term is a legitimate expression of opinion.  Heavy-handed censorship of legitimate poltical discourse is unfortunate.  Your solution that these people should "stay out of those threads" is another kind of censorship.  Political censorship is anti-1st amendment and anti-American in my opinion.




Really? Grown-ups know better than this.

Words have literal, dictionary definitions or meanings. Sure. And words have connotations they have picked up over time. The word retard has a very clinical, specific use when talking about those with mental illness . . . well, it used to. Now it's a slur. The n-word (gah, I can't even type it) also had a specific, non-pejorative meaning at one point in the past. Please don't use it today. This is how language works dude, and I think you know this. The literal meanings and connotative meanings of words shift over time. Deal with it.

To claim that "political correctness" and "social justice warriors" is a "thing" and we shouldn't be bothered by them, is weak-sauce dude. Yes, they have, or had, non-pejorative meanings . . . but now they are used more often as slurs than to actually describe behavior in an objective way. They are not legitimate expressions of opinion, they are rude, disrespectful (and knowingly so) ways to express opinion.

To ask folks, "if you can't stand the heat, stay out of the fire" isn't remotely censorship, it's advice. Take it or leave it. To blather on about being anti-1st amendment and anti-American is rich, super rich. If Morrus is so eager to "censor" those whose opinions differ than his own, why is this thread filled with folks who disagree with each other? Have all of the "race-is-an-okay-term" folks gotten booted? Nope, only the ones who couldn't manage to express their opinions without also being rude and disrespectful.

Under the 1st amendment of the US constitution, you have every right to be a disrespectful ass. But Morrus is under no obligation to allow you to do so in his "house". Even if he was American!


----------



## Morrus

*Do We Still Need &quot;Race&quot; in D&amp;D?*



Over the Hill Gamer said:


> That's pretty sad if they actually censor people for using the term political correctness. I know it's a term of the right and I largely disagree with the people who use it but still, it's a thing. The term is a legitimate expression of opinion.  Heavy-handed censorship of legitimate poltical discourse is unfortunate.  Your solution that these people should "stay out of those threads" is another kind of censorship.  Political censorship is anti-1st amendment and anti-American in my opinion.




I’m not American, or a “they”; and that’s also not what your first amendment says. But that’s by-the-by. If you have questions about the civil inclusive behaviour I expect in this community, take it to the Meta forum and I’ll happily explain it to you in no uncertain terms. This is not the place for it.


----------



## Undermountain

FaerieGodfather said:


> The use of the term is technically incorrect, and _that is the worst kind of incorrect_. The socjus implications are way below my sensitivity threshold, but the misuse of the word _bothers_ me.
> 
> Likewise, its most common replacement, "species". _Also wrong._




Yes, this.

Here, from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/race :

[h=2]Definition of race[/h][FONT=&quot]: a breeding stock of animals
: a family, tribe, people, or nation belonging to the same stock: a class or kind of people unified by shared interests, habits, or characteristics
3a : an actually or potentially interbreeding group within a species; _also_ : a taxonomic category (such as a subspecies) representing such a group
b : breed
: a category of humankind that shares certain distinctive physical traits
: inherited temperament or disposition
: distinctive flavor, taste, or strength
[/FONT]


----------



## kenmarable

Lanefan said:


> 'Ancestry' for example is more accurate (particularly because it elegantly includes the various half-xxx's and part-xxx's which none of the other suggestions do) but also more awkward to say, use and parse.




It is? That is highly subjective. I don't find it awkward in the least.

"Choosing an Ancestry."

"Your choice of ancestry affects many different aspects of your character."

"Your character ancestry not only affects your ability scores and traits but also provides the cues for building your character’s story. Each ancestry's description in this chapter includes information to help you roleplay a character of that ancestry, including..."

"Ancestral Traits"

"If a creature belonging to the type, ancestry, or group associated with an arrow of slaying takes damage from the arrow..."

and so on.

*shrug*


----------



## Jester David

Shadow Demon said:


> Oh, they existed and people dealt with it face-to-face. Now, it is all amplified in a meaningless, trivial vacuum.




Funny thing... the race vs ethnicity debate is old. 

Here's a scan from my Sociology textbook, copyright 2000:
View attachment 95953

This book pre-dates Twitter by 6 years and Facebook by 4. 
Looking at the citations in the book, this question and issue in a modern sense easily goes back to the mid-90s (and has much, much older origins). 

This is not a social media issue. This is a long term cultural issue and problem with language. Dismissing it as a "social media problem" trivialises the issue. It's a fallacious way (ad hominem btw) of attacking the issue without having to address the substance and veracity of the issue itself.


----------



## LordNightwinter

ShinHakkaider said:


> As a black man who is 46 and has been playing RPG's since I was 12 I can tell you that in an overwhelmingly white hobby? This is just not true to my experience. AT ALL.
> 
> Let me clarify. Gamers are a subset of the population. If there are bigots and sexists in the general population? There are bigots and sexists in the gaming community. I'm not saying anything controversial by saying that the hobby is overwhelmingly white. Any Youtube video of streamed games or of GenCon Coverage will back this up. When you have a dominiant demographic there can and will be gatekeepers who decide that if you dont fit a certain look that you do not belong there. Gamers DO want to just game. But there are enough of these people out there that can make it a difficult proposition if youre not white and / or male (although it's getting better if youre not male).




I acknowledged that in my first post, there are exceptions to every rule. Racism, sexism, anything negative doesn't ever have a place at my table nor any of the other tables I've been at. Is it predominantly white? Yes it used to be. Dungeons and Dragons and RPGs have become more mainstream in the recent years. Before hand it was a game for outcasts and nerds, the downtrodden. I have met few gamers that have ever participated in such stupidity, the only one that comes to mind was banned from my group for being an . We, the geeks and nerds who have played these games for generations, were all different, we were all stomped on, we know what it feels like. Bringing real-world politics, biased racial views, or anything negative to the table is self-serving and has no place in a gaming world. It's a place we go to get away from all that crap.

I've been doing this a long time, 25 years as a matter of fact. I speak from experience.


----------



## Li Shenron

The term "race" doesn't bother me when used to separate human characters from elves or dwarves...

I don't think "ancestry" or "heritage" are an improvement, to me they are more confusing terms. 

An improvement for me would be to replace race with "creature" and subrace with "people" (if intelligent, for cultural variants) or "variety" (for biological variants).

In fact, every time I had to explain the game to beginners, I always had to explain that "race" doesn't have the same meaning as in RL but it means pretty much what creature you are. Using the word creature would also help eliminate the nonsense by which an orc or a drow or a tiefling is a "monster" when played by the DM but becomes a "race" if given to a player or promoted to the PHB in a certain edition...


----------



## marcoasalazarm

I am a man that prefers "race" because that's what's written in the dozen-plus RPG books he's got on the shelf. I don't know if "ancestry" or "species" sound better or worse as an industry-wide modification, although I guess that maybe it depends on the game's individual application -- a sci-fi RPG could use "species" better because when the enemy is killer robots the things that are regularly argumentative with the use of that term don't matter, it's pretty clear they want to Kill_* All *_Humans.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty!

Li Shenron said:


> The term "race" doesn't bother me when used to separate human characters from elves or dwarves...
> 
> I don't think "ancestry" or "heritage" are an improvement, to me they are more confusing terms.
> 
> An improvement for me would be to replace race with "creature" and subrace with "people" (if intelligent, for cultural variants) or "variety" (for biological variants).




Yeah to me in D&D terms ancestry or heritage would be if a human is Suel or Oeridian.  Not is a character an elf or a dwarf.


----------



## Shadow Demon

Jester David said:


> Funny thing... the race vs ethnicity debate is old.
> 
> Here's a scan from my Sociology textbook, copyright 2000:
> View attachment 95953
> 
> This book pre-dates Twitter by 6 years and Facebook by 4.
> Looking at the citations in the book, this question and issue in a modern sense easily goes back to the mid-90s (and has much, much older origins).
> 
> This is not a social media issue. This is a long term cultural issue and problem with language. Dismissing it as a "social media problem" trivialises the issue. It's a fallacious way (ad hominem btw) of attacking the issue without having to address the substance and veracity of the issue itself.




There is nothing here that I disagree with in reality. What I saying is social media has both accelerated and amplified the problem. Surely, you can’t think that social media has been a net postive. 

The above doesn’t matter in this context because this debate isn’t about the real world use of race. Instead, it is about excuse to convince others that we should feel empathy for the offended while playing a fantasy game. Even if they exist and wish to bring their personal baggage to the game, I am just not feeling it.


----------



## ShinHakkaider

LordNightwinter said:


> I acknowledged that in my first post, there are exceptions to every rule. Racism, sexism, anything negative doesn't ever have a place at my table nor any of the other tables I've been at. Is it predominantly white? Yes it used to be. Dungeons and Dragons and RPGs have become more mainstream in the recent years. Before hand it was a game for outcasts and nerds, the downtrodden. I have met few gamers that have ever participated in such stupidity, the only one that comes to mind was banned from my group for being an . We, the geeks and nerds who have played these games for generations, were all different, we were all stomped on, we know what it feels like. Bringing real-world politics, biased racial views, or anything negative to the table is self-serving and has no place in a gaming world. It's a place we go to get away from all that crap.
> 
> I've been doing this a long time, 25 years as a matter of fact. I speak from experience.




Okay, well I've ALSO been doing this for a long time. I think that I might have 10 more years of experience on you and also have dealt with the same people you might be claiming to be a minority in the gaming community. They are not a minority. Alot of these same geeks that you say know what it's like to feel like an outcast? Treat others THE SAME EXACT way. Alot of them lack empathy for anyone or anything that dont look or act like them or who dont share a similar background. That's been my expericence. 

I've met and game with good people, which is what I'm concerned about FIRST. You can teach people to be good gamers. 

I dont put gamers up on a pedestal. I know better. I've SEEN how vile gamers can be. Theyre just PEOPLE. For better or for worst. The best any of us can do is find good ones to spend the time with. 

And D&D "used to be" mostly white? It's become more mainstream? Sure. But it's STILL mostly a white hobby. By a long stretch. If youre denying that? Then I'm afraid that we cant continue this discussion in good faith at all..


----------



## Jester David

Shadow Demon said:


> There is nothing here that I disagree with in reality. What I saying is social media has both accelerated and amplified the problem. Surely, you can’t think that social media has been a net postive.



I was on Twitter but quit and have not looked back. It is a festering mass on the internet. But that's more on how people are using it than the medium itself. And just because Twitter is a rotting hole doesn't mean it's always wrong.



Shadow Demon said:


> The above doesn’t matter in this context because this debate isn’t about the real world use of race. Instead, it is about excuse to convince others that we should feel empathy for the offended while playing a fantasy game. Even if they exist and wish to bring their personal baggage to the game, I am just not feeling it.



True... but the exact same sentiment could be voiced about making one human group in the game mechanically superior to another. 
It's just a game. The Thayans and Cormyrians are not real ethnic groups. Having one be innately smarter than the other has no impact on real world racism. 
But that _would _be a problem. Such a problem. Because it's taking something that causes real world pain and injected it into our escapist fantasy. That we're using fantasy ethnicity is irrelevant because it's causing real world emotions.

The word "race" is problematic. It does not matter if we're talking about elves and dwarves or Africans and Asians, we're still using a contentious term. 

As I voiced in another post, imagine if we swapped "race" for "breed". You pick human or dwarf or elf as your breed. That sounds worse, right. But to many people, saying "race" feels just as dehumanizing as saying "breed".


----------



## Flexor the Mighty!

ShinHakkaider said:


> Okay, well I've ALSO been doing this for a long time. I think that I might have 10 more years of experience on you and also have dealt with the same people you might be claiming to be a minority in the gaming community. They are not a minority. Alot of these same geeks that you say know what it's like to feel like an outcast? Treat others THE SAME EXACT way. Alot of them lack empathy for anyone or anything that dont look or act like them or who dont share a similar background. That's been my expericence.
> 
> I've met and game with good people, which is what I'm concerned about FIRST. You can teach people to be good gamers.
> 
> I dont put gamers up on a pedestal. I know better. I've SEEN how vile gamers can be. Theyre just PEOPLE. For better or for worst. The best any of us can do is find good ones to spend the time with.
> 
> And D&D "used to be" mostly white? It's become more mainstream? Sure. But it's STILL mostly a white hobby. By a long stretch. If youre denying that? Then I'm afraid that we cant continue this discussion in good faith at all..




Is it mostly white due to what though?  Racism of white people?  European mythology and cultural trappings appealing mostly to white nerds?  Some other reason?


----------



## LordNightwinter

ShinHakkaider said:


> Okay, well I've ALSO been doing this for a long time. I think that I might have 10 more years of experience on you and also have dealt with the same people you might be claiming to be a minority in the gaming community. They are not a minority. Alot of these same geeks that you say know what it's like to feel like an outcast? Treat others THE SAME EXACT way. Alot of them lack empathy for anyone or anything that dont look or act like them or who dont share a similar background. That's been my expericence.
> 
> I've met and game with good people, which is what I'm concerned about FIRST. You can teach people to be good gamers.
> 
> I dont put gamers up on a pedestal. I know better. I've SEEN how vile gamers can be. Theyre just PEOPLE. For better or for worst. The best any of us can do is find good ones to spend the time with.
> 
> And D&D "used to be" mostly white? It's become more mainstream? Sure. But it's STILL mostly a white hobby. By a long stretch. If youre denying that? Then I'm afraid that we cant continue this discussion in good faith at all..




Alright dude. You sound like you might have a little bit of bias, dare I say racism, toward white people from all of your arguments and negative commentary. I will not be drawn in to a debate that I can't win because I'm the token white geek. I'm going to take the high ground and bow out. Good luck with your arguments. I wish you good luck and good fortune on all of your ventures. May the gamers you meet be better to you than the supposed ones you've met so far. For my part, if you have seen that side of things and only that side of things, I'm sorry. You're missing out on the better side of gamers. Good day to you sir.


----------



## ShinHakkaider

Flexor the Mighty! said:


> Is it mostly white due to what though?  Racism of white people?  European mythology and cultural trappings appealing mostly to white nerds?  Some other reason?




D00d. STOP. 

There is at no point in anything that I've said where I've even insinuated that it was becasue of Racism of White People.


----------



## Tranquilis

Over the Hill Gamer said:


> That's pretty sad if they actually censor people for using the term political correctness. I know it's a term of the right and I largely disagree with the people who use it but still, it's a thing. The term is a legitimate expression of opinion.  Heavy-handed censorship of legitimate poltical discourse is unfortunate.  Your solution that these people should "stay out of those threads" is another kind of censorship.  Political censorship is anti-1st amendment and anti-American in my opinion.




It is a stacked discussion, to be sure.  I honestly thought that, for example, “SJW”was an actual term used by social activists and not a pejorative.

To throw out biased “articles” like these, and then control the responses of those opposed isn’t “fair”, and it is disingenuous if one is opening up the comments section for replies and responses.   The quality of these posts (disguised as articles or news) is very suspect and biased.  I wouldn’t open myself up to the liability of attaching my name (or that of a site’s) to them.  This I can tell you.

The sad thing is, if we all met in person, we’d probably get along splendidly.  Sure, we’d have differences in opinion, but we’d agree to disagree civilly, I’d wager.


----------



## Morrus

Tranquilis said:


> It is a stacked discussion, to be sure.  I honestly thought that, for example, “SJW”was an actual term used by social activists and not a pejorative.
> 
> To throw out biased “articles” like these, and then control the responses of those opposed isn’t “fair”, and it is disingenuous if one is opening up the comments section for replies and responses.   The quality of these posts (disguised as articles or news) is very suspect and biased.  I wouldn’t open myself up to the liability of attaching my name (or that of a site’s) to them.  This I can tell you.
> 
> The sad thing is, if we all met in person, we’d probably get along splendidly.  Sure, we’d have differences in opinion, but we’d agree to disagree civilly, I’d wager.




I literally just said that Meta is the the place to take your opinions on my moderation. You ignored me and decided to slur my integrity in my own house. Don’t post in this thread again.


----------



## Gradine

Shadow Demon said:


> There is nothing here that I disagree with in reality. What I saying is social media has both accelerated and amplified the problem. Surely, you can’t think that social media has been a net postive.




From another point of view, one could say that social media has increased connections and the accumulation of shared experiences and accelerated and amplified the demand for actual solutions to problems.

Of course, it has also facilitated and emboldened the exact same progress for bigots, neo-nazis, and others of their ilk. So is it a net positive or negative? As a trained historian, I'd argue that it's too soon to tell (as loathe as I am to credit Faulkner for anything beyond popularizing narrative run-on sentences, his line "The past isn't dead. It isn't even past." is an apt one). I'm tempted to say no, in the short run, but probably(?) in the long run(?)... Like I said, it's hard to say because we're still very much living in the "social media" moment of history.


----------



## ShinHakkaider

LordNightwinter said:


> Alright dude. You sound like you might have a little bit of bias, dare I say racism, toward white people from all of your arguments and negative commentary. I will not be drawn in to a debate that I can't win because I'm the token white geek. I'm going to take the high ground and bow out. Good luck with your arguments. I wish you good luck and good fortune on all of your ventures. May the gamers you meet be better to you than the supposed ones you've met so far. For my part, if you have seen that side of things and only that side of things, I'm sorry. You're missing out on the better side of gamers. Good day to you sir.




And I can see that you might be a racist yourself. Due to the fact that youre calling me a racist for pointing out that there are less than virtuous people in the hobby and for stating that the hobby is mostly white? That's typical WS tactics right out of the WS playbook. 

I've clearly stated that I find good people to game with first. Pretty much dont care WHO or WHAT they are. GOOD PEOPLE. I'm sorry if you cant handle something that clashes with your pristine world view.


----------



## Shadow Demon

Jester David said:


> The word "race" is problematic. It does not matter if we're talking about elves and dwarves or Africans and Asians, we're still using a contentious term.
> 
> As I voiced in another post, imagine if we swapped "race" for "breed". You pick human or dwarf or elf as your breed. That sounds worse, right. But to many people, saying "race" feels just as dehumanizing as saying "breed".




I guess we have to end this with agree to disagree. I do not find “race” to be problematic. Honestly. I would like to find the person who feels the use of this word in RPG to be dehumanizing. I literally find the concept to be unbelievable.

The interesting thing is that it’s real world context with all of the negative baggage makes it perfect for the existence of sentient genetically distinct creatures in a RPG. I am too attached to it in this context to ever let it go.


----------



## Gradine

LordNightwinter said:


> Alright dude. You sound like you might have a little bit of bias, dare I say racism, toward white people from all of your arguments and negative commentary. I will not be drawn in to a debate that I can't win because I'm the token white geek. I'm going to take the high ground and bow out. Good luck with your arguments. I wish you good luck and good fortune on all of your ventures. May the gamers you meet be better to you than the supposed ones you've met so far. For my part, if you have seen that side of things and only that side of things, I'm sorry. You're missing out on the better side of gamers. Good day to you sir.




I'm with Shin on calling WS BS on this one. And here's the thing. It's not even the cries of "Reverse Racism" or the cloying, passive-aggressive superiority-through-a-thin-veneer-of-civility nonsense that crosses the line. It's the use of the word "supposed" that does it. That's the moment you tipped your hand. And it's more than just a passive-aggressive, subtle way of calling them a racist liar. It's proof that you're more willing to believe that he is lying about his experiences (and believe he is racist) than you are willing to believe that he has actually encountered white racist gamers in the past. 

This is not civility. This is not the high road. This is, straight-up, racist bullying, and it has been reported as such.


----------



## LordNightwinter

Gradine said:


> I'm with Shin on calling WS BS on this one. And here's the thing. It's not even the cries of "Reverse Racism" or the cloying, passive-aggressive superiority-through-a-thin-veneer-of-civility nonsense that crosses the line. It's the use of the word "supposed" that does it. That's the moment you tipped your hand. And it's more than just a passive-aggressive, subtle way of calling them a racist liar. It's proof that you're more willing to believe that he is lying about his experiences (and believe he is racist) than you are willing to believe that he has actually encountered white racist gamers in the past.
> 
> This is not civility. This is not the high road. This is, straight-up, racist bullying, and it has been reported as such.




Do what you must, people hide behind the anonymity of the internet all the time. I have no way of validating his statements nor he mine. It's not a crime to be skeptical.


----------



## Jester David

Shadow Demon said:


> I guess we have to end this with agree to disagree. I do not find “race” to be problematic. Honestly. I would like to find the person who feels the use of this word in RPG to be dehumanizing. I literally find the concept to be unbelievable.



Then go back and re-read this thread. There are several. 

Feel free to disagree with them and tell them how you don’t think their problem is a _real_ problem.


----------



## JonnyP71

Celebrim said:


> And yet, you think you are being polite and reasonable and treating other people with respect?
> 
> Are we just allowed to call anyone that disagrees with us bigots and misogynists now, or is it only if we are being sarcastic and passive aggressive about it?
> 
> Do you really think that OtHG deserves that sort of response, and that even if you think he does you are just allowed to express that sentiment?
> 
> In this context are those claims anything other than meaningless and insulting terms?  Because I certainly don't see anything in the post you are responding to that suggests that those claims are valid.





Way to miss the mark completely Celebrim.

I was agreeing with OtHG.  I like my fantasy world dark, gritty, misogynistic, I think it makes for better villains and greater player investment in putting paid to their nefarious schemes.  The world I'm making for a 2E game loosely mirrors Europe around early-mid Middle Ages, Religious violence, Feudalism, downtrodden peasants with no escape from the drudgery, mistrust of foreigners and so on.  I use the old 1E racial preference tables, I stick to the old no dwarf or hobbit mages rule, and so on.


----------



## DemoMonkey

Am I correct in giving all different ideas their due and boiling this entire long heated discussion down to:

"Race is probably the most accurate and genre appropriate word for describing different sentient fantasy creatures, but it is also a word that some people find offensive in the real world and should be changed to increase inclusiveness." ?


----------



## Rygar

Gradine said:


> From another point of view, one could say that social media has increased connections and the accumulation of shared experiences and accelerated and amplified the demand for actual solutions to problems.
> 
> Of course, it has also facilitated and emboldened the exact same progress for bigots, neo-nazis, and others of their ilk. So is it a net positive or negative? As a trained historian, I'd argue that it's too soon to tell (as loathe as I am to credit Faulkner for anything beyond popularizing narrative run-on sentences, his line "The past isn't dead. It isn't even past." is an apt one). I'm tempted to say no, in the short run, but probably(?) in the long run(?)... Like I said, it's hard to say because we're still very much living in the "social media" moment of history.




Did it?

It's trivial for a group of political activists to create a wide range of shill accounts to make it look like 1 person is 10 people, or 100 people, or 1000 people.  It's also trivial to drive it with AI, especially on limited text platforms like Twitter, or to utilize bot networks to produce a scripted response that mimics thousands or tens of thousands of people.

It's also trivial to skew things to make herd mentality and group think turn to outrage.  Purposefully leaving out information to make something meaningless sound outrageous for example. The average person isn't going to research something their cousin said on Facebook, they're going to believe it and post it for their 200 friends, who'll repeat the process without researching it.  Leveraging that, you can outrage large groups of people who'll never take the 30 seconds to get the 2/3 of the story that was left out to make it sound like some heinous event.

So I'm not convinced that Social Media has done anything other than give ready examples of extreme forms of public manipulation by special interest groups and the psychology of manipulating large populations of people to produce desired output.


----------



## Shadow Demon

Jester David said:


> Then go back and re-read this thread. There are several.
> 
> Feel free to disagree with them and tell them how you don’t think their problem is a _real_ problem.




I read several where they preferred ancestry but none where I getting the dehumanizing vibe. Maybe our definitions aren’t in sync. The n-word is dehumanizing, derogatory, and inflammatory. The word “race” even in real-world use doesn’t really meet the same criteria. Yet, there are those would want us to believe that it does. Once more, agree to disagree. I am going to happily play at conventions and use the word “race” without a second thought.


----------



## Gradine

LordNightwinter said:


> Do what you must, people hide behind the anonymity of the internet all the time. I have no way of validating his statements nor he mine. It's not a crime to be skeptical.




And I find myself increasingly skeptical of your reasons for your reasons for being skeptical of this specific individual. Especially given your cries of "reverse racism", and your condescending passive-aggressive tone, which as been pointed out are moves right out of the white supremacist playbook.

And perhaps you are just someone who simply distrusts everyone's experiences when they don't perfectly line up with their own worldview. There's a term for people like that, and it's not that much more flattering.

Regardless, don't fool yourself into thinking you've taken any kind of "high road". Regardless of your reasons, you have definitely descended into the low road here.


----------



## Gradine

Rygar said:


> Did it?
> 
> It's trivial for a group of political activists to create a wide range of shill accounts to make it look like 1 person is 10 people, or 100 people, or 1000 people.  It's also trivial to drive it with AI, especially on limited text platforms like Twitter, or to utilize bot networks to produce a scripted response that mimics thousands or tens of thousands of people.
> 
> It's also trivial to skew things to make herd mentality and group think turn to outrage.  Purposefully leaving out information to make something meaningless sound outrageous for example. The average person isn't going to research something their cousin said on Facebook, they're going to believe it and post it for their 200 friends, who'll repeat the process without researching it.  Leveraging that, you can outrage large groups of people who'll never take the 30 seconds to get the 2/3 of the story that was left out to make it sound like some heinous event.
> 
> So I'm not convinced that Social Media has done anything other than give ready examples of extreme forms of public manipulation by special interest groups and the psychology of manipulating large populations of people to produce desired output.




This is all true, and I didn't think of it in the moment. It's also true that internet echo chambers are not always the best things to subject oneself to.

Still, I'll argue that it's hard to discount the power of connecting large groups of people able to share their experiences across huge swaths of physical distance within moments.

I just think it's clear that that power has been leveraged more for ill than for good.


----------



## Brogga

Stop this silliness.  This has no place in a roll playing game.  Each table will play how they please.  We don't need social justice police dictating how this game should read or play.  Just stop it.


----------



## Andor

Wow. This slid downhill, although I suppose it was doomed to.

Here is my 2¢. 

Race is a lousy term.

There is no better term.

Race in D&D sometimes means ethnicity, sometimes it means species, sometimes it means culture, sometimes it refers to supernatural qualities. It doesn't always mean quite the same thing from table to table, edition to edition, setting to setting. 

In the end it refers to a set of specific mechanical changes to a character, with (maybe) some accompanying RP fluff baggage. It is a game term that has held roughly the same meaning for 40 years, I can't think of a different term that wouldn't have issues of its own. 

And just because this thread made me think of it, this: View attachment 95958


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone

Can I still play an elf,a dwarf, a halfling? Yes? Then I don't care what you call it.


----------



## jib916

I don't see what the big deal is. 

Paizo has the right idea. Ancestry leads to more options and customization. Humans can be more distinguished from there regions . Elfs can have many subtypes etc.

The fact people are making this a political thing is absolutely ridiculous.


----------



## TrippyHippy

Brogga said:


> Stop this silliness.  This has no place in a roll playing game.  Each table will play how they please.  We don't need social justice police dictating how this game should read or play.  Just stop it.



Nobody is dictating how the game should read or play. They are simply discussing the best words to describe things in a game. If we had a spell that seemed outmoded in anyway, would it really be an offence to change it to capture a different effect or description? It doesn't have to be political in intent, it's just a way of allowing the game to adapt and change. 'Race' (and 'Class'), to me, just seem a little loaded but more pertinently a little archaic as terms, regardless. This thread is merely a discussion of that point.

To me, the silliness is taking offence at something to the extent that you stop discussing ideas or thoughts - but isn't that what is happening when you say 'Just stop it'?


----------



## Mercule

Saelorn said:


> Fair enough, _if_ you make the further assumption that elves are some sort of inhuman alien species, rather than basically just humans with pointy ears.
> 
> Personally, I go with the assumption that the different races are all basically human, from the pragmatic perspective that _all_ players are human and it would be nigh-impossible for a human to successfully role-play as a wholly alien fantastic species. If elves don't learn to use a bow through practice, then the elven brain is so far different from anything a human can _pretend_ to be, that there's no point in even trying.



This may be the source of some of the issue. Personally, if an elf isn't essentially alien -- at least in some way -- then don't include them in the game. Dwarves aren't just short Scotsmen -- they're a completely different species of being that, despite appearance, has less biology in common with humans than a chimpanzee does. I'd actually like to do away with half-elves and half-orcs. They only make sense in a Tolkien-verse that holds the elves are magical enough to make it work and orcs are... well, actually, I'm not sure why orcs work.

Now, that doesn't mean that they should be wholly alien. They have to be playable. But, I specifically want to avoid "lithe, pretty humans with pointy ears". If nothing else, the extreme life-span should color who an elf is. The was an extremely good article on it in one of the old Dragon Magazines. I have it in a "Best of the Dragon" collection; volume 3, IIRC.


----------



## Brogga

Then the question is, would we have a thread 8 pages long if all we were discussing was a simple name change for a spell?  No.  In today's political environment, RACE IS HUGE.  So much so, that companies who produce table top roll playing games have to sit down and have a serious conversation as to whether it is a good idea to use the work race in their game.  Just silly.  And the fact that anything political would have any influence on a game that I love and have played for over 30 years makes my head hurt.  Seriously, just stop it.


----------



## Lylandra

I like Ancestry as an amalgamation of your type of humanoid (mh, we could call it that, couldn't we?) and your cultural background. 

I always thought what was called "race" to be purely biological and so a "hatred for orcs" and "elven weapon proficiency" made no sense if your dwarf was raised by gnomes or your elf was raised by nymphs. Pathfinder already acknowledged that and allowed for different racial traits which you could choose at character creation.

Also, and this is a language thing, I am very reluctant to use the term "race" in my mother tongue as it is *always* a very problematic term. Unless you use it to describe different breeds of animals. Our versions of D&D and PF used the word "peoples" which is... not really correct as usually these guys don't share a common ancestry. 

As a scientist, I would have used the term "species" for the biological part (as there was a book calles Savage Species which discussed "other PC races" and how to build them), even if they could all interbreed, because, let's be honest, we don't call outsiders or dragons "races" just because they can interbreed with humanoids (or animals or monsters). Cultural heritage or background would be the other part.


----------



## LordNightwinter

You can't force your views on people. Political correctness culture is getting way too out of hand.

“You can please some of the people all of the time, you can please all of the people some of the time, but you can’t please all of the people all of the time.”
-John Lydgate


----------



## pogre

Ancestry seems to hit the mark. I hope it gets used a lot and accepted. I never knew the word race brought so much baggage with it, but I'm an old, white guy. Sometimes I need to learn these things, because I don't have to experience them. Anything that makes someone else more comfortable at the table or makes RPGing more welcoming is an easy call. The term does not bother me, but so what - it bothers others, and that's enough for me.


----------



## Andor

Mercule said:


> They only make sense in a Tolkien-verse that holds the elves are magical enough to make it work and orcs are... well, actually, I'm not sure why orcs work.




In Tolkien orcs are corrupted elves. Morgoth had the power to corrupt, but not create. (Don't ask me what he bred Trolls and Dragons from though.) It's also worth noting that all the half-orcs we see in the books are the work of (and servants of) Saruman, so magic may well be involved in their procreation as well.


----------



## DemoMonkey

If we remove the term "Race", shouldn't we also remove the terms Elf, Dwarf, Halfling etc? What would those terms even be referring to without the concept of race?

(As has been pointed out in other posts, it can't be culture unless one assumes ethnic monocultures.)

Should all characters simply be referred to as "People" with no further differentiation?

What do we lose by that approach? And what do we gain?


----------



## DM Magic

LordNightwinter said:


> You can't force your views on people. *Treating people with respect* culture is getting way too out of hand.
> 
> “You can please some of the people all of the time, you can please all of the people some of the time, but you can’t please all of the people all of the time.”
> -John Lydgate




It's so hard to treat people with respect, amirite?


----------



## Phasestar

Agreed - unlike the real world, in D&D races refer to meaningful differences that are more than skin deep.  Elves, Humans, Orcs, Halflings and Dwarves do not just look different, they are different in major ways and that differentiation allows for a lot of interesting variation in gameplay.  The major differences in their cultures add to that variation, but are not a replacement for the differences in racial stats and feats.  If we had actual Elves walking around in the real world who were almost immortal, could see in the dark and were naturally attuned to magic, would anyone really be arguing that saying they are different than humans is merely a social construct?  I wish more folks would just accept fantasy for what it is and keep the real world concerns in the real world.


----------



## DM Magic

Brogga said:


> Then the question is, would we have a thread 8 pages long if all we were discussing was a simple name change for a spell?  No.  In today's political environment, RACE IS HUGE.  So much so, that companies who produce table top roll playing games have to sit down and have a serious conversation as to whether it is a good idea to use the work race in their game.  Just silly.  And the fact that anything political would have any influence on a game that I love and have played for over 30 years makes my head hurt.  Seriously, just stop it.




Changing the name of a spell doesn't affect PEOPLE. Race is HUGE because it always has been.


----------



## Grimstaff

While we're at it, I find the term "class" offensive. It implies a difference between people based on occupation. It's doubly offensive to place these classes at "levels" that can be quantified at higher or lower ranks than their fellows. I looks forward to class, level, and race being abolished from RPGs, so all of what I prefer to call "adventuring comrades" can be truly equal and judgment-free.


----------



## LordNightwinter

DM Magic said:


> It's so hard to treat people with respect, amirite?




Political correctness and respect are far flung concepts. And by the way, you aren't given respect, you earn it.


----------



## LordNightwinter

DM Magic said:


> Changing the name of a spell doesn't affect PEOPLE. Race is HUGE because it always has been.




You're talking about fictional people. The term doesn't need changing.


----------



## Mallus

LordNightwinter said:


> You can't force your views on people. Political correctness culture is getting way too out of hand.



Word usage changes over time. Terms fall in and out of favor. Cultural attitudes shift. Perhaps you have noticed this, yes?

No one is forcing anything on anyone. We’re discussing the continued utility of the word “race”. Feel free to keep participating. We can always use another ‘token white geek’!

(we’re probably down to 80% or 90% token white geeks around here)


----------



## Morrus

Brogga said:


> Stop this silliness.  This has no place in a roll playing game.  Each table will play how they please.  We don't need social justice police dictating how this game should read or play.  Just stop it.




Oops. Careless. Didn’t read the rules, huh? Or, really, the article? I mean, you just joined and all to say this. Don’t post in this thread again, and please read the rules about the use of derogatory terms like “social justice police”.


----------



## DemoMonkey

_"While we're at it, I find the term "class" offensive. It implies a difference between people based on occupation. It's doubly offensive to place these classes at "levels" that can be quantified at higher or lower ranks than their fellows. I looks forward to class, level, and race being abolished from RPGs, so all of what I prefer to call "adventuring comrades" can be truly equal and judgment-free."_

Control can be imposed only by force upon the high levels, by an adventuring party on the road to the moment of taking power from them, and then also ownership of the means of experience point production. 
~Leon Troutsky, 3rd Level Bard~


----------



## DM Magic

LordNightwinter said:


> You're talking about fictional people. The term doesn't need changing.




Nope, not talking about fictional people. But at least this shows us that you don't understand the discussion or why it's being discussed. This is good! It means you have time to turn back and reread the thread. Hopefully when you come back out the other side, you'll be better equipped to join us in the 21st Century.


----------



## Mercule

Celebrim said:


> Culture could include the elven knack with the bow but it's not required, and explicitly in my homebrew the elven knack with the bow has never been cultural, but explicitly racial.  Elves know how to use a bow or a sword without being taught how, so that an adopted elf raised among goblins or dwarves or humans, will still get their racial bonus to bows and swords.  The knowledge is built in and intuitive to them.  Other campaigns could make different choices, but that's how it works in mine.



And, I'm totally good with that. Personally, I'd never even thought about skills being truly innate for the various genotypes, which is why I used it as an example. Now you've gone and really screwed up the deconstructing of race. 



> Likewise, there seems to be slots for language built into the brain and all the baby has to do is figure out which sounds to plug into the basic slots, and this automatically happens at a certain point in brain development.



Almost like it was done on purpose....



> Yes.  Because if you are supporting darkvision similar physiological differences (like being a quadruped or not being a humanoid or even a demi-human at all) as part of a racial package, then suddenly the whole notion of a point buy race starts to seem really unreasonable.  Beyond that, if you are really actually having a point buy race, then you are basically allowing a 'build your own' race and race starts to be really meaningless.  What does it mean to be a member of a race of one, and to not share any features necessarily in common with anyone?
> 
> ....
> 
> If race stops being a package, we are doing away with the alien.  If we do away with the alien, we lose the ability to learn from our stories what it means to be human by comparing and contrasting humanity with things that are different than humanity.  None of my races are merely human tropes.   They are fantastic.   I don't want to lose that, and I sure as heck don't want do it yourself races.



Oh, I think we're pretty close, on this one. I was definitely not suggesting "do it yourself" races. I'm fine with point-buy games (say, Hero) saying, "To heck with the weird side-effects of forcing stat points on players. We've already balanced the cost of Dexterity, and assume that you're either playing an elf to type or have a good reason to play against type, so pay for the stat, yourself." If the GM wants to allow a higher ceiling for stat by race, that's a bit different, but the stat itself already has a point cost. Even in Hero, I'd still want the biology stuck into some sort of package deal. I just don't see a need to include things like stats, where the player already has to distribute points and there's an expectation of natural variance, anyway.

D&D is an extremely large-grained system and tends to force you to packages of some sort, be they class, race, or background. It actually wouldn't be out of line for a UA article to propose a handful of specific "default arrays" like "focused specialist" (one high stat), "balanced specialist" (two moderately high stats), and "generalist" (as flat as you can get), rather than any sort of point buy. That might actually give them an option to have arrays that aren't mathematically in line with point buy, but are more balanced against each other in play. The only way to scrap racial stat bonuses would be to force something resembling point buy on everyone, which would frustrate many people and still not solve the whole darkvision (etc.) thing.

As an aside, related to the RAW conversation: The large grained D&D system is one of the things that always bugged me, which might seem odd when I'm fine with the hand-waviness of something like Fate. I think it's a matter of large-grain character generation and small-grain task resolution. If the +1/+2 difference matters, then give me better access to the levers. I'm still much better with the Fate level of detail than Hero, but that's more based on my time availability. Both are at least consistent in how they handle granularity.


----------



## Enevhar Aldarion

Race is acceptable to me, but only in a fantasy setting that includes actual non-human races. We could use Human, Demi-Human, and non-Human without using the actual word "race", but that still feels a bit clunky.

As for ancestry, why don't we all just head over to ancestry .com and search for our long-lost elf, dwarf, or demonic ancestors.


----------



## LordNightwinter

DM Magic said:


> Nope, not talking about fictional people. But at least this shows us that you don't understand the discussion or why it's being discussed. This is good! It means you have time to turn back and reread the thread. Hopefully when you come back out the other side, you'll be better equipped to join us in the 21st Century.




Wow. You really don't get it then. My apologies. You're talking about changing fictional rules because of a word that seems to offend people that are offended by every little thing that has nothing to do with them. There, spelled out for you. Hopefully that didn't occupy too many of your brain cells.


----------



## DM Magic

Grimstaff said:


> While we're at it, I find the term "class" offensive. It implies a difference between people based on occupation. It's doubly offensive to place these classes at "levels" that can be quantified at higher or lower ranks than their fellows. I looks forward to class, level, and race being abolished from RPGs, so all of what I prefer to call "adventuring comrades" can be truly equal and judgment-free.




Thanks for joining the discussion in good faith!


----------



## DM Magic

LordNightwinter said:


> Wow. You really don't get it then. My apologies. You're talking about changing fictional rules because of a word that seems to offend*s* people that are offended by every little thing that has nothing to do with them. There, spelled out for you. Hopefully that didn't occupy too many of your brain cells.




As I said farther back, there are people of color posting in this thread. Maybe go back and see what they had to say about this.


----------



## Shadow Demon

Enevhar Aldarion said:


> As for ancestry, why don't we all just head over to ancestry .com and search for our long-lost elf, dwarf, or demonic ancestors.




In 5e, ancestry would be good substitute for sub-race and human ethnicity. Otherwise...no not really.


----------



## Mercule

DemoMonkey said:


> If we remove the term "Race", shouldn't we also remove the terms Elf, Dwarf, Halfling etc? What would those terms even be referring to without the concept of race?



There's actually a pretty good case for removing "dwarf", as a term -- probably better than "race", IMO. I'm not sure which use of the term is the derivation, though.

The term "race" doesn't bother me. Then again, I'm a white guy living in the northern midwest. Despite knowing a pretty sizable number of folks who are not white guys (including multiple workplaces where I was the "minority"), the closest I've ever heard "race" being used with negative connotation was as part of the word "racist".


----------



## DemoMonkey

We could use  "People of Feyness", "People of Stoniness", "People of Wee-ness" and "People of Fangness", and just substitute the word "Race" with "People", maybe?


----------



## Brogga

Morris,  I am truly sorry to read your moderator response to my post.  I find it interesting how controlled our speech has become and this is another sad example of how today's political correctness is seeping into something as innocuous as roll playing games.  Don't worry, I will not add any further comments to this thread but shame on you for judging me and my intent.  And by the way, I have been visiting this website since it belonged to Eric Noah, long before you were in the picture Mr Morris.  This is unfortunate indeed.


----------



## The Crimson Binome

Lylandra said:


> I always thought what was called "race" to be purely biological and so a "hatred for orcs" and "elven weapon proficiency" made no sense if your dwarf was raised by gnomes or your elf was raised by nymphs. Pathfinder already acknowledged that and allowed for different racial traits which you could choose at character creation.



Right, but then it _shouldn't_ be an issue, for as long as we constrain ourselves to Tolkien-esque worlds where each biological group has its own unified culture and there is no inter-mixing. The reason why half-elves and half-orcs exist is because humans _might_ conceivably bump into these other groups and mix with them, where it's inconceivable (from a worldbuilding perspective) that an elf could ever mix with a dwarf.

(Cue the Princess Bride meme)

But no, I actually mean it this time. The default fantasy setting (the same one where dwarves and halflings can't be wizards, and only humans can be paladins) is a world where an elf and dwarf would never mix under any circumstances. If your world doesn't fit that model, then feel free to change things until they make more sense, but there's definitely a _reason_ for why things are the way they are.


----------



## Celebrim

JonnyP71 said:


> Way to miss the mark completely Celebrim.




Then I am truly sorry.  Your post read to me like a sarcastic attack on the poster.   I'm sorry I mistook your intentions.   Although I don't game to 'escape life' per se, I do very much agree that sexism, racism, misogyny and all the other evils of the world are legitimate topics for exploration in the context of gaming, and I would not want to expunge those evils from the world of story.  Indeed, if I had my way it would only be through the world of story that we would be exposed to such evils, and only for the purpose of educating ourselves and fortifying ourselves against them.


----------



## LordNightwinter

I can see where this thread is leaning and obviously there's going to be no talking to people who can't see past their own misplaced views. I don't give a crap about a person's color, I have friends from all walks of life, people I love and respect. The final word here is that your ignorant views on race and racism have nothing to do with a fictional game. This thread has gotten way too out of hand and is leaning way too left.


----------



## Mallus

DemoMonkey said:


> Should all characters simply be referred to as "People"...



“People” works well as a substitute for race. The Elven People, the Dwarven People, the Orcish People, etc.

Come to think of it, there’s a fairly popular science fiction series where the interstellar civilization is called the League of Peoples.


----------



## Eltab

Early on, I played more *Gamma World* than *D&D*.  "Race" in GW does mean something - your genetic ancestry.  
GW allows you to be a Pure Strain (unchanged) Human, a Mutated Human, any sort of Mutated Animal, even a Mutated Plant.  The 'Race' fill-in-the-blank helped both you and the other players visualize your character.

Most fun pre-gen character I wrote up - and made available at conventions several years running - was a Mutated Cactus.  Naturally the players treated him as a melee combatant.  He was a blast.

My personal favorite PC, which I translated through several editions (but rarely got to play), was originally a Mutated Human.  After some IRL Biology research I converted him into a Mutated Chipmunk.


----------



## Celebrim

DM Magic said:


> It's so hard to treat people with respect, amirite?




Seeing as you have completely failed to do so at any point while you were involved in this thread, I'd guess the answer is that it must be.  

And at least, speaking for myself, that is my actually my experience.  It's easy to be respectful with people who agree with you.  It's hard to be respectful toward people who do not.  Disagreeing in a way that doesn't cause legitimate offense and frustration is hard.   I'm not actually convinced however that you are trying.

If people were banned for using insulting and dismissive terminology, you wouldn't have made it this far.  So, maybe a little bit of humility with regard to ones civility and manners would be in order, because from over here you don't really look the paragon thereof.


----------



## DM Magic

Celebrim said:


> Seeing as you have completely failed to do so at any point while you were involved in this thread, I'd guess the answer is that it must be.
> 
> And at least, speaking for myself, that is my actually my experience.  It's easy to be respectful with people who agree with you.  It's hard to be respectful toward people who do not.  Disagreeing in a way that doesn't cause legitimate offense and frustration is hard.   I'm not actually convinced however that you are trying.
> 
> If people were banned for using insulting and dismissive terminology, you wouldn't have made it this far.  So, maybe a little bit of humility with regard to ones civility and manners would be in order, because from over here you don't really look the paragon thereof.




Disagreement is one thing; you'll find it all over this thread. However, I have no interest in going toe to toe with people who dismiss the feelings of others as "misplaced views." Especially people who chime in with pejorative buzzwords. So no, no humility or manners are deserved for those people who do not engage in good faith.


----------



## Lylandra

Saelorn said:


> Right, but then it _shouldn't_ be an issue, for as long as we constrain ourselves to Tolkien-esque worlds where each biological group has its own unified culture and there is no inter-mixing. The reason why half-elves and half-orcs exist is because humans _might_ conceivably bump into these other groups and mix with them, where it's inconceivable (from a worldbuilding perspective) that an elf could ever mix with a dwarf.
> 
> (Cue the Princess Bride meme)
> 
> But no, I actually mean it this time. The default fantasy setting (the same one where dwarves and halflings can't be wizards, and only humans can be paladins) is a world where an elf and dwarf would never mix under any circumstances. If your world doesn't fit that model, then feel free to change things until they make more sense, but there's definitely a _reason_ for why things are the way they are.




Yep, but modern fantasy settings for roleplaying games are more often not really Tolkien-esque. And even Tolkien had Aragorn who was basically raised by elves, plus a Maia and an elf, as well as humans and elves conceiving children. 
(and really, kids being raised by someone else but their people is a tale old as dirt. See Romulus and Remus. Or the Ugly Duckling. Or Godfather Death. Or the Herculean myth.)

If you take a look at even 3.x campaign settings for D&D you'll see mixed populations in almost every city, especially human cities. 

So I doubt what you describe is the _default_ fantasy setting published today. It might have been true for AD&D. But certainly not for Pathfinder. Or D&D 4e/5e.


----------



## DemoMonkey

Look, there's only TWO types of people in this argument. The ones unshakably convinced of the correctness of their opinion, and that anyone who disagrees with them deserves only contempt, and...ummm...

...

Look, there's only ONE type of people in this argument....


----------



## Celebrim

Mallus said:


> “People” works well as a substitute for race. The Elven People, the Dwarven People, the Orcish People, etc.




In this contact, I think you are right.  On the other hand, if someone puts a prompt of "People:" followed by a blank, it might not be very intuitive what they are asking for.  I also think that "people" and "race" are just synonyms in this context, and as such I don't see what you are actually gaining by switching from the accurate and conventional terminology.

And I'm rather disturbed by the people who tout the advantage of "Ancestry" in that it would allow us to have a racial template for different ethnic groups.  That just weirds me out to be honest, especially because the proponents of that are all on about how they aren't the racists ones, it's everyone else.  Like really, you want have "Mwangi" or "Keleshite" when you choose your race?  That sounds like a dumpster fire waiting to happen.  So, I guess I like 'People' better than 'Ancestry' despite the awkwardness of the term, just because it helps kill that as an idea.


----------



## Obryn

So uh hey, it's 20 pages in.

Has anyone mentioned that PF2 is just following in the footsteps of the outstanding *Shadow of the Demon Lord*, which has been using Ancestry since its release?

edit: Wait, found one on Page 10!


----------



## Mercule

DemoMonkey said:


> Look, there's only TWO types of people in this argument. The ones unshakably convinced of the correctness of their opinion, and that anyone who disagrees with them deserves only contempt, and...ummm...
> 
> ...
> 
> Look, there's only ONE type of people in this argument....



Dude, I'm just here for the popcorn and to debate the mechanical implications of removing racial packages from the game.


----------



## DemoMonkey

_"__and to debate the mechanical implications of removing racial packages from the game."_

I don't think that's been explored, actually. If we eliminate race, should we also eliminate the elements that make the races different? Should Darkvision, Stonecunning, Trance (or "Keebler Coma" as my group calls it) and all the rest be available to every character in a mix-and-match fashion?

Is the very _concept_ of biological differentiation - not just the terminology - an undesirable relic?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

DemoMonkey said:


> _"__and to debate the mechanical implications of removing racial packages from the game."_
> 
> I don't think that's been explored, actually. If we eliminate race, should we also eliminate the elements that make the races different? Should Darkvision, Stonecunning, Trance (or "Keebler Coma" as my group calls it) and all the rest be available to every character in a mix-and-match fashion?




For D&D?  IMHO, nope.



> Is the very _concept_ of biological differentiation - not just the terminology - an undesirable relic?




IMHO, nope.


----------



## Obryn

LordNightwinter said:


> I can see where this thread is leaning and obviously there's going to be no talking to people who can't see past their own misplaced views. I don't give a crap about a person's color, I have friends from all walks of life, people I love and respect. The final word here is that your ignorant views on race and racism have nothing to do with a fictional game. This thread has gotten way too out of hand and is leaning way too left.



"Some folks find the word 'race' problematic because despite its gaming history, it has real-world connotations that may be uncomfortable to some people. Maybe it's time to use a more respectful word without the baggage."

But nah. You figure - "I'm a good person. I have friends from different cultures. How could I do wrong? How dare anyone insinuate I'm making anyone uncomfortable, or ask me to do anything differently than I am right now?"

Because really what you're saying is, you can't be bothered to change anything to make the game more welcoming. And real peoples' discomfort is meaningless compared to your desire for nothing to ever change, or the mere suggestion that something you've been doing for years might not be the best thing you could possibly do.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

I’m a black gamer.  I never had a problem with “race” in a FRPG context...though “species” was something I always found a more appropriate term.

But though I am a black gamer, I am not _all_ black gamers.  Some are touchier about it than others..or so I hear.  (Only met 2 others since 1977, and didn’t play RPGs with either of them.)


----------



## DM Magic

DemoMonkey said:


> "and to debate the mechanical implications of removing racial packages from the game."
> 
> I don't think that's been explored, actually. If we eliminate race, should we also eliminate the elements that make the races different? Should Darkvision, Stonecunning, Trance (or "Keebler Coma" as my group calls it) and all the rest be available to every character in a mix-and-match fashion?
> 
> Is the very _concept_ of biological differentiation - not just the terminology - an undesirable relic?




Just spitballin' here, but the way I see it is, what is now called race would be called a heritage or ancestry. And that would only include biological goodies. This would remove half-orc and half-elf and other half races -- you would just have orc or elf or whatever ancestry. As for the biological goodies, people with orc-ancestry would have the stuff that comes with having orc blood (superior strength or whatever) and people with elf ancestry would have the stuff that comes with having elf blood (darkvision or whatever). Stuff like automatically having proficiency in weapons would be moved to backgrounds.


----------



## the_redbeard

Celebrim said:


> In this contact, I think you are right.  On the other hand, if someone puts a prompt of "People:" followed by a blank, it might not be very intuitive what they are asking for.  I also think that "people" and "race" are just synonyms in this context, and as such I don't see what you are actually gaining by switching from the accurate and conventional terminology.




You really don't see what gaming would gain by dispensing with a term still used today to create oppressive stereotypes and justify the arbitrary oppression of them?  And that the people that were stereotyped still, today, have less than proportional representation among the gamer demographic?   Folks who want to keep the term say they game for escapism; that's fine.  The people who are negatively stereotyped by the social construct of race also deserve to use gaming for escapism.  When we use the term "race" in our games, isn't that a reminder?  

I'll ask again what I asked earlier in the thread: if one more gamer feels welcome in gaming because we move on from this term, wouldn't it be worth it?  
Are you so attached to this term (which you admit has functional equivalents *without the connotations*) that you would leave it as a barrier?

D&D moved on from gender-based ability score penalties years ago.  Why can't we move on from this?

Gaming should be for everyone that wants to participate, right?


----------



## pemerton

The biggest argument in favour of the OP's position? That _so many posts_ in this thread think that this is an issue to be addressed from an in fiction perspective (eg telling us how races were created in the legendary histories of various D&D worlds) rather than from a real world persepctive, which is where the actual action is.

Here's one striking illustration:



Shadow Demon said:


> this debate isn’t about the real world use of race.



The debate obviously _is_ about the use of the word "race" in the real world, ie that really-existing place where RPGing actually occurs.



Gradine said:


> this is so far down on the list of things that should probably be addressed that I literally cannot see the purpose of this besides to give folks some low-hanging fruit to rally around and, well, whine about "political correctness" and "social justice". Who does this actually help?
> 
> <snip>
> 
> we would be *much* better served as a community as a whole to devote our time and energy rooting out and correcting or removing those problems than we would be quibbling over what honestly amounts to little more than semantics.



I care about it. I don't encounter RPGing primarily as a "community" thing. I encounter it as a _cultural _thing - it's a hobby I engage in, and it brings with it a whole lot of stories and artefacts (books with words and pictures).

Most of my friends are not RPGers. Many think it's silly at best. One thing that reinforces their negative judgements is the preponderance of pulp-era sexist and racist tropes. I have many RPG books that I wouldn't want my young children to read, in part for these reasons.

So I would be happy if RPG publishers got rid of this sort of stuff from their books. And to be honest it seems pretty easy to do.



DemoMonkey said:


> "Race is probably the most accurate and genre appropriate word for describing different sentient fantasy creatures, but it is also a word that some people find offensive in the real world and should be changed to increase inclusiveness." ?



It's only "genre appropriate" because the genre, in it's origins, is infused with either romantic/reactionary (JRRT) or modernist/biological (REH/HPL and similar pulp) racism. I would be happy for the games I play, and the fiction they bring with them, to transcend those origins.



Jester David said:


> Funny thing... the race vs ethnicity debate is old.
> 
> Here's a scan from my Sociology textbook, copyright 2000
> 
> <snip>
> 
> This book pre-dates Twitter by 6 years and Facebook by 4.
> Looking at the citations in the book, this question and issue in a modern sense easily goes back to the mid-90s (and has much, much older origins).
> 
> This is not a social media issue. This is a long term cultural issue and problem with language.



You'll find discussions of race and ethnicity in sociology and anthropology texts going a long way back. The first anthropology text I bought and read was remaindered some time in the mid-80s, which means the extracts it contained were probably from the 60s and 70s. Ashley Montagu's Man's Most Dangerous Myth: The Fallacy of Race (an ironically dated title) was first published in 1942.



Aguirre Melchiors said:


> Try to portray real world etnicities in D&D is a hornest nest, a big one.
> Just look at the tomb of anihilation controversy



So does portraying pseudo-Europeans not count as portraying a "real world ethnicity"? The problem with ToA isn't that it's about "real world ethnicities". It's that it's casually racist.


----------



## pemerton

LordNightwinter said:


> Gamers don't need social justice in their games, for the most part we're one of the most accepting groups there is.



Many of the responses in these threads seem to run counter to your claim!

Oh, and look, here's one:



LordNightwinter said:


> Alright dude. You sound like you might have a little bit of bias, dare I say racism, toward white people from all of your arguments and negative commentary.



So suddenly it's racist against white people to note that (i) not all RPGers are angels, and (ii) RPGing is a predominantly white hobby?

You could have at least _pretended_ to be accepting!


----------



## dwayne

I like where they are going with this and always thought that a distinction should be made. If nothing else as a way for balance and fitting thematically into a setting and where the character was raised as oppossed to his inborn abilities. As the example above the resistance and magical abilities and adjustments could be bound to the race, and the other armor, weapons training and others to the background.


----------



## Pickaxe

I’m happier with Ancestry, though I could see making it “Ancestry or Origin”. Besides the modern social connotations, there are just a lot of ways the term “race” doesn’t really work unless you make it “You are part of a group that has some distinctive features.” Awakened undead and warforged are treated as races. Half-elves and half-orcs are treated as individual races, even though their ancestry is from two other races. Tieflings are humans that happen to express some features of a distant infernal ancestry, but they are treated as a separate race. None of these, I would argue, accord with even the most innocuous definitions of a race.

The race concept, to my mind, exists for the following purposes in RPGs:

-As a game design space.
-To allow player characters to distinguish themselves from some characters and to claim something in common with others.
-To reflect fantasy tropes that are themselves a reflection of the perspectives of the ancient peoples on which they are based.

I think Ancestry is more suitable for this task than race. Half-elves are not distinguished by being members of a race but by having a distinctive ancestry. And I think adding Origin to this is more inclusive of “race” concepts that have no component of inheritance, such as someone who is a dragonborn because they were a humanoid transformed by Bahamut.

I’m fine with leaving behind the term race, as it was poorly suited to the function it identified.


----------



## the_redbeard

LordNightwinter said:


> Alright dude. You sound like you might have a little bit of bias, dare I say racism, toward white people from all of your arguments and negative commentary. I will not be drawn in to a debate that I can't win because I'm the token white geek. I'm going to take the high ground and bow out. Good luck with your arguments. I wish you good luck and good fortune on all of your ventures. May the gamers you meet be better to you than the supposed ones you've met so far. For my part, if you have seen that side of things and only that side of things, I'm sorry. You're missing out on the better side of gamers. Good day to you sir.




You need to re-read the post you're replying to.  The poster said that a) they have gamed with good people, b) they have also experienced vile gamers and c) they said most gamers are white.

Please LordNightWinter, where did the post make a biased claim against whites?  Where did they express racism?  I can't find it in the post that you are replying to.  I suggest you re-read the post.

Also, it's pretty hard for you to be the "token white geek", given that the majority of gamers are white.  From my perspective, you seem very thin skinned and unable to accurately understand the view points of others.


----------



## Andor

LordNightwinter said:


> You're talking about changing fictional rules




No. There is no rule in D&D that mandates what races call each other. Elves and Dwarves can go right on calling each other stench-beards and daisy-fondlers, while Dragons don't care what you call them as long as they are properly seasoned. 

We are discussing the terminology used in a rule book printed here in the real world, and read by real people. Who may or may not take real offense. It is not for you or I to cast judgement on someone else's feelings of offense. In my experience when someone takes offense to something I thought was innocuous it usually means I was ignorant of the cause of their offense. Sometimes once educated I may find the justification weak, but that still doesn't invalidate their feelings. Sometimes the justification is BS, but obviously that's not the case here. If you don't know of any reason why anyone in the real world might take offense to the term race, there is an lengthy list of horrors attached to the term in the last century of human history. If you don't know what I'm talking about you aren't qualified to hold a position in this discussion, I suggest you begin your research by googling the term "eugenics."

The question is: Is the game term "race" a sufficiently loaded/offensive term that changing it will improve the commercial viability of the product, or would altering it actually reduce the value of the property by ticking off grognards, or introducing confusion? (A sub question is: What term can you replace it with that is not offensive or confusing?)

For me, the answer is "It's not worth the effort of changing in the face of the terms long history in the game." OTOH I have no particular attachment to the term, other that a combination of familiarity and a lack of a superior option, a publisher would have to try pretty hard to find a replacement term I found so stupid that I would actually refuse to buy a product I was otherwise interested in.


----------



## Enevhar Aldarion

Mercule said:


> Dude, I'm just here for the popcorn and to debate the mechanical implications of removing racial packages from the game.




Now you are just being sexist. Females do not have racial packages.


----------



## DM Magic

Obryn said:


> "Some folks find the word 'race' problematic because despite its gaming history, it has real-world connotations that may be uncomfortable to some people. Maybe it's time to use a more respectful word without the baggage."
> 
> But nah. You figure - "I'm a good person. I have friends from different cultures. How could I do wrong? How dare anyone insinuate I'm making anyone uncomfortable, or ask me to do anything differently than I am right now?"
> 
> Because really what you're saying is, you can't be bothered to change anything to make the game more welcoming. And real peoples' discomfort is meaningless compared to your desire for nothing to ever change, or the mere suggestion that something you've been doing for years might not be the best thing you could possibly do.




Thank you, Obryn. This topic is exquisitely frustrating for me and you said what I should have said. Eloquent and respectful. Well done.


----------



## Sunseeker

DM Magic said:


> Just spitballin' here, but the way I see it is, what is now called race would be called a heritage or ancestry. And that would only include biological goodies. This would remove half-orc and half-elf and other half races -- you would just have orc or elf or whatever ancestry. As for the biological goodies, people with orc-ancestry would have the stuff that comes with having orc blood (superior strength or whatever) and people with elf ancestry would have the stuff that comes with having elf blood (darkvision or whatever). Stuff like automatically having proficiency in weapons would be moved to backgrounds.




Actually, I think that'd be pretty cool.

Let people take X number of "ancestry" traits and it would _literally_ define their biological ancestry.  Perhaps they're just a mutt and thanks to that they've got darkvision, stonecunning and trance-sleep.  Or something.


----------



## Obryn

DM Magic said:


> Thank you, Obryn. This topic is exquisitely frustrating for me and you said what I should have said. Eloquent and respectful. Well done.



I'm trying a kinder, gentler approach. I am burnt out on piss & vinegar from an unrelated discussion about the merits of homeopathy. 

(That is, none. It has no merits at all.)


----------



## Flexor the Mighty!

ShinHakkaider said:


> D00d. STOP.
> 
> There is at no point in anything that I've said where I've even insinuated that it was becasue of Racism of White People.




I don't recall saying you did.  I just often read how problematic the ancestral makeup of D&D gamers is/was and wondered why it was a negative, and if there was some particular reason people think it developed that way?  Not trying to fight or anything, but I'll take my leave of this.


----------



## Leatherhead

Blood.

Blood is the word everyone is grasping for. We are talking about something to define "genetics" in a non-anachronistic sounding way.

The word "Ancestry" is almost already a dogwhistle for the word "Race" right now anyway.


----------



## Kite474

Eh sure, if it makes some folks comfortable sure. Gonna need a catchy replacement thought. Ancestry could work. Shadow of the Demon Lord uses it and it works pretty well. Especially when some of the stuff you play in that cant really qualify as a physical species  

I dont think we should get rid of race as mechanic though. Its a fun customization feature.


----------



## Celebrim

the_redbeard said:


> When we use the term "race" in our games, isn't that a reminder?




No.  And even if I thought it was, I don't think you can preserve the actual ideas and make any sort of meaningful change by just replacing a word.  Or, in the words of the proponent of this theory, "You still choose a *race*, only it's called an ancestry."   Leaving aside the silliness of thinking that a pointer to something is in itself problematic when the idea it represents isn't and is by their own admission basically unchanged, the act of dumbing down the language like that is threatening to the ability of society to think clearly.  The last thing we need is more of this Gleichshaltung and EngSoc manipulation of the language to prevent badwrongthink.



> I'll ask again what I asked earlier in the thread: if one more gamer feels welcome in gaming because we move on from this term, wouldn't it be worth it?




No.  Because it doesn't work that way.  It's just a logical fallacy, and I'm not required to treat the "if it saves one life..." type arguments as very serious.



> Are you so attached to this term (which you admit has functional equivalents *without the connotations*) that you would leave it as a barrier?




It's not a barrier.   If you think the word "race" is in and of itself derogatory and problematic, I just have no words.  But even if I conceded it was problematic, then it would be problematic not as a pointer but because of the idea it pointed to.  So if it really was problematic, just changing the word out wouldn't help.  But no one actually seems to really think we don't need race in our fantasy games; at most they think we should invent an obscuring imprecise term for what we are talking about so that we don't have to actually think about what we are talking about.

I mean, among the things that really bothers me about this is that the people pushing for "ancestry" actually are making it part of there justification that once you did that, then it would be just peachy keen to mechanically divide humanity into different races.  Oh swell, isn't that just so progressive.   The idea that there would be one gamer that feels unwelcome in gaming because you do that, probably doesn't matter to you much, because we are going to win on that one gamer that feels welcome, right?



> D&D moved on from gender-based ability score penalties years ago.  Why can't we move on from this?




LOL.  Oh dear.   So you are going to argue that "race" as a word is actually equivalent to gender-based ability score caps, but you aren't actually even slightly concerned about the fact that multiple posters in this thread are using this term shift as a cover for bringing actual mechanical race based packages to the hobby, and that actual idea would be blessed as all right then because we used the non-problematic pointer "ancestry"?  You got all your priorities absolutely backwards.



> Gaming should be for everyone that wants to participate, right?




Yes.  Absolutely.  That's one thing we can agree on.


----------



## Phasestar

DemoMonkey said:


> Am I correct in giving all different ideas their due and boiling this entire long heated discussion down to:
> 
> "Race is probably the most accurate and genre appropriate word for describing different sentient fantasy creatures, but it is also a word that some people find offensive in the real world and should be changed to increase inclusiveness." ?




Except for the last part, that's about right.  If we stop using every word someone finds offensive, even if used in a completely different context, what exactly will be left?  If the only requirement to stop using a word is that someone pipe up and declare that it has baggage, where is the line drawn on that?  I refuse to agree to this type of useless censorship.  When a word is used accurately, in good faith, with no malice and in a setting where it should not cause any possible offense, then to me the argument that it is nevertheless somehow offensive is without merit.

Moreover, the proposed synonyms all have slightly different meanings and are not better as alternatives.  It also seems likely that it is only a matter of time before someone finds one of the proposed synonyms offensive in some other way...


----------



## kenmarable

shidaku said:


> Actually, I think that'd be pretty cool.
> 
> Let people take X number of "ancestry" traits and it would _literally_ define their biological ancestry.  Perhaps they're just a mutt and thanks to that they've got darkvision, stonecunning and trance-sleep.  Or something.




Have 4 degrees of ancestry, (and these labels are off top of my head after a VERY long day, my oldest daughter’s pet rabbit died, so yeah, long day, but anyway) have Least, Lesser, Greater, and Full or Trace/Half/Strong/Full or some such, each with increasingly powerful abilities. You get 4 points/levels/whatever to use. So a Full Elven ancestry would have all the possibly abilities, but a Half-Elf/Half-Human would have 2 stages in each of those races. You could add all sorts of fun Least stages. So you want someone only mildly tiefling, be Greater Human/Least Fiendish, and so on. (Hmm, maybe “Strong Human and Trace Fiendish ancestry” labels might sound better, I dunno.) Or like Shidaku’s example, have 4 entirely different Trace ancestries for a very cosmopolitan, blended ancestry. Might be an interesting system to explore.


----------



## Sunseeker

kenmarable said:


> Have 4 degrees of ancestry, (and these labels are off top of my head after a VERY long day, my oldest daughter’s pet rabbit died, so yeah, long day, but anyway) have Least, Lesser, Greater, and Full or Trace/Half/Strong/Full or some such, each with increasingly powerful abilities. You get 4 points/levels/whatever to use. So a Full Elven ancestry would have all the possibly abilities, but a Half-Elf/Half-Human would have 2 stages in each of those races. You could add all sorts of fun Least stages. So you want someone only mildly tiefling, be Greater Human/Least Fiendish, and so on. (Hmm, maybe “Strong Human and Trace Fiendish ancestry” labels might sound better, I dunno.) Or like Shidaku’s example, have 4 entirely different Trace ancestries for a very cosmopolitan, blended ancestry. Might be an interesting system to explore.




Trace, Mild, Strong and Extra Spicy Ancestry!  

I think it would be most interesting to see blends of near-races, like Drow and Wood Elf.


----------



## Jay Verkuilen

Jacob Lewis said:


> Here's what had bothered me for the longest time, and I am quite serious on this: "Race" is largely acceptable in fantasy genres where they were once classified in older games as "human" and "demi-human". The connection was the assimption that all human-like races were evolved or created from the same mold in the same world by different deities as different expressions and aspects of the world created. I find this acceptable and meaningful and not overly concerned with modern alertism and hyper-sensitive overreactions.




Yeah, makes sense to me. 



> My only beef, speaking strictly in game terms, is how there is little emphasis on actual cultural differences for humans. Elves have come in all kinds of flavors, complete with significant changes in character packages, options, midifiers, etc. Elves being the primary example, of course, as we see similar treatments for dwarves, halflings, and other fantasy staples. But humans, who traditionally dominate the landscape as the most numerous, most varied, and most adaptable race on nearly every world is left flavorless, untouched, and purely vanilla. Is it caution to err with a conservative approach so as not to offend real-world races with interpretations that might be construed as offensive if viewed in the wrong light? Or something else?




I'm not entirely sure, but there have been a wider set of human cultures in worlds such as _Forgotten Realms_ and _Greyhawk_. The core areas of both are pseudo-Europes, of course, but there are plenty of other choices throughout and highly cosmopolitan areas such as Waterdeep and the City of Greyhawk, where one can encounter humans from all over the place. I put in a number in my own campaign world, which were explicitly drawn from RL human cultures, but of different times, due to the presence of planar travel at different times. Indeed, even RAH has many real world analog cultures, although they are treated in the manner of his times. 

Nevertheless, I think a lot of the reason comes from the fact that the main authors of these worlds were largely white guys from the Midwest or Canada who were highly interested in things Medieval who were mostly working on these worlds in the 1970s.


----------



## Obryn

Phasestar said:


> Except for the last part, that's about right.  If we stop using every word someone finds offensive, even if used in a completely different context, what exactly will be left?  If the only requirement to stop using a word is that someone pipe up and declare that it has baggage, where is the line drawn on that?  I refuse to agree to this type of useless censorship.  When a word is used accurately, in good faith, with no malice and in a setting where it should not cause any possible offense, then to me the argument that it is nevertheless somehow offensive is without merit



Who's actually arguing this? 

And why's there a big pile of straw on the floor?


----------



## the_redbeard

the_redbeard said:
			
		

> When we use the term "race" in our games, isn't that a reminder?





Celebrim said:


> No.




It's the same word.  How would that not be a reminder?



> And even if I thought it was, I don't think you can preserve the actual ideas and make any sort of meaningful change by just replacing a word.




Race as currently used in fantasy RPGs is used to represent distinct biological lifeforms with functional differences from each other.
Race in historical terms (which is the origin of the term in fantasy RPGs, from tolkein) was used to divide human people (who are functionally equivalent) into lesser and more superior groups.
Race in modern terms is a social construct, as an identity, and still used by some as a means to stereotype, degrade and oppress.

The actual idea of race was used to *create and invent* difference where there wasn't any.  The actual idea of race in fantasy rpgs is present in-game functional differences.

Those are two very different concepts.   Can you see that for clarity we should use a different word?



			
				celebrim said:
			
		

> Or, in the words of the proponent of this theory, "You still choose a *race*, only it's called an ancestry."   Leaving aside the silliness of thinking that a pointer to something is in itself problematic when the idea it represents isn't and is by their own admission basically unchanged, the act of dumbing down the language like that is threatening to the ability of society to think clearly.  The last thing we need is more of this Gleichshaltung and EngSoc manipulation of the language to prevent badwrongthink.




I'm advocating nothing of the sort.  If we were writing something about the history of eugenics, then we most certainly should use the term 'race' to describe the now disproven ideas of eugenics.



			
				celebrim said:
			
		

> It's not a barrier.




I'll go out on a limb here and say that your assertion is just like a an able bodied person saying that stairs aren't a barrier to someone with crutches.  How would you know? 



			
				celebrim said:
			
		

> If you think the word "race" is in and of itself derogatory and problematic, I just have no words.




Oh, come on. You know the history of the word.  You know the how the meaning of the word as used in RPGs is different than how it is used in the rest of society.  Why wouldn't we want to use a different word?




			
				celebrim said:
			
		

> But even if I conceded it was problematic, then it would be problematic not as a pointer but because of the idea it pointed to.  So if it really was problematic, just changing the word out wouldn't help.




The idea being presented (imaginary groupings of beings with functional differences) is a different idea (actual human beings with imagined differences).  So let's not use the wrong word for the wrong thing.





			
				celebrim said:
			
		

> I mean, among the things that really bothers me about this is that the people pushing for "ancestry" actually are making it part of there justification that once you did that, then it would be just peachy keen to mechanically divide humanity into different races.




No, what I see is people advocating for separating bonuses between creature type (origin, people, ancestry, "nature") and background (culture, training, life path, "nurture").  So you could have humans (same creature type, same stats) with different background packages (plains, sea-farers, etc.)



			
				celebrim said:
			
		

> LOL.  Oh dear.   So you are going to argue that "race" as a word is actually equivalent to gender-based ability score caps, but you aren't actually even slightly concerned about the fact that multiple posters in this thread are using this term shift as a cover for bringing actual mechanical race based packages to the hobby,




If I saw that, I would argue against it.


Meanwhile, up-thread someone posted testimony from someone who moved to a position of white supremacy because of the use of racial divisions in DnD.  I'll edit this post to show the link when I find it again.


----------



## TheCosmicKid

Leatherhead said:


> Blood.
> 
> Blood is the word everyone is grasping for. We are talking about something to define "genetics" in a non-anachronistic sounding way.
> 
> The word "Ancestry" is almost already a dogwhistle for the word "Race" right now anyway.



I'd say "blood" has more troubling dogwhistley connotations than "race" or "ancestry". The word is used a lot by... well, by precisely the sort of people and ideologies that we're supposedly trying to steer the game away from.

It also has the same problem as "ancestry" in that it's just not quite the right word. In natural English, it sounds weird to say that Legolas has "elvish blood" or "elvish ancestry" when he's actually an elf.


----------



## TrippyHippy

Personally, I cannot see how 'Ancestry' has any dogwhistle component at all.


----------



## the_redbeard

TrippyHippy said:


> Personally, I cannot see how 'Ancestry' has any dogwhistle component at all.




Ancestry was used by the upper classes of Europe to justify their power over the lower classes; 'good breeding'. They're just descendants of barbarian chiefs and bandit lords, and inherited what their ancestors took by theft and murder.  So they tried to dress it up with theories that justified their position.


Other terms more fantasy appropriate:

Peoples (it's actually what I wrote in my house rules document, 2015)
Kin (suggested in this thread, I like it too)
Folk (suggested in this thread, not bad either)
Type


Getting more monster manual-ish: Creature type


----------



## TheCosmicKid

the_redbeard said:


> Race as currently used in fantasy RPGs is used to represent distinct biological lifeforms with functional differences from each other.
> Race in historical terms (which is the origin of the term in fantasy RPGs, from tolkein) was used to divide human people (who are functionally equivalent) into lesser and more superior groups.
> Race in modern terms is a social construct, as an identity, and still used by some as a means to stereotype, degrade and oppress.
> 
> The actual idea of race was used to create and invent difference where there wasn't any. The actual idea of race in fantasy rpgs is present in-game functional differences.
> 
> Those are two very different concepts. Can you see that for clarity we should use a different word?



Firstly, clarity can be adequately provided by context. If I'm talking about my computer with you and mention my "mouse", there is no serious risk of confusion, even though I can walk into a pet store and use the word "mouse" to mean something entirely different. So mere homonymy is poor grounds for making a terminology change.

Secondly, what you're saying can interpreted to mean that real life and D&D are using "race" to refer to the _same_ concept, that of groups of people with functional differences, but real life is erroneous in its application and D&D is not. Much as if someone who believed that that David Copperfield performs real "magic" would be mistaken, but "magic" is very real in the D&D universe.

And thirdly, the argument you make against the term "race" applies equally well to the other contenders I've seen in this thread -- certainly it does to "ancestry", which means something very different than _"distinct biological lifeforms with functional differences from each other"_. It seems like you're aiming for a term like "species", but that doesn't quite hit the nail on the head either: biologically speaking, it is unlikely that elves and humans, who are very similar and can interbreed, are separate species. But a common biological term for a division of that sort below the species level is... "race". (EDIT: Written before your post immediately above. Yeah, "people", "kin", and "folk" all have this problem. "Type" is just too vague.)



the_redbeard said:


> No, what I see is people advocating for separating bonuses between creature type (origin, people, ancestry, "nature") and background (culture, training, life path, "nurture").  So you could have humans (same creature type, same stats) with different background packages (plains, sea-farers, etc.)



That seems reasonable. The OP is absolutely right that the difference between an elf urchin and a human soldier in 5E is weird, and that a sharper distinction between nature and nurture is in order. But I think "race" and "background" are perfectly fine terms for that distinction.


----------



## Afrodyte

the_redbeard said:


> Other terms more fantasy appropriate:
> 
> Peoples (it's actually what I wrote in my house rules document, 2015)
> Kin (suggested in this thread, I like it too)
> Folk (suggested in this thread, not bad either)
> Type




This sounds very similar to some things I remember from World of Darkness. Like, in _Changeling: The Lost_, the different types of changelings are called kiths, and they are even more different from each than elves and dwarves and halflings.  It'd be pretty easy to import something similar into D&D. I'm fond of Folk and Kin myself, though.


----------



## TrippyHippy

the_redbeard said:


> Ancestry was used by the upper classes of Europe to justify their power over the lower classes; 'good breeding'. They're just descendants of barbarian chiefs and bandit lords, and inherited what their ancestors took by theft and murder.  So they tried to dress it up with theories that justified their position.



Hold on. You're committing a fallacy of definition here insofar that you are criticising 'ancestry' by inserting and conflating it as being the same as 'good breeding' and then attacking this new term. I have 'ancestry' as do you - but that doesn't qualify the term as having any value placed upon it. Having 'ancestors' is a universal thing - which suggests nothing about social class or the value of one's breeding whatsoever.    

The problem with the term 'Race' on the other hand, is that - by definition - you are asserting a pseudo-scientific term that has, historically, ascribed value and worth in an oppressive way.


----------



## the_redbeard

TheCosmicKid said:


> Firstly, clarity can be adequately provided by context. If I'm talking about my computer with you and mention my "mouse", there is no serious risk of confusion, even though I can walk into a pet store and use the word "mouse" to mean something entirely different. So mere homonymy is poor grounds for making a terminology change.




The context makes that one very easy to tell the difference.  (Though I have fond memories of juvenile hilarity in deliberately taking mouse out of context in regards to mechanical mice that used balls.)




			
				cosmickid said:
			
		

> Secondly, what you're saying can interpreted to mean that real life and D&D are using "race" to refer to the _same_ concept, that of groups of people with functional differences, but real life is erroneous in its application and D&D is not. Much as if someone who believed that that David Copperfield performs real "magic" would be mistaken, but "magic" is very real in the D&D universe.




I don't think that's an argument to use it.  Because while it is "true" in the imagined world, it is false in the real.  So it is using the same word for a false (and insulting) concept on one hand and an imagined true concept on the other.

Worse, there are people in the real world who imagine the false to be true.

Why would we want to be associated with that?

I'm not saying we shouldn't play old games that use the term.  But if we're going to be making new games, shouldn't avoid the connotation?

We've had at least a few posters that didn't like the association.  Why wouldn't we try to make rpgs more inclusive?

We also have a link (gah - somewhere in those 20 pages) of some Stormfront poster that said they came to their white supremacist realization through the racial differences as presented in D&D.  Now, obviously that Stormfront poster had some problems and I wouldn't blame D&D for people that thought their katana could cut through a police car.  
Edit.  I couldn't find it in this thread because it wasn't here, but where this was being discussed elsewhere.  Link below.

We've got other terms we can use.



			
				cosmickid said:
			
		

> And thirdly, the argument you make against the term "race" applies equally well to the other contenders I've seen in this thread -- certainly it does to "ancestry", which means something very different than _"distinct biological lifeforms with functional differences from each other"_. It seems like you're aiming for a term like "species", but that doesn't quite hit the nail on the head either: biologically speaking, it is unlikely that elves and humans, who are very similar and can interbreed, are separate species. But a common biological term for a division of that sort below the species level is... "race". (EDIT: Written before your post immediately above. Yeah, "people", "kin", and "folk" all have this problem. "Type" is just too vague.)




I agree that 'type' is vague.  I was reaching.  What I'm not doing is critiquing without offering alternatives.

"People", "kin" don't have near the baggage of usage that "race" does.  Certainly not now and not in what I've read of the history of race theory (theory of race as a social construct).  I'm not a sociologist or a historian, but I have read more than a couple of books of the history of racism as an activist.

Link of a racist using D&D's use of the term "race" to rationalize their racism:


			
				https://www.raphkoster.com/2008/11/20/dd-as-a-racist-tract/ said:
			
		

> While doing research for this talk, I came across the Stormfront web-site. For those of you who are unfamiliar with this vile-corner of the internet, it is the world’s largest discussion forum for white-supremacists. One of the most popular topics is “Culture and Customs,” with one of the most active forums being “High Fantasy and Lord of the Rings.” …Others yield such laughably offensive as the thread: “Drizzt Do’Urden fans, do you find the books blatantly pro-Negro?”
> 
> …I came across “Learn All You Need to Know About Race from Dungeons & Dragons,” posted by Holy Roman Empire. I quote here liberally…
> 
> 
> 
> an actual racist that confused the terms D&D used said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> “I completely understood how there could be smart blacks and yet blacks be less intelligent than whites as a whole when I was a child. When was the first time I thought about an idea like that? When I got into Dungeons and Dragons at the age of nine or ten. I knew that elves were more agile than humans. I knew that because they had a +1 bonus (back when I started playing, now its +2) to Dexterity…
> 
> “And this point may seem a bit silly, but it introduces an important idea that most white people are conditioned not to believe in – racial essentialism…
> 
> “D&D also has a lot about racial loyalty. Elves band together in protection of their forests…
> 
> “…I think that some of those ideas I was exposed to as a child were good lessons that maybe helped me come to terms with ideas that are part of being a White Nationalist.”
Click to expand...


----------



## the_redbeard

TrippyHippy said:


> Hold on. You're committing a fallacy of definition here insofar that you are criticising 'ancestry' by inserting and conflating it as being the same as 'good breeding' and then attacking this new term. I have 'ancestry' as do you - but that doesn't qualify the term as having any value placed upon it. Having 'ancestors' is a universal thing - which suggests nothing about social class whatsoever.
> 
> The problem with the term 'Race' on the other hand, is that - by definition - you are asserting a pseudo-scientific term that has, historically, ascribed value and worth in an oppressive way.




My semicolon was meant as an elaboration.  I would agree that 'ancestry' is not as bad as race in its modern connotations, but it most certainly does have historical baggage in that some "ancestry" was deemed superior than others and was codified by law.  I don't disagree that it is an improvement over race due to modern usage.


----------



## Maxperson

the_redbeard said:


> Race as currently used in fantasy RPGs is used to represent distinct biological lifeforms with functional differences from each other.




Bingo.



> Race in historical terms (which is the origin of the term in fantasy RPGs, from tolkein) was used to divide human people (who are functionally equivalent) into lesser and more superior groups.




The origin is irrelevant.  All that matters is how it is used in RPGs, which is the above.



> Race in modern terms is a social construct, as an identity, and still used by some as a means to stereotype, degrade and oppress.




Even less relevant.  This has absolutely nothing to do with RPGs and how race is used.



> The actual idea of race was used to *create and invent* difference where there wasn't any.




So what.  This has nothing to do with RPGs.



> The actual idea of race in fantasy rpgs is present in-game functional differences.




Called race.  Yes.



> Those are two very different concepts.   Can you see that for clarity we should use a different word?




No.  There is no need for clarity that doesn't actually clarify anything.  Every single one of your examples that doesn't pertain to RPGs, causes no lack of clarity since they do not pertain to RPGs.  We don't need to change a word that is already clearly defined and used in RPGs.


----------



## Lanefan

DemoMonkey said:


> We could use  "People of Feyness", "People of Stoniness", "People of Wee-ness" and "People of Fangness", and just substitute the word "Race" with "People", maybe?



So does that make Dragons the "People of Halitosis"?


----------



## the_redbeard

Maxperson said:


> Bingo.
> The origin is irrelevant.  All that matters is how it is used in RPGs, which is the above.
> 
> Even less relevant.  This has absolutely nothing to do with RPGs and how race is used.
> 
> So what.  This has nothing to do with RPGs.
> 
> Called race.  Yes.
> 
> No.  There is no need for clarity that doesn't actually clarify anything.  Every single one of your examples that doesn't pertain to RPGs, causes no lack of clarity since they do not pertain to RPGs.  We don't need to change a word that is already clearly defined and used in RPGs.




Assertion IS NOT argument.  You can say 2+2=3 all you like.

Why is it relevant? I'll expand:
 - People who are negatively stereotyped by race might be reminded of it.  Many people on this thread have said they play games for escapism.  I know I do.  People who have been negatively stereotyped by race need escapism, too.  Why remind them of an insult when they just want to game like us?
 - People who still think of reality in terms of race might see justification in the continued use of the term in the same manner they use it (to describe groups with functional differences).  RPGs should not give racists any justification.  Think that's crazy? Read on below.

Here's a real life example of someone confusing the term.  Clarity is important.



			
				https://www.raphkoster.com/2008/11/20/dd-as-a-racist-tract/ said:
			
		

> While doing research for this talk, I came across the Stormfront web-site. For those of you who are unfamiliar with this vile-corner of the internet, it is the world’s largest discussion forum for white-supremacists. One of the most popular topics is “Culture and Customs,” with one of the most active forums being “High Fantasy and Lord of the Rings.” …Others yield such laughably offensive as the thread: “Drizzt Do’Urden fans, do you find the books blatantly pro-Negro?”
> 
> …I came across “Learn All You Need to Know About Race from Dungeons & Dragons,” posted by Holy Roman Empire. I quote here liberally…
> 
> 
> 
> an actual racist that confused the terms D&D used said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> “I completely understood how there could be smart blacks and yet blacks be less intelligent than whites as a whole when I was a child. When was the first time I thought about an idea like that? When I got into Dungeons and Dragons at the age of nine or ten. I knew that elves were more agile than humans. I knew that because they had a +1 bonus (back when I started playing, now its +2) to Dexterity…
> 
> “And this point may seem a bit silly, but it introduces an important idea that most white people are conditioned not to believe in – racial essentialism…
> 
> “D&D also has a lot about racial loyalty. Elves band together in protection of their forests…
> 
> “…I think that some of those ideas I was exposed to as a child were good lessons that maybe helped me come to terms with ideas that are part of being a White Nationalist.”
Click to expand...


----------



## Lanefan

shidaku said:


> Trace, Mild, Strong and Extra Spicy Ancestry!
> 
> I think it would be most interesting to see blends of near-races, like Drow and Wood Elf.



I kind of already have that now, in a way.

Taking the idea of half-elves and half-orcs to its logical (if perhaps a bit ridiculous) conclusion, a long time ago I made up a chart of what, in a typical fantasy setting, could in theory breed with what; using the MM, MM2, FF, the "kindred races", and some ideas of my own as fodder.  The game already had some of this built in - Giants could breed with Trolls, for example, to create the Giant Troll; and Centaur-Human action is a part of standard Greek mythology - I just wanted to see how far it could go:

 - what bred with what to create the Tabaxi, for example, and what could a Tabaxi now breed with?
 - if Dwarves and Giants are biologically related (as some posit they are) what are the intervening biological links and are they extinct?
 - Dryads seem capable of breeding with various different lifeforms - Humans, Elves and (in a manner of speaking) trees to mention just a few - where does that lead?
 - Humans can breed with both Elves and Orcs but can Elves and Orcs skip the link and breed with each other?
 - Are Humans and Hobbits closely enough related to interbreed?
 - etc.

And then you chuck in shapeshifters and deities (e.g. Zeus) and devils - yeah, it gets some kind of messy.

What I ended up with looked like a plate of spaghetti, there were so many lines connecting different things.

Lan-"this is the sort of thing I really hoped the Book of Erotic Fantasy would get into, along with resulting pregnancy chances and durations etc., but alas..."-efan


----------



## the_redbeard

Lanefan said:


> I kind of already have that now, in a way.
> 
> Taking the idea of half-elves and half-orcs to its logical (if perhaps a bit ridiculous) conclusion, a long time ago I made up a chart of what, in a typical fantasy setting, could in theory breed with what; using the MM, MM2, FF, the "kindred races", and some ideas of my own as fodder.  The game already had some of this built in - Giants could breed with Trolls, for example, to create the Giant Troll; and Centaur-Human action is a part of standard Greek mythology - I just wanted to see how far it could go:
> 
> - what bred with what to create the Tabaxi, for example, and what could a Tabaxi now breed with?
> - if Dwarves and Giants are biologically related (as some posit they are) what are the intervening biological links and are they extinct?
> - Dryads seem capable of breeding with various different lifeforms - Humans, Elves and (in a manner of speaking) trees to mention just a few - where does that lead?
> - Humans can breed with both Elves and Orcs but can Elves and Orcs skip the link and breed with each other?
> - Are Humans and Hobbits closely enough related to interbreed?
> - etc.
> 
> And then you chuck in shapeshifters and deities (e.g. Zeus) and devils - yeah, it gets some kind of messy.
> 
> What I ended up with looked like a plate of spaghetti, there were so many lines connecting different things.
> 
> *Lan-"this is the sort of thing I really hoped the Book of Erotic Fantasy would get into, along with resulting pregnancy chances and durations etc., but alas..."-efan*




Yeah, the in-game consequences of sex would be a lot more game-able than in-game sex.


----------



## Hussar

Some interesting arguments here.

Personally, I like origin.  It nicely encapsulates everything you want it to and doesn't carry any baggage.  The origin of your character is elf or dwarf or whatever.  Having that origin carries these mechanical implications.  Easy peasy and done.

Although I can certainly live with ancestry.  That works as well.  It's a pretty rare game where your PC was created from clay and breathed to life by a god.  By and large, your PC has parentage of some sort or fashion.  And that parentage is your origin/ancestry.

Not sure why this is generating so much noise.  But, unfortunately, the cynic in me is very sure why it does and it makes me sad.


----------



## Lanefan

the_redbeard said:


> We've had at least a few posters that didn't like the association.  Why wouldn't we try to make rpgs more inclusive?



No issues with making RPGs more inclusive.

The problem is, though, that it's rather sadly becoming less and less possible to include everybody as it seems more and more people (of ALL political/religious/social persuasions without exception) are finding more and more things to take offense to.  Then someone gets offended by the fact of someone else taking offense to something, and the spiral is on.



> I agree that 'type' is vague.  I was reaching.  What I'm not doing is critiquing without offering alternatives.



Props to ya for that! 

I've been trying to think of other options and really haven't got any yet.  Ancestry might be the best (though still not great) if only because of all that have been presented it's still the only one that covers characters with more than one 'race' in their genetic makeup e.g. half elves, half orcs, dragonborn, etc. as well as it covers those with just one.  Better for accuracy would be "genetic background" but that's some kind of ugly for parsing and use, and in something like 5e would also get confused with "character background".



> "People", "kin" don't have near the baggage of usage that "race" does.  Certainly not now and not in what I've read of the history of race theory (theory of race as a social construct).  I'm not a sociologist or a historian, but I have read more than a couple of books of the history of racism as an activist.



When I hear the term 'people' in this context I think of it as a direct synonym for the real-world use of race, except more often applied to smaller groups within a race (e.g. the Caucasian race, the Gaelic people), which if my interpretation is at all common means it won't help much.  "Kin" makes me think of Scottish clans. 

Lanefan


----------



## TrippyHippy

Just on a slightly irreverent tangent: where do Half Elves actually inherit their +2 Charisma from? Elves don't get it (Dark Elves only get a +1) and Humans don't have it either. So why do Half Elves?


----------



## Lanefan

TrippyHippy said:


> Just on a slightly irreverent tangent: where do Half Elves actually inherit their +2 Charisma from? Elves don't get it (Dark Elves only get a +1) and Humans don't have it either. So why do Half Elves?



Yeah, that's one I'd file under the need-to-fix category.  If Humans are +0 and Elves are made to be +2 then Half-Elves should logically be +1.

But, they gave enough other stuff to Elves and didn't give much to the Half-Elves, so this is what they did to compensate and logic goes out the window...


----------



## the_redbeard

Lanefan said:


> No issues with making RPGs more inclusive.
> 
> The problem is, though, that it's rather sadly becoming less and less possible to include everybody as it seems more and more people (of ALL political/religious/social persuasions without exception) are finding more and more things to take offense to.  Then someone gets offended by the fact of someone else taking offense to something, and the spiral is on.




You really think it is that hard to not be insulting?  What's amazing to me is that we have a single, concrete term with an acknowledged history of being insulting and people are resisting changing it for no other reason than "it's what's been done."  Nobody is going to take away your elfs, alright?  

If somebody hadn't already posted the Neil Gaiman quote about political correctness, I'd post it here.



			
				lanefan said:
			
		

> I've been trying to think of other options and really haven't got any yet.  Ancestry might be the best (though still not great) if only because of all that have been presented it's still the only one that covers characters with more than one 'race' in their genetic makeup e.g. half elves, half orcs, dragonborn, etc. as well as it covers those with just one.  Better for accuracy would be "genetic background" but that's some kind of ugly for parsing and use, and in something like 5e would also get confused with "character background".
> 
> When I hear the term 'people' in this context I think of it as a direct synonym for the real-world use of race, except more often applied to smaller groups within a race (e.g. the Caucasian race, the Gaelic people), which if my interpretation is at all common means it won't help much.  "Kin" makes me think of Scottish clans.
> 
> Lanefan




Yeah, I was just listening to a podcast about the death of Martin Luther King and heard LBJ describe him as a "leader of his people."  So, yeah.  Not typically with pejorative connotations, but still.

So, why not look at the actual taxonomy system?  Species and genus feel out of genre.  But what about "family", the next step in classification?  That at least would also fit with D&D's sub-speciation propensity, especially for elves.  Wood elves, Sea Elves, Grey Elves, High Elves, Eladrin, would all be in the "Elven family."


----------



## the_redbeard

Lanefan said:


> Yeah, that's one I'd file under the need-to-fix category.  If Humans are +0 and Elves are made to be +2 then Half-Elves should logically be +1.
> 
> But, they gave enough other stuff to Elves and didn't give much to the Half-Elves, so this is what they did to compensate and logic goes out the window...




Having to pass in both worlds gave them the practice so they could lie in both cultures.

Edit: but then that should be a nurture trait and not a nature, right?


----------



## Zarithar

Just call the various humanoids "species" instead of race and it'll be fine. Within each species, break it down into cultures (in the case of humans) or even "sub-species" (in the case of elves for example with drow, sea elves, etc). I agree though... the term "race" could be replaced with species. Ancestry is a little to vague in my opinion and suggests the same species if that makes sense.


----------



## Tonguez

I've always taken a species aproach to race anyway and striped out 'cultural elements' long ago - so swords and bows have nothing to do with race, although things like magical afinity, keen senses and even trances do.

Orcs Humans and Elves are a ring species with Humans at the center - Orcs are more Robust Hominids whereas Halflings are more Gracile form, as a related species Humans can cross with Orcs (only one step removed), I suspect they can cross with halflings too but they're just short humans anyway. 

Elfs and gnomes are fae species. Elfs evolved in high magic conditions which has affected there morphic nature to the extent that Elfs wil mutate as enviroments change (they have many subraces) they can also crossbreed with humans due to some weird morphic resonance.


----------



## Dualazi

the_redbeard said:


> - People who are negatively stereotyped by race might be reminded of it.  Many people on this thread have said they play games for escapism.  I know I do.  People who have been negatively stereotyped by race need escapism, too.  Why remind them of an insult when they just want to game like us?




Because if you remove every little thing that someone/some group is bothered by then there is nothing left. Virtually every 'evil' race would be gone for one, since here on enworld and elsewhere there's always the occasional attempt to link the drow or orcs or what have you to a real world race or ethnicity. You could likewise see any number of cultures object to D&D's take on elements of their legends, creatures, or way of life, and if you cater to one you cater to all. So if someone complains that the fae aren't handled with respect to say, common European conventions, then you would also have to remove anything that offended any other cultural group.

Frankly, you're not entitled to have creative works bend over backwards just to make sure you or anyone else aren't reminded of anything negative in life.




the_redbeard said:


> - People who still think of reality in terms of race might see justification in the continued use of the term in the same manner they use it (to describe groups with functional differences).  RPGs should not give racists any justification.  Think that's crazy? Read on below.




Did you just seriously quote an anecdotal story from an anonymous poster on a supremacist website and expect us to believe that this is indicative of widespread cultural effect with regards to race relations and/or perceptions? Get real. When you can come back with a peer reviewed study that shows conclusively that D&D's verbiage trains people to look down on others or really negatively affects racial interactions at all, then you can spout off about that. Till then it's nothing more than idle scare-mongering, something D&D has had to endure for too long.

Oh, and crack-pot racists like the one you quoted can justify any part of their insanity, changing 'race' to 'ancestry' or 'origin' certainly isn't going to deter them.[/QUOTE]



Lanefan said:


> The problem is, though, that it's rather sadly becoming less and less possible to include everybody as it seems more and more people (of ALL political/religious/social persuasions without exception) are finding more and more things to take offense to.  Then someone gets offended by the fact of someone else taking offense to something, and the spiral is on.




Quoted for truth, probably a more succinct form of what I was getting at above.



the_redbeard said:


> You really think it is that hard to not be insulting?  What's amazing to me is that we have a single, concrete term with an acknowledged history of being insulting and people are resisting changing it for no other reason than "it's what's been done."  Nobody is going to take away your elfs, alright?




Yeah, when the ever-shifting list of demands expands to include generic classifications, with no real substitutes of value, then yeah, it is too hard. Mostly because there's nothing 'insulting' about it, that's something you are choosing to be insulted by.


----------



## TheCosmicKid

the_redbeard said:


> We've had at least a few posters that didn't like the association. Why wouldn't we try to make rpgs more inclusive?



There exist _"at least a few"_ people who don't like the associations of "magic" and "demons" and "devils" because it seems like an attack on deeply held beliefs tied to a socially constructed personal identity. In the most literal sense of the word, the game is failing to be "inclusive" by keeping these terms and concepts in play. But I don't think we need to try to be more "inclusive" in that sense by changing the game, and I suspect you don't either.

I say this not to try and draw an absolute equivalence between the "demons" case and the "race" case. Hopefully, you can think of differences to justify caring about one more than the other. _The differences are my point._ We can, must, and do exercise some sort of critical judgment over whether to heed objections from people claiming exclusion. Merely invoking inclusivity is not the final word.



the_redbeard said:


> We've got other terms we can use.



I think my position boils down to: we really _don't_. "Race" is the natural English word that means what we're referring to. "Species" is the only other word I've seen that comes close. I'd happily write a SF game with "species", but it's just not quite the right fit for elves and dwarves.

I really do appreciate that you and others are offering alternatives. But they have so far amounted to (borrowing a metaphor from Twain) literary flat and sharp notes: you hear the word that was _not_ said, and you hear the gap in meaning between that and what _was_.


----------



## Hussar

What amuses and bemuses me the most in these types of topics is just how much people have internalized their own interpretations to the point where they can no longer distinguish their own idiosyncratic takes from what is actually stated in the game.

For example, angryDM talks about the elf raised in a human city not being proficient in longswords and bows.  [MENTION=4937]Celebrim[/MENTION] then claims that such proficiencies are the result of the nature of elves.  Elves innately know how to use swords and bows.  Only problem with that is that it's not true.  It's certainly not true in 5e where, while high and wood elves get it, drow do not.  They are all elves after all.  If it was innate to being an elf, then everyone would have the same thing.  Drow aren't proficient in any bows.  

Plus, it's specifically called out as _Elf Weapon *Training*_.  Kinda says it right there in the title.

In 3e, it's also called out as training - "Elves esteem the arts of swordplay and archery , so all elves are familiar with these weapons" (3e PHB p 16).

2e is silent on the issue - elves simply gain +1 to hit with bows and swords.  There is no background given whatsoever.

So, angryDM's point is pretty valid.  For a good chunk of the game's history, elves do not gain any innate understanding of swords or bows.  So, why does being an elf grant automatic proficiencies?


----------



## the_redbeard

Dualazi said:


> Because if you remove every little thing that someone/some group is bothered by then there is nothing left. Virtually every 'evil' race would be gone for one, since here on enworld and elsewhere there's always the occasional attempt to link the drow or orcs or what have you to a real world race or ethnicity. You could likewise see any number of cultures object to D&D's take on elements of their legends, creatures, or way of life, and if you cater to one you cater to all. So if someone complains that the fae aren't handled with respect to say, common European conventions, then you would also have to remove anything that offended any other cultural group.
> 
> Frankly, you're not entitled to have creative works bend over backwards just to make sure you or anyone else aren't reminded of anything negative in life.




Just examine your biases (which Tolkien didn't) and don't be lazy enough to base your fantasies on real world stereotypes.  It's also still possible to like problematic things.



			
				Dualazi said:
			
		

> Did you just seriously quote an anecdotal story from an anonymous poster on a supremacist website and expect us to believe that this is indicative of widespread cultural effect with regards to race relations and/or perceptions? Get real. When you can come back with a peer reviewed study that shows conclusively that D&D's verbiage trains people to look down on others or really negatively affects racial interactions at all, then you can spout off about that. Till then it's nothing more than idle scare-mongering, something D&D has had to endure for too long.
> 
> Oh, and crack-pot racists like the one you quoted can justify any part of their insanity, changing 'race' to 'ancestry' or 'origin' certainly isn't going to deter them.




Did I say it was widespread?  Did I say that D&D was training people?  You're putting words into my mouth.  But folks have said there's NO connection and yet there one is.

The classification of humans by race is something that persists and continues to be an ugly thing.  RPG rules are a small, tiny part of culture.  But they're reflective of the world.  This terminology is a product of its time, its embarrassing and there's no good reason to keep it.  Do you have one?  I haven't seen one in this thread.

Keeping the term won't keep me from gaming and I'm not going to spend as much energy on it as say, supporting the Oklahoma teachers.  But I'll have this conversation if I can make the gaming community better for it.

I'll note that you didn't quote this part of my post for another reason to change it:


			
				the_redbeard said:
			
		

> - People who are negatively stereotyped by race might be reminded of it. Many people on this thread have said they play games for escapism. I know I do. People who have been negatively stereotyped by race need escapism, too. Why remind them of an insult when they just want to game like us?




So you just don't give a damn about them or what?

Why are you so attached to a term that means something twisted (not just different, but twisted) from its use in game when you could use something else?



			
				Dualazi said:
			
		

> Yeah, when the ever-shifting list of demands expands to include generic classifications, with no real substitutes of value, then yeah, it is too hard. Mostly because there's nothing 'insulting' about it, that's something you are choosing to be insulted by.




Ever-shifting lists of demands?  Treating others with respect is that hard for you?


----------



## cbwjm

The term race is fine, there's no need to change it.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Hussar said:


> What amuses and bemuses me the most in these types of topics is just how much people have internalized their own interpretations to the point where they can no longer distinguish their own idiosyncratic takes from what is actually stated in the game.
> 
> For example, angryDM talks about the elf raised in a human city not being proficient in longswords and bows.  [MENTION=4937]Celebrim[/MENTION] then claims that such proficiencies are the result of the nature of elves.  Elves innately know how to use swords and bows.  Only problem with that is that it's not true.  It's certainly not true in 5e where, while high and wood elves get it, drow do not.  They are all elves after all.  If it was innate to being an elf, then everyone would have the same thing.  Drow aren't proficient in any bows.
> 
> Plus, it's specifically called out as _Elf Weapon *Training*_.  Kinda says it right there in the title.
> 
> In 3e, it's also called out as training - "Elves esteem the arts of swordplay and archery , so all elves are familiar with these weapons" (3e PHB p 16).
> 
> 2e is silent on the issue - elves simply gain +1 to hit with bows and swords.  There is no background given whatsoever.
> 
> So, angryDM's point is pretty valid.  For a good chunk of the game's history, elves do not gain any innate understanding of swords or bows.  So, why does being an elf grant automatic proficiencies?




It IS a valid point, and one I feel is entirely within the DM’s purview to change...along with dwarven fighting techniques, alignment and other _cultural_ or habituated traits.  Drow who primarily live on the surface might not have light blindness.  A human raised by dwarves might have stonecunning.

Because the MM & PHB entries describe _typical_ members of a creature’s type or subtype, not all of them.

But some things probably shouldn’t be touched regardless of background absent extreme justification (like som kind of magical intercession).  The changelings, cuckoos, adoptees, foundlings, etc. of fiction were different, but still retained their core species attributes. Tarzan learned much living with apes, but he was never to become as strong or large as one. Captain Carrot was more culturally dwarven than most dwarves, even though he was a human standing well over 6’ in height.  Despite being adopted by dwarven parents, he grew to full human size.

Which is why I don’t think the stuff we see in the creature writeups should be _officially _divorced from their underpinnings and made into another laundry list of character building options like Feats or Spells.  Homebrewing those changes is fine, OTOH, given proper context.


----------



## Ravenheart87

> Racial characteristics in D&D have changed over time. _Basic Dungeons & Dragons _didn't distinguish between race and class for non-humans, such that one played a dwarf, elf, or halfling -- or a human fighter or cleric. The characteristics of race were so tightly intertwined that race and profession were considered one.



Despite what a lot of people think, the BD&D race-as-classes weren't the original way of handling races and classes, but a simplified version designed for an entry product. Original Dungeons & Dragons handled race and class seperately, which became more pronounced after Supplement I.


> In _Advanced Dungeons & Dragons_, the changes became more nuanced, but not without some downsides on character advancement, particularly in allowing “demihumans” to multiclass but with level limits preventing them from exceeding humanity, who had unlimited potential (but could only dual-class).




Which is exactly how OD&D handled them by the time Supplement I was out.


----------



## james501

Jester David said:


> Absolutely. It’s just a term. Just like negro, retard, Eskimo, oriental, and Indian.




I am sure you are familiar with the term "false equivalence".

Also, "Indian" is an actual nationalty distinct from Native Americans.



Jester David said:


> “Ancestory” is as good a term as any. “Origin” would work too.




No, not really.

The terms themselves sound "off" and "wrong" in comparison to "race". THey sound too "past tense", too "forgone" so to speak, while "race" sounds more "present" and descritpive.

Also, while they may be fine for individualistic use they become awkard and problematic when needing to describe groups.

It's fine to say "he is of  Elf ancestry" but  not   " The Elven ancestry/origin has pointy ears"

See where it sounds silly ?

It would be like trying to replace "nation" with "descent" in real-life language. It doesnt cover the same meaning and wouldnt work as a synonym.

Other alternatives like "species" also dont work.

-Species sound too scientific, too impersonal, too dehumanising.  Whereas Race still retains the element of humane and personhood.



Jester David said:


> English is a robust language. We can find a better word. Heritage. People. Nation. Etc.




They still dont work.

-heritage sounds as awkar as ancestry/origin

-nation is a sociopolitical notion, not a biological one as race is

-people still doesnt cut it. Different ethnicities of one "race" can be different people. While "Race" retains the biological differentiation of each one of them.




Jester David said:


> The person offending _cannot be the judge of whether or not something is offensive or upsetting or causing emotional distress
> _




Disagree. Christian Conservatives were offended by all sorts of innocuous things. Other religious denominations are offeded by others. 




Jester David said:


> But I learned in college, waaaay back in my 2000-01 term, that the word is inaccurate as there's no real biological distinction between human cultural groups and that ethnicity, culture, and nationality were the proper terms.




Good thing, fantasy doesnt apply it on human people then ?


I also thought of changing the term but, so far none of the alternatives seem good enough.
"Scion" perhaps ?


----------



## TheCosmicKid

the_redbeard said:


> ...an acknowledged history of being insulting...



I really think you're overplaying your hand here. It's hard to see the term as being historically insulting when it has been and continues to be used as the neutral descriptor of the topic in everything from esoteric academia to the nightly news. Even the books you've been reading that deconstruct this whole thing are still about _race theory_. Yes, it's a sensitive topic, one under which a lot of people have been badly hurt. But so is "class", "gender", and "religion", and all those terms are on the D&D character sheet uneuphemized.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> Species sound too scientific, too impersonal, too dehumanising. Whereas Race still retains the element of humane and personhood.




The word itself goes back at least to the 1500s, which puts it well within the possible lexicon of the people in a typical FRPG.


----------



## james501

Dannyalcatraz said:


> The word itself goes back at least to the 1500s, which puts it well within the possible lexicon of the people in a typical FRPG.





"species" ?

Maybe but I would imagine it was used to describe animals, right ?
It doesnt sound appropriate for humanoid/sentient creatures.


----------



## Evenglare

Step 1: Examine the suggestion.
Step 2: Decide if the suggestion is simply change for change sake.
Step 3: If yes, garbage. If No, Enjoy!


----------



## TheCosmicKid

Dannyalcatraz said:


> The word itself goes back at least to the 1500s, which puts it well within the possible lexicon of the people in a typical FRPG.



Regardless of its origins, it's been hanging out with scientists for long enough for that clinical stench to seep into its pores.

(Setting aside the question of how and why people in a typical FRPG are speaking English of _any_ vintage...)


----------



## Shasarak

Jester David said:


> Race is a problematic term, that isn’t accurate and we’ve known is inaccurate for a century. People don’t fit into those categories.




If we have known that Race is a problematic term, that is not accurate for a century then I guess a game that is less then a century old would not have used that term.


----------



## james501

The funny thing I noticed is, the suggestions to use "nation,ancestry,origin,people etc" are actually kinda worse.

With "race" you can at least argue that is slowly being phased out of our culture/perception  and everyday language and will eventually be relegated to an antiquated word to describe humans. At which point it really isnt weird for fantasy to continue using it.

Whereas using terms like nation that are still very real, very common  and more important identity factors for most people, to describe non-human creatures on the basis of biological difference is more inapropriate.


----------



## Shasarak

Ancalagon said:


> Edit... aaaaand isn't your post implying that the OP is somehow "in league" with the website?




I thought that the OP was commisioned by the website owner to write articles.


----------



## Aldarc

LordNightwinter said:


> Political correctness and respect are far flung concepts. And by the way, you aren't given respect, you earn it.



Too bad you often have to work harder to earn basic human respect if you belong to a marginalized group. 



Celebrim said:


> And I'm rather disturbed by the people who tout the advantage of "Ancestry" in that it would allow us to have a racial template for different ethnic groups.  That just weirds me out to be honest, especially because the proponents of that are all on about how they aren't the racists ones, it's everyone else.  Like really, you want have "Mwangi" or "Keleshite" when you choose your race?  That sounds like a dumpster fire waiting to happen.  So, I guess I like 'People' better than 'Ancestry' despite the awkwardness of the term, just because it helps kill that as an idea.



Of course one safe way to work around that is to not lean so heavily on thinly-disguised real life ethnicities, peoples, and cultures as world-building shorthand when creating worlds. Compare the possible human ancestries of Golarion, for example, with what you would encounter in Eberron with "Brelish," "Karnnathi," "Thranic," or one of the cultures on Sarlona. 

Though I do not think that any given term for the design space that "race" currently occupies is perfect, it's growing increasingly clear that the gaming industry - which has long recognized this as a problem - finally has even intra-cultural traction to begin exploring alternative terms with more positive than negative feedback. 



Lanefan said:


> I kind of already have that now, in a way.
> 
> Taking the idea of half-elves and half-orcs to its logical (if perhaps a bit ridiculous) conclusion, a long time ago I made up a chart of what, in a typical fantasy setting, could in theory breed with what; using the MM, MM2, FF, the "kindred races", and some ideas of my own as fodder.  The game already had some of this built in - Giants could breed with Trolls, for example, to create the Giant Troll; and Centaur-Human action is a part of standard Greek mythology - I just wanted to see how far it could go:



I have done something similar. I vaguely recall, for example, having four major groups of humanoids: fey-kin, giant-kin, goblin-kin, and saurian-kin. Elves, "half-elves" (which was a misnomer), and gnomes were fey-kin. Humans (and tieflings), goliaths, orcs, "half-orcs" (also a misnomer), and dwarves were giant-kin. And goblins, hobgoblins, bugbears, and halflings! were goblin-kin. (Halflings were simply a variety of goblins with better PR.) I don't know if I would go with this division in other homebrews, but I still love the idea of halflings being far more closely related to goblins than humans. 



TrippyHippy said:


> Just on a slightly irreverent tangent: where do Half Elves actually inherit their +2 Charisma from? Elves don't get it (Dark Elves only get a +1) and Humans don't have it either. So why do Half Elves?



I don't think it's as simple as half-elves should get half the attributes of either. It could be that a human/elf pairing or half-elf/half-elf pairing results in the phenotypical expression equivalent of a +2 Charisma that is not naturally found in either elves or humans. This sort of thing is known to happen in animals.


----------



## Shasarak

DemoMonkey said:


> _"__and to debate the mechanical implications of removing racial packages from the game."_
> 
> I don't think that's been explored, actually. If we eliminate race, should we also eliminate the elements that make the races different? Should Darkvision, Stonecunning, Trance (or "Keebler Coma" as my group calls it) and all the rest be available to every character in a mix-and-match fashion?
> 
> Is the very _concept_ of biological differentiation - not just the terminology - an undesirable relic?




I am sure that the answer to that question must lie within the Canadian Census.


----------



## Shasarak

Obryn said:


> I'm trying a kinder, gentler approach. I am burnt out on piss & vinegar from an unrelated discussion about the merits of homeopathy.
> 
> (That is, none. It has no merits at all.)




Oh come on, it at least has a placebo effect so that is one merit of Homeopathy.


----------



## Dualazi

the_redbeard said:


> Just examine your biases (which Tolkien didn't) and don't be lazy enough to base your fantasies on real world stereotypes.  It's also still possible to like problematic things.




Tolkien didn't need to 'examine his biases' since most of his creative works are derived from other mythos' and heroic epics. There's nothing 'problematic' with his works. Also, that word has long since ceased to hold any meaning, it has been run into the ground to the point where it's simply used to denote something you don't like and something you would like others to dislike as well. 





the_redbeard said:


> Did I say it was widespread?  Did I say that D&D was training people?  You're putting words into my mouth.  But folks have said there's NO connection and yet there one is.



You cannot simultaneously claim that no real harm is being done or perpetuated and still then claim that the term is harmful and needs to be changed. It is 100% on the people advocating for the change to make the case why doing so is a good thing; that case has yet to be made, nor have any alternatives been offered that wouldn't be just as easily critiqued or co-opted.



the_redbeard said:


> The classification of humans by race is something that persists and continues to be an ugly thing.  RPG rules are a small, tiny part of culture.  But they're reflective of the world.  This terminology is a product of its time, its embarrassing and there's no good reason to keep it.  Do you have one?  I haven't seen one in this thread.




The classification of humans pretty much by definition can't be ugly, it's just a system, one with varying degrees of usefulness and applications. Might as well say math is an ugly thing, it has as much substance as a statement. The terminology is also A-Ok, and is still used on some government paperwork today as remarked earlier in the thread, and that's not even discussing fictional worlds with significant physiological differences. Lastly, as I said above it is on YOU to provide a compelling reason for change, and there hasn't been one yet, nor any workable solutions.



the_redbeard said:


> Keeping the term won't keep me from gaming and I'm not going to spend as much energy on it as say, supporting the Oklahoma teachers.  But I'll have this conversation if I can make the gaming community better for it.




I have quite a bit of confidence that the gaming community has been made 0% better as a result of this argument in one tiny corner of the internet.



the_redbeard said:


> I'll note that you didn't quote this part of my post for another reason to change it:
> 
> 
> So you just don't give a damn about them or what?




Not in the slightest. As I said earlier, it's on other people to manage their own emotional state, and expecting every creative work to avoid anything "problematic" is not only insane on its face but would ultimately doom any creative exercise whatsoever. Also, as I mentioned earlier, no one (yourself included) has put up anything even resembling hard numbers for how many people are so incredibly hurt by 'race' that it needs to be changed. Until we have more information on that, and its effect on sales, then no changes need to be made.



the_redbeard said:


> Why are you so attached to a term that means something twisted (not just different, but twisted) from its use in game when you could use something else?




Because it's accurate, it's still widely used today, and because the only thing "twisted" here is your belief that race is akin to saying voldemort in H.P. It's still taught as race theory last I checked, news organizations and politicians still talk of race relations, and again, even governmental forms regard it as such. This is not a dirty word by any stretch of the imagination, least of all in settings _with actual distinct races_





the_redbeard said:


> Ever-shifting lists of demands?  Treating others with respect is that hard for you?



 Save your tricks of rhetoric, please. "Treating others with respect" encompasses a dizzying number of topics and can vary widely from culture to culture, and your basic implication is that I am too callous to engage in basic civility, all the while you clamor for others to acquiesce to YOUR demands. If you were to treat the D&D/RPG community with respect, you might have brought a stronger case before clamoring for changes while simultaneously claiming the moral high ground without justification.


----------



## Aguirre Melchiors

Arguing that someone become racist for see the term race in D&D is the same argument that people used in the 80s to say that D&D makes you worship the devil. Cringe.
Justa a reminder, people dont use race to humans, not in D&D, just to diferentiate humans from magic creatures that DONT exist. 
this is a ''good'' a idea as safe space for only black people (we call it segregation)


----------



## Shasarak

TrippyHippy said:


> Just on a slightly irreverent tangent: where do Half Elves actually inherit their +2 Charisma from? Elves don't get it (Dark Elves only get a +1) and Humans don't have it either. So why do Half Elves?




Because Half-Elves have to work harder to fit in to society.

Kind of like naming your son Sue would be my guess.


----------



## pemerton

Phasestar said:


> If we stop using every word someone finds offensive, even if used in a completely different context, what exactly will be left?  If the only requirement to stop using a word is that someone pipe up and declare that it has baggage, where is the line drawn on that?  I refuse to agree to this type of useless censorship.



Who's censoring you? No one is stoppping you pubishing as many books as you like saying whatever you want about whatever "races" you want to dream up.

As far as the threat to your vocabulary is concerned - well, who would have thought that concepts of "race" might carry "baggage"? There's a head-scratcher if ever there was one!


----------



## TrippyHippy

Shasarak said:


> Because Half-Elves have to work harder to fit in to society.
> 
> Kind of like naming your son Sue would be my guess.



So, are we arguing that these are somehow nurture rather than nature traits.....maybe Cultural rather than Racial....?


----------



## james501

pemerton said:


> Who's censoring you? No one is stoppping you pubishing as many books as you like saying whatever you want about whatever "races" you want to dream up.




I think you know you are arguing semantics here and what the actual underlying issue is.


----------



## Shasarak

TrippyHippy said:


> So, are we arguing that these are somehow nurture rather than nature traits.....maybe Cultural rather than Racial....?




Maybe the combination of Elf and Human just makes them look good?  Just like the Elven Sword gene I suppose.


----------



## Lylandra

After a good night's rest, I have to throw another point into this moshpit of arguments:

Even if race is still used in non-derogatory contexts in the English language, then consider the following:
The UN said there is only one race, the human race and all of its members are to be considered equals. 

In D&D terms, this makes all humans have the same base stats and I guess this is why we don't see any magical or winged "other" human descendants.

Now we know that the term "race" is still used to describe differences in ancestral heritage and therefore phenotype. As you said, the media still continues to use the word - mostly in a non-discriminatory way - even if the word itself has its problems.

Now if you combine these two facts and take a look at "race" in a fantasy game, you'll see that these races, unlike humans, *do have* different ability boni or stuff they're good or bad at. Here, the same word is used for humanoids who are more different from each other than the Neanderthal from the Homo Erectus and who, biologically speaking, would have no reason to be able to produce offspring. 
(I know, I know, it's fantasy. Hence half-dragon pixies.) 

And while I definitely wouldn't say that this usage of the term "race" makes a gamer racist, it is 1) insensitive and 2) easily establishes a mental link between the two meanings of the word race if you don't reflect on the term.

And as a second thought: Did you notice that almost all RPG sytems use "gender" and not "sex"? Guess what'd be the reason for that...


----------



## Shasarak

pemerton said:


> Who's censoring you?




You know we can not discuss censoring in this thread, you need to go to the Meta forum to discuss censoring.


----------



## pemerton

the_redbeard said:


> It's also still possible to like problematic things.



This is true. There's no general correspondence of moral and aesthetic value.


----------



## LazarusKane

the_redbeard said:


> The idea being presented (imaginary groupings of beings with functional differences) is a different idea (actual human beings with imagined differences).  So let's not use the wrong word for the wrong thing.




But it´s the right word for the (right) thing


----------



## JonnyP71

Lylandra said:


> And as a second thought: Did you notice that almost all RPG sytems use "gender" and not "sex"? Guess what'd be the reason for that...




Because the term 'sex' makes us prudish Brits blush


----------



## pemerton

james501 said:


> I think you know you are arguing semantics here and what the actual underlying issue is.



I know what the underlying issue is. I don't think the poster I repllied to does.

A commercial publisher changing the terminology it uses to state its rules and express its fiction isn't censoring anyone.


----------



## Hussar

Dannyalcatraz said:


> It IS a valid point, and one I feel is entirely within the DM’s purview to change...along with dwarven fighting techniques, alignment and other _cultural_ or habituated traits.  Drow who primarily live on the surface might not have light blindness.  A human raised by dwarves might have stonecunning.
> 
> Because the MM & PHB entries describe _typical_ members of a creature’s type or subtype, not all of them.
> 
> But some things probably shouldn’t be touched regardless of background absent extreme justification (like som kind of magical intercession).  The changelings, cuckoos, adoptees, foundlings, etc. of fiction were different, but still retained their core species attributes. Tarzan learned much living with apes, but he was never to become as strong or large as one. Captain Carrot was more culturally dwarven than most dwarves, even though he was a human standing well over 6’ in height.  Despite being adopted by dwarven parents, he grew to full human size.
> 
> Which is why I don’t think the stuff we see in the creature writeups should be _officially _divorced from their underpinnings and made into another laundry list of character building options like Feats or Spells.  Homebrewing those changes is fine, OTOH, given proper context.




Oh, totally agree.  What a DM does in his or her own game is none of my or anyone else's business.  That's groovy.  What bemuses me though is when people mistake their homebrew for what is actually in the game.  They've done it a certain way for so long that they are no longer even aware that they have made changes and then start to argue that the way they've done it is somehow the "right" way of doing it, despite not actually being supported by the game itself.

And, frankly, I agree that I wouldn't really want the game to be changed so much that race/origin/whateverdahellwefinallysettleon is a la carte.  A baseline elf has elven weapon proficiencies.  I'm groovy with that.  That's the baseline.  If you want to deviate from that (such as AngryDM has) then go right ahead.  But, as an argument that somehow those proficiencies are innate to elves is actually not supported by the game.  

Granted, I'm banging the drum here on a single example, and I don't really mean to pick on [MENTION=4937]Celebrim[/MENTION] here actually.  It was just something that stuck in my head.  The argument is that race is the best term because race encapsulates elements that are not necessarily captured by, say, species because of the existence of magic.  And, sure, darkvision (or whatever you want to call it) or trance, yup, that's pretty inherent in being an elf.  But, that is still covered by terms like heritage or ancestry.


----------



## james501

pemerton said:


> I know what the underlying issue is. I don't think the poster I repllied to does.
> 
> A commercial publisher changing the terminology it uses to state its rules and express its fiction isn't censoring anyone.





I think it kinda depends on the reasoning.

Right now "race" is the most fitting word to describe creatures like orcs, elves, dwarves etc. It actually is more appropriate for fantasy than it is real life so there is no reasons to change it.

If the justification is "some may not like it" where do you draw the line ?

-Do you remove demons, necromancy or magic in general because they deter overly religious people ?

- Do you remove religion and gods because some people may have been raised in abusive religious households/communities ?

-Do you remove magic because some people may come from cultures where superstition of magic was a source of abuse ?

Etc etc.

Or say, you dont remove those elements, you just make up new awakrd sounding names for them, would that actually work or be better ?

I believe, with race gradually being phased out of everyday language and perception, it is fine to use in fictional terms.


----------



## Morrus

Brogga said:


> Morris,  I am truly sorry to read your moderator response to my post.  I find it interesting how controlled our speech has become and this is another sad example of how today's political correctness is seeping into something as innocuous as roll playing games.  Don't worry, I will not add any further comments to this thread but shame on you for judging me and my intent.  And by the way, I have been visiting this website since it belonged to Eric Noah, long before you were in the picture Mr Morris.  This is unfortunate indeed.




My name's not Morris. And you were asked not to post in this thread again. And challenging moderation in-thread is not permitted, so I'll gift you with a few days' break.


----------



## Ancalagon

Shasarak said:


> I thought that the OP was commisioned by the website owner to write articles.




Well, there's only one way to settle this...

....

Yo [MENTION=3285]talien[/MENTION], were you commissioned by Morrus to write this?


----------



## Mercule

TrippyHippy said:


> Just on a slightly irreverent tangent: where do Half Elves actually inherit their +2 Charisma from? Elves don't get it (Dark Elves only get a +1) and Humans don't have it either. So why do Half Elves?



As near as I can tell, it was an attempt to give the race a "niche" in 3.5 (IIRC). The vague justification is that the half elf generally takes the more appealing features of both parents. Considering the in game fluff is, and always has been, that half-elves are subject to prejudice from both sides, I find it somewhat incongruous.

It could also be taken as a bit offensive: "That half-elf girl better learn to shake her thang before the dandelion eaters or square faces decide to have themselves an old-fashioned lynchin'."

A couple real world examples came to mind, but that one turned my stomach enough.


----------



## Jester David

Shasarak said:


> If we have known that Race is a problematic term, that is not accurate for a century then I guess a game that is less then a century old would not have used that term.



You really think an insurance underwriter turned cobbler from the Midwest was at the forefront of that particular issue?


----------



## DemoMonkey

I would certainly think a cobbler would know how to properly categorize elves.


----------



## jasper

Ok some people are Ticked off by race and want to swap out ancestry.  As long you define it in the data dictionary section of your book. 
Ancestry the physical looks and some abilities of you pc.  Choose 1 from chart “A” and 1 chart “B” or 2 from chart “C”. Choose 2 chart 0. Or you can choose human +1 to all stats. Or Vary Human the feat thing. Note if you choose +x to stat you can only apply a max of 2 to stat. 
Chart 0. Pointed ears,  short under 3 feet, tall and muscles over 6.5 feet,  fat,  fey,  etc
Chart A. Long life (elf), choose melee weapon,  lucky feat, +1 stat, 
Chart B. Range weapon, darkvision, +2 stat, etc
Etc etc etc 
Changing the subject
Redbeard mentions ….Neil Gaiman who? Oh the author of Coraline. I saw the movie. You going to quote something from an author who I never hear of to make a point.  Yawn. Yes I google his quote.


----------



## Phasestar

Obryn said:


> Who's actually arguing this?
> 
> And why's there a big pile of straw on the floor?




In this same thread, we already have posts stating problems with "ancestry", the supposedly better term that replaced race in PF2.  

In this same thread, we have a poster stating "That we're using fantasy ethnicity is irrelevant because it's causing real world emotions."  Tell me where the limits on that argument are?  If context and actual word definitions are irrelevant and all that is required is for someone to have real world emotions regarding a word in order to ban it, where does that stop?

Multiple arguments here in favor of removing the word from the D&D lexicon, where it is used appropriately and without offense, are based on real world history and questionable use there.  I would rather see an otherwise neutral word that is used in good faith, correctly and without bias be "reclaimed" for lack of a better term and accepted rather than banned so that we can use less precise words in its place.

This is how it goes when you try to make sure you cannot possibly offend anyone - it's effectively a fool's errand because someone will always be offended and the end result is a diminishing of language and expression.  It's one thing to say let's not use clearly offensive terms that are derogatory, intended and only used as slurs or insults, etc.  It's another to start scrubbing language of otherwise neutral words that are used appropriately just because they were once used in an offensive way.  

Fundamentally, I'm in favor of not insulting people, but I'm against this kind of extreme speech enforcement and censorship, especially when there are no clearly defined logical limits.


----------



## Aldarc

Mercule said:


> As near as I can tell, it was an attempt to give the race a "niche" in 3.5 (IIRC). The vague justification is that the half elf generally takes the more appealing features of both parents. Considering the in game fluff is, and always has been, that half-elves are subject to prejudice from both sides, I find it somewhat incongruous.
> 
> It could also be taken as a bit offensive: "That half-elf girl better learn to shake her thang before the dandelion eaters or square faces decide to have themselves an old-fashioned lynchin'."
> 
> A couple real world examples came to mind, but that one turned my stomach enough.



I do think that the +2 Charisma fits with their Tolkien-source inspiration better, though there I would argue that they are less of the Elrond the Half-Elven sort and more of the Aragorn (i.e., Numenorean) sort, where they are an ancestry of humans with elven blood.


----------



## pemerton

james501 said:


> Right now "race" is the most fitting word to describe creatures like orcs, elves, dwarves etc. It actually is more appropriate for fantasy than it is real life so there is no reasons to change it.



They can be peoples (as in "free peoples" in LotR). Kin was suggested upthread. Ancestry also seems harmless enough.



james501 said:


> If the justification is "some may not like it" where do you draw the line ?
> 
> -Do you remove demons, necromancy or magic in general because they deter overly religious people ?
> 
> - Do you remove religion and gods because some people may have been raised in abusive religious households/communities ?
> 
> -Do you remove magic because some people may come from cultures where superstition of magic was a source of abuse ?
> 
> Etc etc.



For me, it's not "some people may not like it". As I posted upthread, I have RPG books that I wouldn't want my children to read, because of what those books convey about human identity, status etc.

The reason I don't care about demons and magics in my book is because I think they're fantasies. Whereas reactionary views about human identity are real things that matter to me, my family and my friends.


----------



## Jester David

james501 said:


> I am sure you are familiar with the term "false equivalence".



Yes, I am familair. 
Are you actually SAYING that I'm making a fallacious argument and that "race" isn't an inaccurate term at best and potentially offensive at worst?



james501 said:


> Also, "Indian" is an actual nationalty distinct from Native Americans.



Yes. I am aware of the existence of the 1.3 billion Indians from that subcontinent. Which is largely irrelevant to the inaccurate and offensive usage of the word to describe the First Nations, Metis, and Inuit people of North America. 



james501 said:


> No, not really.
> 
> The terms themselves sound "off" and "wrong" in comparison to "race". THey sound too "past tense", too "forgone" so to speak, while "race" sounds more "present" and descritpive.
> 
> Also, while they may be fine for individualistic use they become awkard and problematic when needing to describe groups.
> 
> It's fine to say "he is of  Elf ancestry" but  not   " The Elven ancestry/origin has pointy ears"
> 
> See where it sounds silly ?



So rephrase. 

"People of elven ancestry have pointed ears." 
There. That works just fine. That literally took me 2 seconds. 



james501 said:


> -Species sound too scientific, too impersonal, too dehumanising.  Whereas Race still retains the element of humane and personhood.



Species does sound too scientific. I prefer it for Star Wars/Trek. 

Race, however, brings along connotations of "pure race" and racial distinctions, which very much are not humane and have literally been used to deny people person-hood. To many, "race" is as dehumanising" as "breed".

And it's not like "race" as we use it is any less modern than "species". Race in the modern sense dates to the 17th Century. Meanwhile, "species" dates to the 14th Century. 



james501 said:


> heritage sounds as awkar as ancestry/origin



Only because you're making it. 
I'm sure people used to thing "black" and "African American" sounded awkward. Doesn't mean we should keep using the previous term.

And if given the choices of writing something that sounds awkward and writing something that makes people feel uncomfortable and carries a long history of racism, I'm going to choose awkward every single time. 



james501 said:


> nation is a sociopolitical notion, not a biological one as race is



The "elf nation" sounds just fine. 



james501 said:


> While "Race" retains the biological differentiation of each one of them.



You missed the part where Races are not really biologically differentiated and that the "races" have been mingling and mixing for 12,000 years.  
It's a term with a long history of use in racism, at its core being a way to define people as "white" and "non-white". Or, in the case of D&D, human or demihuman/ non-human. 

Yeah... I'm sure literally calling an entire group of people "non-human" won't cause intense emotions from anyone...



james501 said:


> Disagree. Christian Conservatives were offended by all sorts of innocuous things. Other religious denominations are offeded by others.



1) Who decides what is and is not "innocuous"?
2) Because you find their offences innocuous, it doesn't matter if you offend them?
3) Because one group is offended by innocuous things, all offences are innocuous? 



james501 said:


> Good thing, fantasy doesnt apply it on human people then ?



But the people who play are, well, people. 

It's not like the people in-world use the term "race". They just use "elf" or "dwarf". "Race" is a game term used by the gamers above the table.



james501 said:


> I also thought of changing the term but, so far none of the alternatives seem good enough.
> "Scion" perhaps ?



Pathfinder & Shadow of the Demon Lord use "Ancestry". I think One Ring uses "Origin". Those and "Heritage" are likely the choices D&D should pick from with its next edition.


----------



## james501

jasper said:


> Changing the subject
> Redbeard mentions ….Neil Gaiman who? Oh the author of Coraline. I saw the movie. You going to quote something from an author who I never hear of to make a point.  Yawn. Yes I google his quote.




Neil Gaiman isnt exactly uknown as you try to portray him.

That being said...the quote does come off as obnoxious.

Political correctness =/= treating people with respect.

Whitewashing history, religious censoring etc etc would also be political correctness.


----------



## pemerton

Phasestar said:


> If context and actual word definitions are irrelevant and all that is required is for someone to have real world emotions regarding a word in order to ban it, where does that stop?
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I'm against this kind of extreme speech enforcement and censorship



I think you're confused about what counts as "banning" and "censorship".

You're free to publish whatever you like about your imaginary "races".



Phasestar said:


> This is how it goes when you try to make sure you cannot possibly offend anyone - it's effectively a fool's errand because someone will always be offended



Yes, it's obviously a fool's errand to try to reduce racist connotations in fantasy story-telling!


----------



## james501

pemerton said:


> Yes, it's obviously a fool's errand to try to reduce racist connotations in fantasy story-telling!





Calling elves,dwarves orcs as "races" has no bearing and no relation to the real life "race" and its negative associations.

Cut the patronising tone.


----------



## Jester David

DemoMonkey said:


> I would certainly think a cobbler would know how to properly categorize elves.




Touche.


----------



## Obryn

Phasestar said:


> Fundamentally, I'm in favor of not insulting people, but I'm against this kind of extreme speech enforcement and censorship, especially when there are no clearly defined logical limits.



Where is "extreme speech enforcement" happening? Where do you see censorship? In what way do Shadow of the Demon Lord and PF2 fit into this argument, having already made a change? How in the world is a potential 6e deciding on "ancestry" any kind of censorship?

None of that is happening here.


----------



## Jester David

jasper said:


> Redbeard mentions ….Neil Gaiman who? Oh the author of Coraline. I saw the movie. You going to quote something from an author who I never hear of to make a point.  Yawn. Yes I google his quote.



He's the New York Times bestselling author of the books adapted into the movies _Coralie _ and _Stardust_ and the TV series _American Gods_ and _Neverwhere_. He's also written for the TV series _Doctor Who_ and _Babylon 5_. As a comic book writer he is most famous for the comic _Sandman_ which has won every single award a comic book can win and one comic books can no longer win.

When his new books go on sale, he doesn't just tour book stores, he goes on shows like Colbert. He's probably one of the five most famous genre writers in the world at the moment. Prior to _Game of Thrones_ on HBO he was probably more well known than George RR Martin.


----------



## Celebrim

Hussar said:


> What amuses and bemuses me the most in these types of topics is just how much people have internalized their own interpretations to the point where they can no longer distinguish their own idiosyncratic takes from what is actually stated in the game.




No, not at all.  I started playing around 1982 and was DMing by 1985.   My takes are takes that begin mostly in the late 1980's when I begin to try to organize my homebrew world in a more systematic way and ask big cosmological questions about how everything worked.  In point of fact, the origin of my take on elves not having bow proficiency not as a result of nurture but as a result of nature was based on the write up of Elvish deities in 'Unearthed Arcana' were it was implied that each of the elvish deities had given the elvish people a particular gift.  If it the ability to use bows and swords was a divine gift, then it was more biological than cultural.   I ran with that ever since.

I'm certainly aware that later editions have given different takes on different bits of lore I either had decided on, read in Dragon Magazine and adopted, or which actually differed from the lore of prior editions.  I view all that changing and changeable lore as just some other DM's house rules - their own take on the lore. 

You your said, "2e is silent on the issue - elves simply gain +1 to hit with bows and swords. There is no background given whatsoever."  Well, some of us that were gaming back then made our own decisions at that point.  We don't have to change those decisions just because some other DM got his ideas published.

Beyond that, the case of elvish archery is to me only an example meant to question the basic assumption that alien intelligences are similar enough to humans that if something is nuture or nature in humans, we can infer that it is nature or nurture in the alien.  In general, not only is that not true, but in particular I don't even think it's particularly interesting.  It's much more interesting in my opinion if the things that are not human are distinctly not human in various ways, and certainly I think it is far more imaginative if that is the case.  Obviously, your mileage may vary, but that's OK - I'm not going to insist that you adopt my points of view about everything.

You certainly should know by now that I have no loyalty to the RAW.  Part of the reason I have no loyalty to the RAW is that it keeps changing on me without my consent.  I didn't leave the RAW, it left me.



> So, angryDM's point is pretty valid.  For a good chunk of the game's history, elves do not gain any innate understanding of swords or bows.  So, why does being an elf grant automatic proficiencies?




AngryDM's point could be valid.  You are certainly free to imagine that any skill appearing in elves which would be a result of their nurture if found in a human is a result of their nurture when found it something else.  But the point I'm trying to make is that you should question whether this is true because it certainly doesn't have to be true, and I think AngryDM (and even the designers of 5e) are blind to their own assumptions.  There is a lot of that failure to question their own assumptions going on here.

One obvious problem with AngryDM's assertions can be to throw your argument back in your face.  Clearly the ability to use bows and swords is not cultural precisely because an elf raised in a city doesn't lose that proficiency.  I mean, it's right there in the rules that all elves have that proficiency regardless of background.   It's actually AngryDM arguing to change the rules to fit his preferred conception, and not me.


----------



## Celebrim

Jester David said:


> He's the New York Times bestselling author of the books adapted into the movies _Coralie _ and _Stardust_ and the TV series _American Gods_ and _Neverwhere_. He's also written for the TV series _Doctor Who_ and _Babylon 5_. As a comic book writer he is most famous for the comic _Sandman_ which has won every single award a comic book can win and one comic books can no longer win.
> 
> When his new books go on sale, he doesn't just tour book stores, he goes on shows like Colbert. He's probably one of the five most famous genre writers in the world at the moment. Prior to _Game of Thrones_ on HBO he was probably more well known than George RR Martin.




So argument from authority, eh?

I'm not going to touch Neil Gaimen's assertion, except to say that he is deeply wrong and his assertion about political correctness deeply dishonest.  There is much of his work I admire, and much I don't, but that quote reflects on him really badly.


----------



## Eltab

james501 said:


> - Do you remove demons, necromancy or magic in general because they deter overly religious people ?
> 
> - Do you remove religion and gods because some people may have been raised in abusive religious households/communities ?



Curiously enough, D&D had to deal with these problems in  the 1980's - and managed to do so without nearly the kerfluffle we are facing within the hobby over the 2010's issues.


----------



## jasper

Jester David said:


> He's the New York Times bestselling author of the books adapted into the movies _Coralie _ and _Stardust_ and the TV series _American Gods_ and _Neverwhere_. He's also written for the TV series _Doctor Who_ and _Babylon 5_. As a comic book writer he is most famous for the comic _Sandman_ which has won every single award a comic book can win and one comic books can no longer win.
> 
> When his new books go on sale, he doesn't just tour book stores, he goes on shows like Colbert. He's probably one of the five most famous genre writers in the world at the moment. Prior to _Game of Thrones_ on HBO he was probably more well known than George RR Martin.



Again I looked him up. I don't remember his name from B5 or who. The parts of Sandman comics ( I read at friends house long long ago in a young thin body) were boring. I quit reading comics in 89 when Marvel did the Inferno summer crossover all our comics series event.  Listing his street creds means jack. You do better mentioning a Football coach, rapper, or celebrity. HINT. If I don't know of x,y,z work, his quotes mean jack (beep).


----------



## james501

Jester David said:


> Yes, I am familair.
> Are you actually SAYING that I'm making a fallacious argument and that "race" isn't an inaccurate term at best and potentially offensive at worst?



It isnt innacurate when dealing with fantasy races which is the point. Also again, religion/gods/magic could be offensive to many.






Jester David said:


> So rephrase.
> 
> "People of elven ancestry have pointed ears."
> There. That works just fine. That literally took me 2 seconds.




What's the point of intentionally hampering easy language ?
"Race" in fantasy terms works fine in the same way "nation" and "nationality" do in real life. To censor those terms and adopt long winded phrases seems backwards.



Jester David said:


> Species does sound too scientific. I prefer it for Star Wars/Trek.
> 
> Race, however, brings along connotations of "pure race" and racial distinctions, which very much are not humane and have literally been used to deny people person-hood. To many, "race" is as dehumanising" as "breed".
> 
> And it's not like "race" as we use it is any less modern than "species". Race in the modern sense dates to the 17th Century. Meanwhile, "species" dates to the 14th Century.



Was  "species" used to refer to human classifications or animal ones ?
Not to mention the concept is much older : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_race_concepts#Etymology




Jester David said:


> Only because you're making it.
> I'm sure people used to thing "black" and "African American" sounded awkward. Doesn't mean we should keep using the previous term.




No, not really. It's the difference between saying "greek people", "greek nation" and "people of Greek ancestry".
Why use the last one when the first ones are easier ?
You still need a proper noun to describe what the  group of people itself is referred to as.
Just like we have nationality/ethnicity in reality, a similar construct for fantasy is useful.



Jester David said:


> And if given the choices of writing something that sounds awkward and writing something that makes people feel uncomfortable and carries a long history of racism, I'm going to choose awkward every single time.




The concept of "race" is older than the European racist construct. It wasnt always a racist negative aspect.
I think we can try to put taht in perspective.




Jester David said:


> The "elf nation" sounds just fine.




"Nation" is a sociopolitical construct as opposed to "race" which is a biological one.
All elves are of the same race but not necessarily of the same nation. That is true for many fantasy settings from Lotr to Warcraft and many others. it wouldnt be useful.


Jester David said:


> You missed the part where Races are not really biologically differentiated and that the "races" have been mingling and mixing for 12,000 years.
> It's a term with a long history of use in racism, at its core being a way to define people as "white" and "non-white". Or, in the case of D&D, human or demihuman/ non-human.
> 
> Yeah... I'm sure literally calling an entire group of people "non-human" won't cause intense emotions from anyone...




But we arent talking about the real-world conception of race but a fantasy one in which these groups are different biologically.
Since race is already a debunked antiquated term it is fitting for a fantasy setting.



Jester David said:


> 1) Who decides what is and is not "innocuous"?
> 2) Because you find their offences innocuous, it doesn't matter if you offend them?
> 3) Because one group is offended by innocuous things, all offences are innocuous?




1) Realistically ? The majority I would say for good or worse.
2) But does it matter ? In the context of religion, you couldnt make anything that wouldnt offend some. I am not talking about purposefully pissing them off, just doing your own thing inspired by myhts/legends and suddenly some religious people declare them satanic and offensive. 
3) No, but we as people can look at things logically, put them in context compare them with similar situations and make a judgement.





Jester David said:


> Pathfinder & Shadow of the Demon Lord use "Ancestry". I think One Ring uses "Origin". Those and "Heritage" are likely the choices D&D should pick from with its next edition.






Again, those terms dont sound fitting. I had explained my reasoning in the earlier post.


----------



## Jester David

Celebrim said:


> So argument from authority, eh?



The post I was replying to was mocking Neil Gaiman as an unknown. I was countering that he's not only known, it's hard to be more well known without being Stephen King to Tom Clancy...



Celebrim said:


> I'm not going to touch Neil Gaimen's assertion, except to say that he is deeply wrong and his assertion about political correctness deeply dishonest.  There is much of his work I admire, and much I don't, but that quote reflects on him really badly.



*shrug*
I get the intent and agree with it. There's extremism on both sides (and extremism is generally bad in all situations) but the *general intent* of things labelled as "politically correct" is to be nice to people and try not to upset them. There's other aspects to it for sure, but the term "politically correct" is usually not used _by _the people being "politically correct" and is a term used _at _them. It's largely derogatory. Mentally replacing it with another term de-powers that term while also reminding you that we're discussing real people.

(Plus, the quote was written, what, 5 years ago? There's a chance that modern things dismissed as being "politically correct" are not what he was referring to.)

He's also old enough and well read enough to probably remember the similar push-back against "political correctness" in the 1990s. Because every generation spends a decade learning the same lessons and slowly coming to grips with changing language and ways of thinking before the next generation comes up and pushes for further advancement. $50 says that we'll have another wave of pushback on being "politically correct" in 2035 as Millennials protest having to learn new words while the younger generation calls them out on their biases.


----------



## HawaiiSteveO

*Do We Still Need "Race" in D&D?*


And whom, shall I say, is asking . . ? 

View attachment 95966


----------



## talien

> Yo  @_*talien*_, were you commissioned by Morrus to write this?




I pitch these articles of my own volition, but I do get paid for them.  So in other words, Morrus doesn't ask me to write anything (he's never done this, as far as I recall). I pitch these articles and he approves them for posting.

This article came out of my research on writing the article about Black Panther/Wakanda, which led to the article about Oriental Adventures as well.


----------



## james501

pemerton said:


> They can be peoples (as in "free peoples" in LotR). Kin was suggested upthread. Ancestry also seems harmless enough.




"People" wouldnt really work. Just imagine it in real life context where the word is also used.
You have "Irish people" and "Irish nation/ethnic group".

When asking someone for his ethnic identity would you say "what people are you" or "what ethnicity/nationality are you" ?


"Kin" might work. It is uncommon enough that people could adjust to it. 



pemerton said:


> For me, it's not "some people may not like it". As I posted upthread, I have RPG books that I wouldn't want my children to read, because of what those books convey about human identity, status etc.
> 
> The reason I don't care about demons and magics in my book is because I think they're fantasies. Whereas reactionary views about human identity are real things that matter to me, my family and my friends.




I know the issue can be deeper than simply "not like it". That is why I gave more egregious examples.

Religions/gods/magic are all important parts in fantasy.
But there are possibly people who have suffered abuse in real life because of religion or magical superstitions. 

And they might not enjoy those things beyond simply "not liking them".


----------



## Celebrim

Jester David said:


> I get the intent and agree with it. There's extremism on both sides (and extremism is generally bad in all situations) but the *general intent* of things labelled as "politically correct" is to be nice to people and try not to upset them.




I fundamentally disagree.  But the history and motives of the movement are not something that can be discussed here.



> (Plus, the quote was written, what, 5 years ago? There's a chance that modern things dismissed as being "politically correct" are not what he was referring to.)




Sweet mother of Lincoln, that is such an important claim.  That's a breakthrough sort of statement.  You just hit on one of the huge points that completely undermine Gaimen's claim that it is just about being respectful to others and being nice.   I mean, you just literally rendered the claim false on its face.


----------



## jasper

Jester David said:


> The post I was replying to was mocking Neil Gaiman as an unknown. I was countering that he's not only known, it's hard to be more well known without being Stephen King to Tom Clancy...
> 
> .....



Was not mocking. I have read King and Clancy so they are KNOWN TO JASPER. Gaiman is NOT KNOWN TO JASPER. This is a great example on 'HOW FREAKING HUGE THE POPULATION OF D&DERS ARE" that you may know of an author and other people in the thread may have never heard of him. Repeat after me.
D&DERS ENJOY PLAYING D&D. THAT MAYBE THE ONLY CONTACT POINT THEY HAVE WITH OTHER D&DERS.
D&DERS ENJOY PLAYING D&D. THAT MAYBE THE ONLY CONTACT POINT THEY HAVE WITH OTHER D&DERS.
D&DERS ENJOY PLAYING D&D. THAT MAYBE THE ONLY CONTACT POINT THEY HAVE WITH OTHER D&DERS.
D&DERS ENJOY PLAYING D&D. THAT MAYBE THE ONLY CONTACT POINT THEY HAVE WITH OTHER D&DERS.
D&DERS ENJOY PLAYING D&D. THAT MAYBE THE ONLY CONTACT POINT THEY HAVE WITH OTHER D&DERS.
Some of you here are more real than Gaiman, King, or Clancy. Some of you can name all the "important" current D&D designers, celebs, etcs. Some of can not.


----------



## Maxperson

the_redbeard said:


> Assertion IS NOT argument.  You can say 2+2=3 all you like.




Which is why I reject your assertions that we need to change what race is in D&D.  



> Why is it relevant? I'll expand:
> - People who are negatively stereotyped by race might be reminded of it.  Many people on this thread have said they play games for escapism.  I know I do.  People who have been negatively stereotyped by race need escapism, too.  Why remind them of an insult when they just want to game like us?
> - People who still think of reality in terms of race might see justification in the continued use of the term in the same manner they use it (to describe groups with functional differences).  RPGs should not give racists any justification.  Think that's crazy? Read on below.
> 
> Here's a real life example of someone confusing the term.  Clarity is important.




Aberrational activity doesn't mean anything.  I can post 100x more examples of people confusing D&D with Satanic activity.  Should D&D be scrapped entirely because of their misinterpretation?  Unless you can show that it is a normal mistake(ie, a majority of people make it), this is just you asserting that a change that doesn't need to be made should happen.


----------



## LazarusKane

Regarding the "nature versus nurture" discussion or 







> So, why does being an elf grant automatic proficiencies?




When songbirds develope their songs witout learning (and there are other examples for such animal behaviour) then why shouldn´t (wood) elves  automatically gain proficiency with bows in D&D? 


PS: A link to the birds http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0095746


----------



## Eltab

Shasarak said:


> Kind of like naming your son Sue would be my guess.



Except that you inadvertently turned Sue into a half-orc instead of a half-elf: he has to develop his STR and CON, not his CHR, due to all the schoolyard fistfights he gets into.


----------



## Aldarc

There are a fair number of people claiming that changing the term "race" is "undeeded." If that is the case, then what exactly would be lost (of any real significance) if the term "race" in D&D was indeed changed to something else (e.g., ancestry, origin, heritage, etc.)? 



LazarusKane said:


> Regarding the "nature versus nurture" discussion or
> 
> When songbirds develope their songs witout learning (and there are other examples for such animal behaviour) then why shouldn´t (wood) elves  automatically gain proficiency with bows in D&D?



Because the bonus proficiencies are explicitly referred to as "_training_."


----------



## Jester David

james501 said:


> It isnt innacurate when dealing with fantasy races which is the point. Also again, religion/gods/magic could be offensive to many.



There's a big difference between changing the tropes and subject material of fantasy worlds and changing the terms the gamers use. We can remove offensive words without changing the subject matter itself. 

Also, we DO change what happens in the fantasy words to avoid offending people. In 2nd Edition they did remove "demons" and "devils" from the game along with assassins.
There's also very little ethnicity, sex, and gender based discrimination on D&D worlds. There's no ethnic or nationally slavery, and slavery itself is only present in "evil" kingdoms. Very little raping, pillaging, and torture occurs in D&D books. There's certain ugly subjects that get in the way of most people's fun that we've decided just don't belong in the game by default.



james501 said:


> What's the point of intentionally hampering easy language ?
> "Race" in fantasy terms works fine in the same way "nation" and "nationality" do in real life. To censor those terms and adopt long winded phrases seems backwards.



Why you're absolutely right! Let's start referring to orcs as "coloured people" then. After all, they're a fantasy race, so it's not going to harm any real people. And they are coloured compared to humans.



james501 said:


> Was  "species" used to refer to human classifications or animal ones ?
> Not to mention the concept is much older : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_race_concepts#Etymology



Okay, so I said 17th Century when it was really the late-16th Century. Your point? "Species" still pre-dates it by a good century. 



james501 said:


> No, not really. It's the difference between saying "greek people", "greek nation" and "people of Greek ancestry".
> Why use the last one when the first ones are easier ?



If it's okay to use "race" in a different way in the game than we use it in the real world, then why is it not okay to use "people" or "nation" in the exact same slightly different way?



james501 said:


> The concept of "race" is older than the European racist construct. It wasnt always a racist negative aspect.
> I think we can try to put taht in perspective.



No one is arguing that it is not.
We're arguing that the term "race" is not appropriate in a modern sense. How the term was applies or the historical usage of differentiating people is irrelevant to how it makes people feel today. 



james501 said:


> "Nation" is a sociopolitical construct as opposed to "race" which is a biological one.



_NO!
THAT'S THE WHOLE ING POINT! RACE ISN'T BIOLOGICAL. RACE IS A SOCIETAL CONSTRUCT WE IMAGINE AND PRETEND HAS A BASIS IN BIOLOGY BUT THAT DOESN'T ACTUALLY EXIST AS ALL HUMANS ARE FUNCTIONALLY BIOLOGICALLY IDENTICAL AND MORE DIVERSITY EXISTS WITHIN RACIAL GROUPS THAN BETWEEN THEM! THAT WHAT ARE CONSIDERED DISTINCT "RACES" SHIFTS OVER TIME BASED ON SOCIETAL VALUES! THAT THE ENTIRE CONCEPT OF RACIAL PURITY IS A MYTH!!! _

Race is 100% a sociopolitical construct. And pretending otherwise is ignorant. Like believing in phrenology. And saying that races exist in the fantasy world is subtly supporting the idea that races exist in the real world and that there's some basis to the concept of race and racial purity.



james501 said:


> All elves are of the same race but not necessarily of the same nation. That is true for many fantasy settings from Lotr to Warcraft and many others. it wouldnt be useful.



Which would be where some customisation of Ancestry would come in. What D&D refers to as "subrace". 



james501 said:


> But we arent talking about the real-world conception of race but a fantasy one in which these groups are different biologically.
> Since race is already a debunked antiquated term it is fitting for a fantasy setting.



It's not an antiquated term though. It's still one in use by some world governments. Like the US, which includes it in its census.

IF it were an antiquated term I would agree with you. And we could maybe find an antiquated term to replaced it. Which would work because then it wouldn't be emotionally loaded. But because it IS a term that is still in use, and is more in use than ever with the resurgence of the idea of keeping the "white race pure", marking with Tiki torches and holding rallies. 
There is STILL a lot of BS about race occurring in the world. That makes it a deeply inappropriate term to use. It is a term with strong, strong ties to the white supremacy movement and racism. Do you think that is okay? Do you want to tie D&D in any way with white supremacy? 



james501 said:


> 1) Realistically ? The majority I would say for good or worse.



So if the majority believes 1+1=3 then it's true.
Should I quote you the long litany of horrors than the majority of people once though was okay?



james501 said:


> 2) But does it matter ? In the context of religion, you couldnt make anything that wouldnt offend some. I am not talking about purposefully pissing them off, just doing your own thing inspired by myhts/legends and suddenly some religious people declare them satanic and offensive.



You're never going to not offend anyone. But that doesn't mean you should stop trying. 
I'm a Star Trek fan. I believe in Roddenberry's dream and the human potential. I don't think we should stop trying to better ourselves and improve humanity. 

And with that in mind I do think we can improve gaming and the language of RPGs to make it more inclusive and welcoming for other groups. Maybe not all groups (like fundamentalist Christians), but we shouldn't try to make changes with the extremists in mind. But that's not the case in this instance. 



james501 said:


> 3) No, but we as people can look at things logically, put them in context compare them with similar situations and make a judgement.



Right. That seems fair. And the people in this thread have looked at the term "race", looked at it's historical and modern context, and made the judgement that we can do better. 



james501 said:


> Again, those terms dont sound fitting. I had explained my reasoning in the earlier post.



Are you offended by them, though? Do they cause you emotional distress or remind you of people who do not think you are fully human or are a lesser person? Do they have strong ties to white supremacy and generations of dehumanisation?

No? Okay, then they're imperfect and awkward and poor fits but better than "race".


----------



## Jester David

jasper said:


> Was not mocking. I have read King and Clancy so they are KNOWN TO JASPER. Gaiman is NOT KNOWN TO JASPER.



If you quoted Tom Clancy to me and I replied:
"Tom Clancy who? Oh the author of Hunt for the Red October. I saw the movie. You going to quote something from an author who I never hear of to make a point. Yawn. Yes I google his quote." 
What would your reaction be?


----------



## Maxperson

Aldarc said:


> There are a fair number of people claiming that changing the term "race" is "undeeded." If that is the case, then what exactly would be lost (of any real significance) if the term "race" in D&D was indeed changed to something else (e.g., ancestry, origin, heritage, etc.)?




Everything.  The "issues" with race are the among the smallest of all the "issues" with D&D.  If we change race, we need to change the following greater issues.  Fighters, because far more people dislike violence in the real world than there are white supremacists.  Clerics, because there are far more religious people in the world than white supremacists.  Druids, for the same reason as clerics, but in addition you will have druids running around claiming climate change, and others who say that they are crazy.  Rogues, because a great many people in the real world dislike crime.  Wizard, sorcerer, and warlock(pacts with evil anyone),  because religion.  Paladin, see cleric and druid.  Monk, see cleric and druid due to their mysticism.  I'm sure if I tried I could find an issue with ranger.  Monsters(especially demons and angels) run afoul of religion.  

All of those are greater issues than [MENTION=22644]the_redbeard[/MENTION]'s example of a fraction of the population(racists), who play D&D(fraction of a fraction), and who are too stupid to understand race and confuse it(fraction of a fraction of a fraction).


----------



## jasper

Jester David said:


> If you quoted Tom Clancy to me and I replied:
> "Tom Clancy who? Oh the author of Hunt for the Red October. I saw the movie. You going to quote something from an author who I never hear of to make a point. Yawn. Yes I google his quote."
> What would your reaction be?



Here is what the quote basically says. Tom Clancy author of Red October "ethic/racial jokes are no longer funny. "


----------



## Aldarc

Maxperson said:


> Everything.



Your hyperbolic response (that fails miserably to answer the question) suggests the inverse to be true.


----------



## Afrodyte

Quick question: How many people who are arguing this issue are people of color?


----------



## LazarusKane

> Regarding the "nature versus nurture" discussion
> 
> When songbirds develope their songs witout learning (and there are other  examples for such animal behaviour) then why shouldn´t (wood) elves   automatically gain proficiency with bows in D&D?






Aldarc said:


> Because the bonus proficiencies are explicitly referred to as "_training_."




I think you missed my point:
There are some things that one species "have in their genes" that other species could only achive with active learning.

PS: I´m maybe wrong but I believe D&D 5 is the first edition that calls it explicit "weapon training", D&D 3/3.5/4 and Pathfinder call it (elven) weapon profiency or familarity


----------



## Shadow Demon

The other point is that race is a biological one in the fantasy world in contrast to only sociological in reality. The fact that it was believed to be biological gives it verisimilitude. Part of the reason the good sentient races work is because of constant threat from monstrous humanoid races and their relative isolation from each other (i.e dwarves in the mountains/underground & elves in the forest). Each has their distinct society without dependence on the other except in the face of a common threat.

However, let us not delude ourselves into thinking if there were two sentient races in reality that the “Planet of the Apes” scenario would not  play out.

Race is the right word while ancestry is too human in a fantasy world that is more than human.


----------



## DemoMonkey

I suspect a number of people opposed to the change of the word "race" are opposed, not based on that actual word, but on a pre-supposition that it represents the "thin edge of the wedge" or a "slippery slope" of changes. 






So really, all that is needed is for someone to guarantee that changing that one word is the end, in our lifetime, of all changes to the game that will be made on the basis of people taking offense.






...
Anyone?

Anyone?

Buehler?


----------



## james501

Afrodyte said:


> Quick question: How many people who are arguing this issue are people of color?




Yeah, I know where this is going and is terible reasoning.


----------



## Afrodyte

james501 said:


> Yeah, I know where this is going and is terible reasoning.




You do realize that projecting harmful motives onto other people who haven't flat-out said anything is against the community guidelines, right?


----------



## DemoMonkey

_"Quick question: How many people who are arguing this issue are people of color?"

_Fair question. You need both yes and no answers though.

So hi Afrodyte. I am not.


----------



## james501

Afrodyte said:


> You do realize that projecting harmful motives onto other people who haven't flat-out said anything is against the community guidelines, right?




Huh ???

I didnt ascribe "harmful motive" to you.

But this question is part of the logic :  "You are not [insert group] therefore you cant have an opinion or your opinion is biased and doesnt count".


----------



## MacConnell

DemoMonkey said:


> "Quick question: How many people who are arguing this issue are people of color?"




All of them.


----------



## Afrodyte

james501 said:


> Huh ???
> 
> I didnt ascribe "harmful motive" to you.
> 
> But this question is part of the logic :  "You are not [insert group] therefore you cant have an opinion or your opinion is biased and doesnt count".




*sigh*

It's right there: "Say how you feel or what you think, but be careful about ascribing motives to the actions of others." Point-blank, you have no idea why I asked that, or what I plan to say about the answers I get, so you have no business saying any of this to me. Now leave me alone.


----------



## Aldarc

LazarusKane said:


> I think you missed my point:There are some things that one species "have in their genes" that other species could only achive with active learning.



I'm highly skeptical that swords and longbows would reasonably qualify. On some level, the songbird comparison with elven weapon proficiencies seems like a false equivalence.


----------



## LazarusKane

Afrodyte said:


> (...)
> Point-blank, you have no idea why I asked that, or what I plan to say about the answers I get, so you have no business saying any of this to me.




So, to settle this: Why are you asking?


----------



## Maxperson

Aldarc said:


> Your hyperbolic response (that fails miserably to answer the question) suggests the inverse to be true.




So answer what I posted(which clearly was not everything) instead of evading.


----------



## Afrodyte

LazarusKane said:


> So, to settle this: Why are you asking?




Because I don't want to assume things about people participating in this thread before I say something I'm observing about it.


----------



## Pauper

Whew..can't believe I got through that whole thread.

I have noted a few people making the point that 'race' is a perfectly valid word to use for fantasy gaming, since the various folk being described are differentiated by explicit traits (dwarves are stocky and knowledgable about mining and stonework, elves are lithe and prize art and the archery skill). That part does make some sense to me.

The part that doesn't make sense is that D&D has never really treated the fantasy 'races' as being all that different, fundamentally, than humanity. I've very seldom seen someone portraying an elf character, for example, who really explores the idea of getting into the head of a character whose adolescence lasted about as long as the full lifespans of those around her, or who fully embraced the idea of coming from a culture that is drastically different from the human cultures we know. Basically, most players (and to some degree, the game itself) treats the other fantasy 'races' as different humans -- elves are skinny humans who are good with magic and sniff disdainfully at sentimentality, while dwarves talk about 'honor' and 'the clan' and basically drink twice as much as any sane human can. (And it's not just D&D; replace 'magic' with 'science' in the above statement and you can replace 'elves' with 'Vulcans' and 'dwarves' with 'Klingons' and not miss a beat.)

*That's* why the question of representation, what word we use, is important -- because insofar as the game presents non-humans as basically 'different humans', the concept of 'race' in D&D is precisely the concept of 'race' outside of D&D.

Contrast with gender, as some commenters already have; the argument could certainly be made that 'gender' isn't really that important in a game, and as long as we're not basically incorporating sex discrimination into the game's rules (hello, max 14 strength for halfling girls!), it shouldn't be a big deal. But the designers of 5th edition decided to make the explicit statement that gender can actually be whatever you as the player want it to be, specifically to be inclusive of players who also feel that gender as a construct used in the 'real world' doesn't really work for them. The people who feel that gender isn't a big deal are precisely the people who are comfortable with the default presumption of gender and thus don't feel excluded when binary gender is considered the default in the game.

The same is true for race. If you had a game where elves and orcs were sufficiently different from human that not just their mechanical portrayal but the actual way you'd play them in game makes them sufficiently different from human that they are clearly different and separate from humans, then you can probably argue that 'race' is being used as a clinical, descriptive term and not as an arbitrary construction. But in a game where elves and orcs are basically just humans with latex spirit-gummed onto different parts of their heads (hello Bright and its portrayal of orcs!), it's really hard to say 'oh, race is clearly the correct word, since orcs get a Strength bonus and elves get a Dexterity bonus, which makes them fundamentally different in their portrayal in-game'.

--
Pauper


----------



## kenmarable

Afrodyte said:


> Quick question: How many people who are arguing this issue are people of color?




I am not. I know there has been comments from people of color (yourself included) where some have a problem with it and some don't. I figure that's reason enough to swap a word out for something else that works just as well (if not better), because people should have fun playing these games rather than being uncomfortable with something unnecessarily included just because it's always been that way. If it is replaced there is literally zero harm to me and my games, and it helps others. Sounds great to me! 

However, personally, I just really don't like the use of "race" because it doesn't actually mean what RPGs use it to mean. It's simply the wrong word. Even if it wasn't offensive to some, I'd still want it replaced with a term that makes more sense for the blob of semi-related concepts they try to cram into "race." Being offensive (or even just uncomfortable) to some players is even more reason!


----------



## Tanin Wulf

Jester David said:


> _NO!
> THAT'S THE WHOLE ING POINT! RACE ISN'T BIOLOGICAL. RACE IS A SOCIETAL CONSTRUCT WE IMAGINE AND PRETEND HAS A BASIS IN BIOLOGY BUT THAT DOESN'T ACTUALLY EXIST AS ALL HUMANS ARE FUNCTIONALLY BIOLOGICALLY IDENTICAL AND MORE DIVERSITY EXISTS WITHIN RACIAL GROUPS THAN BETWEEN THEM! THAT WHAT ARE CONSIDERED DISTINCT "RACES" SHIFTS OVER TIME BASED ON SOCIETAL VALUES! THAT THE ENTIRE CONCEPT OF RACIAL PURITY IS A MYTH!!! _
> 
> Race is 100% a sociopolitical construct. And pretending otherwise is ignorant. Like believing in phrenology. And saying that races exist in the fantasy world is subtly supporting the idea that races exist in the real world and that there's some basis to the concept of race and racial purity.




Hmm. I'm not sure I'd go quite so far as to say "race" is 100% a sociopolitical construct. There do seem to be some DNA-level differences that ignoring racial factors harms our understanding of the disease. For instance: sickle cell anemia. 

NOTE: This is in no way an endorsement of racial superiority, or saying the differences in the races are important to society or anything else stupid/white-power-y.

Of course, the fact that my Gypsy (his preferred term over Rom) friend from Wisconsin has sickle cell disease... and he's the whitest (i.e. pale and pasty) guy I know. But his great grandmother was black, so he MOST LIKELY inherited that trait from her.

My point being it's probably not... 100% sociopolitical. Just mostly. Like 99%.

Put another way: genetics is really fun and cool if you can set aside all the politically loaded nonsense that non-geneticists throw around like they know what those terms mean in the context of genetics instead of sociology!


----------



## Celebrim

Pauper said:


> The same is true for race. If you had a game where elves and orcs were sufficiently different from human that not just their mechanical portrayal but the actual way you'd play them in game makes them sufficiently different from human that they are clearly different and separate from humans, then you can probably argue that 'race' is being used as a clinical, descriptive term and not as an arbitrary construction. But in a game where elves and orcs are basically just humans with latex spirit-gummed onto different parts of their heads (hello Bright and its portrayal of orcs!), it's really hard to say 'oh, race is clearly the correct word, since orcs get a Strength bonus and elves get a Dexterity bonus, which makes them fundamentally different in their portrayal in-game'.




That's an interesting perspective, and there may be something to it.  Certainly I am in the camp of, "Non-human races should be different to the point of being alien." and that perspective may be influencing my opinion.   But note, part of the reason I do that is that I feel I have to justify why anything in my game is in my game, and what I certainly don't want - either as perception or as conscious or subconscious reality - is for a race to be some sort of thin commentary on real world races.   If the dwarfs are drunken gaelic people, the elves are Nordic people, and the orcs are black people or some other 'scary' minority group, I'm going to feel like your world is either a bit racist or could easily fall into racism in the hands of someone who was prone to think in that manner.   Where as if the elves of my world are representative of child-like innocence and wonder, libertarian social values, and the simultaneously fragile but enduring natural world, no one is going to think my elves are meant to be a commentary on real world racial issues.  

Plus, the fact that my races are truly diverse to me builds strength into the setting, so that I can tell stories I could never tell if all my races were basically human.  One of the cities in my world is a rare alliance of elves and men, and it happened because an elf lord and a human lord were both imprisoned by a mutual foe.  Now an elf that is imprisoned in a dark dank place will usually die within a few days, because an elf deprived of beauty starves and loses the will to live.  The human lord however began to sing, and for the duration of their imprisonment the beauty of the human's singing kept the elf lord alive.   Now in the long lives of elves, that was basically just three generations ago.  His kindred do not forget that, so even with all the difficulties involved in keep a multiracial community (literally multiracial, and not merely multiethnic) and all the challenges it has making it work, they have persisted in their alliance.  I can't tell these kind of stories if you rob me of the uniqueness of the fantastic races.  What's the point in having a fantasy if you aren't fantastic?

What's the point of diversity if the least actual bit of diversity terrifies you?

As for Bright, I thought the first half the movie was surprisingly good, and the last half mostly embarrassingly bad.  There is a sense in which I think you are right, but I also think that they did at least try to portray the orc character in a way that was a bit alien.  In particular, the orc character was receiving information on sensory channels his human partner didn't have.  He was literally blind to a lot of things is partner found obvious, whereas the orc was portrayed in a way that for an human would be considered autistic and thus he was blind to a lot of information channels that his partner found so obvious that he didn't need to think of them.   That was hardly perfect, but then again it's still one of the better attempts at making the alien both alien and relatable in the movies.  I'd have to turn to books for better examples.   Still, I agree that one area that Bright failed is that it felt a little bit too much 'alien race is allegorical stand in for human ethnic group'.   I think it tried to be nuanced about that, talking both 'black lives matter' and 'blue lives matter' at the same time without condemning either one, but ultimately just wasn't written well enough for the seriousness of its subject matter.


----------



## MacConnell

kenmarable said:


> ... I know there has been comments from people of color (yourself included) where some have a problem with it and some don't. I figure that's reason enough to swap a word out for something else that works just as well (if not better), because people should have fun playing these games rather than being uncomfortable with something unnecessarily included just because it's always been that way. If it is replaced there is literally zero harm to me and my games, and it helps others. Sounds great to me!...



I am offended by the replacement of he with she.

I am offended by the term Dwarf.

I am offended by the term Halfling.

I am offended by the term Ogre.

I am offended that everyone will not treat me as the most important person in the universe, especially since I am pandered to have the emotional stability of a toddler.

I am offended by whatever I am convinced by popular media is to be the offensive term of the week.

None of that is , of course, true, but it is indicative of the progression of all mitigation to universal appeasement. It is all crap designed to create a problem where none exist; after all, conflict is profitable, and contentious people cannot be appeased.


----------



## Aldarc

Maxperson said:


> So answer what I posted(which clearly was not everything) instead of evading.



I don't think "evading" means what you think it does, nor is there any way to "answer" the nonsense that you posted. You posted a ridiculously hyperbolic and fallacious, non sequitor slippery slope argument (about everything other than "race") that failed to address the question in any real, meaningful manner. If you want to see what evasion looks like, then I recommend this post:


Maxperson said:


> Everything.  The "issues" with race are the among the smallest of all the "issues" with D&D.  If we change race, we need to change the following greater issues.  Fighters, because far more people dislike violence in the real world than there are white supremacists.  Clerics, because there are far more religious people in the world than white supremacists.  Druids, for the same reason as clerics, but in addition you will have druids running around claiming climate change, and others who say that they are crazy.  Rogues, because a great many people in the real world dislike crime.  Wizard, sorcerer, and warlock(pacts with evil anyone),  because religion.  Paladin, see cleric and druid.  Monk, see cleric and druid due to their mysticism.  I'm sure if I tried I could find an issue with ranger.  Monsters(especially demons and angels) run afoul of religion.
> 
> All of those are greater issues than [MENTION=22644]the_redbeard[/MENTION]'s example of a fraction of the population(racists), who play D&D(fraction of a fraction), and who are too stupid to understand race and confuse it(fraction of a fraction of a fraction).



This is the response given to a question about what would be lost if the term "race" was changed to something else presumably less offensive or loaded with connotative social baggage. As you can see, the quoted post evades the initial question through its hyperbolic use of whataboutisms, disrespectful ad hominems, and a slippery slope argument. Nowhere do they bother answering the question "what would be lost" in their post, apart from their initial assertion of "Everything," which comprises the first sentence, but is left argumentively unsupported by literally "everything" that follows in the post.


----------



## Gradine

pemerton said:


> I care about it. I don't encounter RPGing primarily as a "community" thing. I encounter it as a _cultural _thing - it's a hobby I engage in, and it brings with it a whole lot of stories and artefacts (books with words and pictures).
> 
> Most of my friends are not RPGers. Many think it's silly at best. One thing that reinforces their negative judgements is the preponderance of pulp-era sexist and racist tropes. I have many RPG books that I wouldn't want my young children to read, in part for these reasons.




Fair enough. Far be it from me to minimize the harm and damage this causes to you.

Maybe it's because I didn't really get into the game until the pulp-era obvious sexism & racism (but then again, 4e Chult), but this was never a huge problem for me and my peers in terms of entry to the genre. Far more problematic for them is the fact that most of my close friends are women, who spent much of time around nerd culture being told, either implicitly or explicitly, that tabletop games _weren't for them_, or that they just wouldn't _get it._ 

And maybe it's the academic circles I run in [most of my friends have degrees in Critical Race Studies, and I'm currently working on my second master's degree in Sociology (go ahead anti-PC brigade, roll your eyes if you must, if it helps I also _work_ at the university)], and I've never encountered the notion that "race' is an archaic or offensive term, either in modern, real world parlance or in the fantasy context. Maybe that's on me. It probably is. I'll eat crow on that one. Lord knows how difficult it can be to recognize the dehumanizing etymology of terms that have long since saturated common vernacular (see also, "gypped" or "lame".) 

So maybe that's why I struggle to see the urgency of the issue, particularly given what appear to be much greater problems in our hobby. Case in point, but you bring up ToA, an adventure filled with casual racism. An adventure that had not a single person of color contribute anything to it. A problem caused by gaming being (a) still a predominantly white hobby, and (b) the professional creative and publishing world still being very much a "good old boys" club, where who you know often matters more than talent. And how every time a company hosts an initiative or contest aimed at bringing more diverse voices to the table they are shouted down by the community at large for calls of "reverse racism" or "reverse sexism".

Or how, when conventions put out zero-tolerance policies against discrimination or harrassment, a significant portion of the white male snowflake community start throwing tantrums about how some hypothetical vindictive harpy is going to get them kicked out of their fantasy game party, and how isn't that the real crime here? 

Maybe this is a change that's simple to do, actually benefits people, and is, at least in the long-run, relatively non-controversial. The first two seem self-evident at this point, and should very well be good enough. I do worry about the third; not because it matters what these people think, but because I worry about how that might distract time and energy away from issues that appear, at least to be, to be more urgent.

And maybe that's the wrong way to think about it. I'd be willing to concede that. Maybe we can walk and chew bubblegum at the same time.


----------



## Curmudjinn

This topic is a meme. It's like a Yahoo news article.

The origin of race was used to describe the difference in human culture groups. It makes sense to use it in games for a similar approach, but isn't a truly accurate term outside of a single species.
The root of the issue isn't the term, it's the people that use it negatively enough to create a bad taste from its use. Even if the term changes, the next term will take its place and do the same.
You can change how it's written or throw whatever term we want out there, but humans will be humans.

Change the roots to change the branches.


----------



## Andor

Afrodyte said:


> Quick question: How many people who are arguing this issue are people of color?




IIRC about 3 or 4 people in this thread have self-identified as people of colour. I have no idea, of course, how many have not.


----------



## LazarusKane

Pauper said:


> Whew..can't believe I got through that whole thread.




Congratulation! 



Pauper said:


> (...)
> The part that doesn't make sense is that D&D has never really treated the fantasy 'races' as being all that different, fundamentally, than humanity. I've very seldom seen someone portraying an elf character, for example, who really explores the idea of getting into the head of a character whose adolescence lasted about as long as the full lifespans of those around her, or who fully embraced the idea of coming from a culture that is drastically different from the human cultures we know. Basically, most players (and to some degree, the game itself) treats the other fantasy 'races' as different humans -- elves are skinny humans who are good with magic and sniff disdainfully at sentimentality, while dwarves talk about 'honor' and 'the clan' and basically drink twice as much as any sane human can. (And it's not just D&D; replace 'magic' with 'science' in the above statement and you can replace 'elves' with 'Vulcans' and 'dwarves' with 'Klingons' and not miss a beat.)
> 
> *That's* why the question of representation, what word we use, is important -- because insofar as the game presents non-humans as basically 'different humans', the concept of 'race' in D&D is precisely the concept of 'race' outside of D&D.




I disagree. 
1.) Take for example the 3.5 Edition "Races of ..." Books. There is so much material to distinct the races.

2.) But the bigger reason is that the D&D (basic) races must keep approachable - the more "alien" a race is the harder it is to play (and if I remember correctly even in this thread someone made the arguments that you can´t play a different race (an elf) properly as an NON-Human (=alien) character... and that Thri-Keen shouldn´t be allowed as player characters...  I witnessed even more than once the discussion that a male can´t even play a woman properly.


[/QUOTE]
The same is true for race. If you had a game where elves and orcs were sufficiently different from human that not just their mechanical portrayal but the actual way you'd play them in game makes them sufficiently different from human that they are clearly different and separate from humans, then you can probably argue that 'race' is being used as a clinical, descriptive term and not as an arbitrary construction. But in a game where elves and orcs are basically just humans with latex spirit-gummed onto different parts of their heads (hello Bright and its portrayal of orcs!), it's really hard to say 'oh, race is clearly the correct word, since orcs get a Strength bonus and elves get a Dexterity bonus, which makes them fundamentally different in their portrayal in-game'.

--
Pauper[/QUOTE]

That´s one of the reasons BRIGHT seems to be ripped from the Shadowrun Manual - the first Orks in Shadowrun are mutated  humans - and that happened only 30 to 50 years before the actual timeline of the game.


----------



## Celebrim

Tanin Wulf said:


> Hmm. I'm not sure I'd go quite so far as to say "race" is 100% a sociopolitical construct.




For me, it doesn't matter whether it is or not.  The topic is largely irrelevant and not worth fighting over.  If it is the case that race is 100% a sociopolitical construct, then it doesn't change the fact that I am required to treat everyone regardless of race with the same love, compassion, tolerance, and respect.  And if it is the case that race turns out to have some sort of biological basis, then it still doesn't change the fact that I am required to treat everyone regardless of race with the same love, compassion, tolerance, and respect.

What bothers me is arguments that seem to be of the form, "Because race is 100% a sociopolitical construct, then you should treat everyone equally.", because that strikes me as building a house out of sand.   All you have to do to invalidate that proposition is demonstrate that there are biological differences between peoples.  To me that puts a hard burden on you to engage with the universe through a bias.  Proof that race is sociopolitical or proof that race is biological, or evidence that goes either way, doesn't change my fundamental opinion regarding the irrelevance of race.  I can simply engage with those facts as, "Isn't that interesting."  The opinion that starts "Because race is 100% a sociopolitical construct..." is not as bad as the opinion "Because race is biological, then you shouldn't treat everyone equally.", but it seems like its crafted from that opinion and strongly related it by accepting the implication if not the facts.  I reject both claims.

Likewise, since the basis of my identity is not racial, the outcome of the argument doesn't really effect how I see myself either.  So I literally don't care about the debate.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

TheCosmicKid said:


> Regardless of its origins, it's been hanging out with scientists for long enough for that clinical stench to seep into its pores.
> 
> (Setting aside the question of how and why people in a typical FRPG are speaking English of _any_ vintage...)




Regardless of its origins, “race” has been hanging around with bigots long enough for that hateful stench to seep into its pores.  

And here we are, 30+ pages in...

Besides, if you look into most FRPGs- including and especially in the long history of D&D- thre’s all kinds of “scientific” terminology that has been used that would be part of the in-game linguistic lexicon:

Automaton
Clockwork (Horror)
Homunculus
Intellect (Devourer)
Psionic
Caryatid (Column)
Pyrotechnics 

Etc.


----------



## Aldarc

Gradine said:


> So maybe that's why I struggle to see the urgency of the issue, particularly given what appear to be much greater problems in our hobby.
> 
> *Maybe this is a change that's simple to do, actually benefits people, and is, at least in the long-run, relatively non-controversial. *The first two seem self-evident at this point, and should very well be good enough. I do worry about the third; not because it matters what these people think, but because I worry about how that might distract time and energy away from issues that appear, at least to be, to be more urgent.



You raise a good point here about the relative urgency. But here I would say that a critical difference between the "greater problems in our hobby" and the propriety of the term "race" in our hobby is the amount of work required to address the issue, which you raise as a possibility in the bold. Writers and publishers can switch to terms like "ancestry," "origin," or "heritage" with relative ease - at least at the outset of a ruleset establishing its terms - whereas the "greater problems in our hobby" tend to be more systemic and require changes on a much wider level. So changing the term "race" may not be as pressing as other issues, but it should be easy enough to address it when available.


----------



## MacConnell

@_*Aldarc*_
The original question to which you refer is too far back for me to find but to address your reiteration of "What would be lost?":

The answer is sovereignty. 

Should the works of literature be altered in their vocabulary due to the propaganda of politically motivated societal manipulation? No.

A person who is actually offended will not read Twain or Dickens or Dostoevsky or Tolkien or Martin, but their works, or future works in the case of Martin, should not be altered. This creates a grander issue of promoting prejudice as written works such as Slaughterhouse Five, Lolita, The brothers Karmonov, The Bible, and The Quran have all, before, been targeted for destruction by those 'offended' by their existence.


----------



## james501

The thing is the alternative of "ancestry" just sounds awful. Same with its synonyms : heritage,descent,origin.
They dont translate as well.

Just like "ethnicity" and "descent" arent interchangable in everyday language, so are these.

-Species sounds the closest fitting one, barring its more scientific or sci-fi connotations

-Scion,  maybe ?

-Genus ?  Which is basically Greek for "race".

-Tribe ?


----------



## james501

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Regardless of its origins, “race” has been hanging around with bigots long enough for that hateful stench to seep into its pores.
> .




Yeah, and the fact that for decades fantasy media with millions of fans have used the term without controversy should tell you that most can disasociate one context from another.

Maybe it could change, I am not completely against it.
But lets not pretend that this is some really hot issue that society anguishes over.


----------



## Jester David

Tanin Wulf said:


> Hmm. I'm not sure I'd go quite so far as to say "race" is 100% a sociopolitical construct. There do seem to be some DNA-level differences that ignoring racial factors harms our understanding of the disease. For instance: sickle cell anemia.
> 
> NOTE: This is in no way an endorsement of racial superiority, or saying the differences in the races are important to society or anything else stupid/white-power-y.
> 
> Of course, the fact that my Gypsy (his preferred term over Rom) friend from Wisconsin has sickle cell disease... and he's the whitest (i.e. pale and pasty) guy I know. But his great grandmother was black, so he MOST LIKELY inherited that trait from her.
> 
> My point being it's probably not... 100% sociopolitical. Just mostly. Like 99%.
> 
> Put another way: genetics is really fun and cool if you can set aside all the politically loaded nonsense that non-geneticists throw around like they know what those terms mean in the context of genetics instead of sociology!



Funny thing though, the sickle cell gene is a poor indication of “race” as it primarily affects  Central Africans and not Northen or Southern, who would generally be considered the same “race”. Meanwhile, the same anemia genes are found in Arabian and Indians, who are a very different “race”. 

There are some genetic differences, but they’re surprisingly minor. Humans differ less genetically than individusls from other species, a result of us evolving from a small population some 150,000 years ago.


----------



## Jester David

james501 said:


> Yeah, and the fact that for decades fantasy media with millions of fans have used the term without controversy should tell you that most can disasociate one context from another.
> 
> Maybe it could change, I am not completely against it.
> But lets not pretend that this is some really hot issue that society anguishes over.



Except for all the times there has been controversy or problems. 

Pathfinder has a great example of the problem.

I expect most people here are familiar with their splatbooks. _Ultimate Combat_, _Ultimate Magic_, _Ultimate Campaign_, and _Ultimate Intrigue_. All the focused non-theme PC splatbooks have "Ultimate" in the name. And, for a while, they were planning on releasing _Ultimate Race_.
They changed it to _Advanced Race Guide_ for reasons that should be pretty obvious. 

I mean, who would want to see the ads Google Analytics would throw out of you searched for "_Ultimate Race_" a few times. The books Amazon would suggest if you ordered from that site. Is it a book you would feel comfortable requesting from a library? If you were the head of a chain book store, would you order & stock a book called "_Ultimate Race_"?

This highlights the issue with the word and its problematic and undeniable connections to racism and white supremacy. It is not a term I'm completely comfortable having in my books and certainly not a term I want to fight for and defend. 


It's not like D&D is free of poor naming. You don't have to look far, with _Oriental Adventures_ published in 3rd Edition, despite people knowing for many, many decades that "orientalism" was problematic. 
Unless you want to defend that term as well. After all, we also used that term for decades without issue. And it’s not like Kara Tur is a real place.


----------



## Maxperson

Aldarc said:


> I don't think "evading" means what you think it does, nor is there any way to "answer" the nonsense that you posted. You posted a ridiculously hyperbolic and fallacious, non sequitor slippery slope argument (about everything other than "race") that failed to address the question in any real, meaningful manner. If you want to see what evasion looks like, then I recommend this post:




Other than the "everything" at the beginning, there was no hyperbole in that post.  All of the rest was true as I stated it, with the exception perhaps of the global warming humor.  There was also no slippery slope involved, as one thing did not lead to another, an then another, etc.  It was simply the "If you give one kid in class candy, you have to give them all candy" principle.  Those other issues are every bit as great, greater in fact, than race is in an RPG(hint, race in an RPG isn't even an issue outside of a few extremists on both the right and left).  If you change race, you have to change the other "issues" as well, or you are quite literally singling out race only for the sake of it being race, which is racist.


----------



## clearstream

talien said:


> The term "race" is a staple of fantasy that is now out of sync with modern usage. With Pathfinder shifting from "race" to "ancestry" in its latest edition, it raises the question: should fantasy games still use it?





> Story Now requires that at least one engaging issue or problematic feature of human existence be addressed in the process of role-playing.



from http://www.indie-rpgs.com/_articles/narr_essay.html

Maybe the second quote answers the first?


----------



## james501

Jester David said:


> Except for all the times there has been controversy or problems.
> 
> Pathfinder has a great example of the problem.
> 
> I expect most people here are familiar with their splatbooks. _Ultimate Combat_, _Ultimate Magic_, _Ultimate Campaign_, and _Ultimate Intrigue_. All the focused non-theme PC splatbooks have "Ultimate" in the name. And, for a while, they were planning on releasing _Ultimate Race_.
> They changed it to _Advanced Race Guide_ for reasons that should be pretty obvious.
> 
> I mean, who would want to see the ads Google Analytics would throw out of you searched for "_Ultimate Race_" a few times. The books Amazon would suggest if you ordered from that site. Is it a book you would feel comfortable requesting from a library? If you were the head of a chain book store, would you order & stock a book called "_Ultimate Race_"?
> 
> This highlights the issue with the word and its problematic and undeniable connections to racism and white supremacy. It is not a term I'm completely comfortable having in my books and certainly not a term I want to fight for and defend.
> 
> 
> It's not like D&D is free of poor naming. You don't have to look far, with _Oriental Adventures_ published in 3rd Edition, despite people knowing for many, many decades that "orientalism" was problematic.
> Unless you want to defend that term as well. After all, we also used that term for decades without issue. And it’s not like Kara Tur is a real place.




A lot of things can look bad out of context.
That doesnt make the in-context concepts problematic in and of themselves.


Bringing up another term as a flase equivalence isnt supporting this case.


----------



## Afrodyte

Jester David said:


> It's not like D&D is free of poor naming. You don't have to look far, with _Oriental Adventures_ published in 3rd Edition, despite people knowing for many, many decades that "orientalism" was problematic.
> Unless you want to defend that term as well. After all, we also used that term for decades without issue. And it’s not like Kara Tur is a real place.




No, no, please, don't bring up the o-word. There was already one thread that just got shut down with people arguing about that.


----------



## james501

Afrodyte said:


> No, no, please, don't bring up the o-word. There was already one thread that just got shut down with people arguing about that.




The "o-word" ?
I mean, ok, but...really?


----------



## Aldarc

MacConnell said:


> [MENTION=5142]Aldarc[/MENTION]
> The original question to which you refer is too far back for me to find but to address your reiteration of "What would be lost?":
> 
> The answer is sovereignty.
> 
> Should the works of literature be altered in their vocabulary due to the propaganda of politically motivated societal manipulation? No.
> 
> A person who is actually offended will not read Twain or Dickens or Dostoevsky or Tolkien or Martin, but their works, or future works in the case of Martin, should not be altered. This creates a grander issue of promoting prejudice as written works such as Slaughterhouse Five, Lolita, The brothers Karmonov, The Bible, and The Quran have all been targeted fro destruction by those 'offended' by their existence.



To the best of my knowledge, no one on this thread is advocating that the vocabulary of past texts should be altered to accomodate modern sensibilities, not even past editions of Dungeons & Dragons. We do recognize, however, that these authors and works of literature are products of their times and that their vocabulary (or translations) often reflect this reality.* That is most definitely true for all the works that you listed, but also other obvious literary giants such as Shakespeare, Milton, and Goethe, whose vocabulary often requires footnotes for contemporary readers. However, I suspect for purpose of our discussion that no one would want, much less demand, that contemporaneous authors to be obligated to use the exact vocabulary of their predecessors, especially if the cognitive meaning, connotations, or intellectual history has since changed. Likewise, I doubt that current creative writers/publishers for D&D are obligated to use the same terms, vocabulary, or whatever else of past editions. They are new writers writing new editions for new audiences. Was sovereignty lost when the "thief" was renamed to the "rogue? Or the "magic-user" was renamed to the "wizard"? Or the "fighting-man" renamed to the "fighter"? Do we lose sovereignty when publishers publish errata? Do we lose sovereignty when we publish new editions? Our hobby is not set in stone nor is it simply "a book." It evolves. It is culturally dependent. We change the system periodically so that it can memetically survive and thrive in new cultural climes and norms. That may include changing the rules. That may include changing concepts. That may include changing terms. The suggestion of changing the term "race" is not about erasing, rewriting, or censoring the past but about embracing the current cultural clime and possibly future clime, when I hope that future writers, players, and game masters select an even more appropriate term than our alternative one to "race." 

* When I teach the Bible at university, for example, I often have to explain to students the historical socio-political backdrop of the text(s), differences in values between modern and ancient cultures, discuss translating the original languages of the texts (Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, etc.), the history of textual reception that has accrued a lot of textual baggage around the text, and a range of other complex issues. And for the record, the Bible is a work of literature that has been "altered in their vocabulary due to the propaganda of politically motivated societal manipulation," particularly when it comes to translations: cf. Luther Bible, King James Bible, etc.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

MacConnell said:


> Should the works of literature be altered in their vocabulary due to the propaganda of politically motivated societal manipulation? No.



While I take issue with some of your vocabulary there, I agree with the conclusion.

As mentioned upthread, I’m black.  A decade or so ago, certain publishers of classic literature decided to edit in less inflammatory language than the writers used, such as was used in racist character names.  In response to this, my family in unison went on a book buying spree.

...to buy the unedited editions.

Not big fans of revisionism, us.


----------



## Mallus

Afrodyte said:


> Quick question: How many people who are arguing this issue are people of color?



I am. Though I don't usually identify as such because, well, I'm kinda old now and the term became popular long after my formative years. 

Personally I'm fine with the term "race", but that's just me. It obviously has a load of baggage and ... unpleasant connotations. So I'm equally fine ditching it in favor of any one of a number of other terms.

My top three replacements are "people", "species", and "kin/kind". I don't have any objections to science-y sounding words like "species". D&D is full of them already, and from a language standpoint, D&D's terminology reflects its numerous, idiosyncratic source materials, so any appeal to a kind of genre-purity falls on deaf ears with me. 

I like "people" because it subtly reinforces the idea that everything you can play (and a decent chuck of the things you can fight) in D&D qualify as "people". 

You know, my first post in this thread was a joke; an immortal elf and partly-made-out-of-stone dwarf agreeing "race" is a social construct. I'll stand by that. It's possible I'm at my most insightful when I'm trying to be funny...


----------



## Jester David

james501 said:


> Bringing up another term as a flase equivalence isnt supporting this case.



How, pray tell, is this a false equivalency? How are the terms different by an order of magnitude? 

Shouting out the name of a logical fallacy isn’t an “I win!” button.


----------



## MacConnell

Aldarc said:


> To the best of my knowledge, no one on this thread is advocating that the vocabulary of past texts should be altered to accomodate modern sensibilities, not even past editions of Dungeons & Dragons. We do recognize, however, that these authors and works of literature are products of their times and that their vocabulary (or translations) often reflect this reality...



I love educated people. Nice response!


----------



## Shadow Demon

Jester David said:


> It's not like D&D is free of poor naming. You don't have to look far, with _Oriental Adventures_ published in 3rd Edition, despite people knowing for many, many decades that "orientalism" was problematic. Unless you want to defend that term as well. After all, we also used that term for decades without issue. And it’s not like Kara Tur is a real place.




Yep, another word I don’t consider to be problematic let alone dehumanizing. it would no more or less offensive than Asian Adventures. I guess I have spent my nearly 49 years offended by....nothing. From Wikipedia,
[FONT=&amp]
The *Orient is the East, traditionally comprising anything that belongs to the Eastern world, in relation to Europe. In English, it is largely a metonym for, and coterminous with, the continent of Asia, divided into the Far East, Middle East, and Near East.*[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]*The term Oriental is sometimes used to describe people or objects from the Orient.*[/FONT]


----------



## clearstream

Aldarc said:


> The suggestion of changing the term "race" is not about erasing, rewriting, or censoring the past but about embracing the current cultural clime and possibly future clime, when I hope that future writers, players, and game masters select an even more appropriate term than our alternative one to "race."



I could easily relinquish the term, but what about the layer of game mechanics that sits there? Races are an idea of having ability packages that are selected from and work in combination with other choices, such as class. So does this mean that what races are (ability packages) is valuable and should be kept: the concerns are just about the label?

I think they must be, otherwise generating characters using the standard method is also problematic: some are inherently stronger than others. I point this out because I often see a sort of deceit where a mechanic is labelled or re-labelled as X, but isn't X at all. It's still Y.


----------



## james501

Jester David said:


> How, pray tell, is this a false equivalency? How are the terms different by an order of magnitude?
> 
> Shouting out the name of a logical fallacy isn’t an “I win!” button.




From what I know mostly, Oriental is a specific term used in the specific context of European Imperialism and Otherism of the East.

"Race" as a concept as well as the term itself have existed in various cultures and languages without racist baggage.


----------



## Tanin Wulf

Jester David said:


> Funny thing though, the sickle cell gene is a poor indication of “race” as it primarily affects  Central Africans and not Northen or Southern, who would generally be considered the same “race”. Meanwhile, the same anemia genes are found in Arabian and Indians, who are a very different “race”.
> 
> There are some genetic differences, but they’re surprisingly minor. Humans differ less genetically than individusls from other species, a result of us evolving from a small population some 150,000 years ago.




Agree. The differences are definitely much more minor than... whatever we want to call what D&D is calling race. But biological race applied to medicine is very much alive, and not in a eugenics/racial superiority way, but it in a way of understanding how genes tell us the story of where we've been, and how different races are all still human, but all divergent enough to mean that tailoring medicine/treatments creates better medicine/treatments. (With the ultimate ideal being tailored down to the individual.)


----------



## Afrodyte

If making the hobby more inclusive and welcoming to people of color is not relevant to you, this post isn't for you. Your priorities are different, and that's fine. You do you and leave me alone.

For the people who do care about making the hobby more inclusive and welcoming to people of color, this thread and similar discussions raise a few concerns for me. Before someone gets it twisted and puts words in my mouth, I need to say that none of what follows is me accusing anyone of anything or judging anyone who feels differently than I do about the issue at hand. I'm just expressing concerns. If that's valuable information to you, great. If not, please ignore.

While I'm glad that there are white people who are advocating for a more inclusive and welcoming hobby, I do have concerns about:

white people deciding on behalf of people of color what race-related issues in the hobby should take priority at any given time (as opposed to asking people of color what would make us feel more included and welcome in the hobby)
white people emphasizing symbolic gestures made on behalf of people of color over addressing structural and behavioral issues that make people of color flat-out state make us feel excluded and unwelcome in the hobby
white people spending more time fighting white people who don't want to learn or change than listening to people of color and working out ways to make the hobby more inclusive and welcoming.
That's just where I'm at right now.


----------



## Jester David

Shadow Demon said:


> Yep, another word I don’t consider to be problematic let alone dehumanizing. it would no more or less offensive than Asian Adventures. I guess I have spent my nearly 49 years offended by....nothing. From Wikipedia,
> [FONT=&]
> The *Orient is the East, traditionally comprising anything that belongs to the Eastern world, in relation to Europe. In English, it is largely a metonym for, and coterminous with, the continent of Asia, divided into the Far East, Middle East, and Near East.*[/FONT]
> [FONT=&]*The term Oriental is sometimes used to describe people or objects from the Orient.*[/FONT]



You *might* need to do more reading:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orientalism_(book)

The people it describes find it offensive. Isn’t that enough for you?



james501 said:


> "Race" as a concept as well as the term itself have existed in various cultures and languages without racist baggage.



The concept exists _solely_ to present the false idea that there are different types of people who are notably distinct. Which is false.
It is a term with incredible racist baggage that we should be excising from the game


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

As a Chinese-American friend once told me (paraphrasing), “Oriental” is fine for a culture, direction, artistic style or rug.  It’s not to be used for people.  She never had to remind me of that distinction.


----------



## james501

Jester David said:


> You *might* need to do more reading:
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orientalism_(book)
> 
> The people it describes find it offensive. Isn’t that enough for you?
> 
> 
> The concept exists _solely_ to present the false idea that there are different types of people who are notably distinct. Which is false.
> It is a term with incredible racist baggage that we should be excising from the game




The term is as old as antiquity. Romans and Greeks used it.
And again, in fantasy various groups *DO* have notably distinct differences.

Most people who play it those games dont ascribe racist connotations to it. Those who do mostly project.


----------



## Mallus

Shadow Demon said:


> Yep, another word I don’t consider to be problematic let alone dehumanizing. it would no more or less offensive than Asian Adventures. I guess I have spent my nearly 49 years offended by....nothing.



I'm also 49 (as of a few days ago). Over the course of my lifetime the word "Oriental" fell out of favor, replaced by "Asian". By my reckoning, it happened quite a while ago. I recall thinking "Oriental Adventures" sounded outdated when I bought a copy back in the mid-1980s. Though I still see "oriental" out in the wild from time to time. Usually in (bad) restaurant menus or used to describe rugs.

I haven't been _called_ "Oriental" since I was a little boy. If someone did now, I'd probably think they're a rube (I wouldn't get angry - a bit judge-y, perhaps, but not angry). The important thing is, as far I can tell, most people who look like me prefer "Asian". So let's go with that. 

And if WotC wants to release a new version of OA, I'd much prefer "Asian Adventures" or "Wuxia Adventures". Or maybe something a little fancier, like "Tome of the Water Margin". Because that sounds nice.


----------



## james501

The problem is, this is a slippery slope.

The term "race" in fantasy refers to various sentient species that essentially have *distinct bilogical differences*.
That highlighted element remains regardless what they are called.

So if someone goes a step further they can also argue agains the very idea of distinct groups.

-What ? Elves, dwarves and humans are distint from eahc other ?  I dont like it !


By ascribing completely human sociocultural norms to fictional fantasy worlds you may as well argue against the very existence of different "races" altogether because you "might be reminded of some reali-life issue" disregarding of course the completely different fantastical context.

It is a slippery slope, which I am not comfortable with.

That's why I dont like the conflation of the contextual usage of the term.


----------



## LazarusKane

Afrodyte said:


> No, no, please, don't bring up the o-word. There was already one thread that just got shut down with people arguing about that.




Every time I read "O-Word" to think of Shakespeare´s "Much ado about nothing" aka "Much ado about an o-thing" (with o-thing being Elizabethan slang for... well.. some lady parts *blush*


----------



## TheCosmicKid

james501 said:


> The term is as old as antiquity. Romans and Greeks used it.



Well, Romans anyway.


----------



## Alzrius

Jester David said:


> Pathfinder has a great example of the problem.
> 
> I expect most people here are familiar with their splatbooks. _Ultimate Combat_, _Ultimate Magic_, _Ultimate Campaign_, and _Ultimate Intrigue_. All the focused non-theme PC splatbooks have "Ultimate" in the name. And, for a while, they were planning on releasing _Ultimate Race_.
> They changed it to _Advanced Race Guide_ for reasons that should be pretty obvious.
> 
> I mean, who would want to see the ads Google Analytics would throw out of you searched for "_Ultimate Race_" a few times. The books Amazon would suggest if you ordered from that site. Is it a book you would feel comfortable requesting from a library? If you were the head of a chain book store, would you order & stock a book called "_Ultimate Race_"?




A minor correction: although it doesn't cite its sources, Steel_Wind's preview of the _Advanced Race Guide_ states:



			
				Steel_Wind said:
			
		

> So why wasn’t the _Advanced Race Guide_ called “Ultimate Races”? Well, it turns out that was originally supposed to be the name and it was announced at PaizoCon 2011 under that title. Unfortunately, a little slip of the tongue during the announcement and “Ultimate Races” sounded a whole lot like “Ultimate Racist”. That easily repeated faux pas was all it took to persuade Erik Mona and Co. that perhaps that _wasn’t_ the best possible title for a book after all. The title of the book was promptly renamed to the _Advanced Race Guide ("ARG")._




So to be fair, the original name was always going to be plural, and it was changed due to an unfortunate homophone.


----------



## james501

TheCosmicKid said:


> Well, Romans anyway.




Greeks had/have Genus/Genos (Γένος).


----------



## Eltab

You know, the 5e PHB takes two pages to describe all the Humans available.  It covers every skin color, hair color, eyes, &c we know in IRL.  Everything that has been used to say 'We are different from them.'  _They are all one Race._

We've gone 350+ posts discussing (or trying to) something that the game itself already has addressed - and solved.  
Apparently solved to everybody's satisfaction, since nobody here is complaining about it.


----------



## TheCosmicKid

Jester David said:


> The concept exists _solely_ to present the false idea that there are different types of people who are notably distinct. Which is false.
> It is a term with incredible racist baggage that we should be excising from the game



You are using the term "racist" to condemn use of the term "race".

Are you even hearing yourself?


----------



## Lylandra

MacConnell said:


> @_*Aldarc*_
> The original question to which you refer is too far back for me to find but to address your reiteration of "What would be lost?":
> 
> The answer is sovereignty.
> 
> Should the works of literature be altered in their vocabulary due to the propaganda of politically motivated societal manipulation? No.
> 
> A person who is actually offended will not read Twain or Dickens or Dostoevsky or Tolkien or Martin, but their works, or future works in the case of Martin, should not be altered. This creates a grander issue of promoting prejudice as written works such as Slaughterhouse Five, Lolita, The brothers Karmonov, The Bible, and The Quran have all, before, been targeted for destruction by those 'offended' by their existence.




You're talking about works that stem from a time when such words had different meaning. While one can debate on how to deal with literature like that (and I'd go with a disclaimer/foreword/comment in any case!), what we're discussing here is how we'd like to go forward in terms of RPG terminology. 

As language is always changing and words switch their meaning over time, I don't think we lose anything here.


----------



## Shadow Demon

Jester David said:


> The people it describes find it offensive. Isn’t that enough for you?




Nope. it is history from a previous age. I think most of the Asian people of the time we’re more concened that their countries were turned into subjects of the British Empire. The Orient descriptor became synonymous with that occupation. i don’t use it use in modern language because it is archaic. This made it perfect for D&D instead of Asian which is in modern usage.


----------



## TheCosmicKid

james501 said:


> Greeks had/have Genus/Genos (Γένος).



Oh, I thought you were referring to the term "Oriental".


----------



## LazarusKane

Jester David said:


> You *might* need to do more reading:
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orientalism_(book)
> 
> The people it describes find it offensive. Isn’t that enough for you?
> 
> 
> The concept exists _solely_ to present the false idea that there are different types of people who are notably distinct. Which is false.
> It is a term with incredible racist baggage that we should be excising from the game




But "Orientalism" is not "Orient/Oriental" and "Race" doesn´t equals "Racism"

And here´s someone who answers (for her) the question:"The term 'Oriental' is outdated, but is it racist?"http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-tsuchiyama-oriental-insult-20160601-snap-story.html


----------



## TheCosmicKid

Shadow Demon said:


> Nope. it is history from a previous age. I think most of the Asian people of the time we’re more concened that their countries were turned into subjects of the British Empire. The Orient descriptor became synonymous with that occupation. i don’t use it use in modern language because it is archaic. This made it perfect for D&D instead of Asian which is in modern usage.



Huh? Were the settings of Kara-Tur and Rokugan also occupied by the British Empire?


----------



## ShinHakkaider

MacConnell said:


> @_*Aldarc*_
> The original question to which you refer is too far back for me to find but to address your reiteration of "What would be lost?":
> 
> The answer is sovereignty.
> 
> Should the works of literature be altered in their vocabulary due to the propaganda of politically motivated societal manipulation? No.
> 
> A person who is actually offended will not read Twain or Dickens or Dostoevsky or Tolkien or Martin, but their works, or future works in the case of Martin, should not be altered. This creates a grander issue of promoting prejudice as written works such as Slaughterhouse Five, Lolita, The brothers Karmonov, The Bible, and The Quran have all, before, been targeted for destruction by those 'offended' by their existence.




The D&D Player's Handbook is not a work of literature. It's a reference book. There are people who DO read it cover to cover, anal retentive pedantry of geeks none withstanding it's not meant to be read cover to cover as a novel. My point being it's not exactly a great comparison especially since reference books/ text books are updated all of the time. 

It's funny that you should mention the bible here along with the alteration of text. The bibles that were given to American slaves "Slave bibles" were based off of the King James Version but had the entirety of Exodus removed along with any references to themes of "freedom".


----------



## Shadow Demon

TheCosmicKid said:


> Huh? Were the settings of Kara-Tur and Rokugan also occupied by the British Empire?




Nope, so calling them Oriental lands shouldn’t be offensive. After all, it is a Latin word meaning “east”.


----------



## LazarusKane

Afrodyte said:


> If making the hobby more inclusive and welcoming to people of color is not relevant to you, this post isn't for you. Your priorities are different, and that's fine. You do you and leave me alone.
> 
> For the people who do care about making the hobby more inclusive and welcoming to people of color, this thread and similar discussions raise a few concerns for me. Before someone gets it twisted and puts words in my mouth, I need to say that none of what follows is me accusing anyone of anything or judging anyone who feels differently than I do about the issue at hand. I'm just expressing concerns. If that's valuable information to you, great. If not, please ignore.
> 
> While I'm glad that there are white people who are advocating for a more inclusive and welcoming hobby, I do have concerns about:
> 
> white people deciding on behalf of people of color what race-related issues in the hobby should take priority at any given time (as opposed to asking people of color what would make us feel more included and welcome in the hobby)
> white people emphasizing symbolic gestures made on behalf of people of color over addressing structural and behavioral issues that make people of color flat-out state make us feel excluded and unwelcome in the hobby
> white people spending more time fighting white people who don't want to learn or change than listening to people of color and working out ways to make the hobby more inclusive and welcoming.
> That's just where I'm at right now.




Really?
You told *james501* he shouldn´t 







> "_projecting harmful motives onto other people  who haven't flat-out said anything_"



 as he told you 







> "I know where this is going and is terible reasoning."




The he elaborated where he thinks this is going: 


> "But this question is part of the logic : 'You are not [insert group]  therefore you cant have an opinion or your opinion is biased and doesnt  count'.




*And then you go there and apply this logic* *facepalm*


----------



## TheCosmicKid

ShinHakkaider said:


> It's funny that you should mention the bible here along with the alteration of text. The bibles that were given to American slaves "Slave bibles" were based off of the King James Version but had the entirety of Exodus removed along with any references to themes of "freedom".



Since I assume you both agree that the alteration was a bad thing, I think you're just making MacConnell's point for him.


----------



## Shadow Demon

Mallus said:


> I recall thinking "Oriental Adventures" sounded outdated when I bought a copy back in the mid-1980s..




I think TSR used it by design because it was archaic and outdated.


----------



## Jester David

I’m so freakin’ tired of having to argue and fight against racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, and the like in D&D and gaming. 
We should be better. We know what it’s like to be marginalized. To be teased and bullied. 

I’m lucky not to personally be affected by racism or sexism. But I listen to those who have been. And when they say they don’t like a term or find it problematic, I take them at their word. Because why wouldn’t I? 
If just one otherwise reasonable person doesn’t like phrase or term, why would I spit on their opinion and feelings by continuing to use that term. 

But, damn I am sick of this . I always make the mistake of engaging, because I think it’s worth doing. If I can change just one mind...
But it always ends up just killing my morale, sapping my appreciation for this community and gaming as a whole.


----------



## TheCosmicKid

Shadow Demon said:


> Nope, so calling them Oriental lands shouldn’t be offensive. After all, it is a Latin word meaning “east”.



Is it a Latin word meaning "east", or is it synonymous with the British occupation? Pick one.


----------



## Mercule

Aldarc said:


> I do think that the +2 Charisma fits with their Tolkien-source inspiration better, though there I would argue that they are less of the Elrond the Half-Elven sort and more of the Aragorn (i.e., Numenorean) sort, where they are an ancestry of humans with elven blood.



This, I could agree with. The one I thought about was the Khoravar of Eberron, who form a distinct race -- though humans and elves will occasionally still get down to making first-gen half-elves. The setting is significantly more cosmopolitan, and it would make sense that true-breeding half-elves would have overcome the "bastard" prejudice of other settings.

But, the core D&D "implied setting" is, and always has been, that half-elves are somewhat rare (at least uncommon) and somewhat outcast by both sides of the family tree. While that could make a good justification for a particular PC to be fast-talking, diplomatic, and smooth, it's a pretty poor rationale for the entire race to be that way.


----------



## Shadow Demon

TheCosmicKid said:


> Is it a Latin word meaning "east", or is it synonymous with the British occupation? Pick one.




For Asian peoples of the 19th Century it is synonymous with British occupation but to me it is a Latin word meaning “east”.


----------



## Mallus

Shadow Demon said:


> I think TSR used it by design because it was archaic and outdated.



Sure. I'll buy that. I mean, I *did* buy a copy back in 1986. Still sounded a bit weird though, because it's something I've been called to my face.


----------



## DemoMonkey

_"I’m lucky not to personally be affected by racism or sexism. But I listen to those who have been. And when they say they don’t like a term or find it problematic, I take them at their word. *Because why wouldn’t I?* "

_That's an interesting division point between worldviews, what you could simplistically call believers and cynics. Just as many people (and not necessarily racist ones) would say *"Why would I?"*. It really depends on your fundamental opinion of the goodness of your fellow human.

I'm not really sure history bears out the assumption of goodness, what with all the wars and murders and inappropriate choices of pizza toppings and all.


----------



## ShinHakkaider

TheCosmicKid said:


> Since I assume you both agree that the alteration was a bad thing, I think you're just making MacConnell's point for him.




You'd be wrong. While the alteration is problematic it wasn't done unilaterally across ALL BIBLES. It was done specifically to oppress/suppress one particular group of people while leaving everyone else unscathed. It wasn't done for inclusiveness, quite the opposite. So no I dont see removing all references to freedom and Exodous from the Bible in order to opress slaves and possibly replacing the word "race" in D&D as even remotely the same thing. Not even the same ballpark. Hell, not even the same sport.


----------



## TheCosmicKid

Shadow Demon said:


> For Asian peoples of the 19th Century it is synonymous with British occupation but to me it is a Latin word meaning “east”.



Language only works when the speaker and listener share a common understanding of what a word means. Your position is silly.

(Oh, by the way, to me "silly" is an Anglo-Saxon word meaning "wise". It's your own fault if you didn't understand it as such, because I bear no responsibility for making sure my vocabulary matches modern consensus usage.)


----------



## TheCosmicKid

ShinHakkaider said:


> You'd be wrong. While the alteration is problematic it wasn't done unilaterally across ALL BIBLES. It was done specifically to oppress/suppress one particular group of people while leaving everyone else unscathed. It wasn't done for inclusiveness, quite the opposite. So no I dont see removing all references to freedom and Exodous from the Bible in order to opress slaves and possibly replacing the word "race" in D&D as even remotely the same thing. Not even the same ballpark. Hell, not even the same sport.



So... why did you bring it up, then?


----------



## ShinHakkaider

TheCosmicKid said:


> So... why did you bring it up, then?




Because using him using the Bible as an example of a book that people want to alter in order to destroy may not have been a great example as there are alterations and many different versions of the Bible throuought history. 

Me bringing up the slave bibles wasn't meant to stand in agreement with him. It was meant to point out an inconsistency specifically dealing with that "book".

EDIT: To his credit, the works of Twain was a better example. Altering the language in Huck Finn or Tom Sawyer does nothing but try to erase what was point of fact the language used at the time. But Those books ARE works of literature and SHOULD be left intact. Not so with RPG's.


----------



## Shadow Demon

TheCosmicKid said:


> Language only works when the speaker and listener share a common understanding of what a word means. Your position is silly.




Cool. I can be silly in your eyes that works for me. The key is to avoid emotional attachments to words. Too many people have these attachments to historical events in which they never lived through.

In any event, I am happy to have a pdf copy of AD&D Oriental Adventures on my iPad. David “Zeb” Cook still runs these adventures at conventions. He will be running one at NTRPG Con in June.


----------



## Celebrim

the_redbeard said:


> It's the same word.  How would that not be a reminder?




Experience.  Multiple "people of color" (since that seems to be the preferred term in the thread) have played the game with me and never observed the connection.  Ancedote.  Several posters in the thread, including "people of color" since they appear to be given by you a privileged viewpoint, have never observed the connection.   Logic.  The word race in and of itself isn't objectionable and peppers our language in ways that are not problematic, and are sometimes even admirable.  Consistency.   The people calling for race to be banned here aren't offering a consistent moral or rational principle by which race would be universally banned from our thinking or conversation.  Indeed, if their opinions belong to the consensus they seem to be representing they'll condemn "color blindness" and demand acknowledgement of race when it suits them.  Thus, it feels to me more like they are concerned with something other than good manners.

The word 'race' has seven major meanings and more than a dozen different shades of meaning.  Everyone I've ever met has been intelligent enough to deal with this complexity before without freaking out.  It's not even a word I consider to be particularly difficult to understand in English.  A really hard word is 'liberal' which has like six major different unrelated meanings, two of which are actual antonyms.  The two most common meanings of identity are actually antonyms, and I've seen speakers move back and forth between them without even realizing.  

You seem really wigged out by the fact that words are complex, and the same sound and spelling can indicate multiple different means.  I've never had this problem before. 

So, no, not at a reminder.  It's a very strained connection that I imagine most people just shrug at.  It takes a lot of mental twisting to the get to the point where you are in a twist about it.

I'm not going to bother to address your 'history' of the term race in great detail.   I do want to get to this.



> The actual idea of race was used to *create and invent* difference where there wasn't any.




That's bad etymology, sociology, anthropology, biology and history.  The idea of race is as old as recorded human experience and is likely a fundamental evolved adaptation built into human biology.  It's an extension of the primitive primate idea of a social group or family band, and it occurs in every single human culture.  In its roots it simply means everyone who is direct descendent of a particular group founder, and was for most of its history used as a cognate for kin, nation, or ethnic group.   These differences, whether socially constructed or biological, were real.  At the very least they involved differences in language, culture, and physical appearance.  It's a matter of difficult to overcome instinct to not self-identify with and extend greater empathy toward people who share your appearance.   That's a deeply rooted biological instinct so no one 'invented' concept of race, least of all for a reason.  For all of human history, humans have been divided by our shared simian instinct to defend the social band against neighboring social bands.  In a sense, race was an idea that allowed humans to evolve social structures larger than that of the family band, extending the commune of the family band to persons who were not close relatives, although I think that narrative suggests far too much intentionality.   Gradually, as human social structures evolved, humans began to develop ideas like empires and trans-national religions that could be used to unite social groups that were larger than just extended family bands.  For example, ancient Greeks developed a transnational identity of being 'Greek' that united them as a people group.  They were as racist as anything you could ever point out, but this xenophobia was a step less xenophobic than the "us against everyone from over the hill" level that preceded it.  

The real issue here is not the word 'race', and again, if the problem is the word it's because of the idea that it points to.  Changing the word without changing the meaning of what it points to is ridiculous and pointless.



> The actual idea of race in fantasy rpgs is present in-game functional differences.
> 
> Those are two very different concepts.   Can you see that for clarity we should use a different word?




For clarity, I sure wish we had a separate word for every shade of 'liberal', but that's not how the English language works.  I consider every word that has been suggested as an alternative to 'race' to be less accurate and more problematic.   Some are better choices than others, largely because they are near synonyms, but all are inferior.   The suggestion that all humans belong to a single race is a strong and important one, and involves the ultimate extension of the family structure to include all of humanity - the shared inheritors of some ancient ape upon which was blown the breath of life and consciousness.  Wording that idea less strongly doesn't appeal to me, and I continue to point out how many people in this thread have seized on the lesser strength of the word 'ancestry' (for example) to justify dividing up the fantasy humans into a bunch of races, marked by racial essentialism, and quite frankly reflecting simplistic trope takes on real world ethnic groups.

I denounce this as racist.



> I'll go out on a limb here and say that your assertion is just like a an able bodied person saying that stairs aren't a barrier to someone with crutches.  How would you know?




I have among other things an imagination, but I answered this question already.



> Why wouldn't we want to use a different word?




I have done nothing but explain that since the beginning of this thread.   And while we are on the subject, I have often observed that the people most eager to tell other people to check their own biases, are the least likely to question their own assumptions and take their own advice.  They don't actually mean, "Check your biases", what they tend to actually mean is, "I don't like what you have to say, so shut up and agree with me."



> So let's not use the wrong word for the wrong thing.




It's not the wrong word; it's quite the right word.   Read a dictionary and confirm this.



> No, what I see is people advocating for separating bonuses between creature type (origin, people, ancestry, "nature") and background (culture, training, life path, "nurture").  So you could have humans (same creature type, same stats) with different background packages (plains, sea-farers, etc.)




Well, yes, I've seen that too, but I don't think you are paying much attention.   Besides, I experimented with that separation back around 2002, and it still doesn't avoid the problem of racial essentialism to have a tight linkage between ethnicity and a set of cultural modifiers.  I abandoned it as a bad take on the issue.   



> If I saw that, I would argue against it.




Look closer.



> Meanwhile, up-thread someone posted testimony from someone who moved to a position of white supremacy because of the use of racial divisions in DnD.  I'll edit this post to show the link when I find it again.




You realized at some later point in the tread that this was slander, but upon actually finding the link it proved to be ridiculous.  What you actually showed was that someone who was already a racist interpreted everything through the light of those preexisting principles.  Big surprise that.  What you actually showed is your dragging a huge agenda to EnWorld from some benighted place on the Internet I probably consider a moral cesspool akin to Storm Front.  You became the first poster to actually quote someone from 'Storm Front' in the history of EnWorld, which to me made the whole thread seem just a bit ickier.  How you suppose that that is going to convince anyone here of anything, I'm not sure, but you definitely found your 'vinegar' again later in this thread..


----------



## JonnyP71

Dannyalcatraz said:


> As a Chinese-American friend once told me (paraphrasing), “Oriental” is fine for a culture, direction, artistic style or rug.  It’s not to be used for people.  She never had to remind me of that distinction.




The number one Chinese restaurant on Tripadvisor for my city is 'Wing Wah Oriental Cuisine'.

(just backing up your point btw  - though there may be differences in acceptance, because I'm in the UK, and I've never heard of any issues with the term 'oriental' in the 46 years I've lived here, in fact it's a pretty standard UK English term meaning 'of the east')


----------



## Gradine

Afrodyte said:


> If making the hobby more inclusive and welcoming to people of color is not relevant to you, this post isn't for you. Your priorities are different, and that's fine. You do you and leave me alone.
> 
> For the people who do care about making the hobby more inclusive and welcoming to people of color, this thread and similar discussions raise a few concerns for me. Before someone gets it twisted and puts words in my mouth, I need to say that none of what follows is me accusing anyone of anything or judging anyone who feels differently than I do about the issue at hand. I'm just expressing concerns. If that's valuable information to you, great. If not, please ignore.
> 
> While I'm glad that there are white people who are advocating for a more inclusive and welcoming hobby, I do have concerns about:
> 
> white people deciding on behalf of people of color what race-related issues in the hobby should take priority at any given time (as opposed to asking people of color what would make us feel more included and welcome in the hobby)
> white people emphasizing symbolic gestures made on behalf of people of color over addressing structural and behavioral issues that make people of color flat-out state make us feel excluded and unwelcome in the hobby
> white people spending more time fighting white people who don't want to learn or change than listening to people of color and working out ways to make the hobby more inclusive and welcoming.
> That's just where I'm at right now.




I think all three of these are things I have been in engaging in (and I am, in fact, white). I think I was coming to some of these realizations as I was writing my last response, and I think you're right to be concerned about those. I certainly have work to do be a better advocate (and, hopefully, ally) in helping make the hobby more inclusive and welcoming.

I think your third point is the most prescient, at least to me. I've started recently blocking obvious white supremacists but I've tried giving other white people the benefit of the doubt in spite of clearly not being interested in learning or changing or engaging fairly.

So I want to think you for posting this; I want you to know that I hear it, and that I'm reflecting on it.


----------



## TheCosmicKid

ShinHakkaider said:


> Because using him using the Bible as an example of a book that people want to alter in order to destroy may not have been a great example as there are alterations and many different versions of the Bible throuought history.



This still confuses me. How does that not make it an _excellent_ example? When we're looking for an example of a problem, don't we look for places where the problem has in fact occurred? "Major League baseball is not a great example of doping in sports, because many baseball players actually were doping throughout its history." Huh?



ShinHakkaider said:


> EDIT: To his credit, the works of Twain was a better example. Altering the language in Huck Finn or Tom Sawyer does nothing but try to erase what was point of fact the language used at the time. But Those books ARE works of literature and SHOULD be left intact. Not so with RPG's.



I sort of see what you're saying. I wouldn't recommend you draw a hard line between "literature" and "not-literature", though, because RPGs are still a creative product and trying to sort creative products into some hierarchy of literariness never turns out well. You might instead point out that RPGs are _iterative_, and creating a new iteration does not erase the old one. It's not like altering the language in Huck Finn so much as writing a sequel.

Then I'd still disagree with you that making this particular change is a necessity or an improvement. But you're right that it's a different principle at play here than the bowdlerization of old novels.

(For that matter, I'd also disagree that a sequel to Huck Finn should use different language, because it would presumably still be set in 19th-Century America and examining the racial attitudes of the country head on... but I'd be overthinking this analogy at that point.)


----------



## epithet

Jester David said:


> I’m so freakin’ tired of having to argue and fight against racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, and the like in D&D and gaming.
> ...




I'm certainly not going to suggest that those issues don't ever rear their ugly heads, or that it isn't entirely appropriate to fight against them when they do. I'm also not saying that you, in particular, go hunting for things to get offended by. I do think, though, that there are people who do. It seems like there's always someone looking to take a word or phrase out of context, or to infer malice where none was intended. There seems to be a great outpouring of outrage lately by people on behalf of other people who are presumed to need people to be outraged for them. Worst of all, it has become commonplace to take an accusation or allegation as proof of unacceptable behavior.

If you're tired of arguing and fighting, maybe--just maybe--it's because whenever there is a cry of "omg bigotry!" you run in to champion the downtrodden without taking a moment to consider the possibility that no one is, in fact, being trodden upon in the exchange in question. If you are always locked and loaded, looking for *ism to fight against, then you will surely find what you're looking for.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

JonnyP71 said:


> The number one Chinese restaurant on Tripadvisor for my city is 'Wing Wah Oriental Cuisine'.
> 
> (just backing up your point btw  - though there may be differences in acceptance, because I'm in the UK, and I've never heard of any issues with the term 'oriental' in the 46 years I've lived here, in fact it's a pretty standard UK English term meaning 'of the east')




Tangent off of that: there used to be a family-owned & operated Asian take-out restaurant- almost a literal hole in the wall- in NOLA’s French Quarters called “Takee Outee”.  (Pretty good, too.)


----------



## DM Magic

Afrodyte said:


> Quick question: How many people who are arguing this issue are people of color?




_Raises hand_ Puerto Rican/Cuban.


----------



## DM Magic

Jester David said:


> I’m so freakin’ tired of having to argue and fight against racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, and the like in D&D and gaming.
> We should be better. We know what it’s like to be marginalized. To be teased and bullied.
> 
> I’m lucky not to personally be affected by racism or sexism. But I listen to those who have been. And when they say they don’t like a term or find it problematic, I take them at their word. Because why wouldn’t I?
> If just one otherwise reasonable person doesn’t like phrase or term, why would I spit on their opinion and feelings by continuing to use that term.
> 
> But, damn I am sick of this . I always make the mistake of engaging, because I think it’s worth doing. If I can change just one mind...
> But it always ends up just killing my morale, sapping my appreciation for this community and gaming as a whole.




Nailed it.


----------



## Aldarc

Mercule said:


> This, I could agree with. The one I thought about was the Khoravar of Eberron, who form a distinct race -- though humans and elves will occasionally still get down to making first-gen half-elves. The setting is significantly more cosmopolitan, and it would make sense that true-breeding half-elves would have overcome the "bastard" prejudice of other settings.
> 
> But, the core D&D "implied setting" is, and always has been, that half-elves are somewhat rare (at least uncommon) and somewhat outcast by both sides of the family tree. While that could make a good justification for a particular PC to be fast-talking, diplomatic, and smooth, it's a pretty poor rationale for the entire race to be that way.



I cannot understate how influential Eberron has been to me as a setting. The Khoravar as a self-breeding population with its own distinct set of cultures as opposed to the usual individualized human-elf tragic backstories was a HUGE step forward in my appreciation of half-elves in D&D. In many of my homebrew settings, I have take a cue from Eberron's Khoravar or have designed my own PC half-elf in the same vein.


----------



## ShinHakkaider

TheCosmicKid said:


> I sort of see what you're saying. I wouldn't recommend you draw a hard line between "literature" and "not-literature", though, because RPGs are still a creative product and trying to sort creative products into some hierarchy of literariness never turns out well.




I think we're just going to have to disagree on this one, I mean STRONGLY disagree. 

RPG's are not literature. They're reference books. I reference them for rules. I dont read them for a narrative. 
You feel differently, that's cool. Theyre a creative product in the way a Deitel & Deitel instructional book on C++ coding is a creative product. Does the personalities of the writers occaisionally show through? Sure. Is it literature? NOPE.


----------



## james501

DM Magic said:


> Nailed it.




Too much drama over a descreptive term.


----------



## Thomas Bowman

talien said:


> The term "race" is a staple of fantasy that is now out of sync with modern usage. With Pathfinder shifting from "race" to "ancestry" in its latest edition, it raises the question: should fantasy games still use it?
> 
> 
> View attachment 95633​ [h=3]*“Race” and Modern Parlance*[/h]We previously discussed the challenges of representing real-life cultures in a fantasy world, with African and Asian countries being just two examples. The discussion becomes more complicated with fantasy "races"—historically, race was believed to be determined by the geographic arrangement of populations. Fantasy gaming, which has its roots in fantasy literature, still uses the term “race” this way.
> 
> Co-creator of D&D Gary Gygax cited R.E. Howard's Conan series as an influence on D&D, which combines Lovecraftian elements with sword and sorcery. Howard's perceptions may have been a sign of the times he lived in, but it seems likely they influenced his stories. Robert B. Marks explains just how these stereotypes manifested in Conan's world:
> 
> The young, vibrant civilizations of the Hyborian Age, like Aquilonia and Nemedia, are white - the equivalent of Medieval Europe. Around them are older Asiatic civilizations like Stygia and Vendhya, ancient, decrepit, and living on borrowed time. To the northwest and the south are the barbarian lands - but only Asgard and Vanaheim are in any way Viking. The Black Kingdoms are filled with tribesmen evoking the early 20th century vision of darkest Africa, and the Cimmerians and Picts are a strange cross between the ancient Celts and Native Americans - and it is very clear that the barbarians and savages, and not any of the civilized people or races, will be the last ones standing.
> ​
> Which leads us to the other major fantasy influence, author J.R.R. Tolkien. David M. Perry explains in an interview with Helen Young:
> 
> In Middle Earth, unlike reality, race is objectively real rather than socially constructed. There are species (elves, men, dwarves, etc.), but within those species there are races that conform to 19th-century race theory, in that their physical attributes (hair color, etc.) are associated with non-physical attributes that are both personal and cultural. There is also an explicit racial hierarchy which is, again, real in the world of the story.
> ​
> The Angry GM elaborates on why race and culture were blended in Tolkien's works:
> 
> The thing is, in the Tolkienverse, at least, in the Lord of the Rings version of the Tolkienverse (because I can’t speak for what happened in the Cinnabon or whatever that other book was called), the races were all very insular and isolated. They didn’t deal with one another. Race and culture went hand in hand. If you were a wood elf, you were raised by wood elves and lived a thoroughly wood elf lifestyle until that whole One Ring issue made you hang out with humans and dwarves and halflings. That isolation was constantly thrust into the spotlight. Hell, it was a major issue in The Hobbit.
> ​
> Given the prominence of race in fantasy, it's not surprising that D&D has continued the trend. That trend now seems out of sync with modern parlance; in 1951, the United Nations officially declared that the differences among humans were "insignificant in relation to the anthropological sameness among the peoples who are the human race."
> [h=3]*“Race” and Game Design*[/h]Chris Van Dyke's essay on race back in 2008 explains how pervasive "race" is in D&D:
> 
> Anyone who has played D&D has spent a lot of time talking about race – “Racial Attributes,” “Racial Restrictions,” “Racial Bonuses.” Everyone knows that different races don’t get along – thanks to Tolkien, Dwarves and Elves tend to distrust each other, and even non-gamers know that Orcs and Goblins are, by their very nature, evil creatures. Race is one of the most important aspects of any fantasy role-playing game, and the belief that there are certain inherent genetic and social distinctions between different races is built into every level of most (if not all) Fantasy Role-Playing Games.
> ​
> Racial characteristics in D&D have changed over time. _Basic Dungeons & Dragons _didn't distinguish between race and class for non-humans, such that one played a dwarf, elf, or halfling -- or a human fighter or cleric. The characteristics of race were so tightly intertwined that race and profession were considered one.
> 
> In _Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, _the changes became more nuanced, but not without some downsides on character advancement, particularly in allowing “demihumans” to multiclass but with level limits preventing them from exceeding humanity, who had unlimited potential (but could only dual-class).
> 
> With Fifth Edition, ability penalties and level caps have been removed, but racial bonuses and proficiencies still apply. The Angry GM explains why this is a problem:
> 
> In 5E, you choose a race and a class, but you also choose a background. And the background represents your formative education and socio-economic standing and all that other stuff that basically represents the environment in which you were raised. The racial abilities still haven’t changed even though there is now a really good place for “cultural racial abilities” to live. So, here’s where the oddity arises. An elf urchin will automatically be proficient with a longsword and longbow, two weapons that requires years of training to even become remotely talent with, but a human soldier does not get any automatic martial training. Obviously, in both cases, class will modify that. But in the life of your character, race happens first, then background, and only later on do you end up a member of a class. It’s very quirky.
> ​
> Perhaps this is why Pathfinder decided to take a different approach to race by shifting to the term “ancestry”:
> 
> Beyond the narrative, there are many things that have changed, but mostly in the details of how the game works. You still pick a race, even though it is now called your ancestry. You still decide on your class—the rulebook includes all of the core classes from the First Edition Core Rulebook, plus the alchemist. You still select feats, but these now come from a greater variety of sources, such as your ancestry, your class, and your skills.
> ​
> "Ancestry" is not just a replacement for the word “race.” It’s a fluid term that requires the player to make choices at character creation and as the character advances. This gives an opportunity to express human ethnicities in game terms, including half-elves and half-orcs, without forcing the “subrace” construct.
> [h=3]*The Last Race*[/h]It seems likely that, from both a modern parlance and game design perspective, “race” as it is used today will fall out of favor in fantasy games. It’s just going to take time. Indigo Boock sums up the challenge:
> 
> Fantasy is a doubled edged sword. Every human culture has some form of fantasy, we all have some sort of immortal ethereal realm where our elven creatures dwell. There’s always this realm that transcends culture. Tolkien said, distinct from science fiction (which looks to the future), fantasy is to feel like one with the entire universe. Fantasy is real, deep human yearning. We look to it as escapism, whether we play D&D, or Skyrim, or you are like myself and write fantasy. There are unfortunately some old cultural tropes that need to be discarded, and it can be frustratingly slow to see those things phased out.
> ​
> Here's hoping other role-playing games will follow Pathfinder's lead in how treats its fantasy people in future editions.
> 
> _Mike "Talien" Tresca is a  freelance game columnist, author, communicator, and a participant in  the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising  program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees  by advertising and linking to http://amazon.com. You can follow him at Patreon._




Ancestry doesn't mean the same thing as race. For example, you and I are of different Ancestry but we are both members of the human race.


----------



## Obryn

Thomas Bowman said:


> Ancestry doesn't mean the same thing as race. For example, you and I are of different Ancestry but we are both members of the human race.



So an elf wouldn't have a different ancestry?


----------



## Dire Bare

ShinHakkaider said:


> I think we're just going to have to disagree on this one, I mean STRONGLY disagree.
> 
> RPG's are not literature. They're reference books. I reference them for rules. I dont read them for a narrative.
> You feel differently, that's cool. Theyre a creative product in the way a Deitel & Deitel instructional book on C++ coding is a creative product. Does the personalities of the writers occaisionally show through? Sure. Is it literature? NOPE.




I wouldn't consider a standard real-world atlas or travel gazetteer a literary work, rather a reference work as you mention. But a fantasy-gaming atlas, gazetteer or other sourcebook? Very much literature, art, and game reference combined into a unique genre. Not the same type of artwork as a novel or even a comic book, but art that requires artists to create fantastic worlds, characters, creatures, and storylines to fuel our collective kitchen-table storytelling sessions. Specific gamebooks certainly lean more towards one way or another, reference or story, but all contain some elements of both, except perhaps for the most dry gamebooks out there, and who plays those?  

I've never understood those who strongly insist that games, roleplaying or otherwise, aren't artistic and/or literary endeavors.


----------



## Shadow Demon

Thomas Bowman said:


> Ancestry doesn't mean the same thing as race. For example, you and I are of different Ancestry but we are both members of the human race.




You got it! I have an ancestry of the following ethnicities: 50% German, 25% Irish, and 25% Cherokee. Even if another person has the same proportion of the same ethnicities it doesn't mean we have the same ancestry.


----------



## Shasarak

DemoMonkey said:


> I would certainly think a cobbler would know how to properly categorize elves.




To be fair he was only following the lead of a famous Professor of English Language.


----------



## Shadow Demon

Obryn said:


> So an elf wouldn't have a different ancestry?




Indeed, it would. However, a wood elf and a high elf would also have a different ancestry from each other.


----------



## MNblockhead

DnD Beyond just posted an article on designing homebrew races, which is highlighted on their front page. 

Hmm...not thread on their forum discussing its appropriateness. 

Perhaps we should move this discussion over there to enlighten them.


----------



## Obryn

Shadow Demon said:


> Indeed, it would. However, a wood elf and a high elf would also have a different ancestry from each other.



...Yes, and...?


----------



## Shadow Demon

Obryn said:


> ...Yes, and...?




If you go back far enough, they would have a single common ancestor that would encompass the entire elven race. Ancestry is too specific. It is not general enough.


----------



## Shasarak

Eltab said:


> Curiously enough, D&D had to deal with these problems in  the 1980's - and managed to do so without nearly the kerfluffle we are facing within the hobby over the 2010's issues.




That is a good point.  DnD has already tried to change the words they use to describe DnD creatures which is why you will never see the terms such as Demon or Devil used in any official DnD book since the 80's.


----------



## Pauper

Celebrim said:


> Certainly I am in the camp of, "Non-human races should be different to the point of being alien." and that perspective may be influencing my opinion.   But note, part of the reason I do that is that I feel I have to justify why anything in my game is in my game, and what I certainly don't want - either as perception or as conscious or subconscious reality - is for a race to be some sort of thin commentary on real world races.   If the dwarfs are drunken gaelic people, the elves are Nordic people, and the orcs are black people or some other 'scary' minority group, I'm going to feel like your world is either a bit racist or could easily fall into racism in the hands of someone who was prone to think in that manner.




That's a very fair point, and worth taking into account. But...



> Where as if the elves of my world are representative of child-like innocence and wonder, libertarian social values, and the simultaneously fragile but enduring natural world, no one is going to think my elves are meant to be a commentary on real world racial issues.




Racial issues, probably not, but these are still identifiably human traits; someone might just as easily take issue with your portayal of elvish libertarianism, or depending on how far a player takes the 'childlike wonder' aspect of this group of elves, consider them to be psychologically deviant humans rather than truly alien (much as I took the fearlessness of the kender in Dragonlance, and why I still dislike them to this day).



> What's the point in having a fantasy if you aren't fantastic?
> 
> What's the point of diversity if the least actual bit of diversity terrifies you?




Good questions, though again, I'd say these 'fantastic' races still aren't 'races' in the sense people want to use it in this thread; human traits taken to an extreme still aren't really 'alien' as much as they can be seen as 'abberant' or 'damaged' -- your elves are different from humans, but not because they are truly non-human, only because their human-identifiable traits are expressed in a measure that generally wouldn't be found in a typical human or human society. And if we're going for 'diversity' among a group of characters who are basically all identified as having human-like traits, then 'race' is not the term we want to use to describe that distinction (though I suspect we agree on this point).

Contrast with a treatment of elves like that in Lord Dunsany's "The King of Elfland's Daughter"; though it would be difficult adapting that to Dungeons & Dragons mainly because a big part of the theme of the novel has to do with the role of magic in the world and how it is much more than what human thought believes it is (both in good and bad ways), and that 'theory' of magic doesn't really jibe with how bog-standard D&D treats magic, as a perfectly functional and predictable tool. (Speaking of what's the point of fantasy...) Nevertheless, the creatures of Elfland, though they do share some human traits, are pretty identifiably different from human, in ways that are significant to the story and the world.



> As for Bright, I thought the first half the movie was surprisingly good, and the last half mostly embarrassingly bad.  There is a sense in which I think you are right, but I also think that they did at least try to portray the orc character in a way that was a bit alien.




The link I put in was to a YouTube essay discussing Bright that I pretty much agree with; I thought the main orc character was portrayed well by the actor who played him, but mainly because the orc was the most identifiably human character in the main cast, which doesn't bode well for him being 'alien'.



> In particular, the orc character was receiving information on sensory channels his human partner didn't have.  He was literally blind to a lot of things is partner found obvious, whereas the orc was portrayed in a way that for an human would be considered autistic and thus he was blind to a lot of information channels that his partner found so obvious that he didn't need to think of them.




'The orc cop has infravision' isn't really a selling point for me when numerous other cops in the same force also get infravision through the use of IR goggles. The 'autistic' comment is a bit closer, but even then, we're describing the behavior of the orc character in human terms. Maybe that's part of the point -- as humans, we can't really get that far outside our own perspective to really describe an alien viewpoint, and if we could, we'd lose our essential humanity and become servants of Azathoth or something along those lines. But if that's the case, then there's no real way for us to implement 'race' as something truly non-human, because we can only express behavior in human terms, or in terms of things that are non-human that we believe we understand, such as animal or hive behaviors. "What if a bee was as smart as a human" isn't a question we can effectively answer, because the closer we get to expressing the world in the way a hyper-intelligent bee would perceive it, the farther away we get from an understandable human perspective and the more likely we are to reject that expression as unrelateable, so any expression we could really accept simply makes the bee-person seem more like a human with antennae taped to her forehead.

--
Pauper


----------



## TheCosmicKid

Circling back around a bit:

Whatever the right thing to do is is here, the PF2 preview of goblins has me dubious that their particular approach is solving any problems.  The ancestry feats mentioned are "Burn It", "Junk Tinkerer", "Razor Teeth", and "Very Sneaky". These sound a lot like they're continuing to conflate biology and culture in their concept of "ancestry". Razor Teeth is pretty clearly biological, okay. But Burn It and Junk Tinkerer are just as clearly cultural. And Very Sneaky could be argued either way (and poses problems either way). If being a Junk Tinkerer is a matter of ancestry, that makes me wonder what PF2's "background" system is supposed to do.


----------



## Celebrim

Obryn said:


> ...Yes, and...?




As a matter of fact, everyone has a different 'ancestry'.  Indeed, wasn't it one of the tenants that the move to ancestry was justified by the fact that there is no such thing as racial purity, and no biological basis for race (although how that applies to goblins, centaurs, lizardfolk, and elves I'm not sure).

This sort of leaves the 'ancestry' people in a bit of a bind though.  If race is meaningless, why are we just relabeling it rather than getting rid of it?   But if race is mechanically meaningful, then it refers to something other than ancestry, which by your own argument is incredibly diverse - indeed so incredibly diverse as to be individual to a particular person.   At some point, if 'elf' or 'centaur' has any meaning at all and isn't just a social construct and a group you self-identify with, it's going to have some sort of mechanical game package.  And effectively someone is going to have to sort NPC's or PC's into those different categories and apply the package.   But by grouping a bunch of different individual ancestries into this package and categorizing them, you are acknowledging the reality of race in the game world.   And if you are doing that, 'ancestry' is not only a inaccurate term, but a dishonest one.

Moreover, we've had multiple posters on the ancestry side of this debate suggest that the advantage of 'ancestry' is that we can use it as both a euphemism for 'race' (as Paizo explicitly) does and also use it as a euphemism for culture so that we can use the same umbrella mechanic of 'ancestry' to different both race (elf from dwarf, for example) and use it to differentiate Mwangi from Keleshite.   This is even more problematic, because it conflates culture with ethnicity in a way that reinforces racial essentialism.   At the very least, if you go that way you have to be really careful to call out that everyone who is culturally Keleshite is not necessarily ethnically or racially Keleshite.   But then this is still confusing and problematic, because if I'm selecting 'Ancestry' and my option is 'Keleshite' I'm being steered to think that to be Keleshite culturally I have to have Keleshite ancestry.   And you just do not want to do that if you are going to be making a realistically diverse and inclusive game.

In short, I understand the problem that is trying to be solved, but the solution is bad, and not only will I have big problems with it from my perspective as a highly undesirable and loathsome person greatly to be ignored (and who cares, right?), but I guarantee you that if you go this way blind to the problems it creates you are going to find yourself the target of the very sort of ire and indignation you are bringing to these boards.


----------



## LazarusKane

Hm...
I´m not really sure why but according to the thesaurus Merriam-Webster (https://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/race) "ancestry" isn´t a synonym (= the same) for "race" - it´s even a Near _Antonym_ = the opposite.

"Near antonyms are words that do not qualify as antonyms under the strict definition used for this thesaurus but that      clearly have meanings in marked contrast with the members of a synonym group."


----------



## tomBitonti

"Ancestry" kind-of fits, in that it works with "Heritage" type feats, and fits well with the idea of having a particular "other" race in one's ancestry.  There are many examples of this, using either a feat or built into a character's initially selected race.

"Race" does have some unfortunate connections to real world issues, which would be nice to avoid.  What is important then is not the detractions of "Race" per se, but the improvements which can be made by an alternate.  

While "Ancestry" can be made to work, I'm not liking it, since it doesn't work for many cases.  (What is the Ancestry of a Mind Flayer?  Or of a Juju Zombie?)  I don't find "Species" to be work very well either, in part because it is too modern, but also because it doesn't fit many of the possibilities, either.

In any case, staying within the current game system features, there are several "functions" to which race contributes, and which I'd want to preserve:

1) In setting basic abilities, e.g., Drow having Dark Vision, and Thri-Kreen having four arms.  Goblins are small.  Troglodytes stink.

2) As a determinant of Type and Subtype (with extension to type specific spells or abilities, for example, "Charm Person" and "Slaying [Type]" as a weapon quality).  An Elf might be Humanoid(Elf), and a Fire Genasi might be Humanoid(Human, Fire).

Thx!
TomB


----------



## TheCosmicKid

Pauper said:


> "What if a bee was as smart as a human" isn't a question we can effectively answer, because the closer we get to expressing the world in the way a hyper-intelligent bee would perceive it, the farther away we get from an understandable human perspective and the more likely we are to reject that expression as unrelateable, so any expression we could really accept simply makes the bee-person seem more like a human with antennae taped to her forehead.



I just so happen to have a hyper-intelligent bee as a major NPC in my campaign. And I make liberal use of the "talking animals" trope in general.

My approach to the problem is to lean into it. Talking animals in fairy tales and beast fables have surprisingly human perspectives not simply because they were written by human authors and have to be relatable to human audiences, but because they comment on the human condition. That may sound over-pretentious. I don't have any grand literary designs for my long-suffering but loyal bee. But I'd rather embrace the humanness of the character than worry about whether it's realistic.


----------



## Andor

Mallus said:


> My top three replacements are "people", "species", and "kin/kind". I don't have any objections to science-y sounding words like "species". D&D is full of them already, and from a language standpoint, D&D's terminology reflects its numerous, idiosyncratic source materials, so any appeal to a kind of genre-purity falls on deaf ears with me.




"Kind" is a good one. Humankind, elvenkind, dwarfkind. It strikes the ear properly, and doesn't have any baggage tied to it that I can think of (although I'm probably wrong.)



Mallus said:


> You know, my first post in this thread was a joke; an immortal elf and partly-made-out-of-stone dwarf agreeing "race" is a social construct. I'll stand by that. It's possible I'm at my most insightful when I'm trying to be funny...




In D&D a social construct is a warforged bard.


----------



## Pauper

LazarusKane said:


> I disagree.
> 1.) Take for example the 3.5 Edition "Races of ..." Books. There is so much material to distinct the races.




Except that much if not all of that material would apply just as well if describing humans dwelling in the same environments those other races come from. To take an example from one of the PDFs I just happen to have lying around:



			
				A Races Of Book said:
			
		

> The outriders are the most skilled scouts of the tribe, and they govern the direction that the tribe hunts and travels, unless the chieftain overrules their choice. The druids, the primary source of healing and magical power within the society, hold a great deal of influence over most aspects of ... life, and often advise the chieftain on important matters. The chieftain makes decisions on everything that affects the tribe as a whole.




So is this describing wild elves? Ghostwise halflings? Gnolls? Or just a group of humans that don't dwell in what we call civilization? As it happens, it's from the Races of the Wild section on Catfolk, but it (like much of the other material in those sources) is so generic that there's you could swap out the catfolk for humans and still find the material utterly understandable and believable. This is a 'rubber forehead race'.



> 2.) But the bigger reason is that the D&D (basic) races must keep approachable - the more "alien" a race is the harder it is to play (and if I remember correctly even in this thread someone made the arguments that you can´t play a different race (an elf) properly as an NON-Human (=alien) character... and that Thri-Keen shouldn´t be allowed as player characters...  I witnessed even more than once the discussion that a male can´t even play a woman properly.




That's much the same as the point I brought up with Celebrim, the idea that players don't really treat the 'races' as anything but 'humans with X trait', so it's not really valid to talk about them as absolutely definably distinct types of beings. I think your point, though, goes toward why some players seem defensive about the 'race' argument -- the idea being that, if making a distinction of 'race' is problematic because the different 'races' can't be played distinctly enough not to be offensive, that the obvious answer is to ban them from being used by players. (Honestly, that's an approach I'd consider in my own games for races like drow elves and full orcs which are explictly described in the Monster Manual as evil.) I'm not sure that banning the use of problematic playable 'races' is the best answer, but I do understand that leaving them in the game as options effectively concedes that some players will choose to use those options, and a player can't be considered wholly to blame for choosing a problematic option that isn't presented responsibly and then playing that option badly.



> That´s one of the reasons BRIGHT seems to be ripped from the Shadowrun Manual - the first Orks in Shadowrun are mutated  humans - and that happened only 30 to 50 years before the actual timeline of the game.




Depends on which edition of Shadowrun you're using -- in the edition I played, the return of magic to the world simply revealed that some people who appeared human were actually orcs all along. Its a surprisingly inclusive message for its time, though it has problematic aspects of its own. (So if you're secretly an orc but don't know it, does that mean you're only going to be attracted to people who are also secretly orcs but don't know it? And how do you know that if you don't know it consciously?)

--
Pauper


----------



## Obryn

Shadow Demon said:


> If you go back far enough, they would have a single common ancestor that would encompass the entire elven race. Ancestry is too specific. It is not general enough.



You know you're making a terrible argument here, don't you?


----------



## Legatus Legionis

I recall back in OD&D, we had an Elven Ranger, or a Dwarven Fighter, as race/class were the same thing for playing this type of character.

Then AD&D expanded this so that we had races and they can pick classes.

Then AD&D2e added non-classical races to those being playable.


DemoMonkey said:


> If we remove the term "Race", shouldn't we also remove the terms Elf, Dwarf, Halfling etc? What would those terms even be referring to without the concept of race?
> ...
> Should all characters simply be referred to as "People" with no further differentiation?
> 
> What do we lose by that approach? And what do we gain?



I would say alot, I'll explain below;


shidaku said:


> ...
> Let people take X number of "ancestry" traits and it would _literally_ define their biological ancestry.  Perhaps they're just a mutt and thanks to that they've got darkvision, stonecunning and trance-sleep.  Or something.



One of the things I disliked with 3ed came out was how they treated classes (or lack there of), and made everything into a skill/point based system.

Even though you did not specifically say, if we take it a step further, this idea of eliminating "elven", or "dwarven", etc. and taking it to their lowest common denomination; traits that makes a being or "race" unique, where those that share alot in common of the same traits can be considered a "tribe/people".


Maxperson said:


> Everything.  The "issues" with race are the among the smallest of all the "issues" with D&D.  If we change race, we need to change the following greater issues.  Fighters, because far more people dislike violence in the real world than there are white supremacists.  Clerics, because there are far more religious people in the world than white supremacists.  Druids, for the same reason as clerics, but in addition you will have druids running around claiming climate change, and others who say that they are crazy.  Rogues, because a great many people in the real world dislike crime.  Wizard, sorcerer, and warlock(pacts with evil anyone),  because religion.  Paladin, see cleric and druid.  Monk, see cleric and druid due to their mysticism.  I'm sure if I tried I could find an issue with ranger.  Monsters (especially demons and angels) run afoul of religion.
> ...



I am afraid doing all the above would make the RPG into a:

Humanoid/creature with the following skills, following heritage, following ethos, following...

I am a fan of classical fantasy and novels.

I always enjoy wanting to role play a knight of the round table, or a ranger like Robin Hood, or a Dwarf from DragonLance, or a Barbarian like Conan, or a Sinbad the Sailor.

For me, that is what Fantasy RPG's are.

A chance to role play such great characters, or to create my own great characters.

I am not bothered by the use of the term "Race" in an RPG, nor class, nor social status, nor any of the other terms.

Do we still need the word "race"... 
if we are going to be using distinct people types/traits, then yes.
if we are going to be using traits/point to explain everything (I have nightvision, you have wings, they have claws, etc), then no.


----------



## LazarusKane

TheCosmicKid said:


> I just so happen to have a hyper-intelligent bee as a major NPC in my campaign. And I make liberal use of the "talking animals" trope in general.
> 
> My approach to the problem is to lean into it. Talking animals in fairy tales and beast fables have surprisingly human perspectives not simply because they were written by human authors and have to be relatable to human audiences, but because they comment on the human condition. That may sound over-pretentious. I don't have any grand literary designs for my long-suffering but loyal bee. But I'd rather embrace the humanness of the character than worry about whether it's realistic.




And one of the things I love - if the GM and/or the other players are ok with it - is playing my nonhuman PC´s and NPC´s with a hearty piece of alieness. 

So to each its own. 

And yes, more than one time the players were shocked when my characters done something unreasonable - from a strictly human perspective.


----------



## Thomas Bowman

Obryn said:


> So an elf wouldn't have a different ancestry?




Yes, but so would a dog or a cat! You can have different ancestries within the same race, and different races have different ancestries. To have the same ancestry means you are in the same family, as in brother and sister, that is not a race.


----------



## Lord Rasputin

Legatus_Legionis said:


> I recall back in OD&D, we had an Elven Ranger, or a Dwarven Fighter, as race/class were the same thing for playing this type of character.



While avoiding the whole issue of the thread, in OD&D, race and class are separate. It's only in the BX/BEMCI/RC versions of D&D that they're unified. Of course, since Dwarves and Hobbits could only be Fighting-Men in the original OD&D boxed set, this wasn't a big limitation when it was added to the Moldvay book.


----------



## Caliburn101

So one mainstream fantasy rpg keeps the Tolkienesque clichés intact in it's various editions and suddenly all fantasy based rpg's have to ditch race as a term?

How about NO.

It should be quite clear that all kinds of fantasy games have ejected the Tolkien model - like Earthdawn, or Talislanta. D&D continues it because of the tradition of it's roots.

The term 'race' isn't racist when you are talking about races that are physiologically massively distinct. It isn't even racist unless used in such a context between humans of different ancestries. I can see the point of having ancestries within a fantasy race (including human), but it is pandering to one of the crassly overblown internet credos that if a term can be misused by the bias few, then it should be banned for everyone.

No thanks. Racist supremacy is bad, racial harmony is good. Both use the word. Nobody uses the phrases 'ancestral supremacist' or 'ancestral harmony'.

Take it from an old archaeologist, culture is NOT race, and indeed visa versa. It can seem like it when a race and culture are uniquely associated (such as with elves in Middle Earth), but it's wrong to think they are entirely interdependent, and we shouldn't confuse the facts with the lobbyist fiction, nor change our terms of reference for no good reason.


----------



## Thomas Bowman

Shasarak said:


> That is a good point.  DnD has already tried to change the words they use to describe DnD creatures which is why you will never see the terms such as Demon or Devil used in any official DnD book since the 80's.




Actually I have seen it used. Devils rule the Nine Hells, and Demons live in the 666 layers of the Abyss.


----------



## Obryn

Thomas Bowman said:


> Yes, but so would a dog or a cat! You can have different ancestries within the same race, and different races have different ancestries. To have the same ancestry means you are in the same family, as in brother and sister, that is not a race.



This would be like arguing that "race" is a bad term because there's no finish line. Or that "class" is a bad term because there's no students.

Cherry picking one definition of an ambiguous word is a seriously terrible argument, particularly when RPGs are already known for using words in novel ways.


----------



## Thomas Bowman

Caliburn101 said:


> So one mainstream fantasy rpg keeps the Tolkienesque clichés intact in it's various editions and suddenly all fantasy based rpg's have to ditch race as a term?
> 
> How about NO.
> 
> It should be quite clear that all kinds of fantasy games have ejected the Tolkien model - like Earthdawn, or Talislanta. D&D does it because of the tradition of it's roots.
> 
> The term 'race' isn't racist when you are talking about races that are physiologically massively distinct. It isn't even racist unless used in such a context between humans of different ancestries. I can see the point of having ancestries within a fantasy race (including human), but it is pandering to one of the crassly overblown internet credos that if a term can be misused by the bias few, then it should be banned for everyone.
> 
> No thanks.
> 
> Take it from an old archaeologist, culture is NOT race, and indeed visa versa. It can seem like it when a race and culture are uniquely associated (such as with elves in Middle Earth), but it's wrong to think they are entirely interdependent, and we shouldn't confuse the fact, nor change our terms of reference for no good reason.




I don't believe in banning old words, just because the Millennial generation have decided to label those old words as "racist" and think it is hip to ban old words so they can keep on churning the English language by replacing old words with awkward sentences so as not to offend the "easily offended"! I am not going to give people who are offended by everything total control over the English language so they get to decide what words we can and cannot use!


----------



## Shadow Demon

Obryn said:


> You know you're making a terrible argument here, don't you?




There is no argument.  it is preference. I have simply stated why I prefer one choice over the other. If you want a detailed argument, see Celebrim.


----------



## LazarusKane

Pauper said:


> Except that much if not all of that material would apply just as well if describing humans dwelling in the same environments those other races come from. To take an example from one of the PDFs I just happen to have lying around:
> 
> 
> 
> So is this describing wild elves? Ghostwise halflings? Gnolls? Or just a group of humans that don't dwell in what we call civilization? As it happens, it's from the Races of the Wild section on Catfolk, but it (like much of the other material in those sources) is so generic that there's you could swap out the catfolk for humans and still find the material utterly understandable and believable. This is a 'rubber forehead race'.




Ok, maybe my memory played a trick on me, I remembered them as great sources for my players to play nonhumans (and humans) as distintive races - but that was long ago. Now I prepare special writeups for playing races.




> That's much the same as the point I brought up with Celebrim, the idea that players don't really treat the 'races' as anything but 'humans with X trait', so it's not really valid to talk about them as absolutely definably distinct types of beings. I think your point, though, goes toward why some players seem defensive about the 'race' argument -- the idea being that, if making a distinction of 'race' is problematic because the different 'races' can't be played distinctly enough not to be offensive, that the obvious answer is to ban them from being used by players. (Honestly, that's an approach I'd consider in my own games for races like drow elves and full orcs which are explictly described in the Monster Manual as evil.) I'm not sure that banning the use of problematic playable 'races' is the best answer, but I do understand that leaving them in the game as options effectively concedes that some players will choose to use those options, and a player can't be considered wholly to blame for choosing a problematic option that isn't presented responsibly and then playing that option badly.




I require for most of my players (not the newbies etc., but the seasoned) that if they want to play a nonhuman race that they try to play them distinct from humans - and if I think someone can´t play an full-blood ork then he has to prove that he can. It´s sometiomes not a extremely popular opinion, but it´s working for us. 




> Depends on which edition of Shadowrun you're using -- in the edition I played, the return of magic to the world simply revealed that some people who appeared human were actually orcs all along. Its a surprisingly inclusive message for its time, though it has problematic aspects of its own. (So if you're secretly an orc but don't know it, does that mean you're only going to be attracted to people who are also secretly orcs but don't know it? And how do you know that if you don't know it consciously?)
> 
> --
> Pauper




OK, but in the old editions the orks (and all the other races except for some elves) were living as humans thousands of years and so had no cultural differences to the humans. Shadowrun was the ultimative collection of "'rubber forehead races" - but it made playing nonhumans extremely simple.


----------



## TheCosmicKid

Andor said:


> "Kind" is a good one. Humankind, elvenkind, dwarfkind. It strikes the ear properly, and doesn't have any baggage tied to it that I can think of (although I'm probably wrong.)



Hmm... that one has potential. It still sounds a bit off when detached from a group label, though. Taking a line from the PHB and doing the substitution, we get:

_"The description of each kind includes kind traits that are common to members of that kind. The following entries appear among the traits of most kinds."_


----------



## Arilyn

Thomas Bowman said:


> I don't believe in banning old words, just because the Millennial generation have decided to label those old words as "racist" and think it is hip to ban old words so they can keep on churning the English language by replacing old words with awkward sentences so as not to offend the "easily offended"! I am not going to give people who are offended by everything total control over the English language so they get to decide what words we can and cannot use!




This is an old argument that has been going on for generation after generation, and yet language just keeps on changing. Nothing to do specifically with the Millenials.


----------



## Pauper

TheCosmicKid said:


> I just so happen to have a hyper-intelligent bee as a major NPC in my campaign. And I make liberal use of the "talking animals" trope in general.




As an aside, let me say that Speak with Animals gets me into more trouble as a DM than any other ability in D&D, because one of my regular players is a former vet tech who honestly believes that animals have human-level intellect while I do not. The main advantage I have in that argument, other than being the DM, is that I can point to the Monster Manual and say, "In D&D, this dog has an Intelligence of 3, so it simply cannot retain or comprehend the same amount of information that you do with your Intelligence of 10." In that sense, it doesn't matter if animals really do have human-level intelligence that we simply don't know how to communicate with, because the game rules make a specific statement for the game world. However, she is clearly not happy with the statement the game rules made, and if she were offended enough by that statement, she would likely not play the game.

It's an interesting point to juxtapose against the discussion of 'race' in this thread.



> My approach to the problem is to lean into it. Talking animals in fairy tales and beast fables have surprisingly human perspectives not simply because they were written by human authors and have to be relatable to human audiences, but because they comment on the human condition. That may sound over-pretentious. I don't have any grand literary designs for my long-suffering but loyal bee. But I'd rather embrace the humanness of the character than worry about whether it's realistic.




That's actually pretty cool. And from a storytelling perspective, there is definitely a long tradition of taking exaggerated human traits and putting them on an anthropomorphized 'other' to make them more palatable to the story -- heck, Star Trek swims in this trope and has for decades.

Within the context of this discussion, though, if the bee-person is human enough to be relatable to human players, then the bee-person is probably more 'human with odd traits' than 'bee with some human traits', and in that sense, 'race' is not really descriptive of the difference between the bee-person and any other fantasy ethnicity.

--
Pauper


----------



## Caliburn101

The White Sorcerer said:


> The concept of race is pseudoscientific nonsense that doesn't have a place outside fantasy.




Wrong.

The Human Race.

Race as a reference to insignificant genetic, appearance and cultural differences is an outmoded term, but we are talking about FANTASY races here.

Outmoded for inter-human discussions about ancestry - sure. Still relevant to made up races from Scifi to Fantasy - yes.

The article is conflating the two and saying that fantasy has to drop the term because it is thought that because the word racism has race in it, that humans should drop any use of it when talking about each other. The fact is, from the beginning, D&D and other fantasy rpgs described humans as a single race.

If anything they were ahead of the times, and have been in no way outmoded or become out of sync.

The article sets up a fallacious 'truism' and then conflates the error with a question about whether we should all abandon the word race when talking about elves and dwarves and orcs.

It doesn't stand up to examination, so the answer is that we don't abandon it.


----------



## Elderbrain

Thomas Bowman said:


> Actually I have seen it used. Devils rule the Nine Hells, and Demons live in the 666 layers of the Abyss.




I believe the reference is to 2nd edition, where an editorial decision was made to change the names from "Devils" and "Demons" to "Baatezu" and "Tanar'ri" - basically to fool parents who'd been getting incensed at the presence of Devils and Demons in the game.   There are very few uses of the forbidden words in 2nd edition. Then when 3rd rolled around, they brought the old names back but also kept the new names. It remains to be seen "Baatezu" and "Tanar'ri" are ever used in 5th (MTOF would be a good place what with     the Blood War material.)


----------



## Shasarak

Jester David said:


> I mean, who would want to see the ads Google Analytics would throw out of you searched for "_Ultimate Race_" a few times. The books Amazon would suggest if you ordered from that site. Is it a book you would feel comfortable requesting from a library? If you were the head of a chain book store, would you order & stock a book called "_Ultimate Race_"?




Its worse then that, what ads are we going to get after ordering "Ultimate Ancestry"?


----------



## Pauper

LazarusKane said:


> Ok, maybe my memory played a trick on me, I remembered them as great sources for my players to play nonhumans (and humans) as distintive races - but that was long ago. Now I prepare special writeups for playing races.




I don't think your memory is off -- the books do have a lot of information on the non-human 'races' they describe. It's just that those descriptions basically translate to 'this non-human race is basically this specific subculture of humanity'; in the Race of the Wild book, halflings are basically described as Romani/Irish Wanderer types, while Catfolk are more Native/First World types, and elves are basically humans who have learned to have their civilization within nature rather than in spite of it.

(Edit: Re-reading this, I basically need to find an alternative for 'basically'.)

They're interesting sourcebooks, but not because they present truly non-human societies; their authors were only human after all.



> I require for most of my players (not the newbies etc., but the seasoned) that if they want to play a nonhuman race that they try to play them distinct from humans - and if I think someone can´t play an full-blood ork then he has to prove that he can. It´s sometimes not a extremely popular opinion, but it´s working for us.




Sounds like that might be workable for some groups, but other groups would rebel -- I've definitely been at tables where the guy playing the half-orc is only doing so because the bonuses and abilities his character gets as a half-orc fit so well with being a barbarian and he doesn't care at all about portraying the character as anything but a gruff axe with a human at one end. Even trying to enforce the text in the Basic Rules about alignment -- "(Even half-orcs feel the lingering pull of the orc god's influence.)" -- would meet with a wrinkled forehead and a disbelieving stare.

I don't see that changing the term we use to describe his character's half-orc-ness from 'race' to something else would really affect him, though; for him, it's just a label on a game mechanic. In fact, I suspect most gamers not participating in this discussion would feel the same way: "Eh, as long as I can still be a half-orc barbarian or an elf wizard, I don't care what you call the non-class options."



> OK, but in the old editions the orks (and all the other races except for some elves) were living as humans thousands of years and so had no cultural differences to the humans. Shadowrun was the ultimative collection of "'rubber forehead races" - but it made playing nonhumans extremely simple.




True enough, and it does explain why all these supposed non-humans still share the same cultural norms with the humans they dwell among. More so that Bright, anyway, which does the same thing despite suggesting that orcs and elves have existed in the world for thousands of years but are still culturally inseparable from humanity.

--
Pauper


----------



## Celebrim

Pauper said:


> Racial issues, probably not, but these are still identifiably human traits; someone might just as easily take issue with your portayal of elvish libertarianism, or depending on how far a player takes the 'childlike wonder' aspect of this group of elves, consider them to be psychologically deviant humans rather than truly alien (much as I took the fearlessness of the kender in Dragonlance, and why I still dislike them to this day).




I totally agree that achieving an actual alien effect is very difficult.  Quite possibly, with our sample size of one and our invisible biases, we would find it nigh impossible to actually imagine truly alien beings.  



> Good questions, though again, I'd say these 'fantastic' races still aren't 'races' in the sense people want to use it in this thread; human traits taken to an extreme still aren't really 'alien' as much as they can be seen as 'abberant' or 'damaged' -- your elves are different from humans, but not because they are truly non-human, only because their human-identifiable traits are expressed in a measure that generally wouldn't be found in a typical human or human society. And if we're going for 'diversity' among a group of characters who are basically all identified as having human-like traits, then 'race' is not the term we want to use to describe that distinction (though I suspect we agree on this point).




Well, to be frank and pragmatic, for the purpose of the game it's a different race if I want to put a different stat block on it.   That's the sense in which I use the term 'race'.  Although, I think you are underestimating the extent to which elven society is quite unlike any human society ever, I agree that however radical it is, it's still somewhat close kin to humanity.   And yes, if you mean that I never want to see different racial packages for different groups of humans, then yes, you read me correctly. 



> Contrast with a treatment of elves like that in Lord Dunsany's "The King of Elfland's Daughter"...




The treatment of elves in Lord Dunsany is much more in line with the idea of 'fairies' than it is in line with the post Tolkien idea of 'elves', even granting the obvious influences of Lord Dunsany on Tolkien.  Moreover, as the lord of fairy, the 'King of Elfland' is more in line not with the power of PC fairies in my game, but of fairy deities.  Still, I aspire to be at least that alien in my races, if not perhaps more so. 



> how bog-standard D&D treats magic, as a perfectly functional and predictable tool.




I've experimented with techniques for making magic more numinous in D&D and the problem is that those techniques shift too much burden on to the DM.  Being functional and predictable allows the player to take control of the magic and be responsible for it, which when you have a party of six is pretty much essential.   I think it would take a particular sort of computer game to really handle magic in a way that felt numinous (for at least most of the game) because variations and unpredictability is much easier handled by a computer.  The trick would be to feed the computer with enough creative ideas that the magic would not feel redundant before the end of the story.



> 'The orc cop has infravision'...




It wasn't really that so much as the call out that orcs had a keen sense of smell and the orcs belief that human faces were so expressive as to be basically transparent.   The contrast between the orcs ability to detect emotion and his ability to make sense of it was a big part of the character.  Fundamentally, the orc was a human imagined with certain canine traits - intense loyalty, pack structures, alpha males, keen nose, etc.  The orc cop was that as a particular sort of yippy dog that is annoying as it is lovable, almost to the point of being a cartoon character.



> But if that's the case, then there's no real way for us to implement 'race' as something truly non-human, because we can only express behavior in human terms, or in terms of things that are non-human that we believe we understand, such as animal or hive behaviors. "What if a bee was as smart as a human" isn't a question we can effectively answer, because the closer we get to expressing the world in the way a hyper-intelligent bee would perceive it, the farther away we get from an understandable human perspective and the more likely we are to reject that expression as unrelateable, so any expression we could really accept simply makes the bee-person seem more like a human with antennae taped to her forehead.




I think that that is true, but I return to my pragmatic definition - if you have to have a racial package of modifiers or abilities to represent it - then it's a race.   (And if you feel the need to do that with different members of the human race, perhaps rethink the direction you are taking your mechanics.)


----------



## Celebrim

Shasarak said:


> Its worse then that, what ads are we going to get after ordering "Ultimate Ancestry"?




I tried 'Ultimate Race' a few times as a test, and it keeps giving me ads for Drag Racing and high performance auto parts.


----------



## Arilyn

The term, race IS a social construct, and was created to group HUMANS into shared physical and/ or social constructs. Race is not a scientific term and is not based on any inherent physical or biological traits. Since it was created to group HUMANS, and inaccurately at that, it has no bearing whatsoever on fantasy beings. Many posters are defending the term race, for the accuracy if the term, when it's actually very inaccurate. Lots of rpgs have dropped the term, due to negative connotations AND the invalidity of the word. Since its losing out in both areas, time to let it go.


----------



## the_redbeard

LazarusKane said:


> But it´s the right word for the (right) thing




No.  The use of the word race was used to invent false differences between groups of people - even to CREATE separations of groups of people.  Even when it is used to study society today, it is used to describe the CREATED separations (ie, the social constructs) of people with no actual functional differences.

The use of the word race in fantasy rpgs is used to describe imagined actual functional differences.

It's a political word.  I thought "you people" (joke) didn't want politics in your games.


----------



## Hussar

Celebrim said:


> No, not at all.  I started playing around 1982 and was DMing by 1985.   My takes are takes that begin mostly in the late 1980's when I begin to try to organize my homebrew world in a more systematic way and ask big cosmological questions about how everything worked.  In point of fact, the origin of my take on elves not having bow proficiency not as a result of nurture but as a result of nature was based on the write up of Elvish deities in 'Unearthed Arcana' were it was implied that each of the elvish deities had given the elvish people a particular gift.  If it the ability to use bows and swords was a divine gift, then it was more biological than cultural.   I ran with that ever since./snip




Precisely my point. You have internalized your own house rules to the point where you cannot even recognize the fact that these are house rules and not actually reflective of what the game states.  Which, for your own home game is perfectly fine.  But, to the argue that it's true for the GAME and not your particular table, is just strange.

Thank you for so eloquently showing my point.


----------



## TheCosmicKid

Pauper said:


> As an aside, let me say that Speak with Animals gets me into more trouble as a DM than any other ability in D&D, because one of my regular players is a former vet tech who honestly believes that animals have human-level intellect while I do not. The main advantage I have in that argument, other than being the DM, is that I can point to the Monster Manual and say, "In D&D, this dog has an Intelligence of 3, so it simply cannot retain or comprehend the same amount of information that you do with your Intelligence of 10."



Haha! Yeah, there's a lot of different ways to interpret _speak with animals_. For my talking animals thing, I reason that they can have human-like speech and personalities without being particularly _bright_. And of course, I'm the DM, so I can always ignore the Monster Manual and give them an Int of 6 or so if it matters.

The bees are Int 10, though. 



Pauper said:


> Within the context of this discussion, though, if the bee-person is human enough to be relatable to human players, then the bee-person is probably more 'human with odd traits' than 'bee with some human traits', and in that sense, 'race' is not really descriptive of the difference between the bee-person and any other fantasy ethnicity.



Well, she's still a bee. Three segments, six legs, no hands, doesn't wear pants, can only survive when the party is on the go because they've got an _alchemy jug_ locked on "honey". This one I wouldn't hesitate to describe as a "species"-level difference, notwithstanding the psychology.


----------



## Celebrim

Hussar said:


> Precisely my point. You have internalized your own house rules to the point where you cannot even recognize the fact that these are house rules and not actually reflective of what the game states.  Which, for your own home game is perfectly fine.  But, to the argue that it's true for the GAME and not your particular table, is just strange.
> 
> Thank you for so eloquently showing my point.




I have no idea what you are talking about now.  I invite you to go back early in the thread and trace my discussion of elvish archery from the beginning.  I have always made it clear that it was a personal choice whether to treat it as nature or nurture, and my point has always been simply that we cannot know whether it is nature or nuture based on whether it would be nature or nurture in humans.  I don't see how that suggests anything about how I have internalized my house rules to the point that I don't recognize them as house rules, and it's worth noting further that 'the game' we are talking about is now more than 30 years old and there never was a single set of house rules or single RAW during all that time.  Are you confusing "the game" with 5e D&D?

As for what the game actually states, the game states that regardless of the elves background, the elf gets this advantage.  What does that suggest to you?


----------



## Pauper

Celebrim said:


> Well, to be frank and pragmatic, for the purpose of the game it's a different race if I want to put a different stat block on it. That's the sense in which I use the term 'race'.




I think this is one place where we diverge in our opinions; I remember making a point earlier in the thread about how having orcs get +2 to Strength and elves +2 to Dexterity isn't sufficient to say that these two expressions of characters are distinct enough to comprise a 'racial' difference. But I suspect that if you don't call it 'race', then you wouldn't have as much of a problem statting out different human ethnicities this way; something as simple as a +2 to Wisdom (Survival) checks in a given terrain type would help to distinguish a human of Inuit-like ancestry from one of Yanomamo-like ancestry and each compared to a human raised in a technologically advanced society that doesn't rely on Survival checks for...err...survival.

Using actual characteristic bonuses, though, is problematic: I would not be comfortable with a rule that claimed that humans of Japanese or South Korean heritage gain +2 to Intelligence. It's very easy to use such mechanics to reinforce stereotypes about other ethnic human groups, and that's something I think we'd agree is not needed in a game's design (unless you're designing FATAL 2nd edition, for which a rule like this would just be a drop in the fetid bucket).

(Edit: I just realized I'm assuming you'll get the FATAL reference, since you put two spaces after your periods and therefore are probably an older gamer; if not, I apologize. FATAL is basically 'The Game' of RPGs; the only way to win is to not know that it exists.)



> Although, I think you are underestimating the extent to which elven society is quite unlike any human society ever, I agree that however radical it is, it's still somewhat close kin to humanity.




I'll concede the point on elves, mainly because elves have been much more detailed as a non-human society, both via Tolkien's distillation of myth and lore as well as the incorporation of other types of folklore regarding 'fair folk', such as the Dunsanyan faeries. We have more material for elves and elf-like fictional societies, so it only makes sense that those societies feel more 'real' than, say, catfolk societies.



> I've experimented with techniques for making magic more numinous in D&D and the problem is that those techniques shift too much burden on to the DM.




Reluctantly agree -- if you really want to go this way with your magic system, you probably want to play a more narrative/story-type game than D&D.



> It wasn't really that so much as the call out that orcs had a keen sense of smell and the orcs belief that human faces were so expressive as to be basically transparent.   The contrast between the orcs ability to detect emotion and his ability to make sense of it was a big part of the character.  Fundamentally, the orc was a human imagined with certain canine traits - intense loyalty, pack structures, alpha males, keen nose, etc.  The orc cop was that as a particular sort of yippy dog that is annoying as it is lovable, almost to the point of being a cartoon character.




That's a good point, and a nice way of incorporating biology into sociology; ultimately, though, the thing I remember about Bright is not so much the loyal orc cop sidekick, but the orc extras in do-rags. *sigh*



> I think that that is true, but I return to my pragmatic definition - if you have to have a racial package of modifiers or abilities to represent it - then it's a race.   (And if you feel the need to do that with different members of the human race, perhaps rethink the direction you are taking your mechanics.)




To throw a reference way back to early in the thread, you could have cultural mechanics that are distinct from any biological traits as noted by the AngryDM -- this lets you better represent weird cases like the halfling raised by elves, for instance, if the halfling character can take an 'elf cultural' package that contains mechanical benefits that accrue from living in elf society rather than simply being born an elf. (Cultural packages work especially well in Fifth Edition, where they can be constituted as variations on existing backgrounds. I think the Fifth Edition version of the One Ring setting already does this, IIRC.) Of course, as others have already pointed out, this then opens up argument over what counts as 'nature vs. nurture' for each 'race' to distinguish between what should be in the cultural package and what in the 'racial' package, and what might be reasonably taken by non-elves taking that package. (Example: elf proficiency with the longbow is sometimes explained by the long elvish lifespan; it takes a long time to become an expert archer, but elves have that time in spades, and so they embrace the art as well as the craft of archery. A shorter-lived race wouldn't have the same amount of time to learn true elvish archery, so shouldn't take the cultural package granting archery bonuses. Alternatively, others might argue that elvish proficiency in archery is granted by their deity as part of their very essence and doesn't belong in a cultural package at all; even an elf raised far away from other elves can still pick up a bow and fire it as if he was born to it, because he was. Which camp you fall into determine where you put the archery bonuses in your character creation rules.)

Even then, though, I think you could call the 'racial' package whatever you want (an 'elf-folk' package?) and most gamers probably wouldn't so much as raise an eyebrow.

--
Pauper


----------



## Pauper

At this point I'd like to propose Pauper's Extrapolation of Godwin's Law:

In any discussion of problematic mechanics or design in role-playing games, as the discussion thread grows longer, the probability of mentioning FATAL approaches one.

--
Pauper


----------



## TheCosmicKid

Arilyn said:


> The term, race IS a social construct, and was created to group HUMANS into shared physical and/ or social constructs. Race is not a scientific term and is not based on any inherent physical or biological traits.



Firstly, you're repeating lines that exaggerate their theoretical underpinnings  in order to be provocative, rather than explain and contextualize them  in order to be productive. When Person A says stuff like this, Person B will often note that (e.g.) Barack Obama and Queen Elizabeth _look physically different_, and come to the conclusion that Person A is just nonsensically wrong. From that point, no conversation or education is possible, because trust in the reasonableness of the other party has been broken. 

But secondly, even if the nature of race is... debatable, there are other categories that _are_ uncontentiously and purely social constructs, like "nationality" and "religion". And yet we don't go around saying that nationality and religion do not exist or that it's problematic to even mention them in a tabletop roleplaying game. So what's going on here?


----------



## TheCosmicKid

Pauper said:


> (Edit: I just realized I'm assuming you'll get the FATAL reference, since you put two spaces after your periods and therefore are probably an older gamer; if not, I apologize. FATAL is basically 'The Game' of RPGs; the only way to win is to not know that it exists.)



Yeah, I'd gone at least a year without thinking about FATAL. So thanks for that.


----------



## Brooding Paladin

james501 said:


> "Scion" perhaps ?




Ah, but then you've got the whole Scion Psion confusion...


----------



## Hussar

TheCosmicKid said:


> Is it a Latin word meaning "east", or is it synonymous with the British occupation? Pick one.




Wow, it's almost like words  can have multiple meanings and several connotations, all at the same time.

Whodathunk?


----------



## Hussar

Celebrim said:


> I have no idea what you are talking about now.  I invite you to go back early in the thread and trace my discussion of elvish archery from the beginning.  I have always made it clear that it was a personal choice whether to treat it as nature or nurture, and my point has always been simply that we cannot know whether it is nature or nuture based on whether it would be nature or nurture in humans.  I don't see how that suggests anything about how I have internalized my house rules to the point that I don't recognize them as house rules, and it's worth noting further that 'the game' we are talking about is now more than 30 years old and there never was a single set of house rules or single RAW during all that time.  Are you confusing "the game" with 5e D&D?
> 
> As for what the game actually states, the game states that regardless of the elves background, the elf gets this advantage.  What does that suggest to you?




No, the game states ELVEN WEAPON TRAINING.  Plus, Drow, who are also elves, don't get it.  

Look, I get that you spend a lot of time on your game.  But, we don't play your game.  We play D&D.  Please stop trying to project your game onto what the game actually states.  It has NEVER been stated that elves gain this simply by being an elf.  It HAS been stated that it is gained because of training.  

In every edition of the game, it's either silent on the issue, or states that it's a trained trait.  In no edition of the game is it a natural trait.  

Good grief, this is the whole Medusa argument all over again.  ((For reference, a poster here [MENTION=957]BryonD[/MENTION] stated that seeing a medusa in D&D automatically turns you to stone and that the saving throw is reflecting being able to close your eyes.  This is not true and has never been true in any edition of the game.  I know this, because I had to quote every single Medusa writeup from every edition of the game before I could adequately prove my point))

Please stop projecting your game onto what the game actually states.


----------



## Celebrim

Pauper said:


> I think this is one place where we diverge in our opinions; I remember making a point earlier in the thread about how having orcs get +2 to Strength and elves +2 to Dexterity isn't sufficient to say that these two expressions of characters are distinct enough to comprise a 'racial' difference.




I agree with your point, and would take it further and say if that is all 'race' means in your game, then really you shouldn't bother, as all you've done is just created a bunch of optional builds where you match race to class to get some sort of mechanical advantage.



> But I suspect that if you don't call it 'race', then you wouldn't have as much of a problem statting out different human ethnicities this way;...




Nope.  That's the core of my criticism.  Changing the label, but engaging in the same behavior is just as problematic, maybe even more so, because you've confused yourself with the dishonest label.  



> something as simple as a +2 to Wisdom (Survival) checks in a given terrain type would help to distinguish a human of Inuit-like ancestry from one of Yanomamo-like ancestry and each compared to a human raised in a technologically advanced society that doesn't rely on Survival checks for...err...survival.




You see, I totally object to this.  And, I object to it because I tried it nearly 20 years ago now, and I really disliked the results and dropped it very quickly.  First of all, it isn't "Inuit Ancestry" that gives you +5 to Survival (Artic).   What gives you that isn't being born Inuit, but being raised in the Artic from birth.  It's Inuit culture that builds those skills in the character, and not being born Inuit.   Now, I don't neglect the possibility that there might be various adaptations to cold weather common to people of Inuit ancestry, but most of those are likely so minor that D&D at its usual granularity just can't handle them.  I mean were talking things like +1 saving throws versus snow blindness or something, and even that might be over quantifying very minor differences.  The value of going after those small physical differences between human ethnic groups strikes me as really limited, and the risks it adds socially and the complication it ads to chargen just basically make it not worth it in my opinion.

But the core problem with something like +2 to survival checks even for having Inuit culture, is that it still ends up reinforcing racial essentialism, and the more complex and varied the culture the more of a problem that is.  I was wanting to save this example for a different thread, but one of the things the Har people of my homebrew world are known for is a fear of water, so I encapsulated that in my first draft of rules for having an ethnic background as a -1 to swim checks.   And the problem with that is that that isn't how real culture actually works.  A more realistic take on the Har is that like maybe 40% of them are afraid of water.  Now that's a really high number.   Amongst the Concheeri maybe similar fear only occurs at a less than 1% rate.   So there is a sense that it is true that the Har live up to their stereotype, but in point of fact the majority of them really wouldn't exhibit a noticeable fear of water.  There is a cultural trait at play here that is both real and at the same time false.   We would expect in this world any Har not afraid of water to raise eyebrows, even though he's not really that uncommon and in fact is even typical amongst the Har.

Likewise, this fear of water is a cultural trait, so that a Har raised outside of it would still very much have Har ancestry, but wouldn't manifest the trait (although, the Har have a valid reason for being afraid of water).  

So my initial attempt to define what it meant to be part of an ethnic group turned out to be vastly too simplistic.  I eventually decided that realism here wouldn't really be worthwhile, but a closer and more respectful take might be to provide a list of backgrounds typical to the culture including some backgrounds perhaps unique to the culture representing particular professions or lifestyles rare or unknown outside the ethnic group. 

Any kind of simplistic "Inuit Heritage" that gave you +5 to Arctic survival checks would strike me as primitive and problematic.



> Using actual characteristic bonuses, though, is problematic: I would not be comfortable with a rule that claimed that humans of Japanese or South Korean heritage gain +2 to Intelligence. It's very easy to use such mechanics to reinforce stereotypes about other ethnic human groups, and that's something I think we'd agree is not needed in a game's design




Yes, obviously, but I'm taking it even further than you do.  Not every South Korean actually prefers an arranged marriage.   The percent that do is probably vastly higher than the number of Americans that do, but you can't just easily capture the nuances of a whole culture with a single stat block of fixed modifiers and I think if you try that you are quickly going to find yourself in a bad place.



> Reluctantly agree -- if you really want to go this way with your magic system, you probably want to play a more narrative/story-type game than D&D.




No, not necessarily.  You could still do it with a simulationist approach.  The main point is that to achieve a sense of numinous awe or terror or wonder, you have to hide a bunch of information from the player.  But hiding information from the player is expensive in terms of running the game.



> but the orc extras in do-rags. *sigh*




Yeah, totally on board with you there.



> To throw a reference way back to early in the thread, you could have cultural mechanics that are distinct from any biological traits as noted by the AngryDM -- this lets you better represent weird cases like the halfling raised by elves, for instance, if the halfling character can take an 'elf cultural' package that contains mechanical benefits that accrue from living in elf society rather than simply being born an elf.




You can, I just think you have to be really careful even with that, for several different reasons I've tried to explain in this thread.   This is particularly true if you are designing human ethnic groups, which invariably are going to be seen as commentary on the real world by somebody.  (And hopefully, they aren't correct.)



> (Example: elf proficiency with the longbow is sometimes explained by the long elvish lifespan; it takes a long time to become an expert archer, but elves have that time in spades




Or a deity comes into the daydreams of elvish youths and trains them while they are in their reverie in the ways of archer.  



> Alternatively, others might argue that elvish proficiency in archery is granted by their deity as part of their very essence and doesn't belong in a cultural package at all; even an elf raised far away from other elves can still pick up a bow and fire it as if he was born to it, because he was. Which camp you fall into determine where you put the archery bonuses in your character creation rules.




Sure.  And in the case of an elf, I'm ok with either way you do it.   But you're probably going to get yourself in trouble if you start trying to figure out what is nature or nurture when it comes to humans, because right now we only know in the most obvious and least granular cases.



> Even then, though, I think you could call the 'racial' package whatever you want (an 'elf-folk' package?) and most gamers probably wouldn't so much as raise an eyebrow.




I think 'folk' has to be the worst idea ever, except for 'volk' (that someone actually suggested) which unfortunately like the Swastika is permanently tainted by association.  If race is problematic to outrage-mongers, you really don't want to ask players to choose a 'folk'.   Raised eyebrows or not, you'd be accused of dog-whistling almost immediately regardless of how innocent your use of the word.


----------



## Arilyn

TheCosmicKid said:


> Firstly, you're repeating lines that exaggerate their theoretical underpinnings  in order to be provocative, rather than explain and contextualize them  in order to be productive. When Person A says stuff like this, Person B will often note that (e.g.) Barack Obama and Queen Elizabeth _look physically different_, and come to the conclusion that Person A is just nonsensically wrong. From that point, no conversation or education is possible, because trust in the reasonableness of the other party has been broken.
> 
> But secondly, even if the nature of race is... debatable, there are other categories that _are_ uncontentiously and purely social constructs, like "nationality" and "religion". And yet we don't go around saying that nationality and religion do not exist or that it's problematic to even mention them in a tabletop roleplaying game. So what's going on here?




What is going on, is race has been treated as a scientific term, when it's a social construct full of inaccuracies. It's also a loaded term, linked to racism. It doesn't pertain to fantasy beings because race was used to divide humans into groups. This is why there is no good reason to keep the term.


----------



## Shasarak

So if Race is changed to Ancestry, then do we still get to kill some fools, take their stuff and drink their life force in the form of XP to fuel our characters personal power as long as they had an Orc in their Ancestry?  Or is that still Ancestrism?


----------



## TheCosmicKid

Arilyn said:


> What is going on, is race has been treated as a scientific term, when it's a social construct full of inaccuracies.



It _is_ a scientific term, albeit an informal one. Even if this were not the case, a term by itself _cannot_ be inaccurate. You're conflating term with referent. Religion the thing is a social construct full of inaccuracies (no matter what you believe, you gotta believe a lot of other people are inaccurate), but "religion" the term is an accurate and neutral way of describing that thing.



Arilyn said:


> It's also a loaded term, linked to racism.



Sex and gender are linked to sexism and transphobia. Nationality is linked to nationalism. Religion is linked to religious persecution.



Arilyn said:


> It doesn't pertain to fantasy beings because race was used to divide humans into groups.



Again: religion, nationality, gender...



Arilyn said:


> This is why there is no good reason to keep the term.



Even if those are reasons to _discard_ the term, it does not follow that there are not also good reasons to keep it.


----------



## pemerton

james501 said:


> When asking someone for his ethnic identity would you say "what people are you" or "what ethnicity/nationality are you" ?



This depends heavily on local custom and how rude you want to be. Likewise asking someone "What race are you?"



james501 said:


> Calling elves,dwarves orcs as "races" has no bearing and no relation to the real life "race" and its negative associations.



I believe this claim to be false. Hence my posts in this thread.


----------



## pemerton

Afrodyte said:


> Quick question: How many people who are arguing this issue are people of color?



I am white. A good part of my family, and many of my friends, are not.


----------



## Yaarel

Fore Shame said:


> Where are you drawing the line here between race and species?




In my academic experience, ‘race’ and ‘species’ mean the same thing. By extension, in some circles, the term ‘race’ was preferred if that other species was humanlike. In that sense, ‘race’ was used for creatures like giants, elves, or so on, who are clearly nonhuman yet humanlike.

Recently, I noticed wikipedia scientific articles using the term ‘race’ to mean something like a sub-sub-species, sort of like a ‘breed’. Not only does that sound unfamiliar, it may well be reallife racists trying to stealth in racist crap into the collective memory networks.

Ultimately, ‘race’ is a useless word that causes confusion, being either false or archaic.


----------



## Shasarak

Celebrim said:


> For example, ancient Greeks developed a transnational identity of being 'Greek' that united them as a people group.  They were as racist as anything you could ever point out, but this xenophobia was a step less xenophobic than the "us against everyone from over the hill" level that preceded it.




I always thought that the people that the Greeks hated the most were the other Greeks.  I mean even when the Persians turned up they still did not want to work together.


----------



## pemerton

MacConnell said:


> Should the works of literature be altered in their vocabulary due to the propaganda of politically motivated societal manipulation?



Let's bracket the question of whether Gygax's PHB is a "work of literature". Who is talking about altering it? The hypothetical 6th edition of D&D doesn't exist yet - but if it were published without using the word "race", what about it would have been altered?


----------



## Sunseeker

Legatus_Legionis said:


> One of the things I disliked with 3ed came out was how they treated classes (or lack there of), and made everything into a skill/point based system.
> 
> Even though you did not specifically say, if we take it a step further, this idea of eliminating "elven", or "dwarven", etc. and taking it to their lowest common denomination; traits that makes a being or "race" unique, where those that share alot in common of the same traits can be considered a "tribe/people".




It's not that you couldn't have it.  You'd simply say something along the lines of "Wood Elves typically have the following traits."

As another person suggested, either the number, or the value of the trait would determine your ancestry.  Bigger traits would contain stronger traditionally-identifiable racial elements.  Smaller traits would be limited to things that most people think of as elfy, but have no real reason to be limited to elves.  EX: Drow magic could be a major trait, while darkvision (something multiple races could have) could be a minor trait.


----------



## Hussar

Just a note on the notion of "euphemism".  What's the problem here?  We do this all the time and it's considered a good thing.  We replace a word that carries all sorts of historical baggage with another word that means the same thing, but without the baggage.

I mean, take Indian as an example.  It was used to refer to the indigenous people in North America.  At its base level, that's the meaning (although not the only meaning) of the word.  But, "Indian" has all sorts of negative connotations and history so it has been replaced, at least in Canada, with First Nations.  

The meaning, at its core, is exactly the same.  The indigenous people of Canada or America.  It's a "euphemism" in that sense.  But, it doesn't carry the same baggage, so, it becomes the acceptable term.

Since when is a euphemism a bad thing?  Granted, in this particular case of "Race in RPG's", it's a pretty minor issue.  I don't think anyone is getting too bent out of shape in either direction really.  Changing it, honestly, should be likewise a pretty minor thing.  I doubt most people would even notice.  And those that do, well, that's probably a good thing.

The fact that we've gone 450 posts now about this is testament to stubbornness, rather than any real feelings for the cause.


----------



## TheCosmicKid

Yaarel said:


> Recently, I noticed wikipedia scientific articles using the term ‘race’ to mean something like a sub-sub-species, sort of like a ‘breed’. Not only does that sound unfamiliar, it may well be reallife racists trying to stealth in racist crap into the collective memory networks.



If Ernst Mayr used it, I think we can assume it's legit.


----------



## Yaarel

Morrus said:


> It's an interesting discussion. Pathfinder now uses "ancestry", I used "heritage" in modern WOIN (but that was because the four choices were human - Augmented, Mutant, Chosen, and Human) but "race" in fantasy WOIN (where it refers to elves, dwarves, orcs, etc.)




‘Heritage’ might be the best nomenclature possible.

In a game where biology can be manipulated artificially by spiritualization, magic, gene splicing, cyberengineering, artificial intelligence, transhuman transfiguration, or so on, ... species and culture become the same thing. ‘Heritage’ seems to cover all of the possibilities − even self-modification.


----------



## Yaarel

FaerieGodfather said:


> Seems an odd choice to me. A demihuman's "racial" abilities in _Dungeons & Dragons_ surely aren't the product of cultural differences, are they? They're not learned behavior.
> 
> Otherwise, I would dearly love to learn the changeling's shapeshifting "habits", and the sensory "mindset" of the draconic heritage.




As I see it, elves choose their physical nature by transforming themselves and their offspring magically. Since magic is a cultural heritage, their ‘race’ and ‘subraces’ are strictly (magical) ‘cultural difference’.


----------



## pemerton

Gradine, I appreciate the reply. I hope you'll accept this post as continuing a conversation.



Gradine said:


> Fair enough. Far be it from me to minimize the harm and damage this causes to you.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> you bring up ToA, an adventure filled with casual racism. An adventure that had not a single person of color contribute anything to it. A problem caused by gaming being (a) still a predominantly white hobby, and (b) the professional creative and publishing world still being very much a "good old boys" club, where who you know often matters more than talent. And how every time a company hosts an initiative or contest aimed at bringing more diverse voices to the table they are shouted down by the community at large for calls of "reverse racism" or "reverse sexism".



Speaking purely from my own situation, based on the experiences I've had with the people I know, a game which begins by choosing a "race", with those choice still heavily steeped in Tolkienesque ideas, is not maximally welcoming to all people of colour.

Or to come at the same general point from a slightly different direction: people with whom I watched the LotR movies noticed that the only prominent people of colour on the screen were playing the orcs and uruk-hai.

I'm not saying that you're wrong. I'm trying to convey that I don't see these issues as completely disconnected.



Gradine said:


> maybe it's the academic circles I run in [most of my friends have degrees in Critical Race Studies, and I'm currently working on my second master's degree in Sociology (go ahead anti-PC brigade, roll your eyes if you must, if it helps I also _work_ at the university)], and I've never encountered the notion that "race' is an archaic or offensive term, either in modern, real world parlance or in the fantasy context. Maybe that's on me. It probably is. I'll eat crow on that one. Lord knows how difficult it can be to recognize the dehumanizing etymology of terms that have long since saturated common vernacular (see also, "gypped" or "lame".)



I'm an academic. Among other things, I teach theoretical sociology. I am not a critical race theorist, but I work on the borders of that particular discipline and have been taken for one at conferences. I don't think "race" is per se an offensive term - it's a crucial although very challenging conceptual tool needed for analysing contemporary social formations.

But the way that "race" is used in fantasy RPGs is a different thing. It's not a tool of analysis. It's more like this enduring outpost of reactionary conceptualisations of human natures.



Gradine said:


> when conventions put out zero-tolerance policies against discrimination or harrassment, a significant portion of the white male snowflake community start throwing tantrums about how some hypothetical vindictive harpy is going to get them kicked out of their fantasy game party, and how isn't that the real crime here?



Again to come at this from the angle that is closest to my own experience (I'm not a convention goer): before my daughters get near a convention, they would need to get near RPGing.

Now maybe I'm out of touch (I'm a middle-aged man) but for me fantasy RPGing is heavily grounded, in its tropes and the way it is presented and advocated, in a certain genre tradition. JRRT, HPL, REH, ERB, etc are the canonical authors of this tradition. Until my girls are late teenagers, how would I even show them REH or HPL? What are they meant to make of writers whose racism is so virulent? JRRT isn't as bad, but the issue is still there, as the films bring out.

In the fantasy literature that I see as canonical there are exceptions - eg Ursula LeGuin - but even in LeGuin European tropes, if not skin colours, still predominate.

To come at it from yet another direction, maybe more remote: Gygax's MM tells us that dwarves are mostly brown-skinned, but when was the last time you saw an illustration of a non-white dwarf? (Again, maybe I'm out of touch - I haven't bought a D&D book for a few years - but I never saw such a picture in any of the 4e materials I purchased.)

I think that fantasy RPGing has a problem here. It's approach to "race" is not all of it. Maybe it's not even most of it. I think it's part of it.



Gradine said:


> Maybe this is a change that's simple to do, actually benefits people, and is, at least in the long-run, relatively non-controversial. The first two seem self-evident at this point, and should very well be good enough. I do worry about the third; not because it matters what these people think, but because I worry about how that might distract time and energy away from issues that appear, at least to be, to be more urgent.
> 
> And maybe that's the wrong way to think about it. I'd be willing to concede that. Maybe we can walk and chew bubblegum at the same time.



This is my thinking, but then I'm not a publisher. On the other hand, this thread (and ones like it) make me think the change is more important, not less.


----------



## pemerton

clearstream said:


> Story Now requires that at least one engaging issue or problematic feature of human existence be addressed in the process of role-playing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> from http://www.indie-rpgs.com/_articles/narr_essay.html
> 
> Maybe the second quote answers the first?
Click to expand...


I've GMed games where racial identity, stereotyping and subordination has been one focus of play. Whether that was a sensible thing to do, or not, others can judge. It doesn't depend upon the rulebooks using the concept of "race".


----------



## TheCosmicKid

Hussar said:


> Just a note on the notion of "euphemism".  What's the problem here?  We do this all the time and it's considered a good thing.  We replace a word that carries all sorts of historical baggage with another word that means the same thing, but without the baggage.



The problem is that the baggage comes along. I think it's Pinker who dubbed it the "euphemism treadmill". You can keep changing the term, but the underlying attitudes towards the thing don't change. If we all stopped talking about "race" and started talking about "ancestry", racists wouldn't stop being racist; just like everybody else, they'd start using "ancestry" to promulgate their ideas, and the word would become as tainted as "race" was. You can see this process clearly in the succession of terms for people of African descent, or those with mental disabilities.

Conversely, if you _can_ change the underlying attitudes, you don't _need_ to change the term. Look at "gay". Homophobia isn't gone from the world, but it has been pushed back dramatically over the past few decades. And a term that was once insulting (or even outright threatening) has largely been reclaimed. Rather than hop on the euphemism treadmill, activists stuck with "gay", made it a point of pride, and forced the world to bend around it.

So I guess I'd sum up the problem as saying that euphemism in itself isn't actively morally evil or anything, but it is a waste of time and effort and a sign of possibly misplaced priorities.

And when you turn the usage of a euphemism into a moral issue, putting down people for using words that had been commonplace, that does verge on being a bad thing.


----------



## pemerton

Shadow Demon said:


> Nope, so calling them Oriental lands shouldn’t be offensive. After all, it is a Latin word meaning “east”.



East of where?


----------



## Yaarel

Regarding elves.

In D&D cosmology, the shadowfell and feywild are *spirit* realms, ghosts and nature spirits respectively.

When elves ‘immigrated’ from the feywild into the material, they are spirits taking on matter, like angels physicalizing.

It remains unclear if these material elves even have DNA. Who knows, maybe elves are made out of ectoplasm?

The elves who still inhabit the feywild, including eladrin, remain completely incorporeal spirits.



In this paranormal context, the word ‘species’ in the sense of genetic relationships, is inaccurate.

When an elf and a human have a half-elf child, it is because magic.



Ancestry is a better term. Heritage may be even better because it includes cultural inheritance as well.


----------



## Shasarak

pemerton said:


> East of where?




Everything is east of somewhere if you walk far enough.


----------



## Yaarel

Heh, East of China.


----------



## Yaarel

mykesfree said:


> In Adventure in Middle-earth, which is D&D 5e based, it is called Cultures.  Cultures cover Elves of Mirkwood, Men of Bree, and Hobbits of the Shire.




It seems even the Tolkien estate has steered away from the problematic term ‘race’.


----------



## pemerton

A weird sub-theme in this thread: how are real-world conceptions of biology, descent, DNA, etc _possibluy_ applicable within the fiction of a fantasy RPG, where spirit/body duality is a real thing, where basic laws of biomechanics don't apply (giant insects, flying dragons, etc), etc?


----------



## pemerton

Shasarak said:


> Everything is east of somewhere if you walk far enough.



So why would China rather than France be "the Orient"?


----------



## Shasarak

pemerton said:


> So why would China rather than France be "the Orient"?




Did they already have a word for France?


----------



## kenmarable

Yaarel said:


> In my academic experience, ‘race’ and ‘species’ mean the same thing.




Guess it depends on the field, because in my academic experience they mean absolutely, 100%, very different things. 

Immanuel Kant is a good example of how the Enlightenment really created most of our modern idea of human races in a blazingly stupid example of the Dunning-Kruger Effect from an otherwise brilliant mind. But even he wasn't using it to refer to biological species.


----------



## TheCosmicKid

pemerton said:


> So why would China rather than France be "the Orient"?



If it's on China's behalf you're complaining about relational terminology, you should know that the "Middle Kingdom" is in no position to throw stones.


----------



## Lanefan

james501 said:


> ... It would be like trying to replace "nation" with "descent" in real-life language...
> 
> I also thought of changing the term but, so far none of the alternatives seem good enough.



It's ironic you should say that, as you've in fact hit on the best alternative yet: "descent".

"The Elvish descent has pointy ears."
"Roll stats, choose class and descent."
"What descent features does a Dwarf get?  I saw stonecunning, but what else?"

Yeah, I think we might have a winner here. (though I havne't read the intervening 100-or-so posts to see if someone's already shot it down)


----------



## Yaarel

Jester David said:


> “Origin” would work too.




‘Origin’ is a great word.

4e used it mainly for ‘planar origin’, which was useful. It can expand to cover more possibilities.

It reminds me of superhero games where the character has notable powers, and the player often comes up with an origin to explain how they came to be.


----------



## marcoasalazarm

OK... "Descent" or "Origin" sound good.


----------



## Greenstone.Walker

The word "race" has a lot of emotional baggage in our recent history. I think it would be great to remove it from the game. I'm just not sure what to replace it with.

The word "species" seems to be correct (at least for D&D where elves and orcs and dwarves can all interbreed) but it sounds too scientific for a fantasy game. The word "ethnicity" also seems to be correct, but also comes with its own baggage.

I favour "heredity".

I do like the idea of genetic traits for different groups. If Elves have something that Dwarves do not then it helps make them feel "fantastic". I feel strongly that these traits should inform society, something D&D does badly. If Elves are more agile than other races then this should be reflected in their architecture. If Faeries all have natural telepathy then they should have a very different political system to other races. If Humans cannot see in the dark then their mythology should be different to that of Orcs. 

There should certainly be a difference between genetic traits and cultural traits. Just because a Gnome grew up in an Elvish town does not mean they get darkvision.

On the other hand, is it even possible to play as an alien species? We don't know what it is like to be an Elf or a Vargr or a Tau, so we pretty much always play them as just another human. Perhaps rules for species/race/whatever are unneeded?


----------



## Hriston

White person here.

I prefer _people_ as a replacement term. It seems neutral and genre appropriate. JRRT uses it interchangeably with _race_, for example in the title of Appendix F to LotR, "The Languages and Peoples of the Third Age", where he lists several peoples, including Elves, Men, Hobbits, Ents, Orcs, Trolls, and Dwarves.

On the subject of the Half-Elf bonus to CHA, the half-elven brothers Elrond and Elros were leaders of elves and men respectively. Certain of Elros's descendants, including Aragorn, also seem to share a natural tendency towards leadership.


----------



## Jay Verkuilen

Saelorn said:


> Right, but then it _shouldn't_ be an issue, for as long as we constrain ourselves to Tolkien-esque worlds where each biological group has its own unified culture and there is no inter-mixing.



The interesting thing is that _Tolkien's_ world, as opposed to many of the -esque versions, isn't one where each biological group has its own unified culture. There are numerous human cultures, the Dunedain, Dunlendings, Druedain, Rohirrim, Men of Dale and Laketown, Dorwinion, Haradim, Breemen, Woodmen, Easterlings, Wainriders, and so on. Not a lot is said about most of them due to the focus on the War of the Ring and Tolkien's own interest, but still, they're there, and many are present in _Adventures in Middle Earth_. For instance, there are descendants of the Wainriders in some of the _AIME_ material. 

Nor is it the case that in Tolkien's world there are inherently good races. Both the elves and Numenoreans/Dunedain have committed no small number of ill or tragically foolish deeds. As contemptuous as "Angry GM" is in the quoted article for "Cinnabon"---I just want to highlight how much of a ignorant jerk he seems with that comment, and he clearly knows little about Tolkien's work---the _Silmarillion_ is filled with examples of exactly that: The Kinslaying, the Oath of Feanor, the turning of the Numenoreans from Iluvatar, Isildur keeping the One Ring, and the numerous civil wars fought in Gondor and Arnor being notable examples. Even the angels---the Valar and Maiar---can fall: Melkor turns, as does his various servants, most notably Sauron. Even hobbits are not immune. 

He's also wrong about the culture issue. There is a good deal of intermixing, definitely among the humans, but also between the elves, dwarves, and humans. There's not much inter-breeding, but there's a TON of cultural exchange. The main languages humans and hobbits speak is derived from a mixture of elven and dwarven! The main thing is that in _LotR_ things have fallen into a Dark Age and are separate, but the back history of the world is certainly not like this. 

I'm not saying Tolkien is perfect on these issues in a modern sense, but by comparison to, say, Lovecraft or Howard, he's markedly more nuanced.


----------



## BryonD

Hussar said:


> Good grief, this is the whole Medusa argument all over again.  ((For reference, a poster here [MENTION=957]BryonD[/MENTION] stated that seeing a medusa in D&D automatically turns you to stone and that the saving throw is reflecting being able to close your eyes.  This is not true and has never been true in any edition of the game.  I know this, because I had to quote every single Medusa writeup from every edition of the game before I could adequately prove my point))



Yeah, not following the thread, so I can't comment on context here.  But point of clarification.  I know first hand that BryonD never said that.  
What was said is that the Medusa of myth turned you into stone if you looked at her, period.  It was said that if you did a "person on the street" poll rather than a show of hands on a 4de message board, that this would be seen as stupidly obvious to anyone who knew who Medusa was.  It was also said that pre-4E edition of D&D were completely compatible with modeling this. 

The claim that you presented a cogent counter-point, much less "proved" said point would be a pretty screwed revision.

As you were.


----------



## Jay Verkuilen

pemerton said:


> So why would China rather than France be "the Orient"?




The word "oriental" has had a lot of meanings over the years, but originally meant East. It didn't refer to China at all, but essentially east of the Mediterranean, or even the eastern Mediterranean. Even in the early 20th Century it might refer to North Africa.


----------



## Maxperson

It boils down to this.  There is a certain vocal minority people who go out of their way to be offended by things.  Right now some of them have set RPGs as their pet project.  Such people not only need not be accommodated, they should be denied.  There is no problem with race in D&D.  There hasn't been for 40 years, and there won't be for the next 40.


----------



## Darth Solo

Each "race" has its own special contribution to a given realm. It's why we were given elves, dwarves and Halflings. They bring a level of "fantasy" that humanity can't even imagine. "Fantasy" akin to something non-hostile but even equally arcane.

They used to use the term "demi-human". That tags it. It's a cultural duality that impacts gameplay as defined as "fantasy". 

Am I off-base here?


----------



## Jay Verkuilen

Hriston said:


> On the subject of the Half-Elf bonus to CHA, the half-elven brothers Elrond and Elros were leaders of elves and men respectively. Certain of Elros's descendants, including Aragorn, also seem to share a natural tendency towards leadership.



Half-elf bonus to Cha is a pretty late add to the game, actually. It's not even in 3E, although half-elves do get a fairly trivial bonus to Diplomacy. As far as I know, it first appeared in 4E. I doubt there's much direct Tolkien influence at that point.


----------



## Yaarel

DemoMonkey said:


> Am I correct in giving all different ideas their due and boiling this entire long heated discussion down to:
> 
> "Race is probably the most accurate and genre appropriate word for describing different sentient fantasy creatures, but it is also a word that some people find offensive in the real world and should be changed to increase inclusiveness." ?




Actually, this thread also includes contributors who argue the reallife term ‘race’ − whether in the senses of species, or breed, or ethnicity − is also wrong in the fantasy context. Their physicalities are too different for the sense of breed or ethnicity, yet the term species involves DNA genetics that dont apply in a game where creatures from the spiritual world are a given, and golems can gain sentient, sapient, life.

Since ‘race’ is also a controversial term in reallife − as well as being wrong in the game anyway − there seems no reason to keep it.

Even the Tolkien estate has discontinued to the term ‘race’ in their most recent products. And the ultraconservative D&D 3e Pathfinder traditionalists have discontinued the term ‘race’.

D&D 5e is traditionalist, by design, but Tolkien and Pathfinder are normally even more traditionalist than 5e, and even they find the term ‘race’ objectionable enough to drop it.


----------



## Andor

Yaarel said:


> Heh, East of China.




The country East of China is Japan. Or, from the Chinese perspective "The land of the rising sun." Which the Japanese thought was cool enough that they still call themselves that, as well as it being the origin of their flag.


----------



## Jay Verkuilen

Yaarel said:


> Even the Tolkien estate has discontinued to the term ‘race’ in their most recent products.




To be clear with regards to _The One Ring/Adventures in Middle Earth_, that's written by Cubicle7. I am sure that the Tolkien Estate has a right of approval, but the terminology is really from Cubicle7.


----------



## cmad1977

I have zero attachment to ‘race’. If It’s an issue or there’s a better alternative go with it. 

I find it funny-sad-predictable how threatened some people feel by the suggestion that a different term be used. 

I’m also unsurprised by who they are.


----------



## Hriston

Jay Verkuilen said:


> Half-elf bonus to Cha is a pretty late add to the game, actually. It's not even in 3E, although half-elves do get a fairly trivial bonus to Diplomacy. As far as I know, it first appeared in 4E. I doubt there's much direct Tolkien influence at that point.




Why? Were the developers of 4e immune to influence from Tolkien?


----------



## Hussar

BryonD said:


> Yeah, not following the thread, so I can't comment on context here.  But point of clarification.  I know first hand that BryonD never said that.
> What was said is that the Medusa of myth turned you into stone if you looked at her, period.  It was said that if you did a "person on the street" poll rather than a show of hands on a 4de message board, that this would be seen as stupidly obvious to anyone who knew who Medusa was.  It was also said that pre-4E edition of D&D were completely compatible with modeling this.
> 
> The claim that you presented a cogent counter-point, much less "proved" said point would be a pretty screwed revision.
> 
> As you were.




LOL.

The fact that not a single version of D&D is actually "completely compatible with modeling this" was the point that was disproved since your other point couldn't actually be proven at all.

Not one single version of the Medusa actually supported your claims.  Not one.  Yet, you still claim victory in the discussion?  Wow.  Now that's some serious revision there.


----------



## Jay Verkuilen

Hriston said:


> Why? Were the developers of 4e immune to influence from Tolkien?




Of course not, which is why I said "direct influence", but IMO 4E was one of the most contra-Tolkien editions: Among other changes, halflings were intentionally moved away from being hobbits with the serial numbers filed off and they introduced a lot of decidedly odd races (there's that word). Dragonborn in the first PHB, to say nothing of those weird races like the crystal guys whose name eludes me now.


----------



## Rygar

Maxperson said:


> It boils down to this.  There is a certain vocal minority people who go out of their way to be offended by things.  Right now some of them have set RPGs as their pet project.  Such people not only need not be accommodated, they should be denied.  There is no problem with race in D&D.  There hasn't been for 40 years, and there won't be for the next 40.




I think it's also worth noting...

-Comics sales tanked after going this route, I've seen figures as high as a 91% drop touted, and we know Marvel has definitively noted sales dropped as well as shop owners being so upset that they confronted Marvel.

-Video games that went this route underperformed or outright crashed.  Mass Effect Andromedae had a very strong left wing push and it underperformed, Sunset reportedly only sold a few thousand units, and just these past couple weeks Water Tastes Like Wine sold only 4,000 units as of a few days ago.

-Ghostbusters severely underperformed, as did Wrinkle In Time.

-Sensate ended up cancelled after two seasons, 24 Legacy after one season, amongst others.

-Magic the Gathering sales are reportedly down significantly after going this route as well.

So before we go this route, I think it's *really* important to show that there is a market and that the market is at least as big if not bigger than the current one.  RPG's cannot survive the drop in sales those other markets experienced.  If there is a market that wants to play RPG's but refuses to play them until we put into place all of the language changes and other changes spoken about here the past few weeks then it's worth discussing next steps.  But if there isn't hard factual numbers then I don't see a reason to veer off course into territory where numerous other markets have consistently experienced underperformance (at best) and risk RPG's dying out completely.


----------



## kenmarable

Maxperson said:


> It boils down to this.  There is a certain vocal minority people who go out of their way to be offended by things.  Right now some of them have set RPGs as their pet project.  Such people not only need not be accommodated, they should be denied.  There is no problem with race in D&D.  There hasn't been for 40 years, and there won't be for the next 40.




Ah, the old “Anyone who complains isn’t a TrueFan.” response. Haven’t seen that one before. Very convincing. I’ve completely changed my mind on the subject now.


----------



## Hussar

What "route" are you referring to?

I mean, hey, Paizo is lauded for it's inclusivity in its art with Pathfinder and that's almost ten years ago now and a fantastically well selling product.

I'm sure I can cherry pick examples too.


----------



## Yaarel

Mercule said:


> Dude, I'm just here for the popcorn and to debate *the mechanical implications* of removing racial packages from the game.




Exactly. That is my interest too.

The original article reminded me, Basic D&D had no distinction between between class and race. You could choose to be either a magic-user or an elf. The same design space was used for both.

There are implications for contemporary D&D. For example, say there is no ‘race’. Characters instead have a choice of three or feats.

Some feats might be ‘origin feats’. So for example, if you choose a feat that grants you Misty Step per rest, it means you are fully or partly an elf. But an other character might use this feat to be a more mobile Rogue. Or whatever.


----------



## Darth Solo

What do you replace the "racial" designation with? Seems races are a problem - what's a solution?


----------



## Hussar

Darth Solo said:


> What do you replace the "racial" designation with? Seems races are a problem - what's a solution?




I believe the current favorites are "Origin" or "Descent".  Personally I like Heritage, but, hey, I'm pretty easy.


----------



## Hussar

TheCosmicKid said:


> If it's on China's behalf you're complaining about relational terminology, you should know that the "Middle Kingdom" is in no position to throw stones.




By the same token.  I'd say that there's a fair bit more lee way with what you call yourself, rather than what others get to call you.


----------



## Arilyn

Rygar said:


> I think it's also worth noting...
> 
> -Comics sales tanked after going this route, I've seen figures as high as a 91% drop touted, and we know Marvel has definitively noted sales dropped as well as shop owners being so upset that they confronted Marvel.
> 
> -Video games that went this route underperformed or outright crashed.  Mass Effect Andromedae had a very strong left wing push and it underperformed, Sunset reportedly only sold a few thousand units, and just these past couple weeks Water Tastes Like Wine sold only 4,000 units as of a few days ago.
> 
> -Ghostbusters severely underperformed, as did Wrinkle In Time.
> 
> -Sensate ended up cancelled after two seasons, 24 Legacy after one season, amongst others.
> 
> -Magic the Gathering sales are reportedly down significantly after going this route as well.
> 
> So before we go this route, I think it's *really* important to show that there is a market and that the market is at least as big if not bigger than the current one.  RPG's cannot survive the drop in sales those other markets experienced.  If there is a market that wants to play RPG's but refuses to play them until we put into place all of the language changes and other changes spoken about here the past few weeks then it's worth discussing next steps.  But if there isn't hard factual numbers then I don't see a reason to veer off course into territory where numerous other markets have consistently experienced underperformance (at best) and risk RPG's dying out completely.




I don't know whether to laugh or cry. Come on, really?


----------



## The Crimson Binome

Yaarel said:


> Actually, this thread also includes contributors who argue the reallife term ‘race’ − whether in the senses of species, or breed, or ethnicity − is also wrong in the fantasy context. Their physicalities are too different for the sense of breed or ethnicity, yet the term species involves DNA genetics that dont apply in a game where creatures from the spiritual world are a given, and golems can gain sentient, sapient, life.



I skipped over like twenty pages of comments, but can it really be the case that nobody has mentioned yet that these are all _definitionally_ the same species, in the scientific sense that they are cross-fertile? Or that the physical differences between an halfling and an ogre are less significant than those within the singular sub-species of _canis lupus familiaris_?

If the terminology doesn't work for fey or golems, then that's fine, because the main book doesn't need to concern itself with playable fey or golems. And even if it did, calling golems their own race is significantly less weird than saying that some particular individual has a golem ancestry.


----------



## TheCosmicKid

Andor said:


> The country East of China is Japan. Or, from the Chinese perspective "The land of the rising sun." Which the Japanese thought was cool enough that they still call themselves that, as well as it being the origin of their flag.



Been a while since I took East Asian History, but I recall that being a Japanese phrase which the Chinese were not fans of. I remember the Japanese Emperor throwing some serious shade in a diplomatic communique addressed "From the Emperor of the Rising Sun to the Emperor of the Setting Sun".


----------



## TrippyHippy

Maxperson said:


> It boils down to this.  There is a certain vocal minority people who go out of their way to be offended by things.



Like the minority who get offended that anybody has the audacity to discuss changing the terminology used in a game, you mean? Yep, with you on that one.


----------



## Maxperson

kenmarable said:


> Ah, the old “Anyone who complains isn’t a TrueFan.” response. Haven’t seen that one before. Very convincing. I’ve completely changed my mind on the subject now.




I'm not surprised that it didn't change your mind, given that the entire thing was made up inside of it.  When you are done tilting at Strawmen, let me know and we can have a discussion.


----------



## Maxperson

TrippyHippy said:


> Like the minority who get offended that anybody has the audacity to discuss changing the terminology used in a game, you mean? Yep, with you on that one.




I'm not offended by worthless ideas.  I'm also not in the minority here.  Race is of absolutely no issue in the game as it stands.  At least not to any appreciable number of people.


----------



## Yaarel

Saelorn said:


> I skipped over like twenty pages of comments, but can it really be the case that nobody has mentioned yet that these are all _definitionally_ the same species, in the scientific sense that they are cross-fertile? Or that the physical differences between an halfling and an ogre are less significant than those within the singular sub-species of _canis lupus familiaris_?
> 
> If the terminology doesn't work for fey or golems, then that's fine, because the main book doesn't need to concern itself with playable fey or golems. And even if it did, calling golems their own race is significantly less weird than saying that some particular individual has a golem ancestry.




Technically. Elves are ‘fey ancestry’. They are spirits from a spirit world.

The word ‘species’ is wrong to describe elves.

With elves, and half-dragons, and cambions, and golems, and undead, and lycanthope, and ... on ... species is unhelpful.

Personally, I like ‘heritage’, or ‘origin’.

When I think of Old Norse terms for the various ‘kinds’ of natures spirits, including elves, humans, and giants, they are understood as different ‘clans’, in the sense of a family of beings. Likewise, it was possible to be adopted into an other ‘clan’. For example, a giant that married into or grew up among humans would be considered a human, a member of the human family. Depending on context, he could be called a human (such as the ancestor of a human family) or a giant. When you look for them, there are actually many examples of a member of one clan of nature spirits becoming a member of an other clan of nature spirits.

For D&D, ‘heritage’ recognizes there is a recognizably distinctive tradition, from which the character inherits many of the abilities.


----------



## MNblockhead

Arilyn said:


> I don't know whether to laugh or cry. Come on, really?




Can you elaborate? 

My first reaction to reading the post you are responding to is that that sometimes you need to put doing what is right over maximizing profit. I'm not saying that replacing "race" with "ancestry" is a "right action" worth risking your business over, but simply warning that you may lose business should not be dispositive in making this decision. 

Still, Rygar is correct in so far that if there is a risk of losing business, the company executives have a duty to determine whether the change warrants the hit to the bottom line. 

Yet I find his waving the bogeyman of lost-profits specious.  First, using "ancestry" instead of "race" is not a fundamental change to the game. I doubt that a significant number of fans will abandon the game because of this one change. Nor do I see the change bringing in a signifcant number of new customers. 

Perhaps the concern is that this is another step in moving the game "to the left", another step down the slippery slope towards a socially-liberal rewriting of the game. Rygar didn't articulate exactly what some of the specific effects of his claimed "left-wing push" were, but I'll assume he is referring to attempts to make games more inclusive and to avoid content that may be offensive to certain demographics. 

The problems with that is 5e has already made a push to be far more inclusive and it seems to have had positive, not negative effects on the brand and the bottom line. From the news reports I've read, 5e has been one of the most successful editions of D&D and seems to be on the road to becoming the most successful version of the game. I don't know if the examples Rygar cites accurately support his position or if he is cherry picking or innaccurately reporting examples to support his narrative. But even if I accept his examples at face value, the same does not seem to be true for D&D.


----------



## Yaarel

Amazingly, our D&D debate about ‘race’ might eventually mirror a reallife scientific debate about ‘species’. When artificial life emerges, perhaps it will be strictly inorganic. Humans would be more genetically related to plants than to these new life forms. Yet technology might make it possible to fuse human and artificial features to form a single person. Sort of like an upgrade to the human organic origin. There might be fluidity between strictly natural human and strictly artificial lifeform, with any blend in between. At this point, the term ‘species’ would become less useful.


----------



## The Crimson Binome

Yaarel said:


> Technically. Elves are ‘fey ancestry’. They are spirits from a spirit world.
> 
> The word ‘species’ is wrong to describe elves.



If it can cross with humans and produce viable off-spring, then it's the exact same species, definitionally.


----------



## Andor

Saelorn said:


> If it can cross with humans and produce viable off-spring, then it's the exact same species, definitionally.




I fully endorse your plan to use this logic to demand a seat at the Draconic council. Also can you hold this bag of unpopped corn when you do so?


----------



## Yaarel

Saelorn said:


> If it can cross with humans and produce viable off-spring, then it's the exact same species, definitionally.




Ok, but that means, you are claiming that dragons are Homo sapiens.


----------



## Hussar

Maxperson said:


> I'm not offended by worthless ideas.  I'm also not in the minority here.  Race is of absolutely no issue in the game as it stands.  At least not to any appreciable number of people.




Then how do you explain the change in Pathfinder?  If it is of absolutely no issue, then, why is the #2 game changing it and why have a number of other RPG's changed it as well?

And, frankly [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION], how is it possible to have a conversation with you when you absolutely refuse to acknowledge the other side's point?  Whether you agree or not, fair enough.  But, you're starting the conversation with "anyone who complains about this is such a tiny minority who shouldn't even be acknowledged".  That makes it pretty hard to have any sort of conversation.

And, as another point, I'd like to thank [MENTION=957]BryonD[/MENTION] for illustrating my point.  Having internalized his own interpretations to such a degree that he cannot even consider that those interpretations aren't actually part of the game.  Compare that to [MENTION=4937]Celebrim[/MENTION]'s elf example, that at least isn't counter-factual some of the time.  In AD&D, since the rules were silent on the issue, any interpretation is equally valid.  Of course, that means that the "nurture" interpretation is just as valid as the "nature" one.  Now, after AD&D, the "nature" interpretation is flat out false since it actually contradicts what's written in the game.

Like I said, I'm not terribly fussed abou this.  Just bemused that people who spend this much time thinking about the game are so blind to their own internalizations.


----------



## The Crimson Binome

Yaarel said:


> Ok, but that means, you are claiming that dragons are Homo sapiens.



I'm pretty sure that's just magic, and doesn't count. Elves can cross with humans _without_ casting a spell first.

But really, if you _want_ to say that dragons are the same species, the scientific community will back you up on that. My point was mostly that you can't use science to prove they _aren't_ the same species. Elves and humans, I mean.


----------



## pemerton

Jay Verkuilen said:


> I'm not saying Tolkien is perfect on these issues in a modern sense, but by comparison to, say, Lovecraft or Howard, he's markedly more nuanced.



I agree that JRRT is not in the same virulent camp as REH or HPL.



Hriston said:


> I prefer people as a replacement term. It seems neutral and genre appropriate. JRRT uses it interchangeably with race, for example in the title of Appendix F to LotR, "The Languages and Peoples of the Third Age", where he lists several peoples, including Elves, Men, Hobbits, Ents, Orcs, Trolls, and Dwarves.



A different possibility is that there is a generic category of "Heritage" or "Background" or "Origins", and then the game offers various ways to answer this: pick a _people_, pick an _arpprenticeship_ or _training_, pick a _nation_, pick a _blessing_, etc.

Maybe choose two, and each gives some modest element of PC build (+1 or +2 to a stat, a vision boost, a proficiency boost, some other comparable perk).

A player who chooses (say) to be an _acolyte_ (apprenticeship) from _Veluna_ (nation) might still declare that his/her PC is a half-elf, or a dwarf, or whatever, but no mechanical benefit is received because the build slots have already been spent on other things. Being a half-elf is just colour for this particular character build.

If you want to build Aragorn, maybe you pick _Elven_ and _Dunedain_ (or if the game is straight D&D that doesn't use Tokien-esque categories, then the second slot could be _wanderer_ or _outcast_ or something else appropriate).


----------



## Shasarak

Hussar said:


> Like I said, I'm not terribly fussed abou this.  Just bemused that people who spend this much time thinking about the game are so blind to their own internalizations.




Thats just normal human behaviour though.  Turns out the smarter you are the faster you can reconcile conflicting information into data that actually supports your position.

Which is why Elven Weapon Training translates into supporting your opinion that Elves are biologically predisposed to using long swords.



Hussar said:


> Then how do you explain the change in Pathfinder?  If it is of absolutely no issue, then, why is the #2 game changing it and why have a number of other RPG's changed it as well?




Maybe it is because they slipped to the #3 game so now they have to go all Indie Game Designer on the rules.


----------



## Yaarel

Saelorn said:


> I'm pretty sure that's just magic, and doesn't count. Elves can cross with humans _without_ casting a spell first.
> 
> But really, if you _want_ to say that dragons are the same species, the scientific community will back you up on that. My point was mostly that you can't use science to prove they _aren't_ the same species. Elves and humans, I mean.




Elves are magic, inherently.

In reallife British tradition, elves are magic, itself, the source of magic. The word ‘faerie’ is the Middle English word meaning magic.

In Norse tradition, all nature spirits can do magic, including humans. That said, elves are instinctively good at it. There is a story about a half-elf woman who grew up with her human father as a human. But her elven origins gave her tremendous mastery over all forms of magic.


----------



## Yaarel

This is a reasonable D&D scenario.

A human translates into the spirit realm of the feywild. At this point, the human is a discorporeated spirit. There is no physical body. There is no DNA. There is only spirit.

In the feywild, the spirit of the human has ‘sex’ with the spirit of an elf.

There a baby spirit forms and grows up in the spirit realm.

This half-elf never had a physical body. There is no DNA. There is no species.


----------



## The Crimson Binome

Yaarel said:


> Elves are magic, inherently.
> 
> In reallife British tradition, elves are magic, itself, the source of magic. The word ‘faerie’ is the Middle English word meaning magic.



That has very little to do with elves in D&D or Pathfinder, though, except in that it inspired Tolkien which then inspired Gygax and so on. PC elves are mostly just humans with pointy ears.


----------



## TrippyHippy

Maxperson said:


> I'm not offended by worthless ideas.  I'm also not in the minority here.  Race is of absolutely no issue in the game as it stands.  At least not to any appreciable number of people.



If it wasn't an issue, then why is there more than 500 posts on the matter on this thread alone? Stop conflating your individual opinion as some sort of majority accepted truth. And stop taking offence that people may want to discuss change, regardless of your individual opinion.


----------



## Yaarel

Saelorn said:


> That has very little to do with elves in D&D or Pathfinder, though, except in that it inspired Tolkien which then inspired Gygax and so on. PC elves are mostly just humans with pointy ears.




In 5e, there are elves that are ‘native’ to feywild. These elves are spirits without a physical body. There is no DNA.

The spirit world is a more dreamlike mode of existence. It sometimes seems as if physical, like a dream can. But it can sometimes be impossible physically. Often it is a weird blend of both mundane and impossible.


----------



## pemerton

MNblockhead said:


> Perhaps the concern is that this is another step in moving the game "to the left", another step down the slippery slope towards a socially-liberal rewriting of the game. Rygar didn't articulate exactly what some of the specific effects of his claimed "left-wing push" were, but I'll assume he is referring to attempts to make games more inclusive and to avoid content that may be offensive to certain demographics.
> 
> The problems with that is 5e has already made a push to be far more inclusive and it seems to have had positive, not negative effects on the brand and the bottom line.



The reason I XPed [MENTION=6816042]Arilyn[/MENTION]'s reply to Rygar is this: I don't see how including women, or people of colour, in RPGing is a "left-wing push". It's not a socialist conspiracy to have created a world with people in it who aren't white men.


----------



## pemerton

Yaarel said:


> This is a reasonable D&D scenario.
> 
> A human translates into the spirit realm of the feywild. At this point, the human is a discorporeated spirit. There is no physical body. There is no DNA. There is only spirit.
> 
> In the feywild, the spirit of the human has ‘sex’ with the spirit of an elf.
> 
> There a baby spirit forms and grows up in the spirit realm.
> 
> This half-elf never had a physical body. There is no DNA. There is no species.





Yaarel said:


> In 5e, there are elves that are ‘native’ to feywild. These elves are spirits without a physical body. There is no DNA.



Like I said upthread, I see it as a secondary theme rather than the primary one in this thread. But these are good examples within the scope of that secondary theme. If some PCs are the children of humans and devils ie incarnate spirits of evil, how can we _possibly_ be talking about biology when - in the fiction - we think about a creature's "race"?


----------



## The Crimson Binome

Yaarel said:


> This is a reasonable D&D scenario.
> 
> A human translates into the spirit realm of the feywild. At this point, the human is a discorporeated spirit.



If that's your idea of reasonable, then I don't know that we have enough common ground to hold a meaningful discussion. Your example is so far out of left field as to be nearly incomprehensible. That's not just _high fantasy_ or _sky high fantasy_, so much as it's left the concept of fantasy entirely and moved into fairy tales.


----------



## DRF

MNblockhead said:


> The problems with that is 5e has already made a push to be far more inclusive and it seems to have had positive, not negative effects on the brand and the bottom line. .




I do think we really quickly need to establish that 5e is doing well because it's a good _game_, not because of any significant changes relating to it being more inclusive.


----------



## Myrdin Potter

500+ responses...

A few comments from me.

I saw a statistic on 91% drop in revenue for comics. One publisher (IDW) saw net income drop that much, sales did not go down much at all. That was a function of the previous sales and gross margin level having already covered all other expenses, but not by that much, so a smaller revenue drop had a big effect on the bottom line.

D&D is pretty small inside of WoTC, and they have just started layering on permanent staff again after the big sales drop from 4e decimated permNent staffing (so 5e had a ton of consultants and crowd sourced testing.

The number of posts does not, as a poster right above says, mean that many people want a change and therefore should not be ignored. A significant portion of the posts is by a small minority arguing their sides quite strongly. 

After reading the original article, the posts in the thread, and doing so,e research to refresh myself why race has fallen out of favor in many traditional uses, I do not think the proponents for not using it for D&D have made a good case. it basically fell out of use as it could not really be well defined and there’s too much variation within the supposed races. As dna synthesis and testing got better, a lot of the early race theories have been dropped. Especially as there is pretty good evidence that we all come from common ancestors and thus are one race.

In the case of D&D, there is a decided different use of the word race and it should be non-controversial. Humans are said to have a wide variation of skin color and cultures but are all one race in D&D as it much more specific. It is essentially the culmination of the movement to eliminate level limits and class limits by equalizing everyone. That grew out of more and more campaigns and materials written and played for higher levels and the old race as a class structure had artificial limits.

I am not saying that some people don’t find offense in it, but as I grow older I realize that there is a difference between offense and harm. As the term is clearly not used in the same way as harmful race theory was used in the past outsider tne game and because it is clear and understood, I do not think it needs to be changed.

Finally, the additional inclusiveness in 5e allowed a good game (that came first) to really shine and sell well by removing barriers and increasing the target audience while not alienating the existing audience. It does that by being honest and yet subtle. Since gender, sexuality and skin color (traditional use of race) does not matter in game mechanics, the rules make it clear that players are free to do whatever they want to.


----------



## DRF

Myrdin Potter said:


> Especially as there is pretty good evidence that we all come from common ancestors and thus are one race.
> 
> .




Your post is good, but this is factually, objectively and verifiably incorrect. We share common ancestors and are the same _species_, not race. In this thread that's an important distinction. Human races are not 100% the same as any medical expert will happily tell you. That's why we can see based on bones and skeletons whether someone was male, female, black/asian/white etc.


----------



## clearstream

pemerton said:


> I've GMed games where racial identity, stereotyping and subordination has been one focus of play. Whether that was a sensible thing to do, or not, others can judge. It doesn't depend upon the rulebooks using the concept of "race".



I was thinking about *Drizzt*. Race served as a "_problematic feature of human existence" _for that character's stories. Maybe if we choose to cut problematic features from our games, then one thing we lose is the option to make use of them in our RP.

I'm not sure. I mean, preserving things that are problematic, for the sake of narrativsm (or more generally, RP) sounds perverse. But seeing as this thread poses a "do we need it" question, then it seems right to consider what is lost. Do we need slavery? Do we need terrors in the dark?


----------



## clearstream

DRF said:


> I do think we really quickly need to establish that 5e is doing well because it's a good _game_, not because of any significant changes relating to it being more inclusive.



How do you plan to establish that?

I have liked the way 5e is working on being more inclusive, and it has opened up options that have improved the game. Say I think of less inclusive as stories monotonously featuring heroic white men as their central protagonists. And then 5e works harder to offer other protagonists and their stories, and those latter stories include me. That helps the game do better, at least from my point of view.

4th was a good game. 3rd was an excellent game. Basic was a very good game. Prima-facie you risk arguing to a false dichotomy: 5e could be doing well both because it is a good game _and_ because of it being more inclusive.


----------



## DRF

clearstream said:


> 4th was a good game. .




4e sold horribly. 5e is basically one giant apology-edition.


----------



## pemerton

clearstream said:


> I was thinking about *Drizzt*. Race served as a "_problematic feature of human existence" _for that character's stories. Maybe if we choose to cut problematic features from our games, then one thing we lose is the option to make use of them in our RP.
> 
> I'm not sure. I mean, preserving things that are problematic, for the sake of narrativsm (or more generally, RP) sounds perverse. But seeing as this thread poses a "do we need it" question, then it seems right to consider what is lost. Do we need slavery? Do we need terrors in the dark?



It's interesting that you mention _slavery_, as it occurred to me as I started reading your reply.

I don't think we need a mechanical subsystem called "slavery" to make that something that comes up in play (supposing that we want that to). I think "race" is the same in this respect. In the context of D&D's race mechanics, I'd even go further and say that the tend to make it _hard_ to make race a focus/premise of play in the narrativist sense, because they already "build in" the answer of what race is and what it means.


----------



## clearstream

DRF said:


> 4e sold horribly. 5e is basically one giant apology-edition.



For me that is conflating commercial success with quality of design. 4th was a good game. It did not sell well.


----------



## clearstream

pemerton said:


> It's interesting that you mention _slavery_, as it occurred to me as I started reading your reply.
> 
> I don't think we need a mechanical subsystem called "slavery" to make that something that comes up in play (supposing that we want that to). I think "race" is the same in this respect. In the context of D&D's race mechanics, I'd even go further and say that the tend to make it _hard_ to make race a focus/premise of play in the narrativist sense, because they already "build in" the answer of what race is and what it means.



For me, rules help produce the story. An evil group of entities will ideally have abilities that support that evil. A great example was that in WoW a putatively good race had a stealth ability that to me felt evil in play. 

Noting of course that my ludological stance is one of believing games are engines that produce linear narratives as a side-effect of play. Therefore I look always to the rules to give flesh to the world, the motives, the tensions etc. I'm not arguing that, that is any kind of sole or best stance to take 

Thus I possibly agree with you that rules build in answers, caveated by saying I find those to be more genuine answers than those imposed by arbitrary storytelling.


----------



## Lanefan

Saelorn said:


> If the terminology doesn't work for fey or golems, then that's fine, because the main book doesn't need to concern itself with playable fey or golems. And even if it did, calling golems their own race is significantly less weird than saying that some particular individual has a golem ancestry.



I'm honestly not sure if you're joking or serious here...but just in case you're serious, golems might not have been the best example to use. 

The descent/ancestry/heritage of any golem is simple: it doesn't have one.  They are constructs, and unless I've really missed something they cannot reproduce on their own.

By the same token, any PC claiming to be of golem descent really needs to cut down on the mushroom consumption. 

Fey, on the other hand, can and do reproduce; and some of them might be able to interbreed with some commonly-played races e.g. Elves.

Lan-"fortunately medieval fantasy doesn't (usually) have to worry about the descent or heritage of cyborgs"-efan


----------



## Lanefan

DRF said:


> I do think we really quickly need to establish that 5e is doing well because it's a good _game_, not because of any significant changes relating to it being more inclusive.



It's a bit of both, and each supports the other.

Someone who becomes interested in it because it's a good game might stick around on finding an effort's been made to be inclusive.

Someone who becomes interested in it because of hearing it's been made inclusive might stick around on learning it's also a good game.

Lan-"whole > part + part"-efan


----------



## pemerton

clearstream said:


> For me, rules help produce the story.



Sure. But it's one thing to facilitate the emergence of story; another to tell us the answer.

The rules for Dogs in the Vineyard let a player decide whether something is worth fighting, or shooting, over. If they didn't allow that to happen, they wouldn't be doing their job. But they don't answer the question the player is called upon to decide. (As eg D&D's alignment rules seem to try and do, at least as many players have read them over the years.) If they did that latter thing, then the rules _wouldn't_ be doing their job.

So to make slavery a topic in a game, we might - as one possible minimum - need rules whereby people can be captured in warfare. (And so eg would not want to use a simply _combat wears away hp until you die at zero_ mechanic.) But we wouldn't need a "slavery" subsystem built into the game.


----------



## clearstream

pemerton said:


> Sure. But it's one thing to facilitate the emergence of story; another to tell us the answer.
> 
> The rules for Dogs in the Vineyard let a player decide whether something is worth fighting, or shooting, over. If they didn't allow that to happen, they wouldn't be doing their job. But they don't answer the question the player is called upon to decide. (As eg D&D's alignment rules seem to try and do, at least as many players have read them over the years.) If they did that latter thing, then the rules _wouldn't_ be doing their job.



I guess we have to note here that if our agenda isn't narrativist, then the rules might well be doing the job we want them to. Our goal might be just to get to the next room of the dungeon, for e.g.



pemerton said:


> So to make slavery a topic in a game, we might - as one possible minimum - need rules whereby people can be captured in warfare. (And so eg would not want to use a simply _combat wears away hp until you die at zero_ mechanic.) But we wouldn't need a "slavery" subsystem built into the game.



As you say, we need to be able to subdue rather than kill. Probably also restrain. Possibly know what slaves cost, so that they can be bought and sold at meaningful prices. I point that out not to solve slavery gameplay here (ugh), but rather to suggest the rules support is scalable. Do we need Paladin abilities to define our Paladin? I think she pales a bit if she can't lay on hands, cure disease etc. Those mechanics shout out good intentions. 

So do we need Elves to be able to see in the dark? If we have that as a rule, then it speaks for itself: elves inhabit a nighttime world. That could yield stories where elves are _naturally_ at odds with the daytime world of humans; each race viewing the other with a degree of discomfort or suspicion.


----------



## Khaalis

I personally prefer the use of Species for differences between .. species (e.g. human vs. dwarf) and Ancestry as a synonym for Culture.


----------



## Aldarc

Rygar said:


> I think it's also worth noting...
> 
> So before we go this route, I think it's *really* important to show that there is a market and that the market is at least as big if not bigger than the current one.  RPG's cannot survive the drop in sales those other markets experienced.  If there is a market that wants to play RPG's but refuses to play them until we put into place all of the language changes and other changes spoken about here the past few weeks then it's worth discussing next steps.  But if there isn't hard factual numbers then I don't see a reason to veer off course into territory where numerous other markets have consistently experienced underperformance (at best) and risk RPG's dying out completely.



Everything you listed had bigger problems, issues, and contexts worth discussing than the shallow "things got bad when they catered to SJWs" line implicit here. Consider, for example, in the case of Marvel comics, which has received a lot of flack about this recently. Their sales were decreasing at the same time that DC launched a highly successful (and socially inclusive) Rebirth relaunch. (Even when their sales dipped, they were still the unquestionable market leader.) Their sales were decreasing at the same time that they were _flooding_ the market with NEWEST, HOTTEST, MUST-BUY, CASH-GRAB EVENTS that led to a lot of buyers' fatigue. Their sales were decreasing at the same time that they were increasing the issue price of their comics and releasing a lot of higher priced "special issues." Their sales were decreasing at the same time that Marvel was instituting new controversial policies about their digital sales. Their sales were decreasing at the same time that there is an increasing trend in the whole comic book industry of people not buying comics because the online digitalization of comics makes buying to read comics unnecessary. Many retail brick-and-mortar stores are now diversifying into selling comic book merchandise (e.g., clothing, accessories, etc.) rather than just comic books. But as a number of brick-and-mortar comic book stores noted, a lot of kids were requesting and buying the "SJW stuff," such as the new Ms. Marvel (Kamala Khan). Though some people can point to some of the "SJW comics" as having low sells, that was also true for many of the concurrently running longtime, mainstream heroes as well, some of whom were outsold by the "left-wing push" comics, yet those characters are not getting the axe. 

You want to talk about the left-wing push in films and cite the underperformance of Wrinkle in Time and Ghostbusters? Sure. While you are at it, would you mind telling me how well Wonder Woman and Black Panther performed again? 



Hussar said:


> I mean, take Indian as an example.  It was used to refer to the indigenous people in North America.  At its base level, that's the meaning (although not the only meaning) of the word.  But, "Indian" has all sorts of negative connotations and history so it has been replaced, at least in Canada, with First Nations.



I once thought the appropriate term was "Native Americans," at least in the U.S. I recall, however, taking a "Native American Cultures" course in undergrad. The professor belonged to the Creek Tribe and had done extensive government work and research in the field. She insisted that the preferred term was "American Indian." This was even supported by a number of other American Indian students in the class, including some from the Cherokee and Lumbee tribes of North Carolina. It was a bit odd at first, but my sense from the professor was that this represented a re-appropriation of a term that had been used to label all indigenous peoples of the U.S. It's now my default term of choice in my head, but I still find that it is better to ask people of indigenous descent what their preferred term is and _tactfully_, when appropriate, the reason why. 


There is something else that is important to keep in mind during these discussions. There are people who point out that there are meaningful biological differences and distinctions between elves, dwarves, orcs, etc. that would be suggestive of approprioteness of the term "race" in D&D. The problem, however, when it comes to humanoids in D&D is that these "races" are not divorced from culture, but are, instead, heavily rooted in culture, and that culture often draws from real life cultures in highly inappropriate ways. Just like in real life, notions of "race" are often thrown together with issues of culture in a derogatory manner. This also becomes even more of a red flag when these humanoid races with real world-inspired cultures are dehumanized, colonized, or marginalized.


----------



## pemerton

clearstream said:


> I guess we have to note here that if our agenda isn't narrativist, then the rules might well be doing the job we want them to. Our goal might be just to get to the next room of the dungeon, for e.g.



Well, I chose Dogs in the Vineyard as my example for a reason - I think it's the best-known of RPGs designed to facilitate narrativist play.



clearstream said:


> So do we need Elves to be able to see in the dark? If we have that as a rule, then it speaks for itself: elves inhabit a nighttime world. That could yield stories where elves are _naturally_ at odds with the daytime world of humans; each race viewing the other with a degree of discomfort or suspicion.



Well, the analogous point to the slavery discussion would be something like this: we can play a game in which, within the fiction, their are groups whose capabilities, technologies, cultures, etc bring them into potential opposition with one another _without_ locating the allocation of capabilities, technologies and cultures inside a _race_ mechanic.


----------



## pemerton

Aldarc said:


> when it comes to humanoids in D&D is that these "races" are not divorced from culture, but are, instead, heavily rooted in culture, and that culture often draws from real life cultures in highly inappropriate ways. Just like in real life, notions of "race" are often thrown together with issues of culture in a derogatory manner. This also becomes even more of a red flag when these humanoid races with real world-inspired cultures are dehumanized, colonized, or marginalized.



I agree with this point and think it is often ignored in these discussions.


----------



## LazarusKane

Hussar said:


> Then how do you explain the change in Pathfinder?  If it is of absolutely no issue, then, why is the #2 game changing it and why have a number of other RPG's changed it as well?




That´s one of the points we discuss: Is this change good, bad or irrelevant?
And as I stated some pages ago (accoriding to a thesaurus): "ancestry" is something else than "race" - you can´t switch this two words.



> (...) Compare that to @_*Celebrim*_'s elf example, that at least isn't counter-factual some of the time.  In AD&D, since the rules were silent on the issue, any interpretation is equally valid.  Of course, that means that the "nurture" interpretation is just as valid as the "nature" one.  Now, after AD&D, the "nature" interpretation is flat out false since it actually contradicts what's written in the game.




And here you are wrong: The 5th Edition was the first who explicitly stated "weapon training", 4th,Pathfinder,3.5/3 called it weapon familarity or profiencies.



> Like I said, I'm not terribly fussed abou this.  Just bemused that people who spend this much time thinking about the game are so blind to their own internalizations.




Tells the guy who searches all Edition to prove his point (the medusa) but needs several tries to at least admit that someone isn´t completely wrong...


----------



## Hussar

LazarusKane said:


> /sni
> And here you are wrong: The 5th Edition was the first who explicitly stated "weapon training", 4th,Pathfinder,3.5/3 called it weapon familarity or profiencies.
> 
> 
> 
> Tells the guy who searches all Edition to prove his point (the medusa) but needs several tries to at least admit that someone isn´t completely wrong...




Nope.  Go back and reread your 3e PHB.  It's specifically called out as training.  The fact that you gain a proficiency makes it training.

Funnily enough, in AD&D, you actually DIDN'T gain proficiency, simply a +1 to hit.  Which meant that unless you played a fighter or a thief (or subclass thereof) you actually can't use a longsword or bow as an elf without accruing some serious penalties.  So, even the idea that all elves in AD&D could use swords and bows isn't actually true.  

Umm, I never said, btw, that Celebrim was completely wrong.  He just wasn't right.  He criticized AngryDM based on his specific interpretation of how elves work.  And interpretation that at best doesn't contradict anything, but, is no more (or less) valid than any other interpretation.  Which means he has no leg to stand on to criticise AngryDM's point.


----------



## LazarusKane

Hussar said:


> Nope.  Go back and reread your 3e PHB.  It's specifically called out as training.  The fact that you gain a proficiency makes it training.




No it doesn´t.

For example: Humans are very adept at expressing, recognizing and manipulating emotions  in various situations, depending on the need. Such _proficiency_ is  evident in a few specific occasions soon after birth. Infants just a few  seconds old start expressing one of the most fundamental and  functionally important emotions: “cry“, also known as “first cry”.
There is no training involved.

(Sidenote: There are several studies that show that not only training is relevant for how fast you learn something and how good you get, there are also genetic factors. So why it shouldn´t possible that a elf who never wielded a longsword gets "the hang of it" after wielding it for several minutes?)



> Umm, I never said, btw, that Celebrim was completely wrong.  He just  wasn't right.  He criticized AngryDM based on his specific  interpretation of how elves work.  And interpretation that at best  doesn't contradict anything, but, is no more (or less) valid than any  other interpretation.  Which means he has no leg to stand on to  criticise AngryDM's point.




Maybe you refer to an other posting of him that I do, but AFAIK he only stated about the fact that in AngryDMs opinion "*that it’s self evident that training  with particular weapons or training to fight certain foes is a learned  thing*" the questions



> Is it really the case that an elf knows how to use a bow because of his  upbringing?  Are you sure that it works that way?  Why would it have to  work that way?


----------



## jasper

Elves are ‘fey ancestry’. They are spirits from a spirit world…..
Hmm I will take a fifth of Waterdeep High Elf, 2 fifths Wood elfs, and 3 fifths Underdark Drow?
How many punches will that me on my ration card sgt?
And can Alabama tax elves just for breathing out spirits? The ABC board needs to make a ruling!

….Ghostbusters severely underperformed, as did Wrinkle In Time….. Both these were mainly sold as LOOK AT THE CAST LOOK AT THE CAST not story or characters. Black Panther/Wonder Woman HERE IS THE CHARACTER and Story.


----------



## james501

Lanefan said:


> It's ironic you should say that, as you've in fact hit on the best alternative yet: "descent".
> 
> "The Elvish descent has pointy ears."
> "Roll stats, choose class and descent."
> "What descent features does a Dwarf get?  I saw stonecunning, but what else?"
> 
> Yeah, I think we might have a winner here. (though I havne't read the intervening 100-or-so posts to see if someone's already shot it down)





Disagree. It would sound as awkard as in real life.

"Oh yeah the Scottish descent once voted for independece" ....????


----------



## james501

pemerton said:


> This depends heavily on local custom and how rude you want to be. Likewise asking someone "What race are you?"




I refer to the English terms specifically, not any possible language in the world.
In all my life I have never heard a native English speaker, when asking for ethnic idenity, asking "what people are you?"
In my language as well, it would sound wrong.

Asking someone what "Race" they are would be redundant since most times it is obvious. You dont mistake an orc for a human or a dragonborn for an elf.

But it makes more sense in the case :

-"Aye, your companion that will join us shortly, what race is he/she?" 
-"My race can breath underwater"
-" the dwarven race were created out of stone" 
-"the dragon race were given the task of protecting the world by the Titans"
-"the night elven race descend from Dark Trolls" (last 3 from warcraft)

than using "heritage/origin/descent"


----------



## Maxperson

Hussar said:


> Then how do you explain the change in Pathfinder?  If it is of absolutely no issue, then, why is the #2 game changing it and why have a number of other RPG's changed it as well?




The diseases of political correctness spreads.  People are absolutely terrified of the few extremists in the vocal minority.  



> And, frankly [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION], how is it possible to have a conversation with you when you absolutely refuse to acknowledge the other side's point?  Whether you agree or not, fair enough.  But, you're starting the conversation with "anyone who complains about this is such a tiny minority who shouldn't even be acknowledged".  That makes it pretty hard to have any sort of conversation.




You don't converse with extremists on either the right or the left.  There's no point.


----------



## Maxperson

TrippyHippy said:


> If it wasn't an issue, then why is there more than 500 posts on the matter on this thread alone? Stop conflating your individual opinion as some sort of majority accepted truth. And stop taking offence that people may want to discuss change, regardless of your individual opinion.




Why?  Some people like to try and persuade extremists.  It's a wasted effort, but they do it anyway.  And speaking of stopping, stop trying to tell me what to do.


----------



## Maxperson

clearstream said:


> For me that is conflating commercial success with quality of design. 4th was a good game. It did not sell well.




Good design does not equate to a good game.  You can have a game that is well designed, but if it isn't fun, it's a crappy game.  4e falls into that category.  Conversely, a game that doesn't have the best design quality that is tons of fun is a good game.  1e and 2e fall into that category.


----------



## TrippyHippy

Maxperson said:


> Why?  Some people like to try and persuade extremists.  It's a wasted effort, but they do it anyway.  And speaking of stopping, stop trying to tell me what to do.



I think you've spent an inordinate amount of time on this thread telling others what they should be doing or not doing. What makes you think that you aren't the extremist?


----------



## LazarusKane

Maxperson said:


> You don't converse with extremists on either the right or the left.  There's no point.




1.) I think you are wrong - there is always a point in conversation.

2.) But if you don´t want to converse and don´t see the point then please stop. We read your opinion, you done your deed. Maybe it´s better if you keep reading and stop posting?


----------



## Celebrim

This dumpster fire seems to be burning down, so a few closing observations.

1) Regardless of the definition of the word, most of the suggestions fail a test of pragmatism.  As soon as you try to actually use the euphemism in lengthy rules passage, the awkwardness of it is revealed.   Try using 'kind' or 'type' or 'people' and you'll see what I mean ("I have a people bonus... I'm taking the people feat...")  I still think Paizo's use of 'ancestry' is about the best of a bad bunch.  Not only is it a near synonym for race, but it has a suitable set of word forms like 'ancestral' and 'ancestor' that will make it sound less awkward in a lengthy passage discussing race.  If Paizo can write it in a way that it doesn't sound awkward, and doesn't harm the idea that humanity is of a single race, and doesn't end up resulting in a bunch of cultural essentialism as you choose your ancestry from different pastiche ethnic groups ('the Nord', 'the Oriental', 'the Arab', 'the Inuit', etc.) then as I said at the beginning, it's no big deal but it also doesn't actually gain you much of anything.  At best, I already feel it's a bit silly, as they unveil their first "ancestry", and it's a goblin.  Just a goblin.  Not a 1/4 blooded goblin elf, or a human with a goblin great-great-grandmother or anything of the sort, but just a goblin that is a goblin with no discernible trace of any other ancestry and pretty much is just a goblin.  The mechanics are largely conventional for a RPG racial package.  So yeah, what they are basically explicitly saying is, "It's a character of the goblin ancestry, and by ancestry I of course mean race. *wink* *wink*"  And yes, they are actually saying things like that, one of which is quoted by the OP.   If someone says, "What ancestry is your character?", the expectation is going to be "Goblin" and not, "Well, you know ancestry is an artificial social construct.  My character could have ancestors from many different cultural groups, and there is fundamentally more variation within a group than between groups."  Write that on your character sheet.  Costless.  Pointless.  Highly visible.  You do the math.

2) It's been a long standing rule of the internet, than in any discourse you can tell who the racists are by the insistence that they have in learning the skin color or race or ethnicity of everyone in the conversation.  This is because racists are so obsessed with racial identity that they literally cannot process a conversation without having skin color as a marker, and without it they feel discomforted.  That played out again in this conversation, and I'm sure the next time we have a topic of this sort the usual suspects will once again clamor to know everyone's skin color again.


----------



## Maxperson

TrippyHippy said:


> I think you've spent an inordinate amount of time on this thread telling others what they should be doing or not doing. What makes you think that you aren't the extremist?




Because stepping up to someone who is acting in an extreme capacity does not make you an extremist.


----------



## Mercule

Aldarc said:


> I cannot understate how influential Eberron has been to me as a setting. The Khoravar as a self-breeding population with its own distinct set of cultures as opposed to the usual individualized human-elf tragic backstories was a HUGE step forward in my appreciation of half-elves in D&D. In many of my homebrew settings, I have take a cue from Eberron's Khoravar or have designed my own PC half-elf in the same vein.



I absolutely love Eberron. It's the only published setting that I'm actively interested in running. Greyhawk made a great "fallback" for one-shots or when I didn't want baggage from my own home brew. Ravenloft was wonderful for looting, because I've always loved Gothic horror elements and undead. But Eberron is cool as just Eberron and I'd run it just as eagerly as a home brew setting.

That said, there are some elements that I'd prefer to leave in Eberron. I definitely don't want Warforged anywhere else (they're my least-favorite aspect of the setting). And, I'm not sure how I'd do either Dragonmarks or true-breeding half-elves without it feeling derivative in my own head.

(Not knocking, just giving my own concerns in looting.)


----------



## Mercule

Yaarel said:


> Exactly. That is my interest too.
> 
> The original article reminded me, Basic D&D had no distinction between between class and race. You could choose to be either a magic-user or an elf. The same design space was used for both.
> 
> There are implications for contemporary D&D. For example, say there is no ‘race’. Characters instead have a choice of three or feats.
> 
> Some feats might be ‘origin feats’. So for example, if you choose a feat that grants you Misty Step per rest, it means you are fully or partly an elf. But an other character might use this feat to be a more mobile Rogue. Or whatever.



Fate. Aspects as permission.


----------



## Celebrim

Maxperson said:


> Good design does not equate to a good game.  You can have a game that is well designed, but if it isn't fun, it's a crappy game.  4e falls into that category




Since we have a side thread going, I opposed 4e and very vocally said that 4e was not a design I was going to adopt.

But I do think it was a good game.  It just was not a game for me.

The relative failure of 4e was completely predictable.  We've seen the same logic overtake industry leaders time and time again.  If your are the industry leader, the question you are always asking is, "How can I get a bigger market share?"   And almost invariably, someone decides the answer is, "Appeal to people who aren't our customers!"   But invariably this result in losing more of your existing customers than it sways over from those people who are not your customers.   Fourth Edition was D&D for people who didn't like D&D.   And if you were one of those people, then it was probably the edition for you.


----------



## Aldarc

Celebrim said:


> 1) Regardless of the definition of the word, most of the suggestions fail a test of pragmatism.



When you presume they will fail and set up conditions to ensure they will fail, then they will fail. But your claim regarding these terms failing a "test of pragmatism" is demonstrably not true because there are plenty of other systems out there devoid of the term "race" (e.g., Shadow of the Demon Lord) that get along just fine without your sense of "pragmatism" that precludes anything but "race" as a term.


----------



## Celebrim

Aldarc said:


> When you presume they will fail and set up conditions to ensure they will fail, then they will fail. But your claim regarding these terms failing a "test of pragmatism" is demonstrably not true because there are plenty of other systems out there devoid of the term "race" (e.g., Shadow of the Demon Lord) that get along just fine without your sense of "pragmatism" that precludes anything but "race" as a term.




I'm pretty sure I did say that Ancestry would work the best and be the least awkward....  Yeah, I did say that didn't I.   And what term does "Shadow of the Demon Lord" actually use.  Why it's "Ancestry", imagine that.

Seriously, if you are going to contradict, please at least be interesting about it.   Also keep in mind that I'd never actually buy "Shadow of the Demon Lord", so your "getting along just fine" isn't my "getting along just fine".


----------



## Aldarc

Celebrim said:


> Also keep in mind that I'd never actually buy "Shadow of the Demon Lord", so your "getting along just fine" isn't my "getting along just fine".



So if no one buys "D&D" then it's not getting along just fine? Kind of a solipsist approach to issues, isn't it?


----------



## Celebrim

Aldarc said:


> So if no one buys "D&D" then it's not getting along just fine? Kind of a solipsist approach to issues, isn't it?




What?  I don't even understand what you mean or how you got there. 

No, I mean for various other reasons "Shadow of the Demon Lord" fails my test of what a moral leisure activity would be like.  I believe it structurally encourages evil revelry and prioritizes and glamorizes evil.  Thus, I refuse to be a customer in the same way that supposedly many posters in this thread refuse to be a customer of an RPG that includes the word "race" when referring to race.


----------



## Aldarc

Celebrim said:


> What?  I don't even understand what you mean or how you got there.



You appeared to adopt the perspective that reality of whether a system is "getting along just fine" was determined by whether you would buy it or not.


----------



## Jay Verkuilen

pemerton said:


> I agree that JRRT is not in the same virulent camp as REH or HPL.




As I recall, REH is less consistent about it than HPL. There are stories like "Queen of the Black Coast" that have the undifferentiated mass of "savages", absolutely. JRRT mostly just doesn't talk about "men of the east" not under the rule of Sauron, although he occasionally implies that such exist, for instance the slaves who live in the south of Mordor (Nurn), who are freed after Sauron's defeat. There doesn't appear to be anything inherently "evil" about the east, any more than there is about all fallen beings. It's more of an accident of geography that the axis of conflict in Middle Earth is oriented that way. So in his case it's more omission and the substantial obsessions of medievalist focused on Anglo-Saxon history and language. 

It is certainly the case that anyone reading stories from nearly a century ago has to realize that, well, things were different with regards to racial attitudes than many modern readers would anticipate. Casual racism was endemic and in some cases there will be substantial amounts of virulent racism.


----------



## pemerton

james501 said:


> I refer to the English terms specifically, not any possible language in the world.
> In all my life I have never heard a native English speaker, when asking for ethnic idenity, asking "what people are you?"



No. The correct syntax would be "Who are your people?" or perhaps "What people do you belong to?"



james501 said:


> Asking someone what "Race" they are would be redundant since most times it is obvious. You dont mistake an orc for a human or a dragonborn for an elf.
> 
> But it makes more sense in the case :
> 
> -"Aye, your companion that will join us shortly, what race is he/she?"
> -"My race can breath underwater"
> -" the dwarven race were created out of stone"
> -"the dragon race were given the task of protecting the world by the Titans"
> -"the night elven race descend from Dark Trolls" (last 3 from warcraft)



The following are all well-formed:

You companion who will join us shortly, who are her people? My people can breathe underwater. Dwarves were created out of stone. The dragons were given the task of protecting the world. The night elves are descended from dark trolls.


----------



## Maxperson

Celebrim said:


> Since we have a side thread going, I opposed 4e and very vocally said that 4e was not a design I was going to adopt.
> 
> But I do think it was a good game.  It just was not a game for me.
> 
> The relative failure of 4e was completely predictable.  We've seen the same logic overtake industry leaders time and time again.  If your are the industry leader, the question you are always asking is, "How can I get a bigger market share?"   And almost invariably, someone decides the answer is, "Appeal to people who aren't our customers!"   But invariably this result in losing more of your existing customers than it sways over from those people who are not your customers.   Fourth Edition was D&D for people who didn't like D&D.   And if you were one of those people, then it was probably the edition for you.




If you lose more people than you gain, then that still indicates a bad game.  That some people enjoy it doesn't make it good.  People enjoy some, I'll just call them "diverse" things.  That doesn't make them good fun.  A good game WOULD have picked up more people than it lost, or at least picked up as many as it lost.  If it picks up fewer, then it is pretty much by definition a worse game than you had.


----------



## Celebrim

Aldarc said:


> You appeared to adopt the perspective that reality of whether a system is "getting along just fine" was determined by whether you would buy it or not.




Well, at least that makes a bit of sense.   But what I was actually doing was playing with the definition of "fine" - good, esteemable, worthy, healthy.  Your definition of "fine" seems to merely "successful".   How successful it is I can't really speak to.  Robust production schedule?  Large player base?  I wouldn't know.


----------



## Celebrim

Maxperson said:


> If you lose more people than you gain, then that still indicates a bad game.




The core of our disagreement then is based in the very vague nature of the words "good" and "bad".  



> That some people enjoy it doesn't make it good.




It would certainly be one factor.  I could site others.   

Ultimately, I think we actually agree it's just the words you are using are really vague.  I will say that I do not think it was a good business decision to publish 4e, however well designed, coherent, targeted to a specific audience, and fun it may have been for people who wanted a tighter more tactical game, it might have been.   Fun is a very subjective quality.  And while I agree in a since with your claim "If it picks up fewer, then it is pretty much by definition a worse game than you had.", that's true only if the metric you are using for "good" is a business metric.  It's entirely possible for something to be "good" and not successful in the market, or for it to be "bad" and for it to fail in the market.   "Good" and "bad" in themselves don't mark what they are measuring.  What does it mean to be a "good car"?  Well, it depends on what purpose the car has.


----------



## Obryn

Mercule said:


> I absolutely love Eberron. It's the only published setting that I'm actively interested in running. Greyhawk made a great "fallback" for one-shots or when I didn't want baggage from my own home brew. Ravenloft was wonderful for looting, because I've always loved Gothic horror elements and undead. But Eberron is cool as just Eberron and I'd run it just as eagerly as a home brew setting.
> 
> That said, there are some elements that I'd prefer to leave in Eberron. I definitely don't want Warforged anywhere else (they're my least-favorite aspect of the setting). And, I'm not sure how I'd do either Dragonmarks or true-breeding half-elves without it feeling derivative in my own head.
> 
> (Not knocking, just giving my own concerns in looting.)



Despite my own skepticism, I brought Warforged into my 4e Dark Sun game - animate constructions of bone, sinew, and obsidian, created by the sorcerer-kings from the souls of fallen heroes. Perfect troops who needed neither food nor water and who cared nothing for the desert heat, yet who could still think and reason.

They fit in really damn well, actually.


----------



## james501

pemerton said:


> No. The correct syntax would be "Who are your people?" or perhaps "What people do you belong to?"




You are talking abou alternate ways to frame the question. Sure, they can be used but why discard the already used ones ?

In real life you can both ask someone

-What  ethnic descent/heritage does he have have ?
-What ethnicity is he ?

Why not retain the equivalent term for fantasy ?

Also what happens when there is a "people" that might be comprised of different races ?
Say, a nation or faction or cult whose members are elves, humans, minotaurs, orcs etc and they are considered a single "people" ?



pemerton said:


> The following are all well-formed:
> 
> You companion who will join us shortly, who are her people?
> 
> My people can breathe underwater.





"People" can refer to empire,nation, tribe,clan,family line, or even any (non-bilogically-related or blood-related) faction one joins. It is too general a term to be any use.
Race refers to specific biologically distinct beings.


----------



## Pauper

Celebrim said:


> Since we have a side thread going, I opposed 4e and very vocally said that 4e was not a design I was going to adopt.
> 
> But I do think it was a good game.  It just was not a game for me.




At the risk of feeding the side thread and turning a dumpster fire about race into a dumpster fire about the edition wars, I'll agree that the game likely wasn't for you, but disagree that it was a bad design. My belief is that 4e was the most faithful interpretation of the original D&D that there has ever been.

D&D, as a game, derived from Chainmail, a set of fantasy wargaming rules used to simulate mass battles. In fact, what's called Original D&D basically told you to use the Chainmail rules for combat. Early D&D adventures were basically all about exploring a huge megadungeon and fighting the things you found there. (I don't have a good link for this, but feel free to check out Jon Peterson's "Playing at the World" and Shannon Applecline's "Designers & Dragons, the '70s" for more on this.) Fourth Edition embraced this, serving as the clearest 'fantasy combat simulator' of all the D&D editions. It even solved a few of the long-standing problems of earlier editions, like "Linear Fighter, Quadratic Wizard" by putting all class abilities on the same structural footing. 



> Fourth Edition was D&D for people who didn't like D&D.   And if you were one of those people, then it was probably the edition for you.




Fourth Edition was a great edition for two types of players: players who liked the tactical combat of the D&D Miniatures skirmish game but didn't care for the odd complexities of Third Edition, and players who embraced an 'old school' love of 'kill the monster, take their stuff'. These weren't the only players Fourth Edition appealed to, but those players definitely found Fourth Edition appealing -- I know this because I played the game with them, all the way through the Next playtest and into the official launch of Fifth Edition.

If you want to say that Fifth Edition did a better job of appealing to its core audience while still reaching out to new players, I won't argue the point -- the very existence of Pathfinder and its temporary sojourn into 'best selling RPG' pretty much makes the point for you -- but I'll fight the idea that Fourth Edition was somehow 'not D&D'. The guys I played Fourth Edition with would not have been at all out of place at an OD&D or AD&D table; they simply hadn't realized that this was a game that would appeal to them until Fourth Edition came out.

--
Pauper


----------



## Celebrim

Pauper said:


> At the risk of feeding the side thread and turning a dumpster fire about race into a dumpster fire about the edition wars, I'll agree that the game likely wasn't for you, but disagree that it was a bad design.




I have never claimed 4e was bad design.  Even back when I was the original edition warrior, it was never my claim that 4e was a bad game, nor even when I criticized the design did I ever intend to become the original edition warrior or fuel the flames of the war that resulted.   In fact, in my early criticisms I wasn't even necessarily thinking that 4e wasn't going to be a game for me, and in my later criticism I was only stating my disappointment with the fact that I wasn't part of the target audience and the excessive way that 4e was marketed by claiming that 3e was a bad game (something which was then picked up heavily by the 4e audience).  For me, the edition war was a period where practically every thread someone was saying you were literally clinically insane for enjoying 3e, but even during that frustration I never claimed 4e was a bad game.



> My belief is that 4e was the most faithful interpretation of the original D&D that there has ever been.




Or that.  Or that 4e was a Nar game.  Let's just not go there.


----------



## Obryn

Why is this even becoming an edition war, again?


----------



## pemerton

james501 said:


> You are talking abou alternate ways to frame the question. Sure, they can be used but why discard the already used ones ?
> 
> In real life you can both ask someone
> 
> -What  ethnic descent/heritage does he have have ?
> -What ethnicity is he ?
> 
> Why not retain the equivalent term for fantasy ?
> 
> Also what happens when there is a "people" that might be comprised of different races ?
> Say, a nation or faction or cult whose members are elves, humans, minotaurs, orcs etc and they are considered a single "people" ?
> 
> "People" can refer to empire,nation, tribe,clan,family line, or even any (non-bilogically-related or blood-related) faction one joins. It is too general a term to be any use.
> Race refers to specific biologically distinct beings.



Let's bracket the question of how distinctions between peoples in a fantasy context can _possibly_ be classified as _biological_.

"Race" has all sorts of usages and connotations. Biology is one component. Heritage is another  - when 19th or early 20th century writers and orators referred to "the British race" I don't think they had just biology in mind, but also (what they took to be) cultural heritage and achievement, a certain sort of spirit which - depending on their other metaphysical and theological convictions - they may or may not have thought had some material basis.

In real life, a "race" can be composed of people of different "races". (Eg there are people who would, in Australia, generally be judged Black but who, in Kenya, would generally be judged white.) In pseudo-Tolkienesque fantasy, is the child of a half-elf and a human a human, a less-than-haf-elf, or what? 

And how did Black British people fit into the 19th/early-20th century conception of "the British race"? Awkwardly, no doubt, but not especially straightforwardly either.

I think your claims about the "clarity" of racial membership are wrong both for the real world and the fantasy one.

As far as language is concerned, it's not uncommon in English for words that can do duty for one another to not admit of the same syntactic variations. Eg _I am obligated to_ = _I have an obligation to_; but there is no corresponding nominalisation for _I must_. "Who are her people?" will do fine both for "What ethnicity does she have?" (which frankly is on the margins of well-formedness) and "What is her ethnicity?"

And if you are worried that some peoples might include both humans and minotaurs, well I'm sure somewhere among the elves there are already children whose parents (unknown to most) were silver dragons. It happens!


----------



## pemerton

Obryn said:


> Why is this even becoming an edition war, again?



Everyone knows that 4e was a left-wing push!


----------



## Celebrim

Obryn said:


> Why is this even becoming an edition war, again?




It's not.  I'd explain what direction the conversation took and why, but explaining it might stoke the sparks again.


----------



## james501

pemerton said:


> Let's bracket the question of how distinctions between peoples in a fantasy context can _possibly_ be classified as _biological_.
> 
> "Race" has all sorts of usages and connotations. Biology is one component. Heritage is another  - when 19th or early 20th century writers and orators referred to "the British race" I don't think they had just biology in mind, but also (what they took to be) cultural heritage and achievement, a certain sort of spirit which - depending on their other metaphysical and theological convictions - they may or may not have thought had some material basis.
> 
> In real life, a "race" can be composed of people of different "races". (Eg there are people who would, in Australia, generally be judged Black but who, in Kenya, would generally be judged white.) In pseudo-Tolkienesque fantasy, is the child of a half-elf and a human a human, a less-than-haf-elf, or what?
> 
> And how did Black British people fit into the 19th/early-20th century conception of "the British race"? Awkwardly, no doubt, but not especially straightforwardly either.
> 
> I think your claims about the "clarity" of racial membership are wrong both for the real world and the fantasy one.




I dont get whatt your hangup is with the real antiquated racial classifications.

We talk about fantasy, made up stuff here.





pemerton said:


> In pseudo-Tolkienesque fantasy, is the child of a half-elf and a human a human, a less-than-haf-elf, or what?




Who knows, maybe the "half-elven race" ?
Fluidity can exist even with racial terminology. We still have ethnicity in reality even though it can also be fluid sometimes as most of us have experienced in our lives.

That's because, despite occasional fulidity, there is a difference between  say : a Greek man, living in greece, having ancestry from the place going back hundreds years, speaking Greek and participating in Greek culture and a Japanese man who does all the same but for Japan.

Same for fantasy races.




pemerton said:


> As far as language is concerned, it's not uncommon in English for words that can do duty for one another to not admit of the same syntactic variations. Eg _I am obligated to_ = _I have an obligation to_; but there is no corresponding nominalisation for _I must_. "Who are her people?" will do fine both for "What ethnicity does she have?" (which frankly is on the margins of well-formedness) and "What is her ethnicity?"




You miss the point. There is no reason to discard this particular way of speaking. We use the same way of speaking for race as we do for ethnicity in real life. That's because a lot of times they share some similarities and makes sense for us to do so.
 Why use a long-winded awkard phrase that isnt even aptly descrpitive instead of just saying "race" ?



pemerton said:


> And if you are worried that some peoples might include both humans and minotaurs, well I'm sure somewhere among the elves there are already children whose parents (unknown to most) were silver dragons. It happens!





I am not sure why I would be "worried" but I metioned it to showcase the confusion it creates.

"People" is a very fluid, general term that could indicate a nation/tribe/clan, it could indicate racial relation, family relation, cultural relation, intellectual relation, political relation etc etc. It doesnt denote anything specific. 
"Race" does.


----------



## ehren37

You may as well toss out Ancestry now, as it's going to also be problematic in a year or so tops. Witness the alt-right/white nationalist's obsession with their Ancestry.com results. It's already a dogwhistle. Guys like that are creepily obsessed with their bloodlines... do they hail from the RIGHT white countries? Any possible Roma in there?

Species is the most accurate, has the benefit of working across genres, and at least currently doesn't have the baggage.


----------



## Celebrim

james501 said:


> Who knows, maybe the "half-elven race"?




I concede that it is not really fair to pemerton to get involved in your conversation, but just as a jumping off point and because I can't really resist Tolkien lore.

In Tolkien's legerdemain there really isn't anything that is "half-elven".  Elrond is called "half-elven" as a title or nickname, but he is fully an elf.  His brother is fully a human.  Biologically in Tolkien elves and humans are identical enough that they are of the same species, and they differ only in there spiritual gifts.   Elrond and Elros were given a choice of which people that they would belong to, and Elrond choose to be an elf.  

This is a radically different conception than the one that prevails in D&D.  Most D&D campaigns I'm aware of don't care much about dynastic concerns like, "If my character is a half-elf and has a child with a human, what stat block should I use for my child."   But since I was once in such a dynastic campaign, I have in my head what rules (for my 3.X game) I would use in that case.  The answer is that 50% of the kids would be mechanically Half-Elves and 50% would be mechanically Human with the homebrew Elven Blood trait.  



> Why use a long-winded awkward phrase that isn't even aptly descriptive instead of just saying "race" ?




I'd ask a slightly different question.  Why would you use a different phrase when you need to explain explicitly that the new phrase really means the old phrase?



> "People" is a very fluid, general term that could indicate a nation/tribe/clan, it could indicate racial relation, family relation, cultural relation, intellectual relation, political relation etc etc. It doesnt denote anything specific.




Again, you would have to specify in some fashion that by "people" you meant "race" precisely because of this vagueness in the term.  For example, if you asked me IRL, "To what people do you belong?", I would probably not understand what you meant, and depending on my mood I might answer, "Nerds."  (On the other hand, if you ask me, "To what race do you belong?", my response is always, "To what race do you think I belong?")


----------



## Gradine

pemerton said:


> Gradine, I appreciate the reply. I hope you'll accept this post as continuing a conversation.
> 
> Speaking purely from my own situation, based on the experiences I've had with the people I know, a game which begins by choosing a "race", with those choice still heavily steeped in Tolkienesque ideas, is not maximally welcoming to all people of colour.
> 
> Or to come at the same general point from a slightly different direction: people with whom I watched the LotR movies noticed that the only prominent people of colour on the screen were playing the orcs and uruk-hai.
> 
> I'm not saying that you're wrong. I'm trying to convey that I don't see these issues as completely disconnected.
> 
> I'm an academic. Among other things, I teach theoretical sociology. I am not a critical race theorist, but I work on the borders of that particular discipline and have been taken for one at conferences. I don't think "race" is per se an offensive term - it's a crucial although very challenging conceptual tool needed for analysing contemporary social formations.
> 
> But the way that "race" is used in fantasy RPGs is a different thing. It's not a tool of analysis. It's more like this enduring outpost of reactionary conceptualisations of human natures.
> 
> Again to come at this from the angle that is closest to my own experience (I'm not a convention goer): before my daughters get near a convention, they would need to get near RPGing.
> 
> Now maybe I'm out of touch (I'm a middle-aged man) but for me fantasy RPGing is heavily grounded, in its tropes and the way it is presented and advocated, in a certain genre tradition. JRRT, HPL, REH, ERB, etc are the canonical authors of this tradition. Until my girls are late teenagers, how would I even show them REH or HPL? What are they meant to make of writers whose racism is so virulent? JRRT isn't as bad, but the issue is still there, as the films bring out.
> 
> In the fantasy literature that I see as canonical there are exceptions - eg Ursula LeGuin - but even in LeGuin European tropes, if not skin colours, still predominate.
> 
> To come at it from yet another direction, maybe more remote: Gygax's MM tells us that dwarves are mostly brown-skinned, but when was the last time you saw an illustration of a non-white dwarf? (Again, maybe I'm out of touch - I haven't bought a D&D book for a few years - but I never saw such a picture in any of the 4e materials I purchased.)
> 
> I think that fantasy RPGing has a problem here. It's approach to "race" is not all of it. Maybe it's not even most of it. I think it's part of it.
> 
> This is my thinking, but then I'm not a publisher. On the other hand, this thread (and ones like it) make me think the change is more important, not less.




Thank you for sharing your perspective. I cannot find myself disagreeing with, well, any of this. Maybe it's because I'm of a slightly younger generation, or that I came (back) to D&D at such a later age, that I was able to avoid a lot of the more negative connotations; our fantasy worlds were influenced less by Conan and more by Buffy (which was also not without its share of problems, don't get me wrong). But I recognize that the history of the fantasy genre which D&D spawned from is littered with negative tropes, several of which the gaming hobby is still struggling to shake off. And its approach to race is definitely one of them.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> Species is the most accurate, has the benefit of working across genres, and at least currently doesn't have the baggage.



Agreed 100%.

But as stated before, I’m still OK with “race” in the FRPG context.


> To come at it from yet another direction, maybe more remote: Gygax's MM tells us that dwarves are mostly brown-skinned, but when was the last time you saw an illustration of a non-white dwarf? (Again, maybe I'm out of touch - I haven't bought a D&D book for a few years - but I never saw such a picture in any of the 4e materials I purchased.)




The art in many RPGs has suffered from “whitewashing”, and D&D is no exception.  It’s better than it was back in the 70s, but there’s still room for improvement.


----------



## Aldarc

james501 said:


> I dont get whatt your hangup is with the real antiquated racial classifications.
> 
> We talk about fantasy, made up stuff here.



Then please go ahead and insert the "N word" into your "fantasy, made up stuff" as a term, since no one should have hangups about real world antiquated racial classifications, terms, or likewise. 



ehren37 said:


> You may as well toss out Ancestry now, as it's going to also be problematic in a year or so tops. Witness the alt-right/white nationalist's obsession with their Ancestry.com results. It's already a dogwhistle. Guys like that are creepily obsessed with their bloodlines... do they hail from the RIGHT white countries? Any possible Roma in there?



Actually that has been incredibly amusing in the news, since a number of those white nationalists have discovered non-white ancestry via Ancestry.com that suddenly resulted in them being shunned by their fellows, and gosh darn, suddenly racial prejudice does not become so exciting for those individuals any more. Who would have thought?


----------



## Obryn

Another way to solve this problem, of course, is to make Elf a class again.


----------



## DM Magic

Obryn said:


> Another way to solve this problem, of course, is to make Elf a class again.




"Make Elves a Class Again."

...

I'll get the red hats.


----------



## Gradine

Celebrim said:


> 2) It's been a long standing rule of the internet, than in any discourse you can tell who the racists are by the insistence that they have in learning the skin color or race or ethnicity of everyone in the conversation.  This is because racists are so obsessed with racial identity that they literally cannot process a conversation without having skin color as a marker, and without it they feel discomforted.  That played out again in this conversation, and I'm sure the next time we have a topic of this sort the usual suspects will once again clamor to know everyone's skin color again.




That is not what racism is or what the word "racist" means. I get that you want to live in a magical world where race doesn't matter to anyone, and I don't think anyone outside of actual racial supremacists would disagree that that sounds like a nice place to live. But it's not anything remotely close to the world we live in now, and recognizing that, and addressing how it actually affects and impacts people of different races, does not make anyone racist. 

This whole "talking about race is the true racism!" shtick is a ridiculous argument made by so-called "color-blind" people who interpret "color-blindess" (either consciously or unconsciously) as "everyone should act more white".


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

DM Magic said:


> "Make Elves a Class Again."
> 
> ...
> 
> I'll get the red hats.




No, no, no, no, no!  

_*GNOMES*_ are the ones with red hats!
View attachment 95993


----------



## DM Magic

Gradine said:


> That is not what racism is or what the word "racist" means. I get that you want to live in a magical world where race doesn't matter to anyone, and I don't think anyone outside of actual racial supremacists would disagree that that sounds like a nice place to live. But it's not anything remotely close to the world we live in now, and and recognizing that, and addressing how it actually affects people of different races, does not make anyone racist.
> 
> This whole "talking about race is the true racism!" shtick is a ridiculous argument made by so-called "color-blind" people who interpret "color-blindess" (either consciously or unconsciously) as "everyone should act more white".




Well said.


----------



## Gradine

As an aside, I noted that "Origin" came up as a suggestion, which I rather like. Dragon Age uses it (the video game and the Green Ronin Tabletop RPG derived from it) and it's not caused any issues there that I'm aware of. And the video games (_both_ of them) were incredibly well-received.


----------



## Gradine

Dannyalcatraz said:


> No, no, no, no, no!
> 
> _*GNOMES*_ are the ones with red hats!
> View attachment 95993




I thought Gnomes protected our gardens from black magic?


----------



## james501

Aldarc said:


> Then please go ahead and insert the "N word" into your "fantasy, made up stuff" as a term, since no one should have hangups about real world antiquated racial classifications, terms, or likewise.




View attachment 95994


Do I really need to point out the difference in a word with ancient roots describing an ancient concept that has neutral connotations and an insult speicifically created and used against a specific group of people in more recent memory ?


----------



## james501

Gradine said:


> As an aside, I noted that "Origin" came up as a suggestion, which I rather like. Dragon Age uses it (the video game and the Green Ronin Tabletop RPG derived from it) and it's not caused any issues there that I'm aware of. And the video games (_both_ of them) were incredibly well-received.





Dragon age doesnt use "origins", it also uses "Race" in all games.

"Origins" in the first game referred to the race and social class combination that your character could choose, not as a replacement for "race".

How did you miss that ?


----------



## Celebrim

Gradine said:


> That is not what racism is...




Yes, yes it is.



> ...or what the word "racist" means.




Yes, yes it does.



> I get that you want to live in a magical world where race doesn't matter to anyone, and I don't think anyone outside of actual racial supremacists would disagree that that sounds like a nice place to live.




Living in a world free of racism is not a magical world, nor is it wrong to want to work to that.  



> This whole "talking about race is the true racism!" shtick is a ridiculous argument made by so-called "color-blind" people who interpret "color-blindess" (either consciously or unconsciously) as "everyone should act more white".




What an amazingly intellectually dishonest claim you have just made.  Cognitive dissonance hitting you hard?  You know that that is not what I said.  We have been talking about race this whole time.  I have been talking about race this whole time.  There is nothing inherently racist about talking about race and I have never heard anyone suggest that, and certainly no one in this thread has pushed such an opinion.  Of course your straw man intellectually dishonest nonsense is ridiculous, but you have only yourself to blame for that.   What I said is that you have to know the race of the person you are talking to because its that relevant to you, then it's racism.  Anywhere on the internet you go that is a den of racism, one marker of that is that you are required to disclose your race to the participants before they will decide how to respond to you.  I haven't even a clue what "acting more white" should be, but the last time I heard such an accusation personally, it's when a black youth in my high school walked up to my table and called my friend an oreo and said he was acting "too white" because he was sitting at a table enjoying lunch with me.


----------



## Obryn

Celebrim said:


> Living in a world free of racism is not a magical world, nor is it wrong to want to work to that.



It requires conversations like this one, though, which you appear to have an issue with. Because we're not there, and we still won't if everyone just pretends it doesn't exist.


----------



## Celebrim

Obryn said:


> It requires conversations like this one, though, which you appear to have an issue with. Because we're not there, and we still won't if everyone just pretends it doesn't exist.




Again, I have no difficulty talking about race.  I've been readily engaged in that.  You want to have an open and honest discussion about race, fine.  I have no issue with this conversation per se, only its conclusions.  Disagreeing with your conclusions is not the same as having an issue discussing it, nor am I in the slightest pretending racism doesn't exist.  What you are doing now is called evasion.


----------



## Gradine

Celebrim said:


> Yes, yes it is.




No, no it is not.



> Yes, yes it does.




No, it it does not.

Glad to see we're really stretching the old cognitive muscles here.



> Living in a world free of racism is not a magical world, nor is it wrong to want to work to that.




Accusing people of inquiring (not questioning, just inquiring) as to the racial backgrounds of people engaged in the discussion, is not the way to work towards that. Of course, we've already had the conversation that a white person living in a white-dominated society could acknowledge but never truly understand the depth and breadth of the experience of being a non-white person living in a white-dominated society. But what the hey, let's go another round.



> What an amazingly intellectually dishonest claim you have just made.  Cognitive dissonance hitting you hard?  You know that that is not what I said.  We have been talking about race this whole time.  I have been talking about race this whole time.  There is nothing inherently racist about talking about race and I have never heard anyone suggest that, and certainly no one in this thread has pushed such an opinion.




You certainly are not. But I also see you snipped the relevant section of my post. So I'll repeat it: "...and recognizing that, and addressing how it actually affects and impacts people of different races, does not make anyone racist."

Here's you:


> What I said is that you have to know the race of the person you are talking to because its that relevant to you, then it's racism.




You are, in fact, saying this. You are saying that stating, or even suggesting, that a white individual cannot possibly begin the understand the impact that racism has on non-white people in a white-dominated society (or in this case, a white-dominated hobby), is racist. I'm saying that is baloney.



> Of course your straw man intellectually dishonest nonsense is ridiculous, but you have only yourself to blame for that.     Anywhere on the internet you go that is a den of racism, one marker of that is that you are required to disclose your race to the participants before they will decide how to respond to you.




It's not about deciding how to respond to you, it's about gauging your level of personal understanding of the issue. As much as you might like to think that you can perfectly understand the issue, as a white person, you cannot. Not because you haven't experienced individual experiences of discrimination, even based on your race. I'm sure many people can relate to that experience. But because your race _doesn't inform every moment of practically every interaction you have with practically every facet of our society._ If you are a white person in a white-dominated society, it is a 100% certainty that you've never had to live through it, every day of your life. I never have either. 

That doesn't mean we're bad people, or that we can't contribute to the conversation. But it means we both could stand to act less like we're authorities on the subject.



> I haven't even a clue what "acting more white" should be, but the last time I heard such an accusation personally, it's when a black youth in my high school walked up to my table and called my friend an oreo and said he was acting "too white" because he was sitting at a table enjoying lunch with me.




I've seen "color-blindness" used as a bludgeon against many of the things that would be considered "black culture", such as hip-hop, baggy clothes, etc. I've seen it used to ask "what's even the point of Kwanzaa?"


----------



## Gradine

james501 said:


> Dragon age doesnt use "origins", it also uses "Race" in all games.
> 
> "Origins" in the first game referred to the race and social class combination that your character could choose, not as a replacement for "race".
> 
> How did you miss that ?




I think I was conflating the video games with the tabletop game. I could in fact be mis-remembering both. I'm pretty sure that at least the first iteration of the Dragon AGE TTRPG used Origin, and again it didn't really present any sort of problem.


----------



## Obryn

Celebrim said:


> Again, I have no difficulty talking about race.  I've been readily engaged in that.  You want to have an open and honest discussion about race, fine.  I have no issue with this conversation per se, only its conclusions.  Disagreeing with your conclusions is not the same as having an issue discussing it, nor am I in the slightest pretending racism doesn't exist.  What you are doing now is called evasion.



Brother, every conversation remotely like this, you take the "everything is fine, please move along" approach.

Transgender phrasing in the PHB? No need for it, you can already be those things. Artwork more representative? No need for it. Anti-harrassment rules at hobby shops? No, iirc, you were of the opinion that anti-harrassment policies deny women the experience of shutting it down (and is therefore the _real_ sexism).

So no, I don't think you're readily engaged in anything beyond maintaining the status quo. I believe that you believe in your own goodness and sincerity, but damned if you don't fight tooth and nail against the idea that what you're doing isn't perfect already. Or for that matter that the hobby should.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty!

Celebrim said:


> Again, I have no difficulty talking about race.  I've been readily engaged in that.  You want to have an open and honest discussion about race, fine.  I have no issue with this conversation per se, only its conclusions. * Disagreeing with your conclusions is not the same as having an issue discussing it*, nor am I in the slightest pretending racism doesn't exist.  What you are doing now is called evasion.




This is something I notice a lot lately.  Its the idea I run into that if I don't agree with a position I didn't listen to the person giving it.  There was a thread on here where a publisher was called out for not listening to the concerns of some people about the behavior of their staff, I think it was The FGG. Anyway the title was that the company would not listen to their concerns when in fact they did listen but just came to a different conclusion.  I guess the reasoning is that if you listened you would have no choice but to come to the same conclusion since that position is considered objectively right.


----------



## Celebrim

Gradine said:


> Glad to see we're really stretching the old cognitive muscles here.




Pot calling the kettle black.  You contradicted me without even the courage to offer your own operative definition of racism.  The burden of evidence was on you, not me.



> Accusing people of inquiring (not questioning, just inquiring) as to the racial backgrounds of people engaged in the discussion, is not the way to work towards that.




Yes, it is.  If we are going to have an honest discussion about race, we have to call out racism.  Quite often you might have racist impulses that you aren't actually aware of, and it's helpful to this discussion to get people to question there assumptions.  I'm willing to bet that we agree, and that you just disagree over who needs to reflect.  However, you've tacitly agreed that the problem isn't my definition of racism, when you agreed that my "fantasy world" wouldn't have racism.  So we aren't actually quibbling about that despite your indignation, we are only quibbling over how to get there from here.



> You certainly are not.




Then don't accuse me of it.



> But I also see you snipped the relevant section of my post. So I'll repeat it: "...and recognizing that, and addressing how it actually affects and impacts people of different races, does not make anyone racist."




The sentence I didn't believe added much to the conversation, and to be honest I don't even recall snipping it.  Is it possible you added it when you amended your post?  But ok, if you want to address that, again, the fact of the matter is I never said that I had a problem with recognizing that the world is racist and addressing how it actually affects and impacts people.  What I said was that if you feel the need to inquire as to the race of a person on the internet then you are racist, so once again you are just engaged in dishonest deflecting.  You can disagree with my claim if you like, but so far you've instead chosen to be highly dishonest about what I actually said.



> You are, in fact, saying this.




No, as a matter of actual fact, I'm saying this: "What I said is that you have to know the race of the person you are talking to because its that relevant to you, then it's racism."

I did not say: 



> You are saying that stating, or even suggesting, that a white individual cannot possibly begin the understand the impact that racism has on non-white people in a white-dominated society (or in this case, a white-dominated hobby), is racist. I'm saying that is baloney.




Of course it is baloney, you just made it up.  I said nothing in the quoted statement about peoples ability to empathize with others.  Once again, you prefer to engage with me on dishonest terms rather than actually deal with what I said.   You are off on this tangent, unrelated to what I said, about who can understand who.  That's an interesting topic, but it is as a point of fact not what I said.



> It's not about deciding how to respond to you, it's about gauging your level of personal understanding of the issue.




It's about judging my as a stereotype based on what you guess I've experienced as a person based on stereotypical expectations about what a person of a given race has experienced.  And that is racism.   It's about claiming that a person's skin color gives them particular authority on a subject based on your stereotypical expectations about what that person has had to live through.  And that is racism.



> As much as you might like to think that you can perfectly understand the issue, as a white person, you cannot. Not because you haven't experienced individual experiences of discrimination, even based on your race. I'm sure many people can relate to that experience. But because your race _doesn't inform every moment of practically every interaction you have with practically every facet of our society._ If you are a white person in a white-dominated society, it is a 100% certainty that you've never had to live through it, every day of your life. I never have either.




I said nothing about perfect.  I can't perfectly know even myself, much less any other person.  But that is all just a tangent you are on.

Lets make this real.  Are you willing to stake your beliefs on your 100% certainty.   That is, if you are wrong, will you actually sit back and think rather than deflecting?


----------



## Aldarc

james501 said:


> View attachment 95994



Oh, darn. Not a condescendingly disapproving image! That must mean that you are most definitely right and that I am cowered into shame. That's how this works right? 



> Do I really need to point out the difference in a word with ancient roots describing an ancient concept that has neutral connotations and an insult speicifically created and used against a specific group of people in more recent memory ?



I actually had another "n word" in mind here, albeit the word(s) from which that insult derived, which was both "a word with ancient roots" and "used against a specific group of people in more recent memory" and even somehow regarded as a "neutral" term within living memory. But sure, we can talk about the insult. And as it turns out, the term "race" as a classification of peoples and the "n word" as a derogatory insult arose at approximately the same time period in European history. Talk about coincidence.


----------



## Phasestar

Gradine said:


> It's not about deciding how to respond to you, it's about gauging your level of personal understanding of the issue. As much as you might like to think that you can perfectly understand the issue, as a white person, you cannot. Not because you haven't experienced individual experiences of discrimination, even based on your race. I'm sure many people can relate to that experience. But because your race _doesn't inform every moment of practically every interaction you have with practically every facet of our society._ If you are a white person in a white-dominated society, it is a 100% certainty that you've never had to live through it, every day of your life. I never have either.




Well, this is getting a bit far from the original topic, but I have to chime in.

Why do you accept this idea as fact?  White people, black people, all people are not monolithic or the same as each other because of skin color.  We are all individuals.  If you meet someone, regardless of their skin color and they explain their life, their struggles and challenges, you certainly can understand that as a fellow human being even if you have not lived it.  It may not be easy to put yourself in someone else's shoes - but it can be done.  We each have our own challenges - life is a struggle and at times overwhelmingly painful and difficult regardless of who you are.

The idea that white people simply need to back away from the conversation because they can't possibly understand, while all people of a different color automatically can, is part of the problem and will only make things worse over time.  We need to understand each other as human beings, listen to each other's perspectives and if people come to believe it's not even worth having that discussion, that is guaranteed to not lead to a better place.

As noted above also - listening and understanding does not always lead to the same conclusions, though it can.  We each have different perspectives, different knowledge, etc. and that can lead to respectful disagreement even with understanding.


----------



## The White Sorcerer

Caliburn101 said:


> Race as a reference to insignificant genetic, appearance and cultural differences is an outmoded term, but we are talking about FANTASY races here.



Hence why I said it has no place outside fantasy. In D&D it's fine since, unlike Earth, most worlds in D&D have multiple races.


----------



## Obryn

The White Sorcerer said:


> Hence why I said it has no place outside fantasy. In D&D it's fine since, unlike Earth, most worlds in D&D have multiple races.



Yeah, so this conversation is about what it's called in earth-books that are written and published in the real world.

Mordenkainen can call it whatever he wants; this is about Paizo and WotC trying to be better than they have been in the past through tiny, incremental changes.


----------



## james501

Aldarc said:


> Oh, darn. Not a condescendingly disapproving image! That must mean that you are most definitely right and that I am cowered into shame. That's how this works right?




It was  less about being patronising and more about me being dumbfounded that you made a false equivalence between a direct insult and the word "race".



Aldarc said:


> I actually had another "n word" in mind here, albeit the word(s) from which that insult derived, which was both "a word with ancient roots" and "used against a specific group of people in more recent memory" and even somehow regarded as a "neutral" term within living memory. But sure, we can talk about the insult. And as it turns out, the term "race" as a classification of peoples and the "n word" as a derogatory insult arose at approximately the same time period in European history. Talk about coincidence.





The concept of "race" existed back in Roman and Ancient times in their equivalent words.


----------



## Gradine

Celebrim said:


> Pot calling the kettle black.  You contradicted me without even the courage to offer your own operative definition of racism.  The burden of evidence was on you, not me.




Fair enough.
Racism is Prejudice plus Institutional Power. Racism is is combination of racial biases and prejudices combined with the institutional and social power to codify and enforce this prejudice onto an entire society. Racism is systemic; and the examples range from everything from explicitly prejudicial (such as segregation or redlining) to implicitly (such as remarkably uneven outcomes within law enforcement and criminal justice).

But let's step away from the systemic, academic definition of racism to the more colloquial one, which just leans on individual prejudice. Let's say, a baseline here is regarding that someone is lesser than solely on the basis of their race. None of the things you are talking about even really meet the boundaries of that, fairly broad definition.



> Yes, it is.  If we are going to have an honest discussion about race, we have to call out racism.  Quite often you might have racist impulses that you aren't actually aware of, and it's helpful to this discussion to get people to question there assumptions.  I'm willing to bet that we agree, and that you just disagree over who needs to reflect.  However, you've tacitly agreed that the problem isn't my definition of racism, when you agreed that my "fantasy world" wouldn't have racism.  So we aren't actually quibbling about that despite your indignation, we are only quibbling over how to get there from here.




Yes, the term "fantasy" was probably a little much. I think we are, in fact, quibbling over your definition of racism (see above), and we are in fact disagreeing over the things the other things that you state.



> Then don't accuse me of it.




Fair. Consider it a general statement to the thread rather than at you, specifically. There are definitely those in the thread who have absolutely done so. I'm sorry to have lumped you in.



> The sentence I didn't believe added much to the conversation, and to be honest I don't even recall snipping it.  Is it possible you added it when you amended your post?




I believe the only words I added to that sentence post my original-post was "and impacted", though I'm certain you can double-check your notifications for the original version of my post (which was a bit snippier than I had intended)



> But ok, if you want to address that, again, the fact of the matter is I never said that I had a problem with recognizing that the world is racist and addressing how it actually affects and impacts people.  What I said was that if you feel the need to inquire as to the race of a person on the internet then you are racist, so once again you are just engaged in dishonest deflecting.




I would say that I don't see how you can't see that those are the exact same thing, but that would be a lie; I do understand it, and it has everything to do with your worldview not accepting the fact that not every human experience (or sum of human experiences, which is what we are talking about here) is universal. If you took even a moment to try to understand (not agree) with where I'm coming from (and to which I explained pretty clearly in my last post, which you again snipped from your reply) you would see how obviously I could see how the two are same.



> You can disagree with my claim if you like, but so far you've instead chosen to be highly dishonest about what I actually said.




No, I'm re-framing to you the actual impact of what you're saying. You may disagree with the premises that led to those conclusions, but given the premise, yes, you are exactly saying that something that is exactly addressing the impact of racism (that is, inquiring as to the lived experiences of the people engaging in the conversation to have the proper point of view for their context) is racist. And that is, in fact, nonsense.



> No, as a matter of actual fact, I'm saying this: "What I said is that you have to know the race of the person you are talking to because its that relevant to you, then it's racism."
> 
> I did not say:
> 
> Of course it is baloney, you just made it up.  I said nothing in the quoted statement about peoples ability to empathize with others.  Once again, you prefer to engage with me on dishonest terms rather than actually deal with what I said.   You are off on this tangent, unrelated to what I said, about who can understand who.  That's an interesting topic, but it is as a point of fact not what I said.




You did, you just don't realize that's what you were saying because you refuse to acknowledge the link between who can understand who and the reasons why someone's race might be relevant in a conversation about race and racism.

[quoteIt's about judging my as a stereotype based on what you guess I've experienced as a person based on stereotypical expectations about what a person of a given race has experienced.  And that is racism. It's about claiming that a person's skin color gives them particular authority on a subject based on your stereotypical expectations about what that person has had to live through.  And that is racism.[/quote]

No, it's about understanding deeper, broader, more insidious cultural factors at work, factor that are no longer often all that obvious but no less damaging in impact. And it's about listening to and believing the stories shared by others, and about understanding the limits of our own experiences based on the privileges we receive for living in a society geared towards people who look like us.



> Lets make this real.  Are you willing to stake your beliefs on your 100% certainty.   That is, if you are wrong, will you actually sit back and think rather than deflecting?




Sure, but I'll hedge a little, because as we both know singular exceptions do not disprove rules. But sure. Find me a white person living in a white-dominated society that is routinely watched and followed in stores because of the color of their skin. Find me the white person living in a white-dominated society that is routinely targeted by their peers, teachers and counselors in school, solely based on the color of their skin. Find me the white person living in a white-dominated society who has to fear every interaction with every police officer they have, because what if he's one of those "bad apple" cops, or more accurately, a cop who inherently has a significantly greater fear of certain people due to the color of skin, and might think they need to react to that fear by killing me, which they will almost certainly not be punished for? Find me the white person living in a white-dominated society who has so few heroes and superheroes and role-models of the same race within the cultural milieu to look up to. Find the white person living in a white-dominated society who, any time there _is_ a new character in a work of pop culture that shares their race, has to hear an endless barrage of complaining that all this is doing appeasing whiny crybabies who, apparently, should just be happy that they are allowed to exist within fictional worlds at all, let alone as main characters? Find me the white person living in a white-dominated society who, anytime a work of pop culture predominantly features people who share the same color fails to find an audience and is cancelled, has to endure countless think pieces about how that failure was entirely due to the color of the skin of the main characters (an argument that happened in this very thread, mind you). Find me the white person in a white-dominated society who, any time they achieve anything, such as getting into a school, or getting a job, or landing a major role, is due _entirely_ based on the color of their skin, and that if and when they fail, their failure will be seen as also being based _entirely_ based on the color of their skin.

And that's just scratching the surface. That's just the individual prejudicial level BS people of color have to endure basically every day in our society. I haven't even gotten to the systemic-level outcomes, outcomes there are mountains and mountains of data revealing the sheer extent of.

But sure, find me a white person living in a white-dominated society who has to deal with all (or even just a majority) of that crap on a daily basis, and I'll reconsider whether white people do or do not have the ability to fully comprehend the lived experiences of people of color in a white-dominated society, and therefore, _*maybe*_, that the color of one's skin has little to no bearing on their ability to contribute to a conversation about race.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Gradine said:


> I thought Gnomes protected our gardens from black magic?




View attachment 96001


----------



## Gradine

Phasestar said:


> Well, this is getting a bit far from the original topic, but I have to chime in.
> 
> Why do you accept this idea as fact?  White people, black people, all people are not monolithic or the same as each other because of skin color.  We are all individuals.  If you meet someone, regardless of their skin color and they explain their life, their struggles and challenges, you certainly can understand that as a fellow human being even if you have not lived it.  It may not be easy to put yourself in someone else's shoes - but it can be done.  We each have our own challenges - life is a struggle and at times overwhelmingly painful and difficult regardless of who you are.
> 
> The idea that white people simply need to back away from the conversation because they can't possibly understand, while all people of a different color automatically can, is part of the problem and will only make things worse over time.  We need to understand each other as human beings, listen to each other's perspectives and if people come to believe it's not even worth having that discussion, that is guaranteed to not lead to a better place.
> 
> As noted above also - listening and understanding does not always lead to the same conclusions, though it can.  We each have different perspectives, different knowledge, etc. and that can lead to respectful disagreement even with understanding.




You clearly missed the part, right after I said that, where I said that that doesn't mean that white people cannot contribute to the conversation. And no, not all people of color have the exact same experiences; but most people of color have had enough experiences that are similar enough in nature that I do feel 100% in the assertion that you quoted. And white people we should definitely be contributing to the conversation. But yeah, I do think we could stand to listen more to the experiences and stories of people of color, to amplify their voices and, if nothing else, share that you believe them.

What's not helpful is calling a woman of color a racist for trying to gauge where people's lived experiences are at within the context of that conversation.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> Racism is Prejudice plus Institutional Power.




I just see racism as race-based prejudice, no institutional power required.  I have too many white-, Hispanic-, Korean-, Jew- Indian-, ________-hating people in my (mostly black) family* who have little or no such power.  

Put differently, institutional power makes racism easier to inflict/observe, but it isn’t a necessary prerequisite.  An impotent racist is still a racist, in my book.




* this, despite many of those adjectives being part of the family ancestry.  Which further illustrates that racism is fundamentally irrational.


----------



## Enevhar Aldarion

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I just see racism as race-based prejudice, no institutional power required.  I have too many white-, Hispanic-, Korean-, Jew- Indian-, ________-hating people in my (mostly black) family* who have little or no such power.
> 
> Put differently, institutional power makes racism easier to inflict/observe, but it isn’t a necessary prerequisite.  An impotent racist is still a racist, in my book.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> * this, despite many of those adjectives being part of the family ancestry.  Which further illustrates that racism is fundamentally irrational.




Yep. At the risk of derailing this any further, but it has always bugged me when someone claims it is impossible for them to be racist or have racist thoughts simply because they are not white. Racists/Supremists/Ethnists exist in every culture and ethnic grouping in this world. People who claim this are either lying to themselves or lying to everyone else.

Back on topic, in most fantasy worlds there are also Species-ists, as the hate between dwarves and elves seems baked into most settings. So unless you are going to rewrite every single fantasy setting to eliminate that, using species in place of race is not going to work either.


----------



## TheCosmicKid

Obryn said:


> It requires conversations like this one, though, which you appear to have an issue with. Because we're not there, and we still won't if everyone just pretends it doesn't exist.



Social construct, remember? If _everyone_ pretended it didn't exist, it wouldn't.


----------



## Obryn

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I just see racism as race-based prejudice, no institutional power required.  I have too many white-, Hispanic-, Korean-, Jew- Indian-, ________-hating people in my (mostly black) family* who have little or no such power.
> 
> Put differently, institutional power makes racism easier to inflict/observe, but it isn’t a necessary prerequisite.  An impotent racist is still a racist, in my book.
> 
> * this, despite many of those adjectives being part of the family ancestry.  Which further illustrates that racism is fundamentally irrational.



That's just getting into a definitions game, though. Personal racial animus obviously exists, happens from all directions, and quite often that's colloquially called 'racism.' The unfortunate problem with the definitions' squishiness creates all kinds of derails and conversational 'outs' though.  (Like, when Gradine is obviously talking about institutional racism, saying 'I met some black people who hated me; isn't that racism?' is absolutely besides the point.)


----------



## TrippyHippy

Maxperson said:


> Because stepping up to someone who is acting in an extreme capacity does not make you an extremist.



Logical fallacy. Nobody here has been acting like extremists, or making these sorts of allegations until you came along....


----------



## The White Sorcerer

Obryn said:


> Yeah, so this conversation is about what it's called in earth-books that are written and published in the real world.
> 
> Mordenkainen can call it whatever he wants; this is about Paizo and WotC trying to be better than they have been in the past through tiny, incremental changes.



I prefer RPGs to use as much the same terminology as the worlds they take place in as possible, so if Mordenkainen calls them races and WotC calls them ancestries or whatever, that's a minus for me.


----------



## Obryn

TheCosmicKid said:


> Social construct, remember? If _everyone_ pretended it didn't exist, it wouldn't.



We wouldn't have a word for it, but its associated social woes would remain - I mean, people are talking about things when they are talking about racism, and those real-world impacts are not as simple as a 'social construct.' These go way, way far afield from this discussion however.


----------



## TheCosmicKid

Gradine said:


> But let's step away from the systemic, academic definition of racism to the more colloquial one, which just leans on individual prejudice. Let's say, a baseline here is regarding that someone is lesser than solely on the basis of their race. None of the things you are talking about even really meet the boundaries of that, fairly broad definition.



If you can understand and use the colloquial definition with ease, how is the academic definition useful here?


----------



## Celebrim

TheCosmicKid said:


> If you can understand and use the colloquial definition with ease, how is the academic definition useful here?




First, don't accept his naked assertion that that is the academic definition would be a place to start.  He means that is a academic definition asserted in some academic quarters by a group that has an agenda to change the long standing and accepted definitions of the term.


----------



## Yaarel

[MENTION=6775031]Saelorn[/MENTION]

Shadowfell is the realm of the dead. A spirit realm of ghosts. They obviously have no bodies, because the bodies are back in the material decomposing in the ground. The shadowfell is completely devoid of matter. It is spirit only.

When your character ‘visits’ the spirit realm of the shadowfell − where physicality is nonexistent − what do you think is happening?

No place has matter except the material plane. (And the elemental planes.) The spirit worlds of shadowfell and feywild, the ether, the spirit worlds of the celestial and infernal, the dreaming, and so on, are modes of existence without matter.


----------



## Yaarel

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I just see racism as race-based prejudice, no institutional power required.  I have too many white-, Hispanic-, Korean-, Jew- Indian-, ________-hating people in my (mostly black) family* who have little or no such power.
> 
> Put differently, institutional power makes racism easier to inflict/observe, but it isn’t a necessary prerequisite.  An impotent racist is still a racist, in my book.
> 
> 
> 
> * this, despite many of those adjectives being part of the family ancestry.  Which further illustrates that racism is fundamentally irrational.




"An impotent racist is still a racist."

I appreciate the sensitive way of describing this.

I agree 101%.


----------



## Yaarel

In America, whites, blacks, native nations, latinos, asians, and others are a normal part of what makes America America.

With regard the US, I agree with the school of thought that characterizes the main injustices as economic.

Wealthy blacks do fine. It is poor blacks who suffer more injustices. Then again, poor whites also suffer injustices.

That said, blacks have disproportionately less money. Poor blacks tend to have less money than poor whites. Rich blacks tend to have less money than rich whites. And so on.

But the problem is economics, and in the US, the solution is economic equality. For everyone.



That said, economics doesnt explain everything. Much of the time, things go well because a culture has good values. And things go poorly because a culture has bad values.

There are many places in the world that are extremely poor − and peaceful − and compassionate. And it is because these cultures value nonviolence. We really need to think more about these poor but healthy cultures, to figure out values that make the world a better place.


----------



## Gradine

TheCosmicKid said:


> If you can understand and use the colloquial definition with ease, how is the academic definition useful here?




The academic definition (by which I mean the academic definition in those fields dedicated to study of race, race relations, and racial inequity, advanced by those fields which, plainly, _do_ have an agenda, that agenda being to study, confront, and reverse racial inequity) is useful because it moves the _concerns_ centered around racism (and I'll start using racial inequity here, since that's a, perhaps, more accurate, or at least more _clear_, term) away from the individual actions of individual bad actors (ie; the prejudiced, or "racists") and towards looking at actual _systems_ of racial oppression, which become apparent when you look at basically any and all data showing demonstrably worse outcomes for people of color, even when controlling for all factors besides race (here's one such recent study published in the Upshot, but that's a rabbit hole you can dive into all day long if you'd like).

To be clear, while my biases are clearly predicated towards academia, there is significant concern within grassroots, on-the-ground anti-racist movements that critical race academics don't focus _enough_ on individual outcomes, and to be honest, they aren't wrong. So I think that the individual-based, colloquial definition is _still_ quite useful as well, which is why I included it as well.

Regardless, neither of those definitions come anywhere _close_ to whatever the hell Celebrim's definition of "racist" is that caused him to a call a person of color "racist" for wanting to gauge people's background information in a conversation about race (which, because it seems like everyone missed it, culminated in a post that was largely, though not entirely, directed at the arguments _I_ was making earlier in the thread, mind you).


----------



## Obryn

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I just see racism as race-based prejudice, no institutional power required.  I have too many white-, Hispanic-, Korean-, Jew- Indian-, ________-hating people in my (mostly black) family* who have little or no such power.
> 
> Put differently, institutional power makes racism easier to inflict/observe, but it isn’t a necessary prerequisite.  An impotent racist is still a racist, in my book.



About a decade ago, Ta-Nehisi Coates (who is, by the by, a giant D&D and comic book nerd) said, "America has lots of racism, but very few racists." That has stuck with me. The idea is that the bar for personal racism has been raised unrealistically high - so high that in 2017, many or most of the nazis marching in Charlottesville would have told you with a straight face they're not at all racist (...and that they have friends from all cultures and that you're the real racist for even bringing it up).

Anyway. I think it's important to remember that the term has a lot of meanings. The institutional definition (which requires the power to enforce beliefs about racial supremacy) is what you'll find in most books on the subject. But sooooo many people use it in the colloquial sense, it's just a dumb fight to have.



The White Sorcerer said:


> I prefer RPGs to use as much the same terminology as the worlds they take place in as possible, so if Mordenkainen calls them races and WotC calls them ancestries or whatever, that's a minus for me.



Oh crud, Mordenkainen called them Ancestries in his seminal work on the topic.


----------



## Obryn

Yaarel said:


> In America, whites, latinos, blacks, and others are a normal part of what makes America America.
> 
> I agree with the school of thought that characterizes the main injustices as economic.
> 
> Wealthy blacks do fine. It is poor blacks who suffer more injustices. Then again, poor whites also suffer injustices.



This is going way, way far afield - but Henry Louis Gates would probably beg to differ.


----------



## Tanin Wulf

Obryn said:


> Oh crud, Mordenkainen called them Ancestries in his seminal work on the topic.




What book is this in? (I genuinely don't know.)


----------



## MNblockhead

pemerton said:


> The reason I XPed [MENTION=6816042]Arilyn[/MENTION]'s reply to Rygar is this: I don't see how including women, or people of colour, in RPGing is a "left-wing push". It's not a socialist conspiracy to have created a world with people in it who aren't white men.




I agree wholeheartedly. But it is, unfortunately, how these things get lumped together in the shallow name calling you see so often in today's culture wars--in the USA at least. 

Personally, I prefer to avoid the terms "left" and "right."  For one, they are increasingly used as pejoratives that raise hackles and derail discussions. Secondly, the terms do not necessarily have the same meaning internationally. Neither does "conservative" or "liberal" for that matter.


----------



## Obryn

Tanin Wulf said:


> What book is this in? (I genuinely don't know.)



I'm poking some gentle fun. 

(The book doesn't exist, and even if it did exist, the excerpts would be written by whatever real-Earth authors bothered to write it, because Mordenkainen isn't a real person with an independent capacity to write anything at all. So over in PF2, you might see fake excerpts from scholarly works by some sage or another that refer to 'ancestries.')


----------



## The Crimson Binome

Yaarel said:


> Shadowfell is the realm of the dead. A spirit realm of ghosts. They obviously have no bodies, because the bodies are back in the material decomposing in the ground. The shadowfell is completely devoid of matter. It is spirit only.
> 
> When your character ‘visits’ the spirit realm of the shadowfell − where physicality is nonexistent − what do you think is happening?
> 
> No place has matter except the material plane. (And the elemental planes.) The spirit worlds of shadowfell and feywild, the ether, the spirit worlds of the celestial and infernal, the dreaming, and so on, are modes of existence without matter.



Where are you getting this from? I've never played any version of D&D where other planes of existence didn't have matter, unless you're specifically talking about the AD&D quasi-elemental plane of vacuum (at the intersection between the elemental plane of air and the negative energy plane).

If there was no matter, then you wouldn't be able to swing your sword, and D&D-style adventures would be impossible. The easiest way to travel between planes is with the Plane Shift spell, which physically moves your body to another plane.

According to the Forgotten Realms wiki, the  Shadowfell and Feywild were (respectively) the darkest and brightest parts of the Prime Material, which were physically separated from the Prime by Primordials. Both the Shadowfell and Feywild have geography, and are populated by numerous intelligent races, who walk around with their physical feet on physical ground which is very much made of matter. If someone walked through a portal from the Shadowfell to the Prime Material and continued on to the Feywild, they would noticethe local flora becoming brighter and more lively at each transition. They wouldn't notice that suddenly matter started existing where previously there was none.


----------



## MNblockhead

DRF said:


> I do think we really quickly need to establish that 5e is doing well because it's a good _game_, not because of any significant changes relating to it being more inclusive.




Why? 

Yes, first and foremost it is a good game. 

But I think the inclusive artwork and wording has had a positive effect. I'm the first to admit that the only evidence I have for this is anecdotal. Yet, I've read and have heard discussed from many sources that people have been attracted to by the efforts WotC have made to make the game's art and language more inclusive. 

Once of the brilliant aspects of 5e is how they have both managed to capture some of the old-school flavor of the game while at the same time modernizing it--both its mechanics and its flavor. That modernization has including making it a more inclusive game.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> Wealthy blacks do fine. It is poor blacks who suffer more injustices. Then again, poor whites also suffer injustices.




Well, we suffer fewer inequities than those farther down the economic scale, yes.  But wealth doesn’t insulate you from bigotry, personal or institutional.


----------



## Tanin Wulf

Oh... darn! I was hoping this was a real thing I had missed. Oh well. Thanks. 

(EDIT: Response was to Obryn. Got lost a bit in the thread.)


----------



## Gradine

Enevhar Aldarion said:


> Yep. At the risk of derailing this any further, but it has always bugged me when someone claims it is impossible for them to be racist or have racist thoughts simply because they are not white.




I'll point out that while I completely understand the reasoning behind this argument, and agree with it when using that specific definition of racism, the point that was trying to be made is largely washed out all of the arguments that it seems ludicrous to suggest that people of color can't be racist, or that white people can't be victims of racism, given the colloquial definition. And even the institutional inequity bit gets muddied when you start considering the efforts to counter-balance historical inequities (eg; affirmative action, or race- or gender-based writing competitions, to bring it back to RPGs) and how those are often viewed by the public.

Which goes to show that academics are _really terrible_ at explaining the things they are trying to explain to non-academics. Partially because the things they're trying to explain are genuinely complex, but mostly because of how wedded to their jargon they can be. I consider myself a case in point, honestly.


----------



## TheCosmicKid

Gradine said:


> The academic definition (by which I mean the academic definition in those fields dedicated to study of race, race relations, and racial inequity, advanced by those fields which, plainly, do have an agenda, that agenda being to study, confront, and reverse racial inequity) is useful because it moves the concerns centered around racism (and I'll start using racial inequity here, since that's a, perhaps, more accurate, or at least more clear, term) away from the individual actions of individual bad actors (ie; the prejudiced, or "racists") and towards looking at actual systems of racial oppression, which become apparent when you look at basically any and all data showing demonstrably worse outcomes for people of color, even when controlling for all factors besides race (here's one such recent study published in the Upshot, but that's a rabbit hole you can dive into all day long if you'd like).
> 
> To be clear, while my biases are clearly predicated towards academia, there is significant concern within grassroots, on-the-ground anti-racist movements that critical race academics don't focus enough on individual outcomes, and to be honest, they aren't wrong. So I think that the individual-based, colloquial definition is still quite useful as well, which is why I included it as well.



I'm not going to touch the broader debate except to mention for full disclosure that my sympathies lie a _lot_ more with the individualist concerns of the grassroots movements. Perhaps you missed it, because my original post read "how is the academic definition useful?", but I realized my mistake and edited it to say "how is the academic definition useful _here_?"



Gradine said:


> Regardless, neither of those definitions come anywhere _close_ to whatever the hell Celebrim's definition of "racist" is that caused him to a call a person of color "racist" for wanting to gauge people's background information in a conversation about race (which, because it seems like everyone missed it, culminated in a post that was largely, though not entirely, directed at the arguments _I_ was making earlier in the thread, mind you).



To be honest, it seems like both of you are guilty of attributing nefarious motives to the other, and that's driving a lot of the frustration. Because, of course, once you see someone attributing nefarious motives to you, it's only natural to think they must have nefarious motives for doing so...


----------



## Gradine

Obryn said:


> This is going way, way far afield - but Henry Louis Gates would probably beg to differ.




I've got this individual blocked, but that study I posted addressed directly the concerns he raises. When you control for economic status, black individuals _still_ suffer _significantly_ worse outcomes than white individuals of equal economic status.


----------



## TheCosmicKid

MNblockhead said:


> Once of the brilliant aspects of 5e is how they have both managed to capture some of the old-school flavor of the game while at the same time modernizing it--both its mechanics and its flavor. That modernization has including making it a more inclusive game.



Well said.

A lot of the negative reaction to diversity efforts stems from the fact that they seem new and alien to the mainstream. And a lot of them _are_ new and alien, aggressively so -- attacking the everyday with the language of academics and the fervor of revolutionaries. And that's always frustrating to me, because they don't have to be, and they're actively sabotaging their ultimate aims when they are. The real path to progress can be found in 5E's casual diversity, and _Black Panther_ telling a universal coming-of-age story, and a Puerto Rican Alexander Hamilton rapping about the American dream on Broadway.


----------



## Gradine

TheCosmicKid said:


> I'm not going to touch the broader debate except to mention for full disclosure that my sympathies lie a _lot_ more with the individualist concerns of the grassroots movements. Perhaps you missed it, because my original post read "how is the academic definition useful?", but I realized my mistake and edited it to say "how is the academic definition useful _here_?"




That's a fair point. I suppose I was just trying to cover my bases?



> To be honest, it seems like both of you are guilty of attributing nefarious motives to the other, and that's driving a lot of the frustration. Because, of course, once you see someone attributing nefarious motives to you, it's only natural to think they must have nefarious motives for doing so...




To be perfectly honest, I have a significant amount of respect for [MENTION=4937]Celebrim[/MENTION]; he's intelligent and logical and I genuinely get the sense that his heart is honestly in the right place. He's in fact said as much about me as well (well, the heart-in-the-right place bit, anyway, I'm not sure what he thinks about my intellectual or logical capacities at this point ). I do have a tendency to let my heart get ahead of my head in discussions such as these, and get heated and say things which I _kind of_ mean but which are unkind and unhelpful and usually apply to other people within the conversation, which tend to come out because I don't tend to reply to those individuals. Which is, I'll admit, pretty awful of me. These are all things I've been working on but clearly haven't mastered yet. 

And I can also see how I do try to shoehorn in other subjects that I really _feel_ are really relevant at the time but in hindsight are maybe... relevant-adjacent, I'll say. Relevant from my perspective, sure, but probably _way_ more of interest to me than anyone else in the thread.

But no, I have no reason to assign any nefarious motives to him; I think his motives are pretty clearly for the good, which is more than I say about a lot of the people who've voiced their opinions in this and other threads on the topic. I think, perhaps, that is why I appear (and get, let's be real here) so frustrated; it's a lot easier to write off people who clearly have some biases to work out, at best, than it is someone who wants the same thing you do but has such different (in some ways, completely opposite) ideas about how to get there. And I think they're important conversations to have, even if they don't _seem_ fruitful. I at least feel I get something valuable out of them, if nothing else.


----------



## Tonguez

james501 said:


> "species" ?
> 
> Maybe but I would imagine it was used to describe animals, right ?
> It doesnt sound appropriate for humanoid/sentient creatures.




Aristotle descibed Humans as the Rational Animal, so thats not really a problem. 

(Aristotle also used Species as a philosophical subcategory of Genus so its not a great leap)


----------



## TheCosmicKid

Gradine said:


> Which goes to show that academics are _really terrible_ at explaining the things they are trying to explain to non-academics. Partially because the things they're trying to explain are genuinely complex, but mostly because of how wedded to their jargon they can be. I consider myself a case in point, honestly.



Oh, I feel you there. Maybe you've already noticed how I write, but I've got academicosis something awful.


----------



## Gradine

TheCosmicKid said:


> Oh, I feel you there. Maybe you've already noticed how I write, but I've got academicosis something awful.




I was, many years ago (more than I'd like, less than I'd like to think), before I became a stuffy academic, a (hold your laugh) _student activist._ I feel like sometimes my writing on this board fully encapsulates the worst excesses of both of those points of view


----------



## Celebrim

Gradine said:


> To be perfectly honest, I have a significant amount of respect for @Cerebrim...




Except he can't spell my nom de plume.  

I intend to give your longer post the due consideration and respect it deserves as a thoughtful comment when I have the time, but since this is coming up I'll take a moment out to address the point of individual respect.

I have a significant amount of respect for Gradine, or I wouldn't bother posting.  Far more than many posters on the boards, he has the capacity of self-reflection and the ability to weigh arguments on their merits.  Indeed, the mere fact that he is self-effacing about how much he lets his emotion sway his arguments suggests he's on the very high end of ability in this regard, since high ability people tend to underestimate their ability vastly more than people who actually have a problem. 

And I certainly don't believe he has any nefarious motives and I have no reason to suspect his intelligence. 

I do think that at some level each of us sees the other as part of a philosophical movement that contains a lot of bad actors with nefarious motives, even if we don't in fact necessarily see the other as having a bad motive.  And I do think that obviously, each of us thinks the other confused and misguided on some level, but I hope he agrees with me that we both want the same thing - a world where people don't have to fear that they will face injustice on account of their skin color and where regardless of race (heritage, ancestry, or whatever term you want to have) you have all the opportunities that would be afforded to anyone.

Do not mistake the passion I have on this topic for me wishing ill of anyone, or me wanting the person (rather than the idea) to be dismissed.

As for his logic, well we all have biases.  At the risk of stereotyping, his is the bias of the academic, and the skew that I think he has is very much the sort of skew that you'd expect an academic career to encourage - everything is viewed through statistics, from afar, as groups and patterns, medians, modes and averages, and with the action plans that occur to an academic.   But perhaps more on that later.


----------



## james501

Tonguez said:


> Aristotle descibed Humans as the Rational Animal, so thats not really a problem.
> 
> (Aristotle also used Species as a philosophical subcategory of Genus so its not a great leap)





Maybe but this still applied in a more epistemic way, right ? 
Not in a fantastical context like here.

Not to mention the Greeks had their equivalent word for "race". (Genus/Genos, Γενος) which has still remained till today.
Of course the word isnt a direct translation and can equally be translated as "nation" or "ethnos", but whatever.

For me "species" sounds too animalistic,detached and impersonal while "race" implies humanity and sentience.


----------



## Leandro Batista

Ok... talking about "races" (or whatever you guys are calling), in systems like D&D we have a number of "races" each with different characteristics. Some of these characteristics are cultural (like the elven training with bows and swords). But others are biological (like the elven vision or sleep).

At least for me, it's not difficult at all to separate the two things and make one optional and varying according the their cultural (which may or may not be the default).

There are some features *in fantasy races* (or whatever term you prefer to use) that are clearly social constructions, but others are biological. An elf and a dwarf will have innate differences beyond cultural differences. I want to make it clear that I say this for *fantasy settings*. It is not acceptable to use this argument for human ethnic-geographic groups and justify "racism." Because in the real world the term "race" to define different groups of humans is not valid or makes sense - we are all belonging to the same race / species: that is, humans.

That being said, I do not object in changing "Race" to "Ancestry", but I do not think it is the best way to solve the problems pointed out in the text. Again, for me It is easy to separate what is biological and what is cultural in many fantasy races like those in D&D.


----------



## Gradine

Celebrim said:


> I do think that at some level each of us sees the other as part of a philosophical movement that contains a lot of bad actors with nefarious motives, even if we don't in fact necessarily see the other as having a bad motive.  And I do think that obviously, each of us thinks the other confused and misguided on some level, but I hope he agrees with me that we both want the same thing - a world where people don't have to fear that they will face injustice on account of their skin color and where regardless of race (heritage, ancestry, or whatever term you want to have) you have all the opportunities that would be afforded to anyone.
> 
> Do not mistake the passion I have on this topic for me wishing ill of anyone, or me wanting the person (rather than the idea) to be dismissed.
> 
> As for his logic, well we all have biases.  At the risk of stereotyping, his is the bias of the academic, and the skew that I think he has is very much the sort of skew that you'd expect an academic career to encourage - everything is viewed through statistics, from afar, as groups and patterns, medians, modes and averages, and with the action plans that occur to an academic.




I think I would agree wholeheartedly with all of this, including the spot-on assessment of my own biases. The thing that, at least try to do, is be up-front on where my biases are and how they impact my personal judgments and arguments. I _chose_ the path of academia because, by and large, I believe very strongly in much of the worldview it presents. I also try to be cognizant in the holes and deficiencies within those frameworks. Academia is terrible at addressing crap that's happening in the moment, right now, to actual, real-life people, for instance. It struggles to put a human face on actual humans, and their plights as individuals. And, while it's neither here nor there, now there's a plethora of these academics running NPO's, which is honestly just a nightmare (every friend I've ever had that went to work with a social justice NPO got so disillusioned so fast it's not even funny).

As a personal case in point, I once attended training to be a rape crisis hotline counselor. I handled the concepts and study part of the training extremely well. When it came time for us to practice what we'd learned though, I washed out, and HARD. I am not very good with people. Not because I lack empathy, I think (or at least I hope), but because I lack confidence. Which, if I wanted to get really Freudian, probably explains a great deal of my draw back towards academia. But I felt that I had a different skillset to contribute to the conversation and the movement for change.

At any rate, the struggle has never been about what the end goal is; I think that most of us can agree on what that would look like. The struggle has always been finding the right way to get there. You'd think, if anybody'd found the exact right answer (or answers) by now, we wouldn't be as far away from that goal as we are. Case in point... <waves at this thread>


----------



## Aldarc

james501 said:


> The concept of "race" existed back in Roman and Ancient times in their equivalent words.



If D&D was using those terms and conceptions from Antiquity, and those terms had the same intellectual history (i.e., accrued baggage) as the term "race" does for us nowadays, I'm sure there would be a good point hidden in that irrelevant discussion. The problem is that we have not inherited the Roman and Ancient times concept of race, or even their terms; instead, we have inherited a decidedly "modern" concept of the term "race" that is rooted in the European scientific revolution that was used largely to justify European oppression, subjugation, and eradication of non-whites and non-Europeans.


----------



## james501

Aldarc said:


> If D&D was using those terms and conceptions from Antiquity, and those terms had the same intellectual history (i.e., accrued baggage) as the term "race" does for us nowadays, I'm sure there would be a good point hidden in that irrelevant discussion. The problem is that we have not inherited the Roman and Ancient times concept of race, or even their terms; instead, we have inherited a decidedly "modern" concept of the term "race" that is rooted in the European scientific revolution that was used largely to justify European oppression, subjugation, and eradication of non-whites and non-Europeans.




Different context, different meaning.
In the context of fantasy race doesnt have the connotations of racial theory and people are able to separate the contextual usage of the terms.

"cult" also has negative baggage, but it can still be used contextually in fiction without offense.


----------



## Aldarc

james501 said:


> In the context of fantasy race doesnt have the connotations of racial theory and people are able to separate the contextual usage of the terms.



There's the fundamental disconnect in the conversation. It doesn't for you, but that is not necessarily universally true. 



> "cult" also has negative baggage, but *it can still be used contextually in fiction without offense*.



Can but rarely so. Most of the time that the term "cult" has a more neutral tone is in academic writing, but even there, you will also see use of the term "cultus" to create further mental separation between typical modern associations of the word "cult."


----------



## Shadow Demon

Aldarc said:


> instead, we have inherited a decidedly "modern" concept of the term "race" that is rooted in the European scientific revolution that was used largely to justify European oppression, subjugation, and eradication of non-whites and non-Europeans.




,..and they are all freaking DEAD and good riddance to them.  So. the argument comes down to those who think the word “race” used and acted upon by these dead people is relevant and those that don’t. Since, I am in the latter camp and feel zero empathy for those in the former, then I am good with race in RPG.

Thanks for giving me the setup for my final statement on this increasely tiring discussion.


----------



## Shasarak

Obryn said:


> Yeah, so this conversation is about what it's called in earth-books that are written and published in the real world.




Do you mean the real earth books that have been trying to combine all humans under the same category for 40 years?


----------



## Aldarc

Shadow Demon said:


> ,..and they are all freaking DEAD and good riddance to them.  So. the argument comes down to those who think the word “race” used and acted upon by these dead people is relevant and those that don’t. Since, I am in the latter camp and feel zero empathy for those in the former, then I am good with race in RPG.



They're not all dead. That's the problem. And just because they are dead does not mean that we are not living free from their legacy.


----------



## Shasarak

Enevhar Aldarion said:


> Back on topic, in most fantasy worlds there are also Species-ists, as the hate between dwarves and elves seems baked into most settings. So unless you are going to rewrite every single fantasy setting to eliminate that, using species in place of race is not going to work either.




It always made sense to me that a mainly forest dwelling race like Elves would be diametrically opposed to a mainly underground dwelling race like Dwarves.


----------



## BryonD

Hussar said:


> LOL.
> 
> The fact that not a single version of D&D is actually "completely compatible with modeling this" was the point that was disproved since your other point couldn't actually be proven at all.
> 
> Not one single version of the Medusa actually supported your claims.  Not one.  Yet, you still claim victory in the discussion?  Wow.  Now that's some serious revision there.



Heh, I'm not going to get dragged back into your age old battle-lost delusions.  
I've been doing Medusa correct to the myth for decades.  You are the one with the longstanding record of putting words in other people's mouths.  Hell, I haven't engaged with you for what, a year?  And you bring me up here with the specific point of telling other people what *I* said, when it isn't what I said.   So I think any rational person who just registered today could read nothing but this brief exchange and readily see who is doing the revisions.  

Enjoy


----------



## Lanefan

Celebrim said:


> This is a radically different conception than the one that prevails in D&D.  Most D&D campaigns I'm aware of don't care much about dynastic concerns like, "If my character is a half-elf and has a child with a human, what stat block should I use for my child."



We do. 

Instead of half-elves we have part-elves, and stats etc. vary depending on how many 8ths elf (or orc) you are.  Fine-tuning the mechanics beyond that becomes pointless, though being 1/32 elf could give you some room for flavour in your character.

And the child of a 4/8 elf and a human will be a 2/8 elf.  The child of a 1/8 elf and a human becomes human for game mechanics purposes, but still has elf in its ancestry.

Lan-"to whoever it was in here who said 4e would appeal to old-schoolers: count that as a blown call"-efan


----------



## Arilyn

Lanefan said:


> We do.
> 
> Instead of half-elves we have part-elves, and stats etc. vary depending on how many 8ths elf (or orc) you are.  Fine-tuning the mechanics beyond that becomes pointless, though being 1/32 elf could give you some room for flavour in your character.
> 
> And the child of a 4/8 elf and a human will be a 2/8 elf.  The child of a 1/8 elf and a human becomes human for game mechanics purposes, but still has elf in its ancestry.
> 
> Lan-"to whoever it was in here who said 4e would appeal to old-schoolers: count that as a blown call"-efan




Yeah, we do stuff like this too. Things like quarter elves and orcs. What is a child of a half- elf and half-orc like?


----------



## Afrodyte

Gradine said:


> You clearly missed the part, right after I said that, where I said that that doesn't mean that white people cannot contribute to the conversation. And no, not all people of color have the exact same experiences; but most people of color have had enough experiences that are similar enough in nature that I do feel 100% in the assertion that you quoted. And white people we should definitely be contributing to the conversation. But yeah, I do think we could stand to listen more to the experiences and stories of people of color, to amplify their voices and, if nothing else, share that you believe them.
> 
> What's not helpful is calling a woman of color a racist for trying to gauge where people's lived experiences are at within the context of that conversation.




I've blocked this individual, so thankfully I didn't see them say this to me, but it's both comical and disheartening how often it happens that things I do to make sure I know who I'm talking to and not make assumptions about their life experience is twisted into this weird, malicious thing where people project all sorts of baggage onto me personally. So, I'm not a real person with real thoughts and real feelings sharing my own individual experiences and perspectives, but every strident anti-racist who said something mean about white men on the internet, which is a bit jarring coming from people who insist on such a staunchly individualistic understanding of social systems and consistently speak against making arguments in bad faith.

It's funny I get this response because, among the first posts I made to this thread, I specifically said it's not something I'm particularly bothered about. Wouldn't miss it if they changed it. Not stung if they keep it. I don't play D&D to dredge up trauma about race. I play to pretend to be cool, competent people having adventures. So, if there is a way we in the hobby can use our collective imagination to make dredging up that trauma less likely, fine. At the same time, all I've done is express some _mild_ concern that people not affected by an issue deciding for people who are what should and should not upset or offend them and what should or should not sufficiently address their problems with, in this case, the current vocabulary. But, apparently, to some people, this means I'm outraged and ticked off and spoiling for a way to call innocent white men bad names like "racist" when, in fact, it is extremely rare for me to do so, except in the case of flat-out bigots.

All of this is highly ironic because several people have made it clear that they want to hear from people of color, but wading through dozens or hundreds of comments demanding that people of color validate our own life experience and our perspectives is exhausting at the best of times, meanwhile demanding that we take them at their word and assume the best of interpretations of their behavior. Not to mention how far too often, these conversations lead to people treating issues that affect people in real life like talking points in debate club. My ignore list has grown exponentially over the past few weeks because of this, and now I'm even wondering if it's even worth saying anything at all. I don't think I'm alone in this; I'm not that special. Unfortunately, this effectively silences people of color despite some people claiming that they want to know what we think and feel about things.


----------



## arjomanes

No. Get rid of it. 

First Edition's "races" went a long way to creating the kitchen sink Mos Eisley Cantina we now see in D&D. Sure D&D was already half there with its LOTR knock-offs, but at least there was a dwarf, or an elf, or a hobbit, alongside the human cleric and magic-user. They were at least a little special. 

You can be a human. Or you can be a monster. An inhuman, alien, monster. Call a spade a spade. 

And while you're at it. Make the creature actually alien. No, elves aren't people with pointy ears. Orcs aren't people with tusks. It's offensive. Because it's boring. Look at the diversity between species of animals. Why can't we do a better job mirroring some of that diversity? China Mieville's _Perdido Street Station_ and _Embassytown_ imagined inhuman creatures in interesting ways that were more than just cosmetic. I'd like to see RPGs do a little better. 

Make the elf more than a couple bonuses and some Halloween Express stick-on ears. When you do that, people can choose elf as their "class" or "theme," because it would define the entire thing.


----------



## Lanefan

Arilyn said:


> Yeah, we do stuff like this too. Things like quarter elves and orcs. What is a child of a half- elf and half-orc like?



Game mechanically?  A mess.  Socially?  A bit of a disaster.

But, it'd be 1/4 elf, 1/4 orc and 1/2 human, for whatever you'd want to do with it.

Side note: the best (worst?) example of this came when a player of mine once rolled up what was originally going to be - I think - a part-elf.  Problem was, after my tables and his dice got done messing things up it turned out both the human side and elf side had other things hiding in their backgrounds, leaving the resulting character a bit less than 2/3 human with significant bits of Elf, Orc, Dryad and [a 5th one that I forget right now] all mixed in.

Yeah, that roll-up soon became an exercise in let's go to the pub for a beer.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

arjomanes said:


> No. Get rid of it.
> 
> First Edition's "races" went a long way to creating the kitchen sink Mos Eisley Cantina we now see in D&D. Sure D&D was already half there with its LOTR knock-offs, but at least there was a dwarf, or an elf, or a hobbit, alongside the human cleric and magic-user. They were at least a little special.
> 
> You can be a human. Or you can be a monster. An inhuman, alien, monster. Call a spade a spade.
> 
> And while you're at it. Make the creature actually alien. No, elves aren't people with pointy ears. Orcs aren't people with tusks. It's offensive. Because it's boring. Look at the diversity between species of animals. Why can't we do a better job mirroring some of that diversity? China Mieville's _Perdido Street Station_ and _Embassytown_ imagined inhuman creatures in interesting ways that were more than just cosmetic. I'd like to see RPGs do a little better.
> 
> Make the elf more than a couple bonuses and some Halloween Express stick-on ears. When you do that, people can choose elf as their "class" or "theme," because it would define the entire thing.




Sounds like D&D isn’t the FRPG for you.


----------



## Shasarak

Lanefan said:


> Game mechanically?  A mess.  Socially?  A bit of a disaster.
> 
> But, it'd be 1/4 elf, 1/4 orc and 1/2 human, for whatever you'd want to do with it.




So that would be a human then, right?


----------



## Celebrim

Arilyn said:


> Yeah, we do stuff like this too. Things like quarter elves and orcs. What is a child of a half- elf and half-orc like?




In my game, they'd be with 50% chance human with both the 'Elven Blood' and 'Goblin Blood' traits, 25% Half-Elf with the 'Goblin Blood' trait, and 25% half-goblin with the 'Elven Blood' trait.  (No actual orcs in my game, but the idea is the same.)


----------



## Hriston

Jay Verkuilen said:


> Of course not, which is why I said "direct influence", but IMO 4E was one of the most contra-Tolkien editions: Among other changes, halflings were intentionally moved away from being hobbits with the serial numbers filed off and they introduced a lot of decidedly odd races (there's that word). Dragonborn in the first PHB, to say nothing of those weird races like the crystal guys whose name eludes me now.




OK, but presumably the developers could have picked up a copy of Tolkien's work and had it inform their idea of what a Half-Elf is in assigning a bonus to CHA. Of course it's pure conjecture on my part. I'm almost completely unfamiliar with 4e.


----------



## arjomanes

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Sounds like D&D isn’t the FRPG for you.




Empire of the Petal Throne was the best version of D&D that TSR published. But D&D was ok.


----------



## pemerton

james501 said:


> In the context of fantasy race doesnt have the connotations of racial theory



What is your evidence for this assertion? Surveys? Systematic social inquiry? Your own intuition?


----------



## pemerton

TheCosmicKid said:


> Social construct, remember? If _everyone_ pretended it didn't exist, it wouldn't.



This isn't true. People can't change their social formations just by wishing. Even if this wasn't obvious, there are enough illustrations of the point through the history of the 20th century to make it pretty clear.


----------



## james501

pemerton said:


> What is your evidence for this assertion? Surveys? Systematic social inquiry? Your own intuition?




Common sense.

Race in thereal world was usedto seperate humans.
In fantasy race is sued to seperate different sepcies : elves, dragons, orcs etc.
All humans there are a single race.

Also the fact that millionsnof people had enjoyed thethese things for decades with only a recent tiny invisible subset trying to argue otherwise.


----------



## Jay Verkuilen

Hriston said:


> OK, but presumably the developers could have picked up a copy of Tolkien's work and had it inform their idea of what a Half-Elf is in assigning a bonus to CHA.



Well they could have but I find the notion that they'd take six steps away from "traditional" Tolkien-esque fantasy and one step towards it more than a little reach. 

Even if they did, I don't really get the notion of how Elrond and Elros had particularly high Charisma---I'm not sure that's true about Elrond---would therefore translate to all half-elves having it. D&D half-elves have essentially never been particularly like Tolkien's half-elves anyway. They have always been decidedly mortal, for instance, and have no particular "choice of which kin" to make. 

I think the 4E designers mostly wanted to find some what to mechanically differentiate half-elves from elves and humans and settled on the notion of "well they live in both worlds and have to navigate them... sounds like a Charisma bonus!" 



> Of course it's pure conjecture on my part. I'm almost completely unfamiliar with 4e.




Um....


----------



## Hussar

Maxperson said:


> The diseases of political correctness spreads.  People are absolutely terrified of the few extremists in the vocal minority.
> 
> 
> 
> You don't converse with extremists on either the right or the left.  There's no point.




The irony of these two paragraphs in the same post is just too much for me.


----------



## Tanin Wulf

What irony?


----------



## Hussar

james501 said:


> Different context, different meaning.
> In the context of fantasy race doesnt have the connotations of racial theory and people are able to separate the contextual usage of the terms.
> 
> "cult" also has negative baggage, but it can still be used contextually in fiction without offense.




Well, let's unpack that one shall we?

The various "good" clergy in D&D are never, ever called cults.  There is no Cult of St. Cuthbert.  There's a church of St. Cuthbert, but, surprisingly, no cult.

Yet, every "evil" clergy, particularly any that worship demons or devils are almost always called cults.

So, the negative baggage of cult is being applied pretty clearly in D&D.


----------



## Hussar

BryonD said:


> Heh, I'm not going to get dragged back into your age old battle-lost delusions.
> I've been doing Medusa correct to the myth for decades.  You are the one with the longstanding record of putting words in other people's mouths.  Hell, I haven't engaged with you for what, a year?  And you bring me up here with the specific point of telling other people what *I* said, when it isn't what I said.   So I think any rational person who just registered today could read nothing but this brief exchange and readily see who is doing the revisions.
> 
> Enjoy




Yup, absolutely.  Totally agree that you've been doing the Medusa correct to myth for decades.

What you haven't done for decades though, is use the D&D Medusa the way it was and is written.  

Like I said, thank you for providing such a perfect illustration of my point.


----------



## Hussar

Tanin Wulf said:


> What irony?




The irony of taking an extreme position (anyone who discusses this is an extremist and thus should be ignored) and then claiming you can't converse with extremists.


----------



## Myrdin Potter

DRF said:


> Your post is good, but this is factually, objectively and verifiably incorrect. We share common ancestors and are the same _species_, not race. In this thread that's an important distinction. Human races are not 100% the same as any medical expert will happily tell you. That's why we can see based on bones and skeletons whether someone was male, female, black/asian/white etc.




I don't want to dive into the swamp of race discussion outside of D&D. This wiki entry is informative enough, right down to the statement that the use of the word race is problematic with the fact that this is not proven with any citation indicated.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_categorization)

Race is a protected class in US law (and many other countries) and laws exist that require classification or counting by it, which is why it is still used broadly in government. Otherwise, the scientific consensus is that there are so few actual differences between "races" that it really does not exist in a meaningful way.

The D&D rules follow that. Humans are a race. Within Humans, there are many variations, including language and skin color, but all have exactly the same package for stats and skills.

I do not think that it is even close to a given that the word race is problematic, and even in the cases where it is argued that it is, those argument do not apply to the fantasy rule constructs that races are in D&D.

I am fine with change, have been playing since 0D&D and happily play 5e now. I just see no reason for a change here and it almost looks like concern trolling to suggest it. People in this thread express their concern, but there still is not a clear explanation of why this is a real concern held by a significant number of people or even by the people here saying there is. 

Racism and Sexism are problems in the D&D community, but I don't think the use of race for the fantasy races in the rules book is an issue. I can easily admit and discuss the issue with racism and not believe that the use of race as a term is a problem. They are not the same.


----------



## Hriston

pemerton said:


> A different possibility is that there is a generic category of "Heritage" or "Background" or "Origins", and then the game offers various ways to answer this: pick a _people_, pick an _arpprenticeship_ or _training_, pick a _nation_, pick a _blessing_, etc.
> 
> Maybe choose two, and each gives some modest element of PC build (+1 or +2 to a stat, a vision boost, a proficiency boost, some other comparable perk).
> 
> A player who chooses (say) to be an _acolyte_ (apprenticeship) from _Veluna_ (nation) might still declare that his/her PC is a half-elf, or a dwarf, or whatever, but no mechanical benefit is received because the build slots have already been spent on other things. Being a half-elf is just colour for this particular character build.
> 
> If you want to build Aragorn, maybe you pick _Elven_ and _Dunedain_ (or if the game is straight D&D that doesn't use Tokien-esque categories, then the second slot could be _wanderer_ or _outcast_ or something else appropriate).




Replacing "race" with something like this (maybe call it "backstory") seems promising. In 5e, the races could be broken down into their particular elements allowing an "a la carte" selection of features, and this is already pretty much the default approach to backgrounds.


----------



## pemerton

Hriston said:


> Replacing "race" with something like this (maybe call it "backstory") seems promising. In 5e, the races could be broken down into their particular elements allowing an "a la carte" selection of features, and this is already pretty much the default approach to backgrounds.



Yes, I was thinking of 5e backgrounds when I made my post. I think that's the strongest mechanical innovation in 5e. 13th Age uses something similar. 4e struggled towards it with the "theme" idea part way through the life of the edition, but it's harder to do in 4e because everything in 4e has to be mechanically as well as narratively loaded (it's the way 4e works), and that means that desiging new elements is a chore. Whereas the 5e approach to both race and background is mechanically much ligther, and so makes it easier to come up with lists of interesting options.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> Otherwise, the scientific consensus is that there are so few actual differences between "races" that it really does not exist in a meaningful way.
> 
> The D&D rules follow that. Humans are a race. Within Humans, there are many variations, including language and skin color, but all have exactly the same package for stats and skills.




Yes.


----------



## pemerton

Myrdin Potter said:


> People in this thread express their concern, but there still is not a clear explanation of why this is a real concern held by a significant number of people or even by the people here saying there is.



I have not purported to speak for a significant number of people. I have spoken for me. And I think my posts have done a reasonable job of explaining what my concern is. Did you read them?


----------



## Hriston

Jay Verkuilen said:


> Well they could have but I find the notion that they'd take six steps away from "traditional" Tolkien-esque fantasy and one step towards it more than a little reach.




That assumes a more-or-less cohesive approach to the design of such elements. I don't know if such an approach is explicit in the presentation of 4e, but I don't see much evidence that it is in the editions with which I'm familiar. They mostly just pick and choose from various medieval fantasy tropes.



Jay Verkuilen said:


> Even if they did, I don't really get the notion of how Elrond and Elros had particularly high Charisma---I'm not sure that's true about Elrond---would therefore translate to all half-elves having it.




It would just be a case of designing the race to resemble those characters, kind of like how halflings are lucky because Bilbo Baggins was lucky.



Jay Verkuilen said:


> D&D half-elves have essentially never been particularly like Tolkien's half-elves anyway. They have always been decidedly mortal, for instance, and have no particular "choice of which kin" to make.




D&D's elves are mortal (and short), but that doesn't mean they aren't like Tolkien's elves in other ways. The mortality of elves also renders the idea of half-elves having a choice of whether to share the fate of elves or men meaningless. The absence of the choice from D&D's half-elves, however, doesn't mean they might not resemble Tolkien's half-elves in other ways.



Jay Verkuilen said:


> I think the 4E designers mostly wanted to find some what to mechanically differentiate half-elves from elves and humans and settled on the notion of "well they live in both worlds and have to navigate them... sounds like a Charisma bonus!"




Sure, that sounds entirely plausible.


----------



## BryonD

Hussar said:


> Yup, absolutely.  Totally agree that you've been doing the Medusa correct to myth for decades.
> 
> What you haven't done for decades though, is use the D&D Medusa the way it was and is written.
> 
> Like I said, thank you for providing such a perfect illustration of my point.



First you put words in my mouth, now you tell me you know more about how my game works than I do.
It used to be fun.  But now it is just creepy and I feel sorry for you.


----------



## Lanefan

Shasarak said:


> So that would be a human then, right?



Nope, as both the 1/4 orc part and 1/4 elf part have mechanical ramifications in my game (some of which would, admittedly, tend to cancel each other out).

And for a human it'd sure be odd-looking - probably show a bit of tusk, and some point to the ears... 

Lan-"tusks instead of ears - now there's an idea"-efan


----------



## Lanefan

Jay Verkuilen said:


> I think the 4E designers mostly wanted to find some what to mechanically differentiate half-elves from elves and humans and settled on the notion of "well they live in both worlds and have to navigate them... sounds like a Charisma bonus!"



This matches my take on it as well - they ran out of bones to throw by the time they got to half-elves and this was all they had left to give 'em.


----------



## Jay Verkuilen

Hriston said:


> That assumes a more-or-less cohesive approach to the design of such elements. I don't know if such an approach is explicit in the presentation of 4e, but I don't see much evidence that it is in the editions with which I'm familiar. They mostly just pick and choose from various medieval fantasy tropes.



True, D&D is and always has been a grab bag. However, a number of the more explicitly Tolkien-esque influences seem to have reduced over time, or else have been subsumed into "generic fantasy." And, as I said, 4E is by far the least Tolkien-influenced of the D&D editions.  




> It would just be a case of designing the race to resemble those characters, kind of like how halflings are lucky because Bilbo Baggins was lucky.




Lucky halfling is a pretty new one to D&D. As far as I know it's a 5Eism. The halfling has clear Tolkien influence (the three sub-types) but the 1E halfling was very definitely built on Bilbo Baggins and Shire hobbits. Over time I think that's reduced a good bit. They've become nomadic (unless they stopped being nomadic again), the art often looks much less hobbit-y, and so on. 




> D&D's elves are mortal (and short), but that doesn't mean they aren't like Tolkien's elves in other ways. The mortality of elves also renders the idea of half-elves having a choice of whether to share the fate of elves or men meaningless. The absence of the choice from D&D's half-elves, however, doesn't mean they might not resemble Tolkien's half-elves in other ways.




Certainly it's meaningless in this case, but the whole "ageless" aspect to elves in Tolkien is pretty key. D&D elves are decidedly more mortal and normal. There certainly are some aspects that are similar. For instance, FR's elves and Greyhawk's elves definitely have a more Tolkien bent, particularly FR's elves with their "bugging out to Evermeet" trope, something that got introduced in 2E as I recall, although in that case I think it's also a common source in the form of the legend of Avalon, too. (Recall that the elvenhome in Tolkien is called Avallone.) Elves and humans intermixing in Middle Earth is pretty rare but seems much more common in D&D, hence half-elves aren't exactly rare, unlike in Middle Earth, where they're quite uncommon. So there are superficial similarities, but D&D elves are notably more mundane and also owe some other sources, such as Poul Anderson's _Three Hearts and Three Lions_, Michael Moorcock, and Norse and Finnish myth directly (both a big influence on Tolkien as well as Gygax). This makes me feel that, while Tolkien was undoubtedly an influence, he's by no means the only one.


----------



## Jay Verkuilen

Lanefan said:


> This matches my take on it as well - they ran out of bones to throw by the time they got to half-elves and this was all they had left to give 'em.




Yeah, half-elves didn't really have a "thing" before. I like the half-elf a good bit, in no small part because I'm fond of their versatility and like playing bards, warlocks, and such. Half-elves are natural at those classes.


----------



## Shasarak

Tanin Wulf said:


> What irony?




Its kind of like rain on your wedding day or a free ride when you have already paid.


----------



## Myrdin Potter

pemerton said:


> I have not purported to speak for a significant number of people. I have spoken for me. And I think my posts have done a reasonable job of explaining what my concern is. Did you read them?




You are the one asking for papers and surveys because they exist for the problematic use of race as a concept in the real world? When obviously the use of race in D&D is not the same and all races get bonuses ...

Yes, you are a prime example of someone poorly arguing why the use of the word or concept of race as used in D&D is an issue.


----------



## Enevhar Aldarion

Hussar said:


> Yup, absolutely.  Totally agree that you've been doing the Medusa correct to myth for decades.
> 
> What you haven't done for decades though, is use the D&D Medusa the way it was and is written.
> 
> Like I said, thank you for providing such a perfect illustration of my point.




But...but...I have watched Clash of the Titans and I know you have to make direct eye contact to be turned to stone!


----------



## Enevhar Aldarion

Hussar said:


> Well, let's unpack that one shall we?
> 
> The various "good" clergy in D&D are never, ever called cults.  There is no Cult of St. Cuthbert.  There's a church of St. Cuthbert, but, surprisingly, no cult.
> 
> Yet, every "evil" clergy, particularly any that worship demons or devils are almost always called cults.
> 
> So, the negative baggage of cult is being applied pretty clearly in D&D.




The newer a religion or the smaller the number of followers, the more likely it will be called a cult, at least in the real world. Remember that at one time in history Christianity was just a cult.

And for those evil clergy, they are called cultists, maybe in homage to the cultists in Cthulhu.


----------



## Enevhar Aldarion

Lanefan said:


> Nope, as both the 1/4 orc part and 1/4 elf part have mechanical ramifications in my game (some of which would, admittedly, tend to cancel each other out).
> 
> And for a human it'd sure be odd-looking - probably show a bit of tusk, and some point to the ears...
> 
> Lan-"tusks instead of ears - now there's an idea"-efan




This is another one of those areas where real world DNA and fantasy world racial stuff just do not match up in any published works that I know of. And another reason why I think the use of Ancestry is a bad choice, In the real world, a couple can have a baby that looks nothing like them because their recessive genes just happen to combine in the right way. As an example, there are sets of twins where one is white and one is black and both parents are the same color. This kind of thing does not happen in fantasy settings. A woman with an elven ancestor is just not going to give birth to a full elf or a half-elf without the rules being written specifically to allow it. I also personally would not want rules that would allow this and I am not comfortable with anything lower than one quarter making a child different that their majority parentage. Anything less than that feels like the One-Drop Rule is getting brought into play. People outside the Southern US may not know what this horrible racist law was about, so here is the link for it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-drop_rule


----------



## Celebrim

Enevhar Aldarion said:


> The newer a religion or the smaller the number of followers, the more likely it will be called a cult, at least in the real world. Remember that at one time in history Christianity was just a cult.
> 
> And for those evil clergy, they are called cultists, maybe in homage to the cultists in Cthulhu.




Well, just for the record, every religious organization - nominally good or nominally evil - in my homebrew D&D world is a 'cult'.  There are no 'churches' of anything in my homebrew world, and I personally feel labeling the cults as 'churches' is always inaccurate.  

Technically speaking, Christianity is a cult.  And properly speaking, Christianity is the only cult with churches because 'the church' is the Christian specific technical term for the members of the religion.


----------



## Shasarak

Hussar said:


> Well, let's unpack that one shall we?
> 
> The various "good" clergy in D&D are never, ever called cults.  There is no Cult of St. Cuthbert.  There's a church of St. Cuthbert, but, surprisingly, no cult.
> 
> Yet, every "evil" clergy, particularly any that worship demons or devils are almost always called cults.
> 
> So, the negative baggage of cult is being applied pretty clearly in D&D.




Depends if you are winning or not.  For example there is a Church of Asmodeus and probably Charlie Sheen somewhere in the multiverse.


----------



## Lanefan

Jay Verkuilen said:


> True, D&D is and always has been a grab bag. However, a number of the more explicitly Tolkien-esque influences seem to have reduced over time, or else have been subsumed into "generic fantasy." And, as I said, 4E is by far the least Tolkien-influenced of the D&D editions.
> 
> Lucky halfling is a pretty new one to D&D. As far as I know it's a 5Eism. The halfling has clear Tolkien influence (the three sub-types) but the 1E halfling was very definitely built on Bilbo Baggins and Shire hobbits. Over time I think that's reduced a good bit. They've become nomadic (unless they stopped being nomadic again), the art often looks much less hobbit-y, and so on.



All of which is unfortunate, as they work best when left as close to Hobbits as the Tolkein estate will tolerate.

Otherwise they just intrude on the design space belonging to Gnomes.

And I'm not even going to start on the art other than to mention the sample halfling they've got for PF2 is probably the ugliest halfling/hobbit I've evern seen.  It's closer to how I'd imagine a crackhead D&D gnome to look, only with bare hairy feet.


----------



## pemerton

Jay Verkuilen said:


> Lucky halfling is a pretty new one to D&D. As far as I know it's a 5Eism.



From the 4e PHB "Halfling" entry:

Second Chance Halfling Racial Power

_Luck and small size combine to work in your favor as you dodge your enemy’s attack._

*Encounter
Immediate Interrupt * Personal*
*Effect:* When an attack hits you, force an enemy to roll the attack again. The enemy uses the second roll, even if it’s lower.​


----------



## Aldarc

Jay Verkuilen said:


> I think the 4E designers mostly wanted to find some what to mechanically differentiate half-elves from elves and humans and settled on the notion of "well they live in both worlds and have to navigate them... sounds like a Charisma bonus!"



A move in that direction already began in 3rd edition. Half-elves (and half-orcs) were undertuned in 3.0. In 3.5, half-elves were thrown a slightly bigger bone, and they gained a +2 Diplomacy and Gather Information. From here the transition to a Charisma bonus is apparent, particularly in the context of how 4E did stat bonuses. And humans similarly were thrown a bone in 4E with a floating +2 to stat bonus of your choice. 

But I do think that the Numenorean humans (i.e., Aragorn) likely played a significant role in shaping the half-elf. In terms of Tolkien, the mortal, lives longer than regular humans, charismatic presence, Numenoreans have more overlap with half-elves.


----------



## pemerton

Myrdin Potter said:


> Yes, you are a prime example of someone poorly arguing why the use of the word or concept of race as used in D&D is an issue.



I'll restate my principal reasons, then:



pemerton said:


> I don't encounter RPGing primarily as a "community" thing. I encounter it as a _cultural _thing - it's a hobby I engage in, and it brings with it a whole lot of stories and artefacts (books with words and pictures).
> 
> Most of my friends are not RPGers. Many think it's silly at best. One thing that reinforces their negative judgements is the preponderance of pulp-era sexist and racist tropes. I have many RPG books that I wouldn't want my young children to read, in part for these reasons.
> 
> So I would be happy if RPG publishers got rid of this sort of stuff from their books. And to be honest it seems pretty easy to do.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> It's only "genre appropriate" because the genre, in it's origins, is infused with either romantic/reactionary (JRRT) or modernist/biological (REH/HPL and similar pulp) racism. I would be happy for the games I play, and the fiction they bring with them, to transcend those origins.





pemerton said:


> Speaking purely from my own situation, based on the experiences I've had with the people I know, a game which begins by choosing a "race", with those choice still heavily steeped in Tolkienesque ideas, is not maximally welcoming to all people of colour.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> the way that "race" is used in fantasy RPGs is a different thing. It's not a tool of analysis. It's more like this enduring outpost of reactionary conceptualisations of human natures.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Again to come at this from the angle that is closest to my own experience (I'm not a convention goer): before my daughters get near a convention, they would need to get near RPGing.
> 
> Now maybe I'm out of touch (I'm a middle-aged man) but for me fantasy RPGing is heavily grounded, in its tropes and the way it is presented and advocated, in a certain genre tradition. JRRT, HPL, REH, ERB, etc are the canonical authors of this tradition. Until my girls are late teenagers, how would I even show them REH or HPL? What are they meant to make of writers whose racism is so virulent? JRRT isn't as bad, but the issue is still there, as the films bring out.
> 
> In the fantasy literature that I see as canonical there are exceptions - eg Ursula LeGuin - but even in LeGuin European tropes, if not skin colours, still predominate.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I think that fantasy RPGing has a problem here. Its approach to "race" is not all of it. Maybe it's not even most of it. I think it's part of it.



I think those reasons are pretty clear. I don't see how you can say they're bad reasons. At best you can say they're reasons you don't care about because they don't affect you.



james501 said:


> pemerton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james501 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the context of fantasy race doesnt have the connotations of racial theory
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is your evidence for this assertion? Surveys? Systematic social inquiry? Your own intuition?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Common sense.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Also the fact that millionsnof people had enjoyed thethese things for decades with only a recent tiny invisible subset trying to argue otherwise.
Click to expand...


The last quoted sentence I'll ignore, as it's inanity speaks for itself.

Otherwise, "common sense" = "your own intuition". So this is another case of there being more in heaven and earth than is dreamed of in your philosophy.


----------



## Lanefan

Enevhar Aldarion said:


> This is another one of those areas where real world DNA and fantasy world racial stuff just do not match up in any published works that I know of. And another reason why I think the use of Ancestry is a bad choice, In the real world, a couple can have a baby that looks nothing like them because their recessive genes just happen to combine in the right way. As an example, there are sets of twins where one is white and one is black and both parents are the same color. This kind of thing does not happen in fantasy settings.



Yeah, if we start involving recessive genes for anything other than faint tinges it can get very messy.



> A woman with an elven ancestor is just not going to give birth to a full elf or a half-elf without the rules being written specifically to allow it.



Depends how far back that elven ancestor is.  I assume by "woman" you mean human female rather than part-elf female, and no: even if the father was full elf if she's human then the child will be 4/8 elf (or half elf, depending which term suits ya better).



> I also personally would not want rules that would allow this and I am not comfortable with anything lower than one quarter making a child different that their majority parentage. Anything less than that feels like the One-Drop Rule is getting brought into play.



Going from 1/8 (which is as fine as I tune it) making a difference to one drop making a difference is a bit of a jump.

I don't bother with recessive or [whatever the term is for the opposite of recessive] genes, I just split fractions and have done with it; with anything less than 1/8 making no mechanical difference.  That said, a player is free to have a lower fraction somehow show up in a character's look or personality if so desired.  

An example: a long-ago character in my game turned out to have a faint bit of Tabaxi in her background - not enough to make any game-mechanical differences - and the player decided that it would express as the character's fingernails tending to grow quickly and become somewhat cat-claw-like if left untended.  And I think that's the key: let the player decide how - or if - any faint genes manifest in the character.


----------



## pemerton

Aldarc said:


> I do think that the Numenorean humans (i.e., Aragorn) likely played a significant role in shaping the half-elf. In terms of Tolkien, the mortal, lives longer than regular humans, charismatic presence, Numenoreans have more overlap with half-elves.



How to build Aragorn in AD&D is a perennial question - of course one answer is "as a ranger", but rangers only do a mediocre job of modelling Aragorn (eg between The Strategic Review and the PHB they lose clerical spells and pick up druid and MU spells).

A half-elf cleric/ranger seems to be one way to do it.


----------



## Lanefan

pemerton said:


> How to build Aragorn in AD&D is a perennial question - of course one answer is "as a ranger", but rangers only do a mediocre job of modelling Aragorn (eg between The Strategic Review and the PHB they lose clerical spells and pick up druid and MU spells).
> 
> A half-elf cleric/ranger seems to be one way to do it.



I've never seen Aragorn as a half-elf in any way.  He's a human, though an exceptional one.

And I've never quite got my head around why Rangers get spell use of any kind, based on Aragorn; I always assumed that notion came from somewhere else.  Aragorn/Strider heals with herbs, and magical herbs is a design space the game has for some reason always ignored.  He can, however, use magic devices just fine (e.g. the palantir).


----------



## Hussar

Lanefan said:


> All of which is unfortunate, as they work best when left as close to Hobbits as the Tolkein estate will tolerate.
> 
> Otherwise they just intrude on the design space belonging to Gnomes.
> 
> And I'm not even going to start on the art other than to mention the sample halfling they've got for PF2 is probably the ugliest halfling/hobbit I've evern seen.  It's closer to how I'd imagine a crackhead D&D gnome to look, only with bare hairy feet.




I dunno.  5e's a pretty strong contender for absolutely hideous halfling pictures.


----------



## TheCosmicKid

Celebrim said:


> Well, just for the record, every religious organization - nominally good or nominally evil - in my homebrew D&D world is a 'cult'.  There are no 'churches' of anything in my homebrew world, and I personally feel labeling the cults as 'churches' is always inaccurate.
> 
> Technically speaking, Christianity is a cult.  And properly speaking, Christianity is the only cult with churches because 'the church' is the Christian specific technical term for the members of the religion.



"Cult" to me implies a a strong proselytizing streak. I don't use it for the followers of my paganesque live-and-let-live deities, but I do for a particular, ah, _assertively monotheistic_ war god. But oddly, I'm not sure I originally planned the campaign to use the label "the Cult of Magnar". I think my players might have just started calling it that, and it stuck. And they don't dislike the Cult; in fact, they're rather fond of the whole testosterone-and-beer angle. So that's a little anecdotal observation about the word's natural usage.


----------



## pemerton

Lanefan said:


> I've never quite got my head around why Rangers get spell use of any kind



Farmir was a wizard's pupil. Aragorn can heal and turn undead. Maybe the reason for making his healing druidic is because he needs herbs to do it (though Athelas rather than mistletoe).

The idea that he's just using herbs, though, has no textual foundation. It's the hands of the king that are the hands of a healer. Otherwise he could have got a good night's sleep and sent his underlings to use the Athelas.


----------



## Enevhar Aldarion

Lanefan said:


> I've never seen Aragorn as a half-elf in any way.  He's a human, though an exceptional one.
> 
> And I've never quite got my head around why Rangers get spell use of any kind, based on Aragorn; I always assumed that notion came from somewhere else.  Aragorn/Strider heals with herbs, and magical herbs is a design space the game has for some reason always ignored.  He can, however, use magic devices just fine (e.g. the palantir).




But those are because of his bloodline of the Numenorean kings. The Palantir responds to him because of that. The Athelas is more potent for him because of that. A lot of what is part of Aragorn is not because of any class we try to fit him into, but because of his blood and ancestry. He was taught how to use the stuff, but the ability to was already in him when he was born. For 5E, he would need a Wilderness Explorer sub-class of Fighter or Ranger, with no spells or animal companion, just skills and abilities. And even then, no one else could be the same as him without being his relative.


----------



## TrippyHippy

Lanefan said:


> I've never seen Aragorn as a half-elf in any way.  He's a human, though an exceptional one.
> 
> And I've never quite got my head around why Rangers get spell use of any kind, based on Aragorn; I always assumed that notion came from somewhere else.  Aragorn/Strider heals with herbs, and magical herbs is a design space the game has for some reason always ignored.  He can, however, use magic devices just fine (e.g. the palantir).



The way I read it is that not all spells are arcane or wizardly. Most of the Ranger spells, if you look at them, are really just one-shot effects. Rangers get to heal, call shots and survive in wilderness with the 'spells' they have. So, don't look at them as spells, just think of them of particularly mysterious, one shot effects that they can do using things like herbs anda general awareness.


----------



## Aldarc

Lanefan said:


> I've never seen Aragorn as a half-elf in any way.  He's a human, though an exceptional one.



Consider that elves and humans have different destinies in Tolkien. Humans are mortal and elves are immortal. The various known "half-elves" had to choose how they would be counted, as elves or humans. So for the most part, it was human or elf sort of scenario. We don't have that in D&D. Numenoreans - particularly those of the line of Elros - and their descendants, e.g. the Dunedain, largely exist in the space between elves and humans. They are "functionally human" for the purposes of Tolkien in that they are mortal, but they are also had much longer lives and incorporated a lot of elvish culture. They even had an almost charismatic presence. They are considered "high men." In terms of D&D, the Numenoreans are functionally half-elves, at least in the absence of an "Atlantean" or "High Human" ancestry.


----------



## pemerton

Enevhar Aldarion said:


> But those are because of his bloodline of the Numenorean kings. The Palantir responds to him because of that. The Athelas is more potent for him because of that. A lot of what is part of Aragorn is not because of any class we try to fit him into, but because of his blood and ancestry. He was taught how to use the stuff, but the ability to was already in him when he was born. For 5E, he would need a Wilderness Explorer sub-class of Fighter or Ranger, with no spells or animal companion, just skills and abilities. And even then, no one else could be the same as him without being his relative.



Class in D&D captures all this, though, because there is no other mechanical space for it to live.

Why can a paladin heal with a touch? Why do the gods answer this person's prayers (cleric PC), but not this other person's (fighter PC)? Because of a noble and holy origin?

Why when this person calls desperately for help, late one night under the brooding stars, do the Old Ones answer and make a pact with him/her? Whereas this other person was never made the offer, and so never had the chance to become a warlock? Is it because of a stain on the former's soul? Or perhaps the alignment of the stars at the moment of her birth?

The idea that D&D classes are simply proxies for training is not really plausible if you want your game to have the capacity to pick up these pretty typical fantasy tropes.


----------



## Aldarc

[MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION], from my limited understanding, a lot of that could also be covered in the Birthright setting.


----------



## pemerton

Aldarc said:


> [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION], from my limited understanding, a lot of that could also be covered in the Birthright setting.



I don't know much about Birthright beyond that it exists (or once existed)!

I was thinking more in 4e/5e terms.


----------



## Aldarc

pemerton said:


> I don't know much about Birthright beyond that it exists (or once existed)!
> 
> I was thinking more in 4e/5e terms.



A lot of divine right of kings, bloodlines, lineages, etc.


----------



## jasper

Hussar said:


> I dunno.  5e's a pretty strong contender for absolutely hideous halfling pictures.



but they have the "lucky" feat so any pictures taken by your phone of hideous halflings are magically deleted!


----------



## jasper

Stealing and modifying. Race is a protected class in WATERDEEP law (and many other CITY STATES) and laws exist that require classification or counting by it, which is why it is still used broadly in government. …
Elven Archer Guard, “you are under arrest Peter Parkerovick the Purple Paladin of Portaferry. For violation of 616 of the Waterdeep Anti-defamatory statues!”
Peter Parkerovick, “what did I do?”
Elven Archer Guard, “you made a joke against the Church of Tiamat!”
Peter Parkerovick, “So I said her CULTIST (monster manual 345) are wimps and go down in a round. (especially if they cute and gingers)!”
Elven Archer Guard, “That is a violation of 616. You should said NPC of a Vogue Religious Figure!”


----------



## Jay Verkuilen

Enevhar Aldarion said:


> The newer a religion or the smaller the number of followers, the more likely it will be called a cult, at least in the real world. Remember that at one time in history Christianity was just a cult.
> 
> And for those evil clergy, they are called cultists, maybe in homage to the cultists in Cthulhu.



I'm sure it was an homage to Cthulhu!

The word "cult" means a few different things in English. 

-It can refer to something generic from the ancient world like "The cult of Osiris" which at the time was a normal religion. Usually these were pre-Christian religions that died out in Late Antiquity. 
-It can also mean "new religion". 
-Finally, and probably most notably these days, "cult" refers to an extremely tight-knit religious community that dominates the lives of its practitioners and is typically led by a charismatic leader. Whether the religious tradition they draw on is new or old isn't relevant. Westboro Baptist Church is rooted in Christianity but would qualify as a cult in this definition. Similarly, the Ultra-Orthodox Jews here in NYC may qualify. 

The line can be a bit blurry, though, so I'd think of this more as an ideal type or family resemblance than something that can be checked with the rigor of mathematics. (I don't want to get into a nitpicking fest about this, although I guess... in addition to porn and spam, what _is_ the internet for? Edit: Cat videos.)


----------



## Eltab

Reply to something a few pages back:

The opposite of "recessive gene" is "dominant gene".

Blue eye color is a recessive gene but green eye color is dominant (in my family anyways; I'm the only one).


----------



## Myrdin Potter

pemerton said:


> I'll restate my principal reasons, then:​
> I think those reasons are pretty clear. I don't see how you can say they're bad reasons. At best you can say they're reasons you don't care about because they don't affect you.
> 
> The last quoted sentence I'll ignore, as it's inanity speaks for itself.
> 
> Otherwise, "common sense" = "your own intuition". So this is another case of there being more in heaven and earth than is dreamed of in your philosophy.




Your reasons are logically unsound and based on your emotions and your explanations are an example of leaps of logic intertwined with what seems to me attempts to claim the high ground.

Let me address HPL and REH. I am of the opinion that both were racists and that HPL was much more and that REH was more a product of his times. The danger of dividing the actual single human race into races can be clearly seen in REH stories where his characters discuss the white race. Conan, for example, has many non-white friends and acquaintances but there are frequent emotional appeals to the reader when he reacts the the potential danger of a white woman being raped by a non-white person and there is casual mention of the superior white race he belongs to. His stories are pretty even-handed except for the occasional jarring references to race. There is pretty good evidence that he was not well travelled and his county had few to no blacks in it, so most of his opinion was formed from reading books and absorbed from the Jim Crow South (Texas) he lived in. His stories are also excellent adventure stories and he solidly set the foundation for American Sword and Sorcery tales that lives even today.

I don’t want to go too much deeper into into HPL. Some of his personal letters are quite vile. His stories are nowhere near the level of his personal beliefs (and I find that true of REH as well), but I think that is a reflection of the pulps being very commercial and, although quite base and titilatimg, still a mass market for of literature and needed to be more mainstream in beliefs being manifested, so the editors tones down most of the worst stories.

So you and I are in agreement that those two men were racist and that we do not want that type of racism in our RPG books. However, humans were pretty much the only race addressed in their stories. If you are looking for the non-humans, there is maybe serpent folk. There are no D&D style races at all. No elves and dwarfs and hobbits and thieflngs, etc. Every single race in D&D gets a bonus. It is against the design principle of D&D to assign stat drawbacks based on race. Sexes are treated as equal and the human race in D&D is treated as one race regardless of skin color and culture.

So, again, you are confusing the evil use of race as a concept in our world with the accurate use of a word as a rule in D&D. The word race is not bad at all, it is the theory that humans have races and that some or one is better than the others is the evil. To say that elves and humans are different races is not the same and to claim they are is confused logic. I don’t accept that emotional and confused logic is a good basis for change. It actually is harmful to act based on that. Although you reject intuition and common sense, intuition in particular is often logic being worked in the background.

Your conclusion that race in D&D is the same as the bad use of race when looking at humans is terrible logic, it is the same as wanting to ban race as in a contest of speed because it is used poorly in another context.

Is that clear enough?


----------



## pemerton

Myrdin Potter said:


> you are confusing the evil use of race as a concept in our world with the accurate use of a word as a rule in D&D. The word race is not bad at all, it is the theory that humans have races and that some or one is better than the others is the evil. To say that elves and humans are different races is not the same and to claim they are is confused logic.



I don't think you read my reasons closely at all. I didn't say anything about elves. And I offered no complaint about the word "race" - in fact I said that it is a crucial but challenging concept in social explanation.

But when _you_ refer to the _accurate_ use of the word "race", what do you mean? Clearly not that.

I'm pretty sure I know what you mean: and that's why I would like some sort of change along the lines described by [MENTION=3285]talien[/MENTION] in the OP. Because I would like my family and friends to be able to engage with my hobby without having to wade their way through all this . . . residue . . . that I have to explain away, or apologise for, as legacy baggage of the fantasy tradition.


----------



## Aldarc

Myrdin Potter said:


> So, again, you are confusing the evil use of race as a concept in our world with the accurate use of a word as a rule in D&D. The word race is not bad at all, it is the theory that humans have races and that some or one is better than the others is the evil. To say that elves and humans are different races is not the same and to claim they are is confused logic. I don’t accept that emotional and confused logic is a good basis for change. It actually is harmful to act based on that. Although you reject intuition and common sense, intuition in particular is often logic being worked in the background.
> 
> Your conclusion that race in D&D is the same as the bad use of race when looking at humans is terrible logic, it is the same as wanting to ban race as in a contest of speed because it is used poorly in another context.
> 
> Is that clear enough?



Again, I would disagree that it is this a clear cut issue or that D&D uses this term accurately because while "races" in D&D and other FRPGs may be biologically/magically distinct from each other, D&D often draws inspiration from the culture of real life human peoples for flavoring the culture of these different FRPG "races." And that is a fairly major part of the problem, IMO. 

Let's take World of Warcraft as an example, because it's a bit more transparent. If I understand your argument correctly, you would likely perceive the term "race" as the appropriate term for distinguishing between, for example, humans and trolls. But humans in Warcraft's world of Azeroth are not only predominately depicted as "white" - and probably 90-95 percent so in terms of its in-game NPCs - but also the predominate culture(s) for humans therein is positively pseudo-Medieval Western Europe. There are minimal human cultures depicted outside of the Pseudo-European "Seven Kingdoms" that comprise humanity. They are furthermore depicted as the miniaturized descendants of a people called the vrykul, who are basically Nordic half-giant viking warriors. 

In contrast, trolls in Warcraft are depicted as primitive and barbaric savages. Their culture(s), themes, and aesthetics draw heavily upon Afro-Caribbean and Mesoamerican cultures. They practice voodoo, worship loas, ritual sacrifice of sentient humanoids, and are occasionally cannibals. They live in ruined ancient cities and straw huts. Their empires, kingdoms, tribes and people, etc. are depicted as in a state of constant decline, decadence, and degeneracy. And elves are treated as a more highly evolved form of troll that was "uplifted" by magic into a more civilized form. (And ancient elf society had a more Greco-Roman with sprinkling of Celto-Norse aesthetic.) And the history in Warcraft is often framed in terms of "Isn't it great that elves and humans defeated trolls in all these various points in history and took their lands?" Ouch. 

I strongly suspect that you can see a lot of the red flags flying around how Warcraft presents "race." I know that Warcraft is not D&D, but Warcraft was a FRPG that grew out of the FRPG milieu that D&D established and built. (And you can even see points where Warcraft drew inspiration from various D&D settings and such.) The problem is not just an issue of whether the term "race" is accurate to describe distinct and significant biological differences between peoples or species. It's also how distinct human cultures - that were often historically relegated into a hierarchical racial schema of inferiority and superiority - are frequently mapped onto FRPG "races" to varying degrees in a wide assortment of FRPG settings. And you can most definitely see this in a variety of stereotypes that people impose on their "D&D races" and even the cultures of the "monster races" of D&D. I would say that it is the racist legacy we have inherited - that we are still trying to disassociate ourselves from - that ties race to culture and culture to race that forms the core problem of "race" in D&D. Not whether distinct species exist in D&D, but, rather, how often inadvertant racism plays out through the various "races" of D&D in terms of how real human cultures are mapped onto D&D races where those distinct biological differences exist. This is a much larger problem than the issue of using the term "race" or not, but the terminology nevertheless plays a role in this larger issue that I thankfully believe that the FRPG, on the whole, is increasingly recognizing and slowly working to correct to varying degrees of success.


----------



## Myrdin Potter

pemerton said:


> I don't think you read my reasons closely at all. I didn't say anything about elves. And I offered no complaint about the word "race" - in fact I said that it is a crucial but challenging concept in social explanation.
> 
> But when _you_ refer to the _accurate_ use of the word "race", what do you mean? Clearly not that.
> 
> I'm pretty sure I know what you mean: and that's why I would like some sort of change along the lines described by @_*talien*_ in the OP. Because I would like my family and friends to be able to engage with my hobby without having to wade their way through all this . . . residue . . . that I have to explain away, or apologise for, as legacy baggage of the fantasy tradition.




No, I read your comments and I simply reject your conclusion.

If there is residue (which I think is an imaginary emotional construct in your own mind) of the fantasy tradition, you will have to go back to pretty much the dawn of human history. There is no bright line where things written in the current centuries invented the base concepts and tropes.

Millions of people happily engage in the hobby using existing or previous rules and in my over 3 decades the only mainstream D&D rule I have ever had to apologize for (and which my group never used) was the old stat limits on women.

So consider that I have carefully considered the ideas you have put forth and I reject them. I don't say that you don't feel something, but I do suggest that you reexamine the source of this emotion as you are not applying your reason well to it. There is no modern day racism in 5e races or the use of the term race.

I have lived in several different countries in my life, including in one where there is actual government control and propaganda. I am slowly despairing at the way that people miss the warnings of 1984 and Animal Farm (or the movie Brazil to be more modern).


----------



## Myrdin Potter

Aldarc said:


> Again, I would disagree that it is this a clear cut issue or that D&D uses this term accurately because while "races" in D&D and other FRPGs may be biologically/magically distinct from each other, D&D often draws inspiration from the culture of real life human peoples for flavoring the culture of these different FRPG "races." And that is a fairly major part of the problem, IMO.
> 
> Let's take World of Warcraft as an example, because it's a bit more transparent. If I understand your argument correctly, you would likely perceive the term "race" as the appropriate term for distinguishing between, for example, humans and trolls. But humans in Warcraft's world of Azeroth are not only predominately depicted as "white" - and probably 90-95 percent so in terms of its in-game NPCs - but also the predominate culture(s) for humans therein is positively pseudo-Medieval Western Europe. There are minimal human cultures depicted outside of the Pseudo-European "Seven Kingdoms" that comprise humanity. They are furthermore depicted as the miniaturized descendants of a people called the vrykul, who are basically Nordic half-giant viking warriors.
> 
> In contrast, trolls in Warcraft are depicted as primitive and barbaric savages. Their culture(s), themes, and aesthetics draw heavily upon Afro-Caribbean and Mesoamerican cultures. They practice voodoo, worship loas, ritual sacrifice of sentient humanoids, and are occasionally cannibals. They live in ruined ancient cities and straw huts. Their empires, kingdoms, tribes and people, etc. are depicted as in a state of constant decline, decadence, and degeneracy. And elves are treated as a more highly evolved form of troll that was "uplifted" by magic into a more civilized form. (And ancient elf society had a more Greco-Roman with sprinkling of Celto-Norse aesthetic.) And the history in Warcraft is often framed in terms of "Isn't it great that elves and humans defeated trolls in all these various points in history and took their lands?" Ouch.
> 
> I strongly suspect that you can see a lot of the red flags flying around how Warcraft presents "race." I know that Warcraft is not D&D, but Warcraft was a FRPG that grew out of the FRPG milieu that D&D established and built. (And you can even see points where Warcraft drew inspiration from various D&D settings and such.) The problem is not just an issue of whether the term "race" is accurate to describe distinct and significant biological differences between peoples or species. It's also how distinct human cultures - that were often historically relegated into a hierarchical racial schema of inferiority and superiority - are frequently mapped onto FRPG "races" to varying degrees in a wide assortment of FRPG settings. And you can most definitely see this in a variety of stereotypes that people impose on their "D&D races" and even the cultures of the "monster races" of D&D. I would say that it is the racist legacy we have inherited - that we are still trying to disassociate ourselves from - that ties race to culture and culture to race that forms the core problem of "race" in D&D. Not whether distinct species exist in D&D, but, rather, how often inadvertant racism plays out through the various "races" of D&D in terms of how real human cultures are mapped onto D&D races where those distinct biological differences exist. This is a much larger problem than the issue of using the term "race" or not, but the terminology nevertheless plays a role in this larger issue that I thankfully believe that the FRPG, on the whole, is increasingly recognizing and slowly working to correct to varying degrees of success.




I don't play Warcraft, I have not since the early RTS game. The only MMO I spent real time in was Eve Online where I ran a large and successful and mean pirate alliance. 

I don't think there is a need to change a good use of race in 5e D&D because, maybe (as I don't know Warcraft), another game does it poorly.

I think this is a false struggle and topic. There is real racism that matters that can be fought. I have done it in the best way I know, which is hiring well as senior management based on talent, not where people are from or their gender, and in raising my children to reject racism (I seem to have spawned 3 left leaning fighters for social justice, but I struggle to see why that is a bad thing even if I am more conservative). I do know that illogical leaps and conclusions are dangerous. If other games get it wrong, the game that got it right does not have to change.


----------



## james501

pemerton said:


> The last quoted sentence I'll ignore, as it's inanity speaks for itself.
> 
> Otherwise, "common sense" = "your own intuition". So this is another case of there being more in heaven and earth than is dreamed of in your philosophy.




I had explained my reasoning about "common sense", dunn owhy you didnt include it.
But here we go again :

"race" in the real world is used to seperate humans.
"race" in fantasy is used in a different context to separate species. Humans in fantasy are a single race.
Different context is important.


Also no, my last sentence isnt "insanity".
Quite the opposite actually. To determine something is offensive you must see evidence of people actually getting offended.
When fantasy has used such terminology for long time without anyone caring or demanding it changed, and non-white people still play it, it is evident it isnt the problem it is made out to be.


----------



## james501

Aldarc said:


> In contrast, trolls in Warcraft are depicted as primitive and barbaric savages. Their culture(s), themes, and aesthetics draw heavily upon Afro-Caribbean and Mesoamerican cultures. They practice voodoo, worship loas, ritual sacrifice of sentient humanoids, and are occasionally cannibals. They live in ruined ancient cities and straw huts. Their empires, kingdoms, tribes and people, etc. are depicted as in a state of constant decline, decadence, and degeneracy. And elves are treated as a more highly evolved form of troll that was "uplifted" by magic into a more civilized form. (And ancient elf society had a more Greco-Roman with sprinkling of Celto-Norse aesthetic.) And the history in Warcraft is often framed in terms of "Isn't it great that elves and humans defeated trolls in all these various points in history and took their lands?" Ouch.




The humans and elves didnt quite take their lands. The humasn certainly didnt as they lived in their own ones. The Elves founded their capital, *uknowingly*, upon an ancient buried  Troll city which did anger the Troll,s but the region the Elves colonised wanst inhabited itself.

Also the specific Trolls that they waged war with, the Amani, although still retain Loa and other elements, dont have a very distinct real life counterpart. They resemble neither Mesoamericans (which are the Zandalari, and have become allies in the new Xpac), nor Afro-Carribean (the Darkspear, who arent cannibals, dont sacrifice sentients and werent ever "evil" or enemies).


Also, European cultures are similarly portrayed as enemies :

The Ogres are an expy of the Roman Empire.
The Vrykul obviously are vikings.
The Forsaken (not enemies per ser, but portrayed as immoral and ruthless) draw from Gothic Architecture.


----------



## Jay Verkuilen

Myrdin Potter said:


> Let me address HPL and REH. I am of the opinion that both were racists and that HPL was much more and that REH was more a product of his times.




I agree about REH. I think he's much more an example of "product of his times." He might even be somewhat more open-minded than many of his background and era given that Conan "had black friends" and there are a number of independent female characters in the stories. Neither are things a hardcore racist/sexist of the time would countenance at all. 

HPL... yeah, no question about his private beliefs being noxiously racist, even for his era. 



> I think that is a reflection of the pulps being very commercial and, although quite base and titilatimg, still a mass market for of literature and needed to be more mainstream in beliefs being manifested, so the editors tones down most of the worst stories.




That's true. In addition, in some respects there's a 1930s version of social justice or at least open-minded aspect to some of these stories that has often been forgotten. The pulps had authors such as Catherine Louise C. L. Moore, who wrote Jirel of Joiry, one of the first notable heroines who ruled lands in her own name and was a clearly competent warrior as well. Certainly there was to superhero comic books like Superman and, even more notably, Wonder Woman. By the 1960s, the X-Men had a pretty clear agenda to anyone paying attention.


----------



## TheCosmicKid

Jay Verkuilen said:


> I agree about REH. I think he's much more an example of "product of his times." He might even be somewhat more open-minded than many of his background and era given that Conan "had black friends" and there are a number of independent female characters in the stories. Neither are things a hardcore racist/sexist of the time would countenance at all.



In addition, there's a pretty obvious divide in the REH canon between stories he wrote for a quick paycheck and stories he wrote because he wanted to, and the former deal in cheap stereotypes and flat female characters while the latter show some interest in asking questions about race and culture and gender. Much like Tolkien, nobody is gonna accuse Howard of being a 21st-Century progressive, but he had an active mind and an interest in the subject, when he had the freedom to exercise it.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

james501 said:


> "race" in the real world is used to seperate humans.
> "race" in fantasy is used in a different context to separate species. Humans in fantasy are a single race.
> Different context is important.




Agreed, 100%



> When fantasy has used such terminology for long time without anyone caring or demanding it changed, and non-white people still play it, it is evident it isnt the problem it is made out to be.




This doesn’t exactly track.  Minorities are still engaged with genre fiction and the other entertainment derived therefrom in very small numbers, despite the measurable shift in American demographics.  The dearth of complaints may be less of a testimony to the issue than the lack of participation.

Put differently, the reason you may not see the complaints is because minorities are still staying away in droves.  That the USA is now @72% white, but roleplaying is closer to 90%+ indicates there is a lag in participation.  Why would this be?  It could be a simple whiff of unwelcoming culture in the hobby, either from the words used or the players themselves.  Or both.  

It isn’t clear, one way or the other.

As hinted before, the fact that I can shrug this stuff off and continue to play despite the issues is no indication as to how others will react.  Upthread I mentioned I only knew 2 other black gamers.  I forgot one.

I have a cousin who lives a couple blocks from me, and he’s about half my age.  I haven’t heard him peep about the issue.  But we rarely discuss race issues in general.  But I do know he’s an enthusiastic gamer in what appears to be a diverse and really cool bunch of kids.


----------



## Myrdin Potter

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Agreed, 100%
> 
> 
> 
> This doesn’t exactly track.  Minorities are still engaged with genre fiction and the other entertainment derived therefrom in very small numbers, despite the measurable shift in American demographics.  The dearth of complaints may be less of a testimony to the issue than the lack of participation.
> 
> Put differently, the reason you may not see the complaints is because minorities are still staying away in droves.  That the USA is now @72% white, but roleplaying is closer to 90%+ indicates there is a lag in participation.  Why would this be?  It could be a simple whiff of unwelcoming culture in the hobby, either from the words used or the players themselves.  Or both.
> 
> It isn’t clear, one way or the other.
> 
> As hinted before, the fact that I can shrug this stuff off and continue to play despite the issues is no indication as to how others will react.  Upthread I mentioned I only knew 2 other black gamers.  I forgot one.
> 
> I have a cousin who lives a couple blocks from me, and he’s about half my age.  I haven’t heard him peep about the issue.  But we rarely discuss race issues in general.  But I do know he’s an enthusiastic gamer in what appears to be a diverse and really cool bunch of kids.




There are a ton of reasons why the game skews much more "white" than the population and much more male than the population (this skew is enormous even today). The question raised in the original post is not the reason, not a reason, and is a distraction and logical error. The time spent discussing such irrelevant trivia is much better spent addressing the real barriers. This is the type of band-aid, feel good to a few changes that hold back progress because of the false sense of accomplishment.


----------



## Tanin Wulf

Hussar said:


> The irony of taking an extreme position (anyone who discusses this is an extremist and thus should be ignored) and then claiming you can't converse with extremists.




(I'm trying to tease out a bit more detail because in potentially heated conversations, poor communication kills.) I didn't see where the first part came into play, can you elaborate?

EDIT: Nevermind. I didn't see how far the thread had moved since then. =)


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Myrdin Potter said:


> There are a ton of reasons why the game skews much more "white" than the population and much more male than the population (this skew is enormous even today). The question raised in the original post is not the reason, not a reason, and is a distraction and logical error. The time spent discussing such irrelevant trivia is much better spent addressing the real barriers. This is the type of band-aid, feel good to a few changes that hold back progress because of the false sense of accomplishment.




Dude, until you’ve been THE black guy in a crowd of thousands*, don’t presume to tell a black guy that race “is not the reason, not a reason, and is a distraction and logical error“.  I haven’t lived in a majority black community in 46 years, and there are still times when that much Caucasian-ness gets uncomfortable.

Some- not all- minority gamers have an issue with this term; percentages are unknown.  Saying “it isn’t a problem” is, at the very least, bad optics.  At worst, it’s a barrier.

In ADR training, one thing that is constantly stressed as a major stumbling block is being dismissive of the concerns of the other parties.  Even if the issue is small, the fact that it gets swept aside without being addressed can kill the greater deal.

So, _listen_.



* or, possibly, the chromatically reversed situation.


----------



## Celebrim

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Dude, until you’ve been THE black guy in a crowd of thousands*, don’t presume to tell a black guy that race “is not the reason, not a reason, and is a distraction and logical error“.  I haven’t lived in a majority black community in 46 years, and there are still times when that much Caucasian-ness gets uncomfortable.




When I first moved to the States, I turned to my mom in the airport and said, "Where did all these white people come from?"

I'm still not sure I'm comfortable with the suburbs or Yankees.

Still, I'm not sure that's actually what he's saying.  I think he's saying something more like, "I can understand if the whiteness of the hobby is a turn off, but the word 'race' itself isn't the problem."   If someone has the courage to deal with all that uncomfortable whiteness, I really doubt they are going to stumble over the word 'race'.   But then, everyone is individual.  Just because I've never seen it, doesn't mean it isn't out there somewhere.  Maybe he's wrong and it is a huge barrier, but it's not obvious to me that he's wrong.  I've got a very small sample set of 'two', but yeah, I confess the idea that word itself is problematic hits me out of left field.   

If that word bothers you so much, what do you do with something like this speech: http://www.martinlutherking.ca/Speech/The-Limitless-Possibilities-Of-T.html.  Surely the term - or any term - is problematic only in proportion to the meanness of the ideas it is employed to create?



> Some- not all- minority gamers have an issue with this term; percentages are unknown.  Saying “it isn’t a problem” is, at the very least, bad optics.  At worst, it’s a barrier.




Barriers come from all sorts of places.  Tables could be unwelcoming because you are black.  More likely, any table that is unwelcoming on that grounds, isn't just trying to keep the hobby exclusive and you probably don't know those people anyway because they don't want to know you.   More often, at least in my experience, the barrier was less that we white nerds with our low social status (least of all me, who'd barely had white friends before junior high) weren't going to welcome a black nerd to the table, it was that no black kid was going to be caught dead socializing with us.  For some, it might actually been a matter of physical safety, because as bad as peer pressure was for us for being a non-conforming social group, it was a lot worse for them.   "Acting too white" wasn't a barrier that was enforced just from one side of the community.  Liking basketball and rap was cool.  Playing D&D was decidedly not.  Heck, talking to white people was a risk for many, and not just because of the white people.   That and of the handful of black nerds I knew, most came from families that would have forbidden it as a Satanic activity.



> In ADR training, one thing that is constantly stressed as a major stumbling block is being dismissive of the concerns of the other parties.  Even if the issue is small, the fact that it gets swept aside without being addressed can kill the greater deal.
> 
> So, _listen_.




That sort of cuts both ways though, I'd think.


----------



## Aldarc

james501 said:


> The humans and elves didnt quite take their lands. The humasn certainly didnt as they lived in their own ones. The Elves founded their capital, *uknowingly*, upon an ancient buried  Troll city which did anger the Troll,s but the region the Elves colonised wanst inhabited itself.
> 
> Also the specific Trolls that they waged war with, the Amani, although still retain Loa and other elements, dont have a very distinct real life counterpart. They resemble neither Mesoamericans (which are the Zandalari, and have become allies in the new Xpac), nor Afro-Carribean (the Darkspear, who arent cannibals, dont sacrifice sentients and werent ever "evil" or enemies).
> 
> 
> Also, European cultures are similarly portrayed as enemies :
> 
> The Ogres are an expy of the Roman Empire.
> The Vrykul obviously are vikings.
> The Forsaken (not enemies per ser, but portrayed as immoral and ruthless) draw from Gothic Architecture.



I can push back on a fair amount of this but I'm not sure this is the time and place for getting into a drawn-out lore discussion about Warcraft. You are welcome to send me a PM to discuss this further. It's always nice to find a fellow well-versed lore fan. But part of the wider point that I was trying to make is not Warcraft per se, but the racist connections of FRPG race and real world human cultures.


----------



## Celebrim

Aldarc said:


> But part of the wider point that I was trying to make is not Warcraft per se, but the racist connections of FRPG race and real world human cultures.




I realize this was your point, and I thought you made it very well.  I just still don't see how this is a call to arms to remove the word 'race'.  The connection between that and what you wrote, you didn't make very well.   Perhaps the better solution is to change the way we handle fantasy races in the cases that are problematic, since all the supporting evidence you offered supported that thesis and not the thesis that the word itself was the problem.


----------



## Sunseeker

Myrdin Potter said:


> There are a ton of reasons why the game skews much more "white" than the population and much more male than the population (this skew is enormous even today). The question raised in the original post is not the reason, not a reason, and is a distraction and logical error. The time spent discussing such irrelevant trivia is much better spent addressing the real barriers. This is the type of band-aid, feel good to a few changes that hold back progress because of the false sense of accomplishment.




No one person, neither you, nor me, gets to say someone else's concerns are invalid.  

Some people find TTRPG's use of "race" to the troublesome.  Whether or not there are larger issues to be dealt with is beside the point, since we as individuals and as a society are quite capable of addressing multiple things at the same time, and there is absolutely NO burden that we need to address them in order of magnitude.  There is similarly solid ground to argue from that chipping away at the small inequalities can be just as productive towards creating a better world as tackling the large ones.


----------



## Myrdin Potter

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Dude, until you’ve been THE black guy in a crowd of thousands*, don’t presume to tell a black guy that race “is not the reason, not a reason, and is a distraction and logical error“.  I haven’t lived in a majority black community in 46 years, and there are still times when that much Caucasian-ness gets uncomfortable.
> 
> Some- not all- minority gamers have an issue with this term; percentages are unknown.  Saying “it isn’t a problem” is, at the very least, bad optics.  At worst, it’s a barrier.
> 
> In ADR training, one thing that is constantly stressed as a major stumbling block is being dismissive of the concerns of the other parties.  Even if the issue is small, the fact that it gets swept aside without being addressed can kill the greater deal.
> 
> So, _listen_.
> 
> 
> 
> * or, possibly, the chromatically reversed situation.




Not American, grew up as a minority (15% of my town’s population) and lived 8/15 of my last year’s as a very visible minority, not even speaking or reading the local language well. So, how about neither of us presume anything?

If you told me racism or the effects of racism if not overt and direct racists driving blacks from the gaming table, I would agree without argument. If you are trying to tell me that elves as dwarves as races is the reason, then I am puzzled as to exactly where you are coming from.

I do think that 5e does a much better job of presenting a diverse set of art work, not having human races, making gender or lack of gender a non-issue and hand waving over sexuality and saying whatever you want were great steps in the right direction.

i don’t think calling elves a race and giving races in the game nothing but bonuses is the reason I should focus on.


----------



## Yaarel

I live in a place that officially about 60% latino, 20% black, 15% white, and 5% other.

As a socalled ‘white’ guy, I know exactly what it means to be a minority.

Fortunately, latinos generally have decent values, and are not especially known for hatemongering.

Nevertheless, there are enough latinos for enough of a hateful fringe among them, so that every one in my family has been the victim of ugly racism at some times. This includes racist violent crimes against someone because they are ‘white’, discrimination in the workplace, cruel social situations, and so on. Nevermind harm done innocently via cultural and language alienation.



My main point, no one has a monopoly on having to deal with unfair crap.


----------



## Aldarc

***


----------



## Myrdin Potter

shidaku said:


> No one person, neither you, nor me, gets to say someone else's concerns are invalid.
> 
> Some people find TTRPG's use of "race" to the troublesome.  Whether or not there are larger issues to be dealt with is beside the point, since we as individuals and as a society are quite capable of addressing multiple things at the same time, and there is absolutely NO burden that we need to address them in order of magnitude.  There is similarly solid ground to argue from that chipping away at the small inequalities can be just as productive towards creating a better world as tackling the large ones.




This type of stand in the soap-box response gets tiresome. I said I don’t agree and that there are real issues that need to be worked in as a priority. I agree that racism exists and that there are problems and I have not said once that no one can express their opinion.

Saying I don’t agree with you is not the strawman you presented. 

That type of response is all too common is too much of a trope and is exactly what you are claiming (falsely) that I am doing. I can certainly state my opinion, and I think I am making an effort to express why I believe the way I do. I don’t get to tell you if or what you can post on and you don’t get to do the same to me.

To be transparent, I am not a mod or the owner here, and that means I don’t think I have the right to tell anyone they cannot say something and that applies to me as well. As long as I don’t break the rules, which boil down to don’t swear and treat people with respect, then I think I am fine.

I am rejecting the idea that this is a needed change or an important change. I am not addressing comments at the people saying it, I am commenting on the idea.


----------



## Myrdin Potter

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Dude, until you’ve been THE black guy in a crowd of thousands*, don’t presume to tell a black guy that race “is not the reason, not a reason, and is a distraction and logical error“.  I haven’t lived in a majority black community in 46 years, and there are still times when that much Caucasian-ness gets uncomfortable.
> 
> Some- not all- minority gamers have an issue with this term; percentages are unknown.  Saying “it isn’t a problem” is, at the very least, bad optics.  At worst, it’s a barrier.
> 
> In ADR training, one thing that is constantly stressed as a major stumbling block is being dismissive of the concerns of the other parties.  Even if the issue is small, the fact that it gets swept aside without being addressed can kill the greater deal.
> 
> So, _listen_.
> 
> 
> 
> * or, possibly, the chromatically reversed situation.




BTW - where I grew up was not the same as the USA for blacks, but I had the one black guy in the school that was interested in our hobby at my table. So I cannot say I lived that growing up, it was part of my close friend group. It takes a pretty keen interest and thick skin to wade through the complete lack of representation and other BS that had to be put up with, and I salute your gamer cred and your ability to discuss what is a pretty emotional topic calmly and well.

This is separate from my response to your opinion to make sure my respect for you and acknowledgment of how much harder it can be is out in the open.


----------



## Lanefan

Dannyalcatraz said:


> In ADR training ....



ADR?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Lanefan said:


> ADR?




Alternative Dispute Resolution, aka arbitration & mediation.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

The _point_ is that once you start labeling someone else’s concerns as trivial, etc. you instantly erect mental barriers against *them* hearing and understanding *you.*  And unless you can quickly demonstrate a point of commonality of experience that grants you an analogous experience, what seems to you to be minor may in fact kill any chance of progress.

A major reason for this is- despite our claims to being rational animals- study after study has shown that our _emotions_ engage first, then get reigned in by our higher minds.  When you tell someone their position is of no consequence, you make them mad.  Then you have to get past all that emotional baggage.

That makes negotiations tougher.  Much tougher.


----------



## Myrdin Potter

Dannyalcatraz said:


> The _point_ is that once you start labeling someone else’s concerns as trivial, etc. you instantly erect mental barriers against *them* hearing and understanding *you.*  And unless you can quickly demonstrate a point of commonality of experience that grants you an analogous experience, what seems to you to be minor may in fact kill any chance of progress.
> 
> A major reason for this is- despite our claims to being rational animals- study after study has shown that our _emotions_ engage first, then get reigned in by our higher minds.  When you tell someone their position is of no consequence, you make them mad.  Then you have to get past all that emotional baggage.
> 
> That makes negotiations tougher.  Much tougher.




People also personalize things. If I say I don't think something is significant enough to warrant a change, then I have stated my opinion. I gave the reasons for my opinion, others gave theirs. If you disagree, then you disagree. This is not math with one right answer, the very act of engaging in discussion is worthy in and of itself.

I tend to avoid the typical threads on issues like this because the medium is terrible. I am fighting jet lag and woke up too early and posted. Things like this are much better discussed in person or via voice.

I don't disagree with your point above, but I also limited my comments to the conclusion idea. It is worse when you dismiss someone as being unimportant, and that happens too much these days. I also have a personal commitment to myself to be honest when I express myself. I try and be respectful, but I stated my actual position.


----------



## Sunseeker

Myrdin Potter said:


> This type of stand in the soap-box response gets tiresome. I said I don’t agree and that there are real issues that need to be worked in as a priority. I agree that racism exists and that there are problems and I have not said once that no one can express their opinion.
> 
> Saying I don’t agree with you is not the strawman you presented.
> 
> That type of response is all too common is too much of a trope and is exactly what you are claiming (falsely) that I am doing. I can certainly state my opinion, and I think I am making an effort to express why I believe the way I do. I don’t get to tell you if or what you can post on and you don’t get to do the same to me.
> 
> To be transparent, I am not a mod or the owner here, and that means I don’t think I have the right to tell anyone they cannot say something and that applies to me as well. As long as I don’t break the rules, which boil down to don’t swear and treat people with respect, then I think I am fine.
> 
> I am rejecting the idea that this is a needed change or an important change. I am not addressing comments at the people saying it, I am commenting on the idea.




Unfortunately _ideas _don't post here.  People do.

So either you're talking to _people _about ideas, or you're an old man shaking his fist at a cloud.


----------



## CM

As an ogre IRL, I prefer the term "flavor"


----------



## Myrdin Potter

shidaku said:


> Unfortunately _ideas _don't post here.  People do.
> 
> So either you're talking to _people _about ideas, or you're an old man shaking his fist at a cloud.




"You are stupid."

"Your idea that you posted is stupid."

Nice diversion, but that is the normal understanding of what I said. I try hard not to attack the person, and to address myself to what they said.

So I neither said you cannot post nor did I do a personal attack.


----------



## Sunseeker

Myrdin Potter said:


> "You are stupid."
> 
> "Your idea that you posted is stupid."
> 
> Nice diversion, but that is the normal understanding of what I said. I try hard not to attack the person, and to address myself to what they said.
> 
> So I neither said you cannot post nor did I do a personal attack.




For someone who claims to not like to attack people, you're certainly doing a lot of it.  Because I'm pretty sure the word "stupid" or "you are stupid" was never included in my posts.

There is an incredible ability to talk _to_ people without attacking them.

And I never accused you of saying I could not post, nor did I accuse you of making personal attacks against me.  So please stop projecting.


----------



## Myrdin Potter

shidaku said:


> For someone who claims to not like to attack people, you're certainly doing a lot of it.  Because I'm pretty sure the word "stupid" or "you are stupid" was never included in my posts.
> 
> There is an incredible ability to talk _to_ people without attacking them.
> 
> And I never accused you of saying I could not post, nor did I accuse you of making personal attacks against me.  So please stop projecting.




"  "

I presented two examples of what you were claiming I did vs. what I actually did. In quotes.

I have not said others cannot post. I have not attacked anyone personally.

Next straw man?


----------



## MNblockhead

Kuba GÅ‚adysz said:


> I logged in only to say goodbay, with that article you crossed the line, amount of stupidity, hypocrisy, self delight is just astounding. I know that loosing one reader will not change anything, but i want you to know that you lost one.




Hmmm, you "logged in" to an account that was created within the past few days and only used to post this one post. 

Yeah, you won't be missed. We hardly knew ya.


----------



## Sunseeker

Myrdin Potter said:


> "  "
> 
> I presented two examples of what you were claiming I did vs. what I actually did. In quotes.
> 
> I have not said others cannot post. I have not attacked anyone personally.
> 
> Next straw man?




Ya know what?  /ignored.


----------



## pemerton

Aldarc said:


> Again, I would disagree that it is this a clear cut issue or that D&D uses this term accurately because while "races" in D&D and other FRPGs may be biologically/magically distinct from each other, D&D often draws inspiration from the culture of real life human peoples for flavoring the culture of these different FRPG "races."
> 
> <snip>
> 
> The problem is not just an issue of whether the term "race" is accurate to describe distinct and significant biological differences between peoples or species. It's also how distinct human cultures - that were often historically relegated into a hierarchical racial schema of inferiority and superiority - are frequently mapped onto FRPG "races" to varying degrees in a wide assortment of FRPG settings. And you can most definitely see this in a variety of stereotypes that people impose on their "D&D races" and even the cultures of the "monster races" of D&D.



I want to add to what you've said here. I've composed this post a few different ways in my mind, and I'm not sure what is the best way of doing it, but I'm going to try this one:

Aristotle, in his _Politics_, articulates the idea of "natural slavery": certain people are, by nature, inferior (in intellect, culture, general capacities) and hence subordinate to other naturally free people. The Greeks are among the naturally free people, and they have a moral permission and even perhaps a moral obligation to enslave those who are slaves by nature.

Now most contemporary people would regard this as silly at best, and malicious at worst. But let's suppose someone writes a RPG fantasy story in which one of the "races" of the world _is_, in the fiction, naturally inferior and hence the members of that race are slaves by nature. Would it make sense to say that that story is harmless, because it "accurately" applies Aristotle's concept? Or would it be more appropriate to regard that fiction as pernicious?

To generalise the point: is the problem with race theorists, and natural slave theorists, that they made empirical errors? (There really are no human biological differences of the sort the theorists posited. There really are no human who are natural slaves.) In which case we can imagine fantasy worlds in which those theorists were correct.

Or is the problem with these theories that they are intellectual dressings up of rather vicious political programs? If so, then (i) it wouldn't make any sense to say that a fantasy story uses the words and concepts "accurately", and (ii) fantasy stories that deploy these concepts are, in various ways and to various degrees, carrying on an (at best) unhappy political project.

I think that your post points to one of the main unhappy features of the project, even if divorced from the idea of racial hierarchies: namely, the positing of these essential connections between "biology" (whatever exactly that means in a fantasy world) and cultural/social forms. That said, D&D doesn't really divorce the idea from one of hierarchy - orcs (and half-orcs, among the standard playable races) are clearly "lower" in some sense than elves. And the idea of biological "purity" and related essentialist ideas is also strongly reinforced - as has come out in this thread in the discussion of the mechanics of half-elves and half-orcs.



Myrdin Potter said:


> I am slowly despairing at the way that people miss the warnings of 1984 and Animal Farm



We are discussing the words and concepts that are worth using in a commercially produced cultural artefact. Animal Farm has no bearing on this. Nor does 1984 - the only Newspeak going on in this thread is the notion of "accurate" uses of the word "race". (The Newspeak consisting in the suggestion that the real problem with race theory is scientific - ie it's core hypothesis is wrong - rather than political - it's core goals are vicious.)



Myrdin Potter said:


> I think this is a false struggle and topic. There is real racism that matters that can be fought. I have done it in the best way I know, which is hiring well as senior management based on talent, not where people are from or their gender, and in raising my children to reject racism (I seem to have spawned 3 left leaning fighters for social justice, but I struggle to see why that is a bad thing even if I am more conservative). I do know that illogical leaps and conclusions are dangerous. If other games get it wrong, the game that got it right does not have to change.



I also have children. I don't know anything about your children other than what you've told me: for my children the nature of race, racial identify, racial essentialism, the connection between "race", culture and value, are not issues of mere theoretical concern.

The reason I wouldn't want them reading REH or HPL isn't to do with moral education - it's to do with protecting them from vicious attacks.

D&D isn't vicious in the same way. But nevertheless it is carrying a lot of the same baggage.

EDIT: I read some more posts that seem relevant to this point.



james501 said:


> To determine something is offensive you must see evidence of people actually getting offended.



I haven't said that the problem is one of offence. That's not stated or implied in any of my posts on this topic.



Myrdin Potter said:


> There are a ton of reasons why the game skews much more "white" than the population and much more male than the population (this skew is enormous even today). The question raised in the original post is not the reason, not a reason, and is a distraction and logical error. The time spent discussing such irrelevant trivia is much better spent addressing the real barriers. This is the type of band-aid, feel good to a few changes that hold back progress because of the false sense of accomplishment.





Dannyalcatraz said:


> Some- not all- minority gamers have an issue with this term; percentages are unknown.  Saying “it isn’t a problem” is, at the very least, bad optics.  At worst, it’s a barrier.



As I already posted, I am not attempting to make "progress" in some abstract sense.

I have an actual issue with my actual RPG books - namely, they contain and evoke tropes and concepts that at the worst may be harmful, and in any event are redolent of things that are harmful, to my family and friends. (They may or may not be harmful to other people. I leave that for others to judge. I am only talking about the people I am close to and the experiences that I and they have had.)

And there's no reason I can see why that couldn't be different. And I don't see what anyone else would lose except, perhaps, a bit of gamer nostalgia.


----------



## pemerton

Jay Verkuilen said:


> I agree about REH. I think he's much more an example of "product of his times." He might even be somewhat more open-minded than many of his background and era given that Conan "had black friends"





TheCosmicKid said:


> In addition, there's a pretty obvious divide in the REH canon between stories he wrote for a quick paycheck and stories he wrote because he wanted to, and the former deal in cheap stereotypes and flat female characters while the latter show some interest in asking questions about race and culture and gender. Much like Tolkien, nobody is gonna accuse Howard of being a 21st-Century progressive, but he had an active mind and an interest in the subject, when he had the freedom to exercise it.



The Scarlet Citadel. The Queen of the Black Coast. The Vale of Lost Women. Shadows in Zamboula.

That's off the top of my head, and the only REH I've read are the Conan and Kull stories.

These don't "ask questions" about race and culture. They're just virulent racism. (The third and fourth are also pretty mediocre stories. The first and second are good stories, although personally I think Queen of the Black Coast is a bit overrated; but they're good despite the racism, not because they offer any insight into race and culture.)



Jay Verkuilen said:


> By the 1960s, the X-Men had a pretty clear agenda to anyone paying attention.



If D&D handled issues of oppression and liberation in the same way that the X-Men does, I don't think we'd be having this particular conversation.


----------



## Slit518

Why I don't care if they use the term Race:

It literally refers to a type of person that is different based on many factors, descent, heredity, ancestry, shared culture, etc...

For example Humans and Dwarves have different DNA, different culture, different ancestors, hereditary genes.

This is present in all or most of the D&D Races.

Species would of been too broad of a word, as many of the classic D&D Races can breed with each other, they are of similar specie (Humanoid in the D&D realm).

Ancestor or Ancestry seems like a good alternative, but is it an alternative just to be an alternative?  Like is it there just to not use the word Race?

Now that I think about it, I picture Ancestry as a sub-race type of thing.

For example:

Person 1 is of the European race, Dutch ancestry, a part of the human species.

or in D&D terms

Character 1 is of the Dwarven race, Mountain Dwarf ancestry, a part of the humanoid species.


----------



## Myrdin Potter

pemerton said:


> I want to add to what you've said here. I've composed this post a few different ways in my mind, and I'm not sure what is the best way of doing it, but I'm going to try this one:
> 
> Aristotle, in his _Politics_, articulates the idea of "natural slavery": certain people are, by nature, inferior (in intellect, culture, general capacities) and hence subordinate to other naturally free people. The Greeks are among the naturally free people, and they have a moral permission and even perhaps a moral obligation to enslave those who are slaves by nature.
> 
> Now most contemporary people would regard this as silly at best, and malicious at worst. But let's suppose someone writes a RPG fantasy story in which one of the "races" of the world _is_, in the fiction, naturally inferior and hence the members of that race are slaves by nature. Would it make sense to say that that story is harmless, because it "accurately" applies Aristotle's concept? Or would it be more appropriate to regard that fiction as pernicious?
> 
> To generalise the point: is the problem with race theorists, and natural slave theorists, that they made empirical errors? (There really are no human biological differences of the sort the theorists posited. There really are no human who are natural slaves.) In which case we can imagine fantasy worlds in which those theorists were correct.
> 
> Or is the problem with these theories that they are intellectual dressings up of rather vicious political programs? If so, then (i) it wouldn't make any sense to say that a fantasy story uses the words and concepts "accurately", and (ii) fantasy stories that deploy these concepts are, in various ways and to various degrees, carrying on an (at best) unhappy political project.
> 
> I think that your post points to one of the main unhappy features of the project, even if divorced from the idea of racial hierarchies: namely, the positing of these essential connections between "biology" (whatever exactly that means in a fantasy world) and cultural/social forms. That said, D&D doesn't really divorce the idea from one of hierarchy - orcs (and half-orcs, among the standard playable races) are clearly "lower" in some sense than elves. And the idea of biological "purity" and related essentialist ideas is also strongly reinforced - as has come out in this thread in the discussion of the mechanics of half-elves and half-orcs.
> 
> We are discussing the words and concepts that are worth using in a commercially produced cultural artefact. Animal Farm has no bearing on this. Nor does 1984 - the only Newspeak going on in this thread is the notion of "accurate" uses of the word "race". (The Newspeak consisting in the suggestion that the real problem with race theory is scientific - ie it's core hypothesis is wrong - rather than political - it's core goals are vicious.)
> 
> I also have children. I don't know anything about your children other than what you've told me: for my children the nature of race, racial identify, racial essentialism, the connection between "race", culture and value, are not issues of mere theoretical concern.
> 
> The reason I wouldn't want them reading REH or HPL isn't to do with moral education - it's to do with protecting them from vicious attacks.
> 
> D&D isn't vicious in the same way. But nevertheless it is carrying a lot of the same baggage.




I agree with you that race theory that there are different human races is evil and I already have said that.

I disagree that race theory as applies to humans is the meaning in the rules.

Every dictionary and definition I can find says "The human race" as an example of the word. Some make the point that it is the only current acceptable way to use race and human. That would follow that elven race, dwarven race, etc. are correct.

So your long definition and history lesson on the wrong race theory is not correct when the definition of the word race is used and human race is right there in the three dictionaries I looked up. You are redefining a simple word with clear definitions to match your ideology and that is the road to the books I cited.

As for REH and HPL, I will leave it to you to decide. REH I have on audible.com, and I played it with my daughters (now 21 and 15) and we had a good discussion on the casual racism and how what is acceptable changed over time. If you made another choice, I can only respect that. Your choice, your family.


----------



## Sunseeker

Slit518 said:


> Ancestor or Ancestry seems like a good alternative, but is it an alternative just to be an alternative?  Like is it there just to not use the word Race?




To cut to the chase and what has perhaps been lost over the last dozen pages, the short story is this: race carries unnecessary social, cultural, political implications and baggage that we can do without in D&D (and other games).  For some people, it may be seen as a roadblock to enjoying the game.

Using an alternative term "Ancestry" or "Species" or "Kind" or some such can eliminate that baggage and remove a roadblock for people.


----------



## Slit518

shidaku said:


> To cut to the chase and what has perhaps been lost over the last dozen pages, the short story is this: race carries unnecessary social, cultural, political implications and baggage that we can do without in D&D (and other games).  For some people, it may be seen as a roadblock to enjoying the game.
> 
> Using an alternative term "Ancestry" or "Species" or "Kind" or some such can eliminate that baggage and remove a roadblock for people.




I really don't see how or why.  This just seems odd to me.

I personally would see Kind as more offensive.  Like in the context of, "We don't like your *kind* around here!"  You usually see that in movies or TV shows where the racist redneck troupe is interacting with the out of town non-white person troupe.


----------



## Sunseeker

Slit518 said:


> I really don't see how or why.  This just seems odd to me.
> 
> I personally would see Kind as more offensive.  Like in the context of, "We don't like your *kind* around here!"  You usually see that in movies or TV shows where the racist redneck troupe is interacting with the out of town non-white person troupe.




There are very in-depth explanations of the how and why throughout the thread.  I don't have the energy to repeat them again (and I've posted my own already).

Whether or not you like one possible replacement word over another is part of what this discussion is for, to find a suitable replacement, or I suppose, to demonstrate why the word is worth keeping.

Personally, I don't have any attachment to the word and only see gain in its exchange for another term.


----------



## pemerton

Myrdin Potter said:


> I played it with my daughters (now 21 and 15) and we had a good discussion on the casual racism and how what is acceptable changed over time.



Out of curiosity, are your daughters Black?


----------



## pemerton

Slit518 said:


> I really don't see how or why.  This just seems odd to me.



Again, I can only speak for my situation.

Traditional racial theory - the idea of conjoining, in your conception of a person, ideas of biology and heredity and appearence and culture and capabilities and worth - is not just an abstract intellectual curiosity. At least, not for all people. It's a real thing that can have real effects, for instance, on how people think about themselves and their identity and other people they are connected to in various ways.

I would prefer it if my fantasy rolepalying books were more distant from traditional racial theory than they currently are.


----------



## Myrdin Potter

pemerton said:


> Out of curiosity, are your daughters Black?




No. And, unlike me, they did not grow up as a minority and the type of language and general usage found in the REH stories is something they have never had to face. They did live overseas with me and have had their hair pulled to see if it was real and skin pinched in public on multiple occasions, to the point that they burst into tears, but I would never claim that it is equivalent to the systematic racism and remnants of slavery that blacks in the USA have had to live with and through.

I found it important for them to listen to the books so they could hear what REH wrote, both the stirring adventure tales and how racism was so prevalent and so openly written (and sexism which they keyed strongly on). I think it is important that they understand what is was like and considered to be socially acceptable in polite and mass market publication.

I will be honest, I have grown myself. I first read those books as a teenager and I did not remember just how racist REH was. It is quite jarring, pages of really well written adventure story and then casual references to the superiority of whites. The absolute most jarring story for me was one where Conan was in one of the Black kingdoms and perfectly happy until there was a possibility that a white woman captive might be raped (it was clear that happened to women captives in general). The story was written that it was obvious that no true white man could allow that to happen. Not the rape, the rape of a white woman by a black man.

Really weird as black characters were often portrayed as close companions and friends and it was part of the character that as a barbarian Conan was not so attached to the civilized prohibitions and then *click* a very racist paragraph or two appears. Personal letters show an attachment to Aryan and other racial theories but at least some questioning and a certain ignorance or lack of experience and exposure to non-whites. HPL has no such excuse and his personal letters are far worse.

I did ask some of my black "nerd" friends how they felt about Conan and they all said they find the original stories very hard to read and much prefer the modern comics and movies. They had all read many of the original stories and pastiches and even if they saw many things setting the foundations of sword and sorcery, none of them had a favorite story.

All of that above, and I still don't see how REH is setting the race foundation in D&D as Tolkien is clearly the wellspring for that.

I can also understand people facing real racism identifying with the negative portrayal of orcs and other evil races. Heck, even the recent movie Bright pounded you over the head with that. But none of that is modern, evil non-human races goes way way back and is not limited to European tales.


----------



## Hussar

I gotta admit.  At the end of the day, I'm pretty selfish.  I look at this and realize, I couldn't really care less which word is used.  I frankly don't.  It doesn't bother me in the slightest.  However, I also recognize that at no cost to myself, I can make other people happier.  Seems a no brainer to me.  Why wouldn't I do it?  Making other people happy is nice and I like making other people happy.  So, sure, change to something else.

The argument against change seems to be grounded in the notion that the word race is the most accurate term we can use for the concept.  And, yup, I can see that.  It's a very well argued point and quite strong.  Race, really, is probably the most technically accurate term we could use.

But, so what?  This is D&D.  It's not like D&D is shy about abusing words.  Longsword anyone?  A complete misnomer that has existed in the game since the very early days (replacing the "normal" sword, whatever that was).  And, outside of a few quibbles, no one seems in any hurry to correct this inaccuracy in language use.  Or, as was mentioned earlier, "cult".  Again, technically, the term should apply to pretty much every priesthood in the game.  But, it doesn't.  D&D writers have decided that "cult" only applies to small groups of evil priesthoods (typically demon or devil worshipping) and for any of the dieties in the game, they get priesthoods, and temples, and faiths and churches.

And, funnily enough, outside of some specific tables, no one seems too terribly fussed about this either.  I've never seen so much as the slightest quibble about this.

So, accuracy in language seems a rather strange hill to die on considering that it appears to be applied only when convenient.  If lexical accuracy in the game was such an issue then why haven't we seen any complaints before?  Or, at least, any real serious push (I have, like you, seen the odd quibble about longswords from time to time, but, never in a really urgent manner)?

It's a change that frankly costs nothing and makes people happy.  Why wouldn't we do it?


----------



## Maxperson

Celebrim said:


> Ultimately, I think we actually agree it's just the words you are using are really vague.  I will say that I do not think it was a good business decision to publish 4e, however well designed, coherent, targeted to a specific audience, and fun it may have been for people who wanted a tighter more tactical game, it might have been.   Fun is a very subjective quality.  And while I agree in a since with your claim "If it picks up fewer, then it is pretty much by definition a worse game than you had.", that's true only if the metric you are using for "good" is a business metric.  It's entirely possible for something to be "good" and not successful in the market, or for it to be "bad" and for it to fail in the market.   "Good" and "bad" in themselves don't mark what they are measuring.  What does it mean to be a "good car"?  Well, it depends on what purpose the car has.




From the business side of things the primary purpose of an RPG is to make money, and new editions specifically to make more than the last one.  To accomplish that, they need to make it enjoyable to as many people as possible.  If an edition fails to reach as many as the last edition did, it was a failure(bad game) at the goal.  From a player side the purpose of an RPG is to have fun, if it loses players than it was less fun than prior editions and is a failure(bad game).  4e failed on both fronts.

Now, there are other possible reasons why a game would fail other than not being enjoyable to enough people.  A failure at promotion is the primary culprit here.  If people don't know the game is fun, it won't do well.  D&D doesn't have that excuse, though.  It has a wide audience due to its long lasting major market share which gives great word of mouth, as well as experience and money to advertise, and the ability to go to places like Gencon and host major events and promotions.


----------



## pemerton

Myrdin Potter said:


> The absolute most jarring story for me was one where Conan was in one of the Black kingdoms and perfectly happy until there was a possibility that a white woman captive might be raped (it was clear that happened to women captives in general). The story was written that it was obvious that no true white man could allow that to happen. Not the rape, the rape of a white woman by a black man.



Yes - this is Vale of the Lost Women. I agree that it is one of the worst in this respect. It's also a very mediocre story, and so doubly bad.

My favourite REH Conan story is Tower of the Elephant; but I also really like The Scarlet Citadel, which is a good story despite its strong racist elements.

Beyond the Black River is highly praised, but personally I found it hard to take. I found it to be a not-that-compelling western, with all that that entails.


----------



## pemerton

Hussar said:


> I gotta admit.  At the end of the day, I'm pretty selfish.  I look at this and realize, I couldn't really care less which word is used.  I frankly don't.  It doesn't bother me in the slightest.



My participation in this thread has also been on the selfish (or, at least, self-concerned) basis that this is a particular thing that concerns _me_ in _this particular way_ which is a result of _these particular things_ about my situation.

If others aren't motivated by those reasons, well, that's often the case in this world!



Hussar said:


> However, I also recognize that at no cost to myself, I can make other people happier.  Seems a no brainer to me.  Why wouldn't I do it?  Making other people happy is nice and I like making other people happy.  So, sure, change to something else.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> It's a change that frankly costs nothing and makes people happy.  Why wouldn't we do it?



But you are right about this. And even for those who don't care about making others happy, the cost of the change still seems to be pretty marginal. So even if those people see no reason _to_ change, they don't really have a reason _not_ to change either.

(Now maybe we're wrong about the cost. I've read all the posts in this thread except for a couple of posters who have me blocked, and I don't think anyone has analysed this issue, in a serious way, from the point of view of commercial publishing and marketing.)



Hussar said:


> The argument against change seems to be grounded in the notion that the word race is the most accurate term we can use for the concept.  And, yup, I can see that.  It's a very well argued point and quite strong.  Race, really, is probably the most technically accurate term we could use.



This is where I disagree with you. I've already posted about this not too far upthread, so I won't go on too long about it.

The basic idea of traditional (ie 19th century through to WW2) racial theory is that, among people, there are these fundamental cleavages that reflect biology, heredity, culture, capability, appearance, worth, and hierarchy. The basic flaw in that theory isn't just that _there are no such cleavages_. It's ultimate flaw is that it is _politically and morally vicious_.

So the only way in which the idea of traditional racial theory could be accurate, in the context of fantasy fiction, would be if it suddenly became proper to engage in this activity of identifying and labelling these fundamental cleavages among people. And frankly I don't want to play in that fantasy world, and I don't think that's the fantasy world that D&D aspires to present to us (although it does have its continuing trouble with "usually evil hence slaughterable" goblins and orcs).

To the extent that D&Ders maintain that the word "race" as they use it brings the idea of clevages that reflect biology, heredity, culture, capability and apperance, but _don't_ also bring ideas of worth and hierarchy, well they're claiming to have coined a new meaning of "race". Which means notions of "accuracy" have no work to do.

Personally I'm sceptical about this idea that a new meaning has been coined - it's often not that easy. (And D&D does have its continuing trouble with "usually evil hence slaughterable" goblins and orcs.) This is part of the reason why I take the view that I've taken in this thread.


----------



## pemerton

Maxperson said:


> From a player side the purpose of an RPG is to have fun, if it loses players than it was less fun than prior editions and is a failure(bad game).



This is wrong on three counts.

First, there's no straightforward connection between "players retained" and "fun had", because a game can retain players for a range of reasons that don't pertain to fun (eg existing market penetration, with reputation as one significant factor in that respect).

Second, if 10 people each get 10 utiles of fun from a game, then it produced more fun - and so by your metric was more successful - then a game which gave 50 people each 1 utile of fun, even if it sold only 10 rather than 50 copies.

Third, as a player it is of no concern to me that a game is fun for others, except in the very abstract sense that I'm happy for them that they're having a good time doing whatever it is they're doing over there. The fun that matters to me is _my _fun. If a game produces 100 utiles of fun but none of them are mine, I'm not inclined to judge it a fun game (although obviously it's a game that others had fun playing).


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Ahhhh, “utiles.”


----------



## Myrdin Potter

pemerton said:


> Yes - this is Vale of the Lost Women. I agree that it is one of the worst in this respect. It's also a very mediocre story, and so doubly bad.
> 
> My favourite REH Conan story is Tower of the Elephant; but I also really like The Scarlet Citadel, which is a good story despite its strong racist elements.
> 
> Beyond the Black River is highly praised, but personally I found it hard to take. I found it to be a not-that-compelling western, with all that that entails.




Ironicly enough, in a thread about the word race and the connection to racism, Tower of the Elephant is one of the most Cthulhu mythos-like stories with the “elephant” at the end, and I have far more issue with the racism that HPL exhibited than I do REH. Both were racist, but I find HPL’s to be worse.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

I don’t think anyone would argue that REH was more racist than HPL.

...but despite that, I prefer HPL’s fiction to REH’s.

Ohhhh, the irony.


----------



## pemerton

Myrdin Potter said:


> Ironicly enough, in a thread about the word race and the connection to racism, Tower of the Elephant is one of the most Cthulhu mythos-like stories with the “elephant” at the end, and I have far more issue with the racism that HPL exhibited than I do REH. Both were racist, but I find HPL’s to be worse.





Dannyalcatraz said:


> I don’t think anyone would argue that REH was more racist than HPL.
> 
> ...but despite that, I prefer HPL’s fiction to REH’s.
> 
> Ohhhh, the irony.



I find HPL almost unreadable - not because of the racism, but because of the prose. Whereas I find that REH generally keeps it moving at a good pace, with vibrant exposition and interesting (if often not terribly profound) situations.

But on the racism I agree that HPL is generally worse. The Call of Cthulhu is exhibit A in this respect.


----------



## Lanefan

pemerton said:


> First, there's no straightforward connection between "players retained" and "fun had", because a game can retain players for a range of reasons that don't pertain to fun (eg existing market penetration, with reputation as one significant factor in that respect).



I'd say that over the long term "fun had" is going to directly affect "players retained" in that as goes the first, so will go the second.



> Second, if 10 people each get 10 utiles of fun from a game, then it produced more fun - and so by your metric was more successful - then a game which gave 50 people each 1 utile of fun, even if it sold only 10 rather than 50 copies.



Again, there's the time element.  If those 10 people spread the word then maybe more will join and eventually the game that gives each of its players more fun will surpass the one which does not.

That said, different people find fun in different ways.  The game that gives each of its 10 players 10 utiles of fun might only have 10 players because the other 40 tried it, had no fun at all, and left.



> Third, as a player it is of no concern to me that a game is fun for others, except in the very abstract sense that I'm happy for them that they're having a good time doing whatever it is they're doing over there. The fun that matters to me is _my _fun. If a game produces 100 utiles of fun but none of them are mine, I'm not inclined to judge it a fun game (although obviously it's a game that others had fun playing).



Axis and Allies has doubtless produced a great many utiles of fun for a great many people over the years.  My fun total from playing it has been exactly 0 utiles, as I have never played it.  But I'll still assume it's a fun game based on what its players say, until and unless I play it and for some reason find it holds no fun for me.

Lan-"and I'm getting a utile or two of fun just out of using the term utile without really knowing what it means"-efan


----------



## Lanefan

pemerton said:


> I find HPL almost unreadable - not because of the racism, but because of the prose.



In my limited exposure to his writing this is pretty much my take as well.

One chapter can come across as brilliant and the next come across as the aimless ramblings of a madman.


----------



## pemerton

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Ahhhh, “utiles.”



What other unit would one use to measure and quantify fun?!


----------



## TheCosmicKid

Myrdin Potter said:


> Ironicly enough, in a thread about the word race and the connection to racism, Tower of the Elephant is one of the most Cthulhu mythos-like stories with the “elephant” at the end, and I have far more issue with the racism that HPL exhibited than I do REH.



If Cthulhu mythos entities are supposed to represent a terrifying alien "other", then the comclusion of "Tower of the Elephant" indicates a profound difference in attitude between Howard and Lovecraft.

See also: "Rogues in the House" and the ape-man trope.


----------



## Shasarak

Hussar said:


> It's a change that frankly costs nothing and makes people happy.  Why wouldn't we do it?




Since we are changing words can we do something about "Paladin"?

That one really would make me happy if it could be changed.


----------



## Zardnaar

shidaku said:


> To cut to the chase and what has perhaps been lost over the last dozen pages, the short story is this: race carries unnecessary social, cultural, political implications and baggage that we can do without in D&D (and other games).  For some people, it may be seen as a roadblock to enjoying the game.
> 
> Using an alternative term "Ancestry" or "Species" or "Kind" or some such can eliminate that baggage and remove a roadblock for people.




Seems overly sensitive though,ancestry is stupid and the other options are worse (species or whatever). 

 Next someone will claim D&D is racist because it was designed by a person of European descent and is based on European myths, legends and literature (with bits of other cultures as well). 

 You're not going to please everyone all of the time and I do not see the Paizo thing catching on and that company was also the one who invented a child abuse demon. 

 Generally I think there is a right and a wrong way to be inclusive and promote diversity. Movies like Force Awakens, Black Panther,  Wonder Women, are the way to do it vs trying to force cultural change which tends to initiate blowback. 

 Explanation may not be the best but the more you tend to lecture people the more they dig their heels in in my experience is kind of my point.


----------



## Michael Silverbane

Shasarak said:


> Since we are changing words can we do something about "Paladin"?
> 
> That one really would make me happy if it could be changed.




Maybe we could change it to "Warlord"...


----------



## Shasarak

Lanefan said:


> One chapter can come across as brilliant and the next come across as the aimless ramblings of a madman.




That is the effect of Cthulhu working as intended I am afraid.


----------



## Shasarak

Michael Silverbane said:


> Maybe we could change it to "Warlord"...




As long as it can still shout hands back on.


----------



## Shasarak

Zardnaar said:


> Generally I think there is a right and a wrong way to be inclusive and promote diversity. Movies like Force Awakens, Black Panther,  Wonder Women, are the way to do it vs trying to force cultural change which tends to initiate blowback.




I always thought that the point of the Force Awakens was to prove that you really can ruin a perfectly good franchise if you put enough money into it.


----------



## Celebrim

> It's a change that frankly costs nothing and makes people happy.  Why wouldn't we do it?




First of all, I consider this particular argument a marker in and of itself that no good reason exist.  This particular argument and ones like it always shows up when something proposed is a non-solution to a problem.  First, it does cost something.  Maybe it's a small amount, but it has a cost.  And second, it doesn't "make people happy".  It clearly makes a lot of people upset.  



Hussar said:


> And, funnily enough, outside of some specific tables, no one seems too terribly fussed about this either.  I've never seen so much as the slightest quibble about this.




So there are a couple of things I could answer to that.  Remember how I said earlier in the thread that I had banished the words "demon" and "devil" from my game, most particularly as technical terms.  I also later said I'd banned the word "church" from my game, and you might not be surprised that I've banished the term "angel" from my game.   Now you might notice a couple of things.   First, these words appear in the 3.X SRD.  Secondly you might notice that at one time in TSR's history they actually listened to persons like me and did banish "demon" and "devil" from the game.   But you might also notice _that it had a cost and it didn't make people happy_.  I mean, sure, it made some people happy, but it didn't make everyone happy.   Moreover, even those of us that thought it a good move didn't like the fact that all they did was keep the exact same body of lore and slap a neologistic euphemism on it, because that isn't really a meaningful move at all.  We would have much preferred that in addition they invented a new body of lore that distanced itself from its occult roots even further.

But finally, you might notice that when they put the terms back, there was no outcry.  I'd be the biggest hypocrite on the planet if I was going around EnWorld raising up a hue and cry and trying to breed outrage over this matter.  Do I consider the use of the term "church" to refer to a non-Christian cult to be insulting?  Absolutely.  Am I going to try to force other people to behave the way I want them to behave and force them to adhere to what I believe?  No, absolutely not.  For one thing, I know very well it won't do any good.  It actually makes things worse.  You can't hit people over the head with your beliefs.  You can't use your position of authority or dominance to make people agree.  It just makes them that much less receptive and hardens their heart against what you are trying to say.


----------



## Eltab

pemerton said:


> What other unit would one use to measure and quantify fun?!




Giggles?


----------



## Farealmer3

Celebrim said:


> You can't hit people over the head with your beliefs.  You can't use your position of authority or dominance to make people agree.  It just makes them that much less receptive and hardens their heart against what you are trying to say.



This, I cannot stress how true this is enough. Many a modern woe can be traced to one group or another trying to force someone to comply either at literal or metaphorical gunpoint or trying to make every discussion about a single thing even if it has no bearing on what anyone is saying.


----------



## Mallus

Shasarak said:


> I always thought that the point of the Force Awakens was to prove that you really can ruin a perfectly good franchise if you put enough money into it.



Hey, that's whole other topic. Stay on target!


----------



## Eltab

Mallus said:


> Stay on target!



Pun intended?

I thought Movies 7 and 8 were 'the next generation' of scriptwriters trying to prove that they could do it better than anything that had gone before.


----------



## Celebrim

Eltab said:


> I thought Movies 7 and 8 were 'the next generation' of scriptwriters trying to prove that they could do it better than anything that had gone before.




One would hope that scriptwriters would realize the danger of hubris, but alas, I've known too many scriptwriters.  I've never met a one that wasn't convinced that they could write better than the writer they were adapting content from or that they had some mystical special knowledge of what it took to write a good script and that all the changes they were making to a beloved story were fully justified.

As a sometime writer myself, I think it takes a certain amount of arrogance to create something with the expectation people will enjoy it.  Unfortunately, that means that people with the humility to self-critique their work rare.   

This is one of the reasons that a script driven by the desires of a producer never works.


----------



## Gradine

pemerton said:


> Personally I'm sceptical about this idea that a new meaning has been coined - it's often not that easy. *(And D&D does have its continuing trouble with "usually evil hence slaughterable" goblins and orcs.)* This is part of the reason why I take the view that I've taken in this thread.




Most of this post very succinctly sums up the main significant argument against the use of the term. I just wanted to take this opportunity to plug my Eberron fanboyism, but this specific issue is one of the biggest reasons I enjoy that setting so much. I love what they do with the goblinoids and specifically the orcs (and honestly, most of the "monstrous" humanoids") in that setting.


----------



## Celebrim

Gradine said:


> I just wanted to take this opportunity to plug my Eberron fanboyism, but this specific issue is one of the biggest reasons I enjoy that setting so much. I love what they do with the goblinoids and specifically the orcs (and honestly, most of the "monstrous" humanoids") in that setting.




I'm not hugely familiar with Eberron, but in my game orcs don't exist and goblinoids are a PC race.  That goblins are generally 'slaughterable' has more to do with the fact that they are generally bandits, cattle thieves, and raid surrounding lands for slaves (and meat, since cannibalism is held in high esteem).   But in point of fact, we've had one hobgoblin PC in the campaign so far, the current party has a goblin NPC retainer (the party's cook), there was a plot line for a while about the discrimination that the hobgoblin experienced, and one of the few times they've actually decided to show mercy on a foe was a hobgoblin thug whom they interrogated and extracted a promise from that he'd never get in the parties way again.

But I have no intention of banishing the idea of monster from my game completely.  Goblins are people, albeit people who appear monstrous and often live up to that appearance.  Gnolls and Minotaurs are not people.  They are always monstrous.  They lack critical people defining traits like free will that goblins have.  However, if in some world goblins aren't people, well that doesn't bother me very much in and of itself (though I can imagine scenarios where it would).

PS: I've got a reply to your longer post I've been stewing over, but I'm trying to make it less angry and more substantial.


----------



## Zardnaar

Shasarak said:


> I always thought that the point of the Force Awakens was to prove that you really can ruin a perfectly good franchise if you put enough money into it.




I thought that was the Last Jedi.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Zardnaar said:


> I thought that was the Last Jedi.




Nope: _Phantom Menace._


----------



## Enevhar Aldarion

Shasarak said:


> I always thought that the point of the Force Awakens was to prove that you really can ruin a perfectly good franchise if you put enough money into it.




No, that is the mediocrity done to the Star Trek franchise. Force Awakens and Last Jedi are both very good movies.


----------



## Mallus

Eltab said:


> Pun intended?



Always.

(well, usually)



Zardnaar said:


> I thought that was the Last Jedi.



Wrong answer. 

(_The Last Jedi_ is the best Star Wars movie after the original)



Dannyalcatraz said:


> Nope: _Phantom Menace._



Correct answer.

(and just like that, now *I'm* off-target...)


----------



## Lanefan

Shasarak said:


> Since we are changing words can we do something about "Paladin"?



Knight.  Or if the religious aspect must be kept, Divine Knight.

That was easy. 



			
				Michael Silverbane said:
			
		

> Maybe we could change it to "Warlord"...



If this forum had a "boo, hiss!" negative-xp button you'd have just got one for this... 



			
				Shasarak said:
			
		

> I always thought that the point of the Force Awakens was to prove that you really can ruin a perfectly good franchise if you put enough money into it.



Those, sir, are fighting words.

At dawn, sir, in the castle yard - pistols or swords, your choice.

Lan-"though had you said the same thing about Attack of the Clones you'd hear no argument from me"-efan


----------



## DemoMonkey

So, if "Race" is an unacceptable term to some people in Fantasy, is it also an unacceptable term in Science Fiction?

Is Race not an acceptable term to describe Klingons, Wookies, Green Martians, Vorlons or Daleks?

If not, what is the correct term?

And if it IS acceptable, then what's the distinction? Why Puppeteers but not Dwarves? Why Kryptonians but not Elves?


----------



## Sunseeker

DemoMonkey said:


> So, if "Race" is an unacceptable term to some people in Fantasy, is it also an unacceptable term in Science Fiction?
> 
> Is Race not an acceptable term to describe Klingons, Wookies, Green Martians, Vorlons or Daleks?
> 
> If not, what is the correct term?
> 
> And if it IS acceptable, then what's the distinction? Why Puppeteers but not Dwarves? Why Kryptonians but not Elves?




I don't see why it would be.  I would think, given that sci-fi tends to be _far_ more technical and scientifically (even psuedo-scientifically) accurate than fantasy, it would be the most appropriate place to use terms like "species", "biology", "interbreeding" and other such terms.


----------



## darkbard

shidaku said:


> I don't see why it would be.  I would think, given that sci-fi tends to be _far_ more technical and scientifically (even psuedo-scientifically) accurate than fantasy, it would be the most appropriate place to use terms like "species", "biology", "interbreeding" and other such terms.




On this note, it is completely beyond me why such terminology would be out of place in rulebooks for fantasy games, which are written for and read by _modern players_, not for and by _fantasy characters_.*

*using an imprecisely imagined pseudomedievalist lexicon, in many cases, any way!


----------



## Hussar

Shasarak said:


> Since we are changing words can we do something about "Paladin"?
> 
> That one really would make me happy if it could be changed.




What’s wrong with paladin?


----------



## Shasarak

Hussar said:


> What’s wrong with paladin?




It is culturally offensive to me.


----------



## Sunseeker

darkbard said:


> On this note, it is completely beyond me why such terminology would be out of place in rulebooks for fantasy games, which are written for and read by _modern players_, not for and by _fantasy characters_.*
> 
> *using an imprecisely imagined pseudomedievalist lexicon, in many cases, any way!




This is basically the "crunch vs. flavor" debate.  Me personally as an admitted fan of 4E and MTG, like my flavor and my crunch to the separate.  A rulebook is for rules.  A setting book is for flavor.  I don't have any problem with more scientifically accurate terms like "species" (interbreeding aside) being used in place of race.  I _also_ would like to see half-elves and half-orcs removed as playable "races", because if most of the humanoid races can interbreed, they make the use of the term "race" _worse_, because we've just decided that bloodlines can be watered down, so naturally there _must_ be 3/4ths elves, 1/8th orcs, and 7/16ths of both of them!  And if humans and elves can breed and humans and orcs can breed, logically elves and orcs can breed so WTF do we do with that knowledge?

And why is half-dwarf so rarely accounted for?  It seems like dwarves and humans would be far more likely to co-mingle than humans and elves.  (from the viewpoint of humans & dwarves generally sharing their favored past-times of drinking, eating, killing and being dirty and hairy)

I know I know, we have half-elves as playable because of Tanis, but Tanis was explicitly stated to be _rare_.  But nowadays half-elves are as common as anything else!

At least the "half-dragonborn" problem is resolved by saying they can't crossbreed (lizards with boobs or even psuedo-boobs aside....) and the problem is resolved with tieflings by saying that tieflings always create more tieflings, doesn't matter what the other half of the equation is.

_Personally_ I'd be happy if crossbreeding just _wasn't_ core by default.


----------



## Hussar

DemoMonkey said:


> So, if "Race" is an unacceptable term to some people in Fantasy, is it also an unacceptable term in Science Fiction?
> 
> Is Race not an acceptable term to describe Klingons, Wookies, Green Martians, Vorlons or Daleks?
> 
> If not, what is the correct term?
> 
> And if it IS acceptable, then what's the distinction? Why Puppeteers but not Dwarves? Why Kryptonians but not Elves?




Actually in SF it’s almost always species and not race. But apparently we can’t use species in dnd because it’s too sf sounding. :/


----------



## Hussar

Shasarak said:


> It is culturally offensive to me.




Are you being serious or just having a laugh?

And I do mean that as a question. I’ve never heard anyone having this particular issue with paladins before. What is there to get offended by?


----------



## Gradine

Celebrim said:


> I'm not hugely familiar with Eberron, but in my game orcs don't exist and goblinoids are a PC race.  That goblins are generally 'slaughterable' has more to do with the fact that they are generally bandits, cattle thieves, and raid surrounding lands for slaves (and meat, since cannibalism is held in high esteem).   But in point of fact, we've had one hobgoblin PC in the campaign so far, the current party has a goblin NPC retainer (the party's cook), there was a plot line for a while about the discrimination that the hobgoblin experienced, and one of the few times they've actually decided to show mercy on a foe was a hobgoblin thug whom they interrogated and extracted a promise from that he'd never get in the parties way again.
> 
> But I have no intention of banishing the idea of monster from my game completely.  Goblins are people, albeit people who appear monstrous and often live up to that appearance.  Gnolls and Minotaurs are not people.  They are always monstrous.  They lack critical people defining traits like free will that goblins have.  However, if in some world goblins aren't people, well that doesn't bother me very much in and of itself (though I can imagine scenarios where it would).
> 
> PS: I've got a reply to your longer post I've been stewing over, but I'm trying to make it less angry and more substantial.




Eberron does away with any racially-based auto-alignment expectations for anyone other than immortals. So like... celestials are all good by their very nature and fiends always evil, but most other things have free will to forge their own path. Orcs are re-flavored as very primal in nature (and the world's first druids); goblinoids are less evil and more very rigid and militaristic (which definitely lends itself in the LE direction), and there are plenty of examples of neutral (far fewer actually good) members of other "monstrous" races, from medusa to minotaurs to gnolls to harpies. 

There's still plenty of "obvious evil" to vanquish, but it tends to be more based on associations (the Order of the Emerald Claw is the most often cited example, which have a strong Nazis-in-the-Indiana-Jones-movies vibe to them). And of course, there are _always_ fiends and aberrations plotting and scheming. Always with the plotting and scheming.

I'm sure it shocks you to learn that I enjoy that structure of alignment and obvious villainy versus the traditional rampaging orcs/gnolls/etc. always-evil-based-on-race model.


----------



## Riley37

Grimstaff said:


> While we're at it, I find the term "class" offensive. It implies a difference between people based on occupation. It's doubly offensive to place these classes at "levels" that can be quantified at higher or lower ranks than their fellows. I looks forward to class, level, and race being abolished from RPGs, so all of what I prefer to call "adventuring comrades" can be truly equal and judgment-free.




In that case, I recommend you try any of the MANY games which don't list "class" or "level" as a necessary quality of a player character, such as Runequest, GURPs, or Fantasy Hero.


----------



## Tony Vargas

Hussar said:


> Hussar
> What’s wrong with paladin?
> ------------------
> Shasarak
> 
> It is culturally offensive to me.
> -------------------------
> Are you being serious or just having a laugh?
> 
> And I do mean that as a question. I’ve never heard anyone having this particular issue with paladins before. What is there to get offended by?



 Paladins were the peers of Charlemagne's court and included Roland.  The Song of Roland is ostensibly about the paladins fighting Moors in Spain, so if you're a Moor, that could be culturally offensive, I guess, though it's not clear exactly who the Moors actually were in relation to modern ethnicities - whether they were more African or more Middle-Eastern has been a point of debate, IDK, maybe it's been cleared up since the last time I looked, some decades ago.  OTOH, some contend that the more probable inspiration for the Song of Roland was a battle between Franks and Basque in the Pyrinees, so maybe a Basque would find veneration of the Paladins culturally offensive.

'Shasarak' doesn't sound particularly Moorish nor Basque, though...


...so my guess would be that he's simply CE.


----------



## Shasarak

Hussar said:


> Are you being serious or just having a laugh?
> 
> And I do mean that as a question. I’ve never heard anyone having this particular issue with paladins before. What is there to get offended by?




It is a classic example of cultural misappropriation.

Now normally I would just remember that DnD is a game and on the other hand if we are fixing problematic terminology then yeah sorry Paladin just has to go.


----------



## Riley37

LordNightwinter said:


> And by the way, you aren't given respect, you earn it.




When I take the train, I encounter hundreds of strangers. None of them (well, almost none) have personally earned my respect. I still *treat* them with respect, by default. I say "pardon me" when I need to get past people to reach the door at my destination. I offer my seat when someone clearly needs it more than I do, such as someone who's in advanced stages of pregnancy.

I make exceptions to this default principle, for those few individuals who specifically disqualify themselves, such as the ones who spread themselves across multiple seats even when the train is crowded.

If you only treat people with respect after you've decided that they've earned your respect, then you can give *your* respect, as you see fit. But you're mistaken about whether *my* respect is given, because it is, indeed, a given; my *disrespect* is individually earned.

Is this a tangent from ancestry into alignment? Or does it belong in meta?


----------



## Aldarc

Shasarak said:


> It is a classic example of cultural misappropriation.
> 
> Now normally I would just remember that DnD is a game and on the other hand if we are fixing problematic terminology then yeah sorry Paladin just has to go.



Do you genuinely think that these two situations are comparable? Or is this false equivalence masked in fake outrage?


----------



## LordNightwinter

Riley37 said:


> When I take the train, I encounter hundreds of strangers. None of them (well, almost none) have personally earned my respect. I still *treat* them with respect, by default. I say "pardon me" when I need to get past people to reach the door at my destination. I offer my seat when someone clearly needs it more than I do, such as someone who's in advanced stages of pregnancy.
> 
> I make exceptions to this default principle, for those few individuals who specifically disqualify themselves, such as the ones who spread themselves across multiple seats even when the train is crowded.
> 
> If you only treat people with respect after you've decided that they've earned your respect, then you can give *your* respect, as you see fit. But you're mistaken about whether *my* respect is given, because it is, indeed, a given; my *disrespect* is individually earned.
> 
> Is this a tangent from ancestry into alignment? Or does it belong in meta?




Respect and common courtesy are two different things. I show people courtesy, yes. Respect doesn't mean what you think it means.

Respect: A feeling of deep admiration for someone or something elicited by their abilities, qualities, or achievements.
Courtesy: The showing of politeness in one's attitude and behavior toward others.


----------



## Eltab

shidaku said:


> And if humans and elves can breed and humans and orcs can breed, logically elves and orcs can breed so WTF do we do with that knowledge?
> 
> And why is half-dwarf so rarely accounted for?



In reverse order...

Muls (Dark Sun) are the first place I've seen a half-dwarf addressed.  The 4e incarnation, more so than other half-races, says "you get half of the cool things each parent has".

Unwritten* Human Racial Trait:
*Good Breeding.*  You can have children with almost anything you care to try.  Conversely, almost anything that cares to try can have children with you.
* because only Rated-M and Rated-X campaigns will have cause to use this explicitly


----------



## Eltab

Tony Vargas said:


> ...so my guess would be that ['Shasarak'] is simply CE.



It sound from here like he is employing the phrases that yank peoples' chains, but applying them to a non-issue.


----------



## Riley37

LordNightwinter said:


> I show people courtesy, yes. Respect doesn't mean what you think it means.




Inigo Montoya's response to Vizzini was more humbly phrased that your bold assertion, right there... perhaps you are practicing courtesy by your own standards; mine do not prevail in this venue, as I am not a moderator.

Anyways, you and I hold assumptions so divergent, that it seems only natural we'd disagree on Pathfinder's terminology. You see only one possible meaning of "respect". I allow for the possibility of words having *different usages* in British English than in American English, and I take Neil Gaiman's saying about treating people with "respect", with the nuance and connotation you assign, always-and-only, to "courtesy".

How many bytes in a kilobyte? Always-and-only 1000; always-and-only 1024; varies by usage; or something else?

If you chose either of the always-and-only answers, then of course we disagree on race and ancestry. You might as well tell me that race doesn't mean what I think it means. From that divergence on race *in general*, we're not going to ever agree on race and ancestry *in TRPGs*.

But that's not just you and me. I see this thread, as far as I've read it - wading through page 20 or so, jumping ahead at the moment to direct responses - as revealing such strong disagreements about race *in real life*, among so many of the participants, that of course that spills over into disagreements about race and ancestry *in D&D*.

Same thing happens when there's a question about whether the D&D world is round or flat. Those who think the real world is round, disagree about whether their D&D world must follow suit, or *can* be different, or *must* be as flat as Tolkien's Arda was, until Númenor was removed from the Circles of the World. Those who think the real world is flat, however... are even less flexible in their position.


----------



## Shasarak

Aldarc said:


> Do you genuinely think that these two situations are comparable? Or is this false equivalence masked in fake outrage?




There are several advantages of the change:

You get rid of the problematic terminology.
You get rid of problematic historical baggage associated with the class
You open design space.

But I guess if you just want to ignore the advantages with claims of "fake outrage" then that is your prerogative.


----------



## Riley37

Celebrim said:


> I find the first question much more interesting than the second as well, but I don't find the move from 'race' to 'ancestry' strange because - to pick on myself - I've done similar things for similar reasons.   For example, in my game the servitor races of the lower planes are called 'fiends' and never 'demons' or 'devils'.  Yet they are basically still the same servitor races of the lower planes and occasionally on the rare occasion that they show up in the story I'll even for convenience employ the same stat block. On some level that seems like a purely irrational and purely cosmetic change, until you consider that I consider the words 'demon' or 'devil' problematic for religious reasons.   If you share the same religious convictions as I do, then the change seems rational and reasonable; but, it is rational and reasonable only if you have the same religious convictions I do and thus consider the words problematic.   The same sort of thing is going on with Paizo.




What if, even though I don't *share* your religion, I still *respect* religion enough to write a Creature Book which chooses not to use the terminology of any religion? I don't *believe* the Muslim conception of Shaitan, but I'm still not gonna assign a specific number of HP, because in some theologies, that's a foe which no human can vanquish by violence alone, not with *any* number of sword hits. I leave that sort of thing to individual tables, and thus I intentionally omit it from my Creature Book. (TBH, I think Gygax's write-up of Asmodeus in Monster Manual was unhumble and unwise.)

Is that compassion (I gather that your religion values compassion, somewhat as mine does), and appropriate, or is it weakness, cowardice, foolishness? Or something else?


----------



## MNblockhead

Riley37 said:


> How many bytes in a kilobyte? Always-and-only 1000; always-and-only 1024; varies by usage; or something else




A kilobyte is 1000 bytes

1024 bytes is a kibibyte

Maybe I'm a prescriptive a-hole, but I'd like to think words mean something.


----------



## Celebrim

Riley37 said:


> What if, even though I don't *share* your religion, I still *respect* religion enough to write a Creature Book which chooses not to use the terminology of any religion? I don't *believe* the Muslim conception of Shaitan, but I'm still not gonna assign a specific number of HP, because in some theologies, that's a foe which no human can vanquish by violence alone, not with *any* number of sword hits. I leave that sort of thing to individual tables, and thus I intentionally omit it from my Creature Book. (TBH, I think Gygax's write-up of Asmodeus in Monster Manual was unhumble and unwise.)
> 
> Is that compassion (I gather that your religion values compassion, somewhat as mine does), and appropriate, or is it weakness, cowardice, foolishness? Or something else?




I respect following the sincere dictates of ones heart to treat others as one would wish to be treated.  It's hard to go wrong with that as a motivation, and it's a pretty strong defense against evil.

But from my perspective, respecting me is largely irrelevant.  If I warn against these things, it's not to save my feelings.   Any interest that I have in your behavior, isn't out of a need to have my feelings protected.  Any damage done when you insult me, isn't done to me - but to you.  This is especially true with respect to insulting me for religious reasons.  This is one of the ways that what I believe philosophically differs from other groups that feel they need to protect their icons from insult.  If you were to mock what I believe in, I'd mostly feel sorry for you.  But I'd have no cause to be angry with you.  

Likewise, I really don't care if you respect "religion".  Religion is a nebulous concept and I don't think respecting it will do you much good.  Try to respect what you think is good, and true, and right.  If that includes a religion, then alright, but since I believe in (what you would call) a religion, I generally don't think respecting just any religion is of much use to anyone.

As for my judging your motivation, I think it's pretty much impossible for me to say.  It could be weakness, cowardice, or foolishness depending on if you did it just to go along with the flow and avoid scorn.  It could be self-rightness because you want to feel you are good person, or in particular if you want to feel you are better than other people.  I would hope it is compassion sometimes.   If you are anything like me, you find it difficult to keep your motivations pure.   You yourself know your own heart, and should inspect it for weakness.  I'm surprised in this thread how many people asked the question rhetorically, "Do you find it hard to treat other people with respect?"   Well, yes, I do.  I mean, have you ever tried?  It's not the easiest thing in the world, and I fail at it all the time.  Maybe it's different for you, but one of the first things I discovered when I set myself to behave according to a high standard, is that it's pretty much impossible to do just that.


----------



## Riley37

Shadow Demon said:


> Don’t you think this was a case where the neighboring lands were more concerned with the “sticks & stones” than the “words”?




If that's your interpretation of Thucydides... well, then you interpret his account of the Peloponnesian War very differently than I do.

If that's your interpretation of Cato the Elder, then I'm honestly baffled at how you reached that conclusion.

Could you say more about which specific sources inform your opinion?


----------



## Riley37

Flexor the Mighty! said:


> Is it mostly white due to what though?  Racism of white people?  European mythology and cultural trappings appealing mostly to white nerds?  Some other reason?




Asserting which exact thing, is the primary cause of a widespread dynamic or pattern, is one of the trickiest assertions one can make, in any field which includes controversy. LordNightWinter says it *was* true, ShinHakkaider says it *still is* true. Without agreement on whether the D&D player community *is* mostly white, then I don't see any chance of success of this particular forum exploring *why* it's mostly white.

That said, when I played AL at a game store, there was a player new to 5E, making his first character. When he turned to the page in the 5E PHB about different kinds of humans, and saw illustrations which matched his appearance, he smiled, and chose to play a Rashemi cleric of Lathander. This is an anecdote, a sample size of one, not enough to make a broad statement about causality; but it IS enough to make me glad that 5E has a more intentionally inclusive depiction of what "humans" look like, than I saw in 1E.


----------



## Myrdin Potter

I don’t think it is going out on much of a limb to say that the majority of the current 5e players are both white and male. Now, this is not absolute proof as maybe the subset of people who attend gaming conventions skew even more like that, but you can easily go online and see pictures of people attending conventions.

I did a quick check about a year ago and I saw many more women in the pictures today than from 10 years ago. Non-whites still are not that numerous in pictures and I would say more Asian looking people appear more in photos.

I don’t ascribe the difference from overt racism, and the majority of the US population is still white, so an evenly distributed population of players would still be that (it skews more than the population). I do think the effects of racism are a main cause of why it started and remains that way.

So I do not think that racists are refusing to allow non-whites to play, but segregation and different earnings levels separate both the ability (able to afford) and interest (shared cultural values).

There actually is a pretty rich history and tradition of fantasy story telling in about every culture, but the wargaming and SF and Fantasy con goers that spread the game in the very early days are very white.

I certainly think it does help for people to see art of people that looks like them and I think that one human race and no attempts to “expand design space” by giving people different stat adjustments due to ethnicity helps.

That does not immediately matter to me as I have more people wanting to play in games I DM than I have time to DM, but I warms my heart to see more people enjoy a hobby I have been at for close to 40 years.

I am mature enough to know that companies and small publishing houses making money means more new stories and ideas. If people from different backgrounds bring their stories in too, then more and different material for me to run.


----------



## Myrdin Potter

Shasarak said:


> There are several advantages of the change:
> 
> You get rid of the problematic terminology.




-> the words race is being used as defined (check dictionaries) and all humans get the same package. So the word is correct and there is equality for all people. That is problematic?



> You get rid of problematic historical baggage associated with the class




-> if you try and bring in the race theory that exists outside the game rules (which primary components are not in the rules as all humans are treated  equally) or you just are very sensitive to the word race, then maybe, but there seems to be a lot of people that find it problematic to change it.



> You open design space.




-> what design space is opened? You want to vary humans based on what? Different stats for different ethnicities? Isn’t that worse? Doesn’t backgrounds and feats give you tons of room for this without changing the base stock?



> But I guess if you just want to ignore the advantages with claims of "fake outrage" then that is your prerogative.




Hopefully I got the quote tags right ...


----------



## Remathilis

Shasarak said:


> I always thought that the point of the Force Awakens was to prove that you really can ruin a perfectly good franchise if you put enough money into it.




See also: Star Trek Discovery.

(I actually think it'd be an interesting, if off-topic and highly flammable debate, to argue if the Sequel Trilogy or ST-D did more to alienate their core fanbases. But its not one I'm willing to have here and now).


----------



## Hussar

Shasarak said:


> It is a classic example of cultural misappropriation.
> 
> Now normally I would just remember that DnD is a game and on the other hand if we are fixing problematic terminology then yeah sorry Paladin just has to go.




Ok, I'm still pretty sure you're having a laugh here. 

But, what culture is being misappropriated?  Considering that baseline D&D is pretty heavily grounded in European myth and legend, and, since last I check Charlegmagne was from Europe, umm, huh?


----------



## Hussar

Myrdin Potter said:


> /snip
> I am mature enough to know that companies and small publishing houses making money means more new stories and ideas. If people from different backgrounds bring their stories in too, then more and different material for me to run.




As I said earlier, I'm selfish enough to think that this is a pretty darn good reason for the change.  If it brings in new people and new material, that means a wider variety of stuff that I can use at my table.  Win!


----------



## Riley37

MNblockhead said:


> A kilobyte is 1000 bytes
> 
> 1024 bytes is a kibibyte
> 
> Maybe I'm a prescriptive a-hole, but I'd like to think words mean something.




If you buy a USB drive at a chain retail store, and the label says 4KB, will it store 4 kilobytes or 4 kibibytes?

If you are counting on that drive to store a 4-kibibyte file, because you expect all of the 7 billion humans who aren't you to follow your usage prescriptions, then there may be an unpleasant surprise in your future. If you are also counting on everyone in this thread to use the terms race, ancestry, and ethnicity, with the same precision you bring to kilobytes and kibibytes...


----------



## Myrdin Potter

Hussar said:


> As I said earlier, I'm selfish enough to think that this is a pretty darn good reason for the change.  If it brings in new people and new material, that means a wider variety of stuff that I can use at my table.  Win!




There is absolutely no evidence that the use of the word race in the way it is used keeps anyone away.


----------



## Riley37

Myrdin Potter said:


> I don’t think it is going out on much of a limb to say that the majority of the current 5e players are both white and male.




So you say. Are you *ignoring* those of us in this forum and thread who say otherwise? Disagree with them, sure, but let's not pretend they and their arguments don't exist.



LordNightwinter said:


> Is it predominantly white? Yes it used to be.




Pretending that this perspective does not exist, isn't the path to a better conversation on race than we had in the 1970s, when Gygax laid down rules heavily influenced by Tolkien's "Lord of the Rings". 

Don't get me wrong, in general I love LotR, but I also cannot in good conscience turn a blind eye to passages such as this one:



> In one of the windows he caught a glimpse of a sallow face with sly, slanting eyes; but it vanished at once. 'So that's where that southerner is hiding!' he thought. 'He looks more than half like a goblin."


----------



## Myrdin Potter

Riley37 said:


> So you say. Are you *ignoring* those of us in this forum and thread who say otherwise? Disagree with them, sure, but let's not pretend they and their arguments don't exist.




I don’t have access to WoTC actual sales data, and I have seen nothing in this thread saying that either white players or male players are now not a majority. I presented my quick eyeball way of checking. 

Now, I just came back from Japan and the Japanese translations have been in stores for about a month, so one major barrier is certainly going down (language), but where can I see any evidence that my theory is wrong?


----------



## Riley37

MacConnell said:


> A person who is actually offended will not read Twain or Dickens or Dostoevsky or Tolkien or Martin




So you say. I question how well you understand people who are actually offended.

I am actually offended by some things Tolkien said. I have read and re-read LOTR. I am actually offended by Kipling's passages about Kimball O'Hara's "white blood", and I consider "Kim" a great novel. If I were a literature teacher, I'd assign it as required reading for students... and I'd praise its use of foreshadowing, and its descriptions of scene and character... while recognizing that those passages imply that some of my students have racial superiorities over their fellow students. I have used some of Kipling's "Just So Stories" as bedtime stories. I would not use others.

I love "Game of Thrones", and look forwards to future chapters. I love how GRRM responded to the Sad Puppies and Rabid Puppies. That doesn't mean I accept his portrayals of the Unsullied and the Dothraki without any qualms or reservations, nor does that mean I have to re-watch every minute of all of the rape scenes if and when I do a start-to-finish run-through of the screen version. 

I agree with Dickens that London in the Industrial Revolution had some cruel aspects. Doesn't mean I agree with him about whether Fagin is a fair and reasonable portrayal of Jewish people. Certainly doesn't mean I would ever support anyone who wants to erase his works from libraries, or publish bowderlized versions. I absolutely don't want anyone to ever change a word of "Huck Finn"; it includes a word I don't speak aloud, and that's interwoven with a message about a white boy willing to go to Hell for the sake of his loyalty to a black friend... and at the same time, I notice that Huck's perspective, with Jim as a supporting character, is the story that Twain wrote, rather than vice versa.

I'm not interested in burning the 1E PHB, to erase its table of level maximums by race and class, nor Gygax's rants on dwarven women with beards. 1E was what it was. I don't want the D&D community to forget or deny it. At the same time, I like some things 5E has chosen to handle differently, and I'm curious about Pathfinder 2.

Would life be simpler for you, if everyone who took offense at different things than you do, were all knee-jerk extremist book-burners, without exception?


----------



## Riley37

Myrdin Potter said:


> where can I see any evidence that my theory is wrong?




Could you please answer the question I asked? I'm not disagreeing with you on percentages. "It's not going out on a limb" is the theory I'm contesting, and I provided a specific counter-example to that theory.

I raise that question, because one of the early commenters said a bit about his personal experience of playing D&D while black, and it wasn't all happy rainbows. That person *was* going out on a limb, against a previous assertion that the D&D player base is universally inclusive. The question of percentages then arose, as part of ongoing discussion of that disagreement.

The response was... well... I quoted the most specific line. If you'd like to read the full post in all its glory, you can find it at http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?630103-Do-We-Still-Need-quot-Race-quot-in-D-amp-D/page13



Myrdin Potter said:


> So I do not think that racists are refusing to allow non-whites to play, but segregation and different earnings levels separate both the ability (able to afford) and interest (shared cultural values).




Those are factors. More than one factor is present, and picking out one factor as THE factor, is a strong claim, requiring strong evidence. I have seen a counter-example, to your assertion about allowing non-white people to play. The guy didn't actually turn anyone *away*... but there was an ongoing group with six players, and he invited five of those players to a one-shot playtest of a convention adventure, and guess what, the sixth player, the one not invited, was black. Coincidence? Maybe. I can't prove anything. It's harder to establish causality than to observe outcome.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

I joined a gaming group in which it was clear _to me_ there was one person who didn’t care for my particular skin tone.  He didn’t express this to the rest of the group.  They had no clue.

But I didn’t let him drive me out- by that time I’d been gaming for @16 years, and had already developed a certain social armor against attitudes like his in other contexts.  While _he_ had a problem with me, nobody else did, and I didn’t reciprocate against him.  After all, he was _their_ friend before they ever met me.  Zero percentages in making them choose between us.

Don’t know if my willingness to treat him like everyone else changed his attitude.  Hopefully it did.

Thing is, I have no idea how someone like me but with a “thinner skin” might have handled the situation.


----------



## Aldarc

Myrdin Potter said:


> -> the words race is being used as defined (check dictionaries) and all humans get the same package. So the word is correct and there is equality for all people. *That is problematic?*



Because real life human cultures are being mapped to demi-human races with different packages. That is "problematic." 



> -> what design space is opened? You want to vary humans based on what? Different stats for different ethnicities? Isn’t that worse? Doesn’t backgrounds and feats give you tons of room for this without changing the base stock?



I doubt that stats would be adjusted for humans. Other abilities possibly. It may be beneficial to read Paizo's statements that Morrus collected *here* on the design space that switching to the term "ancestries" opens up.


----------



## JonnyP71

shidaku said:


> I know I know, we have half-elves as playable because of Tanis, but Tanis was explicitly stated to be _rare_.  But nowadays half-elves are as common as anything else!




Tanis???

Surely Elrond, and Arwen.......?  The Half Elf existed in fantasy fiction (and also in D&D) long before Dragonlance.


----------



## TheCosmicKid

Aldarc said:


> I doubt that stats would be adjusted for humans. Other abilities possibly. It may be beneficial to read Paizo's statements that Morrus collected *here* on the design space that switching to the term "ancestries" opens up.



As I mentioned earlier, the preview of the PF2 goblin has me worried they're actually going in the wrong direction with this, conflating biology with culture.


----------



## Aldarc

TheCosmicKid said:


> As I mentioned earlier, the preview of the PF2 goblin has me worried they're actually going in the wrong direction with this, conflating biology with culture.



Then I would recommend reading the newest blog entry where they discuss their elf and dwarf ancestries. I can post a snippet on dwarves, but link you to the *blog*. 



> As a dwarf, you get three ability boosts: one to Constitution, one to Wisdom, and one to the score of your choice. You take an ability flaw to Charisma, though your clan mother says you're quite charming. You get 10 Hit Points from your ancestry—more than the other ancestries and MUCH more than the elves! Your speed is 20 feet, perfectly adequate for adventuring, and you can ignore the speed reduction from your armor. You speak Common and Dwarf, as you may expect, and you can see in the dark just fine.
> 
> All that represents what's common to all dwarves, and comes from their innate tendencies. Ancestry feats go farther, reflecting mostly the cultural propensities of the ancestry. For example, you likely grew up among your dwarven kin, training with the weapons of the Weapon Familiarity feat. Battleaxes, picks, warhammers... those are good, dependable weapons. And let's not forget the special weapons with the dwarf trait, like the dwarven waraxe or your beloved clan dagger (forged for you at birth and capped with a gemstone sacred to your clan). Your training might have included the best ways to battle creatures like derros, duergar, giants, or orcs. In that case, you might pick up the Ancestral Hatred feat to give you a bonus on damage against these enemies—a bonus that goes up for 1 minute if one of those wretched creatures critically hits you!



So it appears that they are making cultural abilities "optional" or "self-selected," while making biological and other basic character functioning (i.e., language proficiencies) remain core.


----------



## pemerton

Myrdin Potter said:


> There is absolutely no evidence that the use of the word race in the way it is used keeps anyone away.



Two things.

First, I thought that [MENTION=19675]Dannyalcatraz[/MENTION] posted to the contrary upthread, namely, that he had reason to believe there are some Black potential gamers (not him) who are turned off by use of the word "race". (Or did he just say that they don't like it but put up with it?)

Second, "keeping anyone away" is not, in my view, the test for what is desirable in a cultural artefact. [MENTION=6786839]Riley37[/MENTION] had a really good post about this not far upthread: the racism in LotR doesn't keep me away, but the novel might be even better without it (I'm not sure you can get rid of all of it and still have it be the story that it is, but the bit about the "half-goblin" Southerner clearly is not fundamental to the story being what it is).

As I've already mentioned in this thread, few of my family and friends are RPGers. I don't think they would play FRPGs if the treatment of "race" was changed; and if they wanted to play, I don't think the treatment of "race" would stop them. Nevertheless, I would prefer a game that doesn't require me to make apologies or acknowledge problematic elements to family and friends. And that I was more comfortable sharing with my children.


----------



## Riley37

Shadow Demon said:


> In 5e, ancestry would be good substitute for sub-race and human ethnicity. Otherwise...no not really.




If I understand the Paizo announcements correctly, then that's somewhat similar what they're doing. In 5E, an Elf gets Fey Ancestry. If that character has the sub-race Wood Elf, then it also gets Mask of the Wild and Fleet of Foot. Meanwhile, a character with the Half-Elf race gets Fey Ancestry and Skill Versatility.

In Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide, a half-elf with Moon Elf ancestry can choose either Mask of the Wild or Fleet of Foot, instead of Skill Versatility.

In Pathfinder 2, that choice of *which* features you get from ancestry is built into core rules, rather than a variant rule, in a supplement, for a single race, which didn't get subraces in the core book.


----------



## Riley37

Celebrim said:


> I do very much agree that sexism, racism, misogyny and all the other evils of the world are legitimate topics for exploration in the context of gaming, and I would not want to expunge those evils from the world of story.  Indeed, if I had my way it would only be through the world of story that we would be exposed to such evils, and only for the purpose of educating ourselves and fortifying ourselves against them.




I care more about that divide - who agrees that those are legitimate topics in gaming, and who doesn't - than about who prefers "race" and who prefers "ancestry". The OP is about the latter topic, the terminology, but the thread seems to bring out a lot of disagreement on the former.

For example, the immediately following post asserts "The final word here is that your ignorant views on race and racism have nothing to do with a fictional game." (As opposed to... non-fictional games?)


----------



## Riley37

DM Magic said:


> Stuff like automatically having proficiency in weapons would be moved to backgrounds.




Except when that proficiency is a gift from the deity who created the race, and will emerge no matter who raises the child. Celebrim runs a setting in which elves have a divinely granted ancestral bow proficiency. I like your point about genetics versus training, but insofar as one of the prolific participants has explained that elven bow use *falls on the other side of that divide* in his setting, maybe it would be clearer to use something else as the go-to example of a trained skill. Dwarven stonecunning, maybe? Or do dwarves have an innate connection with stone? Language?

If a tielfling is raised by parents who don't speak Infernal, in a village where no one has ever spoken a word of Infernal... then at what age does the tiefling acquire the ability to write notes in Infernal? At adolescence, along with all the other changes of adolescence?


----------



## Maxperson

Myrdin Potter said:


> -> the words race is being used as defined (check dictionaries) and all humans get the same package. So the word is correct and there is equality for all people. That is problematic?




No it isn't, and never has been.



> -> if you try and bring in the race theory that exists outside the game rules (which primary components are not in the rules as all humans are treated  equally) or you just are very sensitive to the word race, then maybe, but there seems to be a lot of people that find it problematic to change it.




If you bring in race theory from outside the game rules, then the problem lies with you, not the game.  The solution is to fix you, house rule the problem you brought into the game for your table only, or for you to endure the problem you brought into the game.  Not to try and "fix" the game rules.


----------



## Maxperson

Aldarc said:


> Because real life human cultures are being mapped to demi-human races with different packages. That is "problematic."




What real life human culture is represented by dwarves, or wood elves, or high elves, or dark elves, or halflings, or gnomes, or...?  I can't see a single demi-human race that corresponds to a real life human culture.


----------



## Celebrim

Riley37 said:


> I care more about that divide - who agrees that those are legitimate topics in gaming, and who doesn't - than about who prefers "race" and who prefers "ancestry". The OP is about the latter topic, the terminology, but the thread seems to bring out a lot of disagreement on the former.
> 
> For example, the immediately following post asserts "The final word here is that your ignorant views on race and racism have nothing to do with a fictional game." (As opposed to... non-fictional games?)




I can't really tell you exactly what is going on in the head of the poster you are quoting, but I will tell you what is basically going on in the thread.  There is a fight going on between classical liberals and post-modernists that buy into critical race theory.  Sometimes that fight is explicit, and sometimes that fight is going on without the participants in the fight actually knowing what viewpoints motivate them or having the terminology to labels those things.  And basically that fight comes down to the classical liberals calling the post-modernists racists, and the critical race theory proponents calling the classical liberals racists because each side believes the others plan to fix racism actually perpetuates racism.  Heck, both sides believe that a certain segment of the other side is deliberately trying to perpetuate racism.

So that's what this thread is about.   Consequently, through the biases that may be obvious by this point, what I read out of the sentence you quote is: "The final word here is that your [critical race theory] has nothing to with a fictional game."  And I suspect the poster you quote might add, "And not a lot to do with the real world either."

As for fictional games, again I don't know what he means why don't you ask him instead of me, but it is possible to set a game in what is nominally the real world.


----------



## Maxperson

pemerton said:


> First, I thought that [MENTION=19675]Dannyalcatraz[/MENTION] posted to the contrary upthread, namely, that he had reason to believe there are some Black potential gamers (not him) who are turned off by use of the word "race". (Or did he just say that they don't like it but put up with it?)




People who bring real world issues into a game that doesn't have them are the problem, not the game.  



> Second, "keeping anyone away" is not, in my view, the test for what is desirable in a cultural artefact. [MENTION=6786839]Riley37[/MENTION] had a really good post about this not far upthread: the racism in LotR doesn't keep me away, but the novel might be even better without it (I'm not sure you can get rid of all of it and still have it be the story that it is, but the bit about the "half-goblin" Southerner clearly is not fundamental to the story being what it is).




There's no inherent racism in D&D.  Some groups might play with it, and others might not.  



> As I've already mentioned in this thread, few of my family and friends are RPGers. I don't think they would play FRPGs if the treatment of "race" was changed; and if they wanted to play, I don't think the treatment of "race" would stop them. Nevertheless, I would prefer a game that doesn't require me to make apologies or acknowledge problematic elements to family and friends. And that I was more comfortable sharing with my children.



D&D is already a game that doesn't require people to make apologies or acknowledge problematic elements, at least not racial ones.


----------



## Celebrim

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I joined a gaming group in which it was clear _to me_ there was one person who didn’t care for my particular skin tone.  He didn’t express this to the rest of the group.  They had no clue.
> 
> But I didn’t let him drive me out- by that time I’d been gaming for @16 years, and had already developed a certain social armor against attitudes like his in other contexts.  While _he_ had a problem with me, nobody else did, and I didn’t reciprocate against him.  After all, he was _their_ friend before they ever met me.  Zero percentages in making them choose between us.
> 
> Don’t know if my willingness to treat him like everyone else changed his attitude.  Hopefully it did.
> 
> Thing is, I have no idea how someone like me but with a “thinner skin” might have handled the situation.




It would be great if life came with achievements like a video game.  I know you aren't bragging, but you should get a medal for that.  It's the little things like that that matter.


----------



## Celebrim

Aldarc said:


> Because real life human cultures are being mapped to demi-human races with different packages. That is "problematic."




Sure, but it doesn't have anything to do with whether you use the term 'ancestry' or 'race'.  If they change the term to 'ancestry' and they still map real life human cultures to demi-human ancestries with different packages, won't that be problematic as well? 



> I doubt that stats would be adjusted for humans. Other abilities possibly. It may be beneficial to read Paizo's statements that Morrus collected *here* on the design space that switching to the term "ancestries" opens up.




Yeah, let's look at that 'design space' again, because it is really beneficial.  This is what they say: "Ditching "Race" in favor of "Ancestry" lets us slice-and-dice across, er... racial lines, so we could—for example—easily confer the same mechanical benefit to characters who came from the same place without regard to whether they're human or elf, or we could give different mechanical benefits to Azlanti and Shoanti even though they're both human."

In other words, they are changing from 'race' to 'ancestry' because they want even more freedom to map real life human cultures to demi-human ancestries with different packages and indeed because they want to start giving different human racial groups different mechanical packages.   And you seem to think that this isn't going to be "problematic"?  Why?  You are putting conformity ahead of actual principles here.


----------



## Celebrim

TheCosmicKid said:


> As I mentioned earlier, the preview of the PF2 goblin has me worried they're actually going in the wrong direction with this, conflating biology with culture.




Of course they are going in the "wrong" direction with this!  Haven't I been saying that the whole time.  Heck, if you put down your rose colored glasses because they signaled what team they were on, you'll notice they have been very clear about the direction that they want to go.  "Ancestry" opens up design space that they want to explore, namely mechanical racial variation between members of different human ethnic groups.  Somehow though, people think that by calling it "ancestry" its not going to conflate biology with culture.  But without a much more complex system of tweaking nature from nurture than they've outlined, how well is that really going to work?   Besides which, trying to tweak nature from nuture in humans is a veritable minefield because we don't really know, but one thing I do know is that humans have a tendency to jump to conclusions about that really quickly.


----------



## Mallus

Maxperson said:


> People who bring real world issues into a game that doesn't have them are the problem, not the game.



How can the game _not_ have 'real world issues'? It's being played by real world people (in the real world, even).


----------



## pemerton

Maxperson said:


> People who bring real world issues into a game that doesn't have them are the problem, not the game.





Maxperson said:


> If you bring in race theory from outside the game rules, then the problem lies with you, not the game.  The solution is to fix you, house rule the problem you brought into the game for your table only, or for you to endure the problem you brought into the game.  Not to try and "fix" the game rules.



The notion that stories - cultural artefacts - do not reflect the broader cultures in which they were created is just silly. Fantasy stories are not distinctive in this regard.

D&D, in the fantasy that it puts forward, posits that biology, heredity, culture, capability, worth, and place in a hierarchy of peoples all go together. And it does this under the rubric of "race".

D&D didn't invent this as an element of the fantasy genre. It inherits it from the tradition. The tradition didn't pioneer it either - it inherits it from the nineteenth century.



Maxperson said:


> D&D is already a game that doesn't require people to make apologies or acknowledge problematic elements, at least not racial ones.



Because you may be oblivious to the above, or not care about it, D&D may not require you to make apologies or acknowledge problematic elements.

I am not you, though.


----------



## Riley37

pemerton said:


> East of where?




East of Faerun. Which 5E often treats as the core of the Forgotten Realms. But if you start from Osse, then you don't generally travel to Kara-Tur by going eastwards. Referring to Kara-Tur as "Eastern" is a Faerun-centric perspective.

Do D&D books tend towards a Faerun-centric perspective, mainly insofar as Gygax and his immediate co-authors and successors started from a Euro-centric perspective? Signs point to yes.

Is a Euro-centric perspective a bad thing? I don't think so... as long as one does not treat one's *own* perspective as if it were *universal*, and arrogantly impose it on others. Considering how the British Empire imposed their perspective from the Falklands to Hong Kong, and established Greenwich Observatory as the central reference point for so many maps, that's a big "if".

See also, the division of the Roman Empire into the part ruled from Rome, and the part ruled from Constantinople. Compare that with the territory of the Roman Catholic church and the Eastern Orthodox church. Compare that with the area where people mostly write with the Roman alphabet versus the area where people mostly write with Cyrillic script or something closely related. Compare that with a map of NATO versus the Warsaw Pact nations in the 1960s through 1990s...

https://xkcd.com/503/


----------



## Maxperson

Mallus said:


> How can the game _not_ have 'real world issues'? It's being played by real world people (in the real world, even).




So what.  The game has it's own rules and definitions, and in the game race does not work like it does in the real world and has none of the real world stigmas.  You can bring your personal issues into the game with you, but that's not the game's problem, it's yours.  That the game is played in the real world by real people doesn't change that.  If you want a fix for your personal issues with regard to the game, it's up to you to make those changes for your game.  The game designers don't have an obligation to change things so that your personal issues are accounted for.


----------



## Maxperson

pemerton said:


> D&D, in the fantasy that it puts forward, posits that biology, heredity, culture, capability, worth, and place in a hierarchy of peoples all go together. And it does this under the rubric of "race".



But D&D does not link those things to real world race or cultural issues.  Just because D&D has a race called dwarf, doesn't mean that the race is linked to real world dwarfism and all of the associated issues that come along with real world dwarfism.  None of those issues apply to D&D dwarves.  The other races are the same.


----------



## Riley37

Maxperson said:


> What real life human culture is represented by dwarves...




In Tolkien and Tolkienesque descriptions, the consonant patterns of their language and names are a LOT like the consonant patterns of Hebrew, they're negatively stereotyped as stubborn hoarders of wealth, and consider the description of Bruenor's nose on 5E PHB p.18... and they're rarely tall... that doesn't ring a bell?

If you're about to interpret this as an accusation that JRRT was Juedophobic: whoah there, stick to what I'm actually saying, no more, no less. The Third Reich asked JRRT to certify the purity of his ancestry, for purposes of publishing a German edition of LOTR. His answer was properly defiant. (Well, "properly" to those who share my bias against the National Socialists.)

Some authors since Tolkien have brought a different spin to D&D dwarves. Sometimes that spin is psuedo-Scots. Durkon in "Order of the Stick" has everything but the gorram kilt and bagpipes.



Maxperson said:


> I can't see a single demi-human race that corresponds to a real life human culture.




True: you can't see.

I think I'd better end this post right here, rather than say anything further.


----------



## Aldarc

Celebrim said:


> Sure, but it doesn't have anything to do with whether you use the term 'ancestry' or 'race'.  If they change the term to 'ancestry' and they still map real life human cultures to demi-human ancestries with different packages, won't that be problematic as well?



Potentially. As I have said before, it's a complicated series of issues to which the terminology of "race" participates. But use of the term "race" makes that problematic mapping more explicitly connected to racial/racism discourse. (Assuming "they" refers to "Paizo," Paizo has admitted "oops" to some of their portrayals of human cultures in Golarion. And I suspect that they will be making some minor setting changes to add more complexity to those portrayals.)  



> Yeah, let's look at that 'design space' again, because it is really beneficial.  This is what they say: "Ditching "Race" in favor of "Ancestry" lets us slice-and-dice across, er... racial lines, so we could—for example—easily confer the same mechanical benefit to characters who came from the same place without regard to whether they're human or elf, or we could give different mechanical benefits to Azlanti and Shoanti even though they're both human."
> 
> In other words, they are changing from 'race' to 'ancestry' because they want even more freedom to map real life human cultures to demi-human ancestries with different packages and indeed because they want to start giving different human racial groups different mechanical packages.   And you seem to think that this isn't going to be "problematic"?  Why?  You are putting conformity ahead of actual principles here.



You are not making a good argument here, and that is likely because you are hellbent on misconstruing their design purposes, intent, and implications for the sake of preserving the term "race." The final sentence in the quoted paragraph shows that they want the mechanics to divorce culture from biological notions of race such that they can create more grey areas, complexity, and racial-cultural fluidity, such as elves and humans having a mechanical benefit for coming from the same culture (e.g., elves raised in Varisia) or to distinguish between cultures within a same race. The option for mechanical benefits within the same race are likely to be things like weapon familiarity, such that cultures - which are distinct - can have means to express those distinctions. A lot of this variation exists, to a limited extent, already within Pathfinder 1 via the alternative racial traits. PF2 is expanding this by decoupling the cultural aspects attached to the various playable species and providing means for players to pick what their character acquired via their cultural background, nationality, upbringing, etc. 



Celebrim said:


> Of course they are going in the "wrong" direction with this!  Haven't I been saying that the whole time.



Not really. You've mostly been flaring your nostrils and loudly stomping your feet in windy walls-of-text against any notion of changing the term "race" and using whatever justification you can find to resist it. The conversation would likely benefit if you were just honest about your intentions and the seed of your real discomfort about changing the term "race" in D&D. If "race" is the most appropriate term, then should you not be advocating for the term "race" in other game systems that do not use this term?


----------



## Maxperson

Riley37 said:


> In Tolkien and Tolkienesque descriptions, the consonant patterns of their language and names are a LOT like the consonant patterns of Hebrew, they're negatively stereotyped as stubborn hoarders of wealth, and consider the description of Bruenor's nose on 5E PHB p.18... and they're rarely tall... that doesn't ring a bell?




ROFL  Seriously?!?!?  This is your proof?  Tolkien took his dwarves from the Norse not the Jews, even to the point of taking some of his names exactly from dwarves in Norse mythology. (https://www.nordicnames.de/wiki/Dwarf). Norse dwarves also loved gold and wealth, or had your forgotten that.  And when creating language, there are going to be similarities to other languages.  It can't be helped.  For God's sake, freaking Klingon also sounds Hebrew at times.  As for Bruenor's nose, it's just a description and nothing more.  



> If you're about to interpret this as an accusation that JRRT was Juedophobic: whoah there, stick to what I'm actually saying, no more, no less. The Third Reich asked JRRT to certify the purity of his ancestry, for purposes of publishing a German edition of LOTR. His answer was properly defiant. (Well, "properly" to those who share my bias against the National Socialists.)




I wasn't.  Your example was sufficiently absurd for that not to even enter my mind.  Also, we're discussing D&D here and not Tolkien.  What Tolkien did or didn't do(didn't in this case) doesn't have any bearing on D&D dwarves.  While Tolkien inspired much of D&D, D&D isn't Tolkien.



> Some authors since Tolkien have brought a different spin to D&D dwarves. Sometimes that spin is psuedo-Scots. Durkon in "Order of the Stick" has everything but the gorram kilt and bagpipes.




What other authors do or do not do with dwarves also has no bearing on D&D dwarves.  I've seen some DMs play them this way and others(most others) not.  



> I think I'd better end this post right here, rather than say anything further.



After seeing your first attempt, that's probably wise.  The others would probably be similarly fatally flawed.


----------



## Sunseeker

JonnyP71 said:


> Tanis???
> 
> Surely Elrond, and Arwen.......?  The Half Elf existed in fantasy fiction (and also in D&D) long before Dragonlance.




I would argue the half elf depiction in most editions is closer to Tanis than Elrond, with the boyish, beardless "attractive youth" appearance.  Also Arwen is a 3/4ths elf (which goes back to my point of if we're doing half breeds, it implies a lot more), and Elrond is something of an exception since he was kinda magically made into a full elf.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

pemerton said:


> Two things.
> 
> First, I thought that [MENTION=19675]Dannyalcatraz[/MENTION] posted to the contrary upthread, namely, that he had reason to believe there are some Black potential gamers (not him) who are turned off by use of the word "race". (Or did he just say that they don't like it but put up with it?)




I’m not turned off by it in the RPG context, but wouldn’t be surprised- and would fully understand- if some were.



> Second, "keeping anyone away" is not, in my view, the test for what is desirable in a cultural artefact.




It’s a _very_ amorphous metric, to be sure.

My preferred word is, and shall remain “Species.”


----------



## Riley37

Celebrim said:


> There is a fight going on between classical liberals and post-modernists that buy into critical race theory.  Sometimes that fight is explicit, and sometimes that fight is going on without the participants in the fight actually knowing what viewpoints motivate them or having the terminology to labels those things.




On one hand, I see that dynamic in play.

FWIW I don't think that shifting terminology from "race" to "ancestry" is a Win Button and Golden Hammer which will prevent a tension such as the one DannyAlcatraz described, from ever happening again at any D&D table. But... hey... I don't think Talien is that naive either. I'm *confident* that DannyAlcatraz isn't that naive, nor ShinHakkaider, nor Afrodyte.

On another hand, either we disagree deeply about whether both sides are mistaken in seeing actual racism among some of the other side, or we disagree deeply about whether those two are the only teams on the field. Or maybe I'm misunderstanding your terms; is "there's no racism here, there never has been, let's not talk about it" a classical liberal position, or a post-modernist position?

Hardball version of that question: do you categorize James Fields as a classical liberal, or as a post-modernist?


----------



## Celebrim

Aldarc said:


> The conversation would likely benefit if you were just honest about your intentions and the seed of your real discomfort about changing the term "race" in D&D.




Please do tell me what my intentions and the seed of my real discomfort are.


----------



## Riley37

Maxperson said:


> For God's sake, freaking Klingon also sounds Hebrew at times.




Indeed; I know a Paramount staffer who played a prank at a trade show, on that basis.

So now we can draw the links from Scottish to Dwarvish, because James Doohan was the initial author of the Klingon language. Scottish, to Klingon, to Hebrew, to Dwarvish!

But if you don't recognize Dunsany's influence on Tolkien, and the Hebrew phonetics in Dunsany's stories, then I have a wall to sell you.


----------



## Celebrim

Riley37 said:


> On another hand, either we disagree deeply about whether both sides are mistaken in seeing actual racism among some of the other side, or we disagree deeply about whether those two are the only teams on the field.




I'm sure there are more than two teams on the field in the sense that there are probably actually as many opinions as participants.  However, this argument has broken into largely conventional lines, as for example you could probably prove by looking at groupings of who predominately receives XP from whom.



> Or maybe I'm misunderstanding your terms; is "there's no racism here, there never has been, let's not talk about it" a classical liberal position, or a post-modernist position?




Well, that seemed to have come out of left field.  Is that your take away?   To be honest, since the start of your flurry of posts a page or two back you've seemed a bit coy, like you were stabbing around your central idea without really hitting on it.   Now this post seems a bit weird as well, and I'm not really sure what you are trying to get at.   Maybe if you'd just come out with it.



> Hardball version of that question: do you categorize James Fields as a classical liberal, or as a post-modernist?




Which James Fields?  I can't say that the name rings a big bell for me.  Is the name incredibly important to you?   Once again, I feel like there is something going on in your head not coming out in your writing.


----------



## Myrdin Potter

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I joined a gaming group in which it was clear _to me_ there was one person who didn’t care for my particular skin tone.  He didn’t express this to the rest of the group.  They had no clue.
> 
> But I didn’t let him drive me out- by that time I’d been gaming for @16 years, and had already developed a certain social armor against attitudes like his in other contexts.  While _he_ had a problem with me, nobody else did, and I didn’t reciprocate against him.  After all, he was _their_ friend before they ever met me.  Zero percentages in making them choose between us.
> 
> Don’t know if my willingness to treat him like everyone else changed his attitude.  Hopefully it did.
> 
> Thing is, I have no idea how someone like me but with a “thinner skin” might have handled the situation.




I would never deny that racism (and sexism) exists. I think it is rare to be so overt, but there are bad people pretty much everywhere and the D&D table has no immunity spell cast on it.  I think it is particularly devestating when someone from a group that has been underrepresented since the dawn of the game tries it for the first time and runs into it. You had 16 years of experience before you ran into that jerk, at once month you may have just said “screw this” and never came back.

It is not unusual in a table of 7 people including the DM to have one of two you are not fond of. I played a bunch of AL games at GaryCon this year with random strangers at the table and there certainly were people I did not have a good first impression of.

I also admit that my family and close friends don’t tolerate racism so we have long since removed ourselves from chosen social interaction with that type of people, so my sample of personal stories has dropped over the years. Except for people I met overseas in Asia that wear racial thoughts on their sleeves in a way that is not usual in North America.

What I do know is that the direction that Pathfinder is moving towards looks worse. By using the word race, you accept certain constraints and the design philosophy of 5e is that race is bonuses only and all humans are the same. The blog entries for Pathfinder look to be leading towards those Cimmerians get this and those guys from Koth get that. I really don’t buy the story they are telling of why they changed the word and I am betting they get into more trouble by seeming to be progressive but actually opening the system up for more abuse. I am pretty cynical and I see more room for abuse in what they are doing rather than less.

Mechanicaly, 5e has Race, Class, and Background and Backgrounds are carefully neutral as well. I think there is a big design space open and by moving stat changes into Race only, it is better controlled.

I also read the few posts about some of the monsters hewing too closely to specific racial / cultural stereotypes. I think everyone will see something different (I see hobgoblins as Japanese or Mongol themed but I have a friend that swears they are Romans). This is where D&D is traditional and has alignment as well. Evil exists and there are not so many shades of grey and some creatures are evil in nature. What we would identify as evil are some pretty broad themes and war stories tend to paint the other side heavily in stereotypes. I would suggest that making changes to any of the monsters that step too far is a good idea. Even there, as noted above, D&D got rid of Demon and Devil and Angel (just renamed it, creatures were all there) and then switched back.

At a certain point, people are going to get offended at something. I draw the line based on my personal experience. If you think it needs changing, then my point of view says we both get to make our case but that Habro/WoTC makes the call.

I do know that several of the posters disagreeing with me have been good at contesting what I say instead of attacking me, which I appreciate, I certainly hope that I would be welcome at your table and I would welcome you at mine. And that is not just to game for me, that is to eat and drink and meet my family and friends.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> race is bonuses only and all humans are the same.




No, race is average variance from humans.  Humans are the zero-point from which all other races are distinguished.  All members of other species are likewise “the same” with each other.

That- and all other stuff said- it did come to me that there is one thing substituting “species” or another word for “race” does: it gives room for the worldbuilding DM to _reintroduce_ it as a word used in _in exactly the same way_ as it is in the real word.

IOW, if “species” is being the term used in the gamebook text means that a character or NPC talking about the ”Orcish race” might in fact be revealing himself as the in-world equivalent of a Klansman.


----------



## Aldarc

Celebrim said:


> Please do tell me what my intentions and the seed of my real discomfort are.



Thankfully for you then, I refrained from that.


----------



## Celebrim

Dannyalcatraz said:


> IOW, if “species” is being the term used in the gamebook text means that a character or NPC talking about the ”Orcish race” might in fact be revealing himself as the in-world equivalent of a Klansman.




So, if someone in the real world uses the term "the human race", are they the real world equivalent of a Klansman?  I'm seriously asking because I want to understand your perspective.

Let's say we adopt "species", and we employ it the way that Paizo wants to employ their term, are you happy with the idea of "Keleshite species"?

What I think my take away on this the more I see Paizo develop it's mechanics is that Paizo really needs two terms for what it is trying to accomplish, race (or some marker for 'nature') and culture (or some marker for 'nurture') and that no one term is going to work.  They want to explicitly divorce those two concepts, which I don't have a big problem with, but no single term like 'ancestry' or 'species' is going to do that.


----------



## Myrdin Potter

Riley37 said:


> Indeed; I know a Paramount staffer who played a prank at a trade show, on that basis.
> 
> So now we can draw the links from Scottish to Dwarvish, because James Doohan was the initial author of the Klingon language. Scottish, to Klingon, to Hebrew, to Dwarvish!
> 
> But if you don't recognize Dunsany's influence on Tolkien, and the Hebrew phonetics in Dunsany's stories, then I have a wall to sell you.




Tolkien was not a Hebrew scholar. Hoarding gold/money is not a Jewish exclusive stereotype. It takes little effort to find similar stories of different peoples in pretty much every fantasy tradition of cultures globally (Norse dwarves as noted). He may have been influenced by previous writers but he brought his own experience and knowledge into it as well.

This ends up being my issue. The core regions of FR (Sword Coast) is very Euro-centric. If that as a lenses is considered to be bad, even if other regions and cultures can easily be presented in the rules as they stand (magic-users have three traditions Wizard, Sorcerer and Warlock to work off of - study and knowledge, personal power and other world patron).

If you want a different world and worldview, the OGL allows it (and some companies are exploring that). Even the DMs Guild allows you to play in the FR if you want. There still needs to be a set of base rules.


----------



## Celebrim

Aldarc said:


> Thankfully for you then, I refrained from that.




No, I'm quite serious.  I'd like to have an honest discussion.  Tell me what my intentions and the seed of my real discomfort are.


----------



## Farealmer3

Dannyalcatraz said:


> IOW, if “species” is being the term used in the gamebook text means that a character or NPC talking about the ”Orcish race” might in fact be revealing himself as the in-world equivalent of a Klansman.



I don't know about that. The "Holy Grail" of "Race Realists" is to prove people of "african ancestry", like us, are a different species, not just race. Any bigot that could use the word species over race to refer to their hated group would probably do so without hesitation.


----------



## Aldarc

Celebrim said:


> No, I'm quite serious.  I'd like to have an honest discussion.  Tell me what my intentions and the seed of my real discomfort are.



The floor is open for you to do that yourself. I don't know what your intentions are, though you presumably do, but whatever they are, you don't seem that open with them in this conversation. If you would like to have an honest conversation, then be honest.


----------



## Celebrim

Aldarc said:


> The floor is open for you to do that yourself. I don't know what your intentions are, though you presumably do, but whatever they are, you don't seem that open with them in this conversation. If you would like to have an honest conversation, then be honest.




I think I was very explicit in summarizing my feelings on this back in the first post I made in the thread.  I invite you to refresh your memory of what my position is in this thread, since it largely hasn't wavered from that.  Please tell me what statements you think I've made that are dishonest.


----------



## Aldarc

Myrdin Potter said:


> What I do know is that the direction that Pathfinder is moving towards looks worse.



It looks like it is increasing complexity and admitting that culture is distinct from species. 



> By using the word race, you accept certain constraints and the design philosophy of 5e is that race is bonuses only and all humans are the same. The blog entries for Pathfinder look to be leading towards those Cimmerians get this and those guys from Koth get that. I really don’t buy the story they are telling of why they changed the word and I am betting they get into more trouble by seeming to be progressive but actually opening the system up for more abuse. I am pretty cynical and I see more room for abuse in what they are doing rather than less.



But it looks like elves, dwarves, gnomes, halflings, etc. can potentially pick up feats reflecting an upbringing in their Cimmerian culture rather being exclusive to a particular species. That affords more complex distinctions of culture and species. Or that humans could potentially pick up "Dwarven Weapon Fighting" if they were raised by dwarves, etc.


----------



## Maxperson

Riley37 said:


> Indeed; I know a Paramount staffer who played a prank at a trade show, on that basis.
> 
> So now we can draw the links from Scottish to Dwarvish, because James Doohan was the initial author of the Klingon language. Scottish, to Klingon, to Hebrew, to Dwarvish!
> 
> But if you don't recognize Dunsany's influence on Tolkien, and the Hebrew phonetics in Dunsany's stories, then I have a wall to sell you.




Hey.  Let's continue drawing specious links.  Let's see.  Doohan was human, half elves are half-human, half-elves are half elven, so Doohan is linked to elves.  Elves are linked to drow, drow are black, Graz'zt is a black demon.  My god!  Doohan is a demon!!!


----------



## Celebrim

Aldarc said:


> It looks like it is increasing complexity and admitting that culture is distinct from species.




I think that we can get to my core issue then.

It never occurred to me that we need to admit that culture is distinct from species.  That never occurred to me because it's so freaking obvious.  But ok, if you want to call that out explicitly, I'm perfectly OK with that.

Except, Paizo isn't actually doing that.   See you think that among its other problems the term 'race' conflates culture and species.   But because they have made 'ancestry' the term for both explicitly cultural things and explicitly things innate to species, I think that they've actually conflated the two things worse than before.   What they should do is say you pick a 'species' (or race, or whatever) and then you can pick some 'ancestry' not limited just to species but depending on your background.  That way the two things are really called out as separate.

Although race IMO is the least problematic term here, and less problematic that 'species', that's really just a term and I don't care that deeply about that.  What matters is that the actual substance and representation and so forth.  If the problem is that some how race and culture were conflated, detangle them by picking two new terms rather than trying to pick a synonym for a term that confused that.


----------



## Guest 6801328

How about we relabel that section of the book as "Self-Identities."  

So we would say, "My dual-rapier-wielding Paladin self-identifies as a Gnome."  

If you're woke you won't question this, even if (or maybe because) he is 6'8" and has tusks.


----------



## JonnyP71

shidaku said:


> I would argue the half elf depiction in most editions is closer to Tanis than Elrond, with the boyish, beardless "attractive youth" appearance.  Also Arwen is a 3/4ths elf (which goes back to my point of if we're doing half breeds, it implies a lot more), and Elrond is something of an exception since he was kinda magically made into a full elf.




Erm, plus if you were right then Gygax would have needed a time machine to take him back from the mid 80s (when DL appeared), to the mid 70s (when he was writing 1E) - as Half Elves were a core race in the 1E PHB.


----------



## Aldarc

Celebrim said:


> Except, Paizo isn't actually doing that.



Except for the fact that they are, which they discuss briefly in their latest blog entry. Not the best start. 



> I think that they've actually conflated the two things worse than before.



You have not done a good job elucidating why that is the case or why "race" would somehow be a better term in this context. 



> What they should do is say you pick a 'species' (or race, or whatever) and then you can pick some 'ancestry' not limited just to species but depending on your background.  That way the two things are really called out as separate.



My sense of Paizo's new system is that Ancestry provides the base species abilities. From there, the player has the option to expand into either cultural or biological aspects of their ancestry via feats. But the cultural aspects will be the most flexible ones - likely tied to the lore and cultures of Golarion - with the possibility of cross-pollination between species or within species. So this appears to me at least as a move away from the whole "all elves are like this" or "all dwarves are like this." This also opens a lot of design space by having not build around core assumptions of "race": "So why do all dwarves no matter what their background or culture gain a bonus to fighting goblins and giants?" That moves to feats. And those feats can be substituted with other feats depending on the setting. 

Paizo's ancestry system strikes me as a move towards what you describe while still within a system that is more similar to what they had in PF1. As they put it, it's as simple as ABC: you pick your Ancestry, Background, and Class. (And let's be honest, "SRBC" is nowhere near as catchy.) 

Ancestry includes species, but it also creates a lot of open space that provides room for either (1) emphasizing traits of your species, or (2) your culture, which does seem that there will likely be cross-pollination across ancestries.  There are undoubtedly potential problems present, but it's a move towards a greater breadth of complexity about species within various cultures. 



> If the problem is that some how race and culture were conflated, detangle them by picking two new terms rather than trying to pick a synonym for a term that confused that.



It appears to broaden the term outside of the scope that "race" alone should suggest, while moving the cultural aspects of past racial features to the "feel-free-to-ignore/substitute-these-options zone"


----------



## Myrdin Potter

Dannyalcatraz said:


> No, race is average variance from humans.  Humans are the zero-point from which all other races are distinguished.  All members of other species are likewise “the same” with each other.
> 
> That- and all other stuff said- it did come to me that there is one thing substituting “species” or another word for “race” does: it gives room for the worldbuilding DM to _reintroduce_ it as a word used in _in exactly the same way_ as it is in the real word.
> 
> IOW, if “species” is being the term used in the gamebook text means that a character or NPC talking about the ”Orcish race” might in fact be revealing himself as the in-world equivalent of a Klansman.




Actually, race is not change from humans. Humans get +1 to every stat. Humans are the jack of all trades race. They get few additional abilities like immune to magical sleep and charm but they get +6 to attributes. All races is 5e are deviance from the 6 base stats you have, not from humans. The equality is not just that all humans are the same, but that humans are the same in their treatment as other races. Older editions used to be they got a worse starting package but were not restricted in level they could achieve. They also did multiple classes differently, most fully explored in AD&D.


----------



## Sunseeker

JonnyP71 said:


> Erm, plus if you were right then Gygax would have needed a time machine to take him back from the mid 80s (when DL appeared), to the mid 70s (when he was writing 1E) - as Half Elves were a core race in the 1E PHB.




My wife also took me to task on this.  I think I'm mixing up my various half-elves.  Please disregard.


----------



## Myrdin Potter

Aldarc said:


> It looks like it is increasing complexity and admitting that culture is distinct from species.
> 
> But it looks like elves, dwarves, gnomes, halflings, etc. can potentially pick up feats reflecting an upbringing in their Cimmerian culture rather being exclusive to a particular species. That affords more complex distinctions of culture and species. Or that humans could potentially pick up "Dwarven Weapon Fighting" if they were raised by dwarves, etc.




I think it increases complexity at no benefit compared to just using background in 5e. You are welcome to create backgrounds (packages of languages and skills separate from the race and class) that reflect dwarven upbringing if you wish. Or the existing sub-classes fit -elderich knight is what a human raised by blade singing elves can do.

I also think it opens up too much space for some cultures to be made superior to others an in such a Eurocentric genre, that looks like a problem to me.

I also read the blog. I don’t play Pathfinder, I don’t like the rules bloat and complexity and 2e is because it is too long in the tooth and too much has been layered in. 5e is soundly beating them in market share.


----------



## Myrdin Potter

Riley37 said:


> Could you please answer the question I asked? I'm not disagreeing with you on percentages. "It's not going out on a limb" is the theory I'm contesting, and I provided a specific counter-example to that theory.
> 
> I raise that question, because one of the early commenters said a bit about his personal experience of playing D&D while black, and it wasn't all happy rainbows. That person *was* going out on a limb, against a previous assertion that the D&D player base is universally inclusive. The question of percentages then arose, as part of ongoing discussion of that disagreement.
> 
> The response was... well... I quoted the most specific line. If you'd like to read the full post in all its glory, you can find it at http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?630103-Do-We-Still-Need-quot-Race-quot-in-D-amp-D/page13
> 
> 
> 
> Those are factors. More than one factor is present, and picking out one factor as THE factor, is a strong claim, requiring strong evidence. I have seen a counter-example, to your assertion about allowing non-white people to play. The guy didn't actually turn anyone *away*... but there was an ongoing group with six players, and he invited five of those players to a one-shot playtest of a convention adventure, and guess what, the sixth player, the one not invited, was black. Coincidence? Maybe. I can't prove anything. It's harder to establish causality than to observe outcome.




I am not sure how saying I don’t think it is a risky or contentious position that D&D players are mainly white (more than simple population metrics indicate) and mainly male can be further explained. It think the counter position - it is not mainly white and mainly male - is one that would need support.

If you do a google search for GenCon dealer hall and select images, can you show me why I am going out on a limb to suggest that?


----------



## Aldarc

Myrdin Potter said:


> I think it increases complexity at no benefit compared to just using background in 5e. You are welcome to create backgrounds (packages of languages and skills separate from the race and class) that reflect dwarven upbringing if you wish. Or the existing sub-classes fit -elderich knight is what a human raised by blade singing elves can do.



Paizo indicated PF2 will have Ancestry, Class, AND Background, but there will be further distinction _within_ Ancestry between biology and culture(s). 



> I also think it opens up too much space for some cultures to be made superior to others an in such a Eurocentric genre, that looks like a problem to me.



So where was your concern for the problematic implications earlier when I raised this point before and you side-stepped the entire issue with a comment about D&D not being Warcraft? Hmmm... 



> 5e is soundly beating them in market share.



What is the significance of this comment? How is this relevant, meaningful, or consequential. Or is this your attempt at sneaking in an argumentum ad populum?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> So, if someone in the real world uses the term "the human race", are they the real world equivalent of a Klansman? I'm seriously asking because I want to understand your perspective.




No, because human race is all inclusive, as opposed to dividing humanity up into the non scientific social construct of race.

I’m saying a game character using race as opposed to species *might* (and that _is_ the word I used) be revealing hidden prejudices.  Whether he actually is or not would depend on further context.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Farealmer3 said:


> I don't know about that. The "Holy Grail" of "Race Realists" is to prove people of "african ancestry", like us, are a different species, not just race. Any bigot that could use the word species over race to refer to their hated group would probably do so without hesitation.




True, but to date, I’ve seen precious few willing to do so on the record.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> All races is 5e are deviance frommtne 6 base stats you have, not from humans.




I stand corrected.  (I don’t play 5th.)



> They get few additional abilities like immune to magical sleep and charm




Wait.  _Humans _get that?


----------



## Celebrim

Dannyalcatraz said:


> No, because human race is all inclusive, as opposed to dividing humanity up into the non scientific social construct of race.




Sure, but I don't understand how that is an answer.   If an orc says to me "the orcish race" in the same context that I use "the human race" am I supposed to infer something about whether he's an orc supremacist or something?   

And as I said before, the problem with species is that there isn't actually a lot of indication that the biological concept of species exists in fantasy worlds.  I mean, dragons, fairies, and humans appear to get it on successfully with just about every other species in the setting.  And I don't have near the background in sociology that some of you have, but the more biology you know the more problematic 'species' becomes as a word anyway.   No universally accepted definition of the term exists in biology, and many biologists consider the term problematic.  Once you move the term over to a fantasy world without chromosomes in it, where pretty much anything can hybridize with something else, then I don't really see the value in it.   

Besides which, if 'race' is problematic in concept because some racist will use it to justify his racial supremacy, then surely species is worse.  I mean the worst classes of racism in my experience are the ones that want to deny that the people that don't look like them are even human.  (And I've met all sorts of those, whose ugly beliefs I won't repeat, except to say that for every white guy that thought black people weren't human I knew a black guy convinced white people weren't human.)

Nor did you address my point that if we replace 'ancestry' with 'species' in Paizo's conception, that you'd be picking something like 'Keleshite' or 'Mwangi' as a species and you'd have 'Mwangi Species Feats'.   Is that less problematic?  

I guess I'm still stuck on the fact that it isn't a word that is a problem, it's what the word is employed to mean.  Race has been used for some really terrible things.  But it's those terrible things that are the problem, not the word.  And certainly not the word in the context of a fantasy situation that does not have a direct parallel in the real world, because we don't actually have elves, dwarves, centaurs, dragons and so forth.  And certainly not in the context of the word used nobly and employed for more noble purposes, as a synonym for people or a synonym for humankind (or orckind, goblinkind, etc.)   Just because someone employs the word doesn't make them a racist.. or is that really what's being disputed here and I'm not just getting that yet?



> I’m saying a game character using race as opposed to species *might* (and that _is_ the word I used) be revealing hidden prejudices.




I still don't get that.  It seemed like you made a tautology.  So this orc comes up to me in a fantasy world where there was no 19th century, and he says to me, "The orcish race is a feared and misunderstood people.", and I'm supposed to be thinking, "Shouldn't he have said species?  Is he some sort of orcish surpremicist?"  Why would the use of race be revealing hidden prejudices?  And wouldn't it be sort of obvious that we were different, and that there was a high chance we really didn't have a shared common ancestor?  I have no idea what the biological basis of fantasy species actually is, but it doesn't appear to be DNA.   I can't help but feel that in this conversation there is a high percentage of academics in departments that used to be called 'anthropology' and because of some of the less noble claims of some members of that profession there is a lot of, "We no longer use the 'r' word!" going on here.  And that's fine I guess, but it seems to be a misunderstanding of the problem to me.


----------



## Lanefan

Hussar said:


> Are you being serious or just having a laugh?
> 
> And I do mean that as a question. I’ve never heard anyone having this particular issue with paladins before. What is there to get offended by?



The DM whose game I play in got rid of them ages ago because, as a non-Christian, he didn't like all the Christian baggage attached to them.


----------



## Lanefan

One concern: as it seems PF2 will allow one descent (e.g. Human) to poach abilities previously exclusive to another descent (e.g. Dwarven stonecunning), isn't that just going to open up a whole new set of tools for the munchkinizers and optimizers to break the game with?


----------



## Maxperson

Aldarc said:


> My sense of Paizo's new system is that Ancestry provides the base species abilities. From there, the player has the option to expand into either cultural or biological aspects of their ancestry via feats. But the cultural aspects will be the most flexible ones - likely tied to the lore and cultures of Golarion - with the possibility of cross-pollination between species or within species. So this appears to me at least as a move away from the whole "all elves are like this" or "all dwarves are like this." This also opens a lot of design space by having not build around core assumptions of "race": "So why do all dwarves no matter what their background or culture gain a bonus to fighting goblins and giants?" That moves to feats. And those feats can be substituted with other feats depending on the setting.




The big problem here is that ancestry and species are not at all the same.  Human ancestors include apes, monkey looking things, and even a rodent looking thing.  Using ancestry to provide species abilities is more borked than using race.  Trying to attach culture to that word is even worse.  What was the culture of the rodent looking thing?  What was the culture of Homo Rudolfensis?  Those are part of human ancestry.  Now let's try to figure out the ancestry for dwarves, elves and gnomes.

Race is more than sufficient for the needs of an RPG.


----------



## Maxperson

double post


----------



## TheCosmicKid

Aldarc said:


> So it appears that they are making cultural abilities "optional" or "self-selected," while making biological and other basic character functioning (i.e., language proficiencies) remain core.



Firstly: ...language proficiencies?

Secondly: _"Now, this isn't to say ancestry feats deal exclusively with your upbringing. Heritage feats are a special type of ancestry feat that reflect special physiological traits of your ancestry."_

Thirdly: _"Ditching 'Race' in favor of 'Ancestry' lets us slice-and-dice across, er... racial lines, so we could—for example—easily confer the same mechanical benefit to characters who came from the same place without regard to whether they're human or elf, or we could give different mechanical benefits to Azlanti and Shoanti even though they're both human."_ (from here) (also note the use of "race" when referring to, er... race)


----------



## Myrdin Potter

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I stand corrected.  (I don’t play 5th.)
> 
> 
> 
> Wait.  _Humans _get that?




No, humans get +1 to everything or +2 to distribute and a feat. Elves get a +2 to dexterity a few other traits like immune to sleep.

Since you have not played it, I guess you have not read Chapter 2 the 5e PHB? The intro uses race as a specific word and has thing like:

“Choosing a Race

Humans are the most common people in the worlds of D&D, but they live and work alongside dwarves, elves, halflings, and countless other fantastic species. Your character belongs to one of these peoples.”

If you don’t play it, and have not even read the chapter, then maybe you are latching onto the word “race”instead of how it is being used.


----------



## Aldarc

TheCosmicKid said:


> Firstly: ...language proficiencies?



That's likely meant to cover "basic functioning" (as seen in what you quote) so that your character actually has any starting languages. It's not perfect, but I can see the reasoning behind the design decision. (Of course, I also don't like the notion of "racial languages" and "Common." I would prefer cultural languages rather than either.) 



> Secondly: _"Now, this isn't to say ancestry feats deal exclusively with your upbringing. Heritage feats are a special type of ancestry feat that reflect special physiological traits of your ancestry."_



Yes, which I pointed out before - in the post you are quoting from, no less - so I'm not sure what your point is here. A player has the option of expanding their character by deciding via ancestry feats whether they want to select traits from their physiology or cultural upbringing. 



> Thirdly: _"Ditching 'Race' in favor of 'Ancestry' lets us slice-and-dice across, er... racial lines, so we could—for example—easily confer the same mechanical benefit to characters who came from the same place without regard to whether they're human or elf, or we could give different mechanical benefits to Azlanti and Shoanti even though they're both human."_ (from here) (also note the use of "race" when referring to, er... race)



Yep, which suggests that they are attempting through ancestry to make moves to decouple culture from race, such that (1) they have more design space when it comes to alternate ancestry feats, and (2) the player has the option to opt-in to their desired species/cultural features. 

In short, if you have an argument, I would humbly request that you actually making one. I'm not unfamiliar with what you quoted from the blog, but your post gives little to actually discuss.


----------



## Arilyn

Lanefan said:


> One concern: as it seems PF2 will allow one descent (e.g. Human) to poach abilities previously exclusive to another descent (e.g. Dwarven stonecunning), isn't that just going to open up a whole new set of tools for the munchkinizers and optimizers to break the game with?




I have always appreciated having a lot of choice in PF. Munchkins/optimizers will never be stamped out, so personally, I don't believe they should be considered in design choice. As my daughter says, if optimizers come to her table, as GM, she just picks on them more.


----------



## Sunseeker

Lanefan said:


> One concern: as it seems PF2 will allow one descent (e.g. Human) to poach abilities previously exclusive to another descent (e.g. Dwarven stonecunning), isn't that just going to open up a whole new set of tools for the munchkinizers and optimizers to break the game with?




Maybe, but PF2 has _also_ already made it clear that they are sticking to a much crunchier approach than 5E, so how it that relevant to the discussion?

The discussion doesn't hinge on the particular game mechanics within a single game and it's use of race or any other term.  The discussion hinges on how the use of the word "race" plays to preconditioned notions of IRL usage and feelings about "race".  The discussion secondly hinges on the application of a potentially more appropriate word with less baggage and IRL implication.  

If 5E switched to using "Ancestry" in place of race, nothing mechanically need change.  The game would not become more munchikinnny than it already is unless 5E decided to include "Ancestry Elements" to let you customize your individual character's ancestry.


----------



## Aldarc

Celebrim said:


> Nor did you address my point that if we replace 'ancestry' with 'species' *in Paizo's conception,* that you'd be picking something like 'Keleshite' or 'Mwangi' as a species and you'd have 'Mwangi Species Feats'.   Is that less problematic?



Sure that would be problematic, if Paizo indicated that was how it worked. But that does not so far appear to be how they are handling ancestries, so that above does not reflect "Paizo's conception" but, rather, it's a monstrous conception of your own making. 

If the elf and dwarf post is an indication, you would have _human_ ancestry feats and NOT Keleshite Ancestry/Species Feats or Mwangi Species/Feats. But then you could pick feats at character creation or later that reflect your cultural upbringing: e.g., Mwangi, Keleshite. But it remains to be seen how "dusted" (to borrow from Erik Mona) the Golarion setting will be into the Core Rulebook.


----------



## Celebrim

Aldarc said:


> Sure that would be problematic, if Paizo indicated that was how it worked. But that does not so far appear to be how they are handling ancestries, so that above does not reflect "Paizo's conception" but, rather, it's a monstrous conception of your own making.




Aren't we primarily discussing what is correct word to replace 'race' with?  So for example, it would appear that Paizo is currently substituting 'ancestry' for race.  I'm simply pointing out the consequences of substituting 'species' for race.



> If the elf and dwarf post is an indication, you would have _human_ ancestry feats and NOT Keleshite Ancestry/Species Feats or Mwangi Species/Feats. But then you could pick feats at character creation or later that reflect your cultural upbringing: e.g., Mwangi, Keleshite. But it remains to be seen how "dusted" (to borrow from Erik Mona) the Golarion setting will be into the Core Rulebook.




Maybe, but I thought Paizo had indicated that one of the reasons that they preferred Ancestry is that it allowed you to choose ethnic groups as your ancestry as opposed to just 'human'.  I guess I should put a 'wait and see' on this, but that implied to me that you can choose Mwangi Ancestry feats.  

I still maintain that for what Paizo is doing, they need one term for race and one term for culture, and that no one term is going to work.   Just choosing an 'ancestry' isn't sufficient to divorce race from culture.  You need to choose a both a race (the innate package such as 'Dwarf') and a culture (the non-innate optional things that could be potentially shared across races and ethnic groups).


----------



## Celebrim

Aldarc said:


> In short, if you have an argument, I would humbly request that you actually making one. I'm not unfamiliar with what you quoted from the blog, but your post gives little to actually discuss.




I think he just presented a very strong argument, you just don't want to discuss it.


----------



## Aldarc

Celebrim said:


> I think he just presented a very strong argument, you just don't want to discuss it.



Not only is this insinuation rude, it's also untrue; I do want to discuss this topic with him. 

I was in the midst of a response to your other post before deciding that sleep takes priority, so I am bowing out of this topic for tonight.


----------



## TheCosmicKid

Aldarc said:


> That's likely meant to cover "basic functioning" (as seen in what you quote) so that your character actually has any starting languages. It's not perfect, but I can see the reasoning behind the design decision. (Of course, I also don't like the notion of "racial languages" and "Common." I would prefer cultural languages rather than either.)



Background would seem the logical place to put those. I mean, 5e doesn't do it that way, either, but...



Aldarc said:


> Yes, which I pointed out before - in the post you are quoting from, no less - so I'm not sure what your point is here.



You recommended I read that blog post to reassure me of PF2's direction. I have read it. I am quoting the specific passages that do the opposite of reassure me.



Aldarc said:


> A player has the option of expanding their character by deciding via ancestry feats whether they want to select traits from their physiology or cultural upbringing.



...which indicates that "ancestry" represents both.


----------



## Eltab

Elfcrusher said:


> How about we relabel that section of the book as "Self-Identities."
> 
> So we would say, "My dual-rapier-wielding Paladin self-identifies as a Gnome."
> 
> If you're woke you won't question this, even if (or maybe because) he is 6'8" and has tusks.




If your dual-wielder is as big as all that, he can dual-wield warhammers.  C'mon, dude, quit messing around with those little bitty half-measure swords!

_edit: And somewhat more seriously, I think using the term "Self-identity" will be more likely to set off a Mutual _Upcast Fireball _Contest than the current use of "race"._


----------



## pemerton

Myrdin Potter said:


> I see hobgoblins as Japanese or Mongol themed



In the AD&D MM, hobgoblins are depicted wearing Japanese-style armour. There weapons are swords, spears, polearms, composite bows and morning stars.

Morning stars seem mediaeval European, but otherwise this looks rather Japanese to me.


----------



## pemerton

This issue is not "postmodernists" vs "classical liberals". There is nothing postmodernist about identifying patterns of thought and of cultural accretion in contemporary cultural artefacts. There is nothing postmodernist about identifying the elements of traditional racial theory, and noting that fantasy stories replicate those modes of thoughts (biology, heredity, culture, capability, worth, hierarchy as an essential package in relation to any given people).

Nor is there anything particularly liberal about disregarding or denying this. Liberals aren't committed to denying that patterns of ideas can be a burden on autonomy. (Eg Rawls emphasises the significance, to free and equal citizenship, of enjoying the social bases of self-respect; and Kymlicka identifies the importance of patterns of ideas (as elements of culture) as mediating the judgements of value that are essential to autonomy.)


----------



## Myrdin Potter

pemerton said:


> In the AD&D MM, hobgoblins are depicted wearing Japanese-style armour. There weapons are swords, spears, polearms, composite bows and morning stars.
> 
> Morning stars seem mediaeval European, but otherwise this looks rather Japanese to me.




But they march and live in legions and use fortified camps. The 5e MM calls out the tramp of their booted feet.

I am probably influenced by basically starting with AD&D, the new write-up is a mash-up of so many different elements that I don’t think one really stands out.


----------



## pemerton

Myrdin Potter said:


> But they march and live in legions and use fortified camps. The 5e MM calls out the tramp of their booted feet.



I've never read the 5e MM. The only other significant reference to their material culture in the AD&D MM is this:

In the latter case [ie if the hobgoblins don't live underground] the lair will be a village with a ditch, rampart, and palisade of stones, earth and logs. There will be two gates and 3-6 guard towers. The dwellings inside are usually a mixture of wood and stone.​


----------



## Lanefan

shidaku said:


> Maybe, but PF2 has _also_ already made it clear that they are sticking to a much crunchier approach than 5E, so how it that relevant to the discussion?



It's relevant in that it's a change being made (or at least proposed) by Paizo as part of the PF redesign.



> The discussion doesn't hinge on the particular game mechanics within a single game and it's use of race or any other term.



Perhaps not any more, but that is where it started.



> The discussion hinges on how the use of the word "race" plays to preconditioned notions of IRL usage and feelings about "race".  The discussion secondly hinges on the application of a potentially more appropriate word with less baggage and IRL implication.



Again, just for PF2 for now, as it's the only major game going through a revision.  Each other game or system will no doubt have the same discussion at the design level as part of any eventual redesign, and each will come to its own decision as to what to do.



> If 5E switched to using "Ancestry" in place of race, nothing mechanically need change.  The game would not become more munchikinnny than it already is unless 5E decided to include "Ancestry Elements" to let you customize your individual character's ancestry.



It's too late to switch 5e's terminology, as 5e is already out.  It's not like Hasbro can go out and retroactively edit all the however-many copies of the 5e PH and DMG they've sold...

But PF2 is not already out - in fact it's not even in public playtest yet - and so there is still time to propose changes to it (e.g. the terminology) and-or point out possible problems (e.g. with the mechanics that look like they're going to accompany the terminology change); which is what I did in the post you quoted.

Lan-"there's always a knock-on effect"-efan


----------



## Riley37

Celebrim said:


> I'm sure there are more than two teams on the field in the sense that there are probably actually as many opinions as participants.  However, this argument has broken into largely conventional lines, as for example you could probably prove by looking at groupings of who predominately receives XP from whom.




Hah, you noticed that too. I levelled up in this thread! Ding! Should I take ASI or feat? Yes, I'm on a "team" in this thread. Are you? I dunno about "prove"; "statistically overwhelming evidence" is as far as I'll go.



Celebrim said:


> Well, that seemed to have come out of left field.




That's... one thing you could say, rather than answering my question. In the process of answering it, you will either realize why I asked, or you would have to go through even more elaborate contortions of avoidance.



Celebrim said:


> Which James Fields?




James Alex Fields Jr.

Learn for yourself, or not, as you will. Answer the hardball question, or not, as you will. Seek guidance from the one you trust most, or not, as you will. I can, at most, lead you to water, and that only fallibly, as a fellow seeker.

Are you familiar with Lewis's Narnia series, ending with "The Last Battle", and the dwarves who deny Aslan?


----------



## Sunseeker

Lanefan said:


> It's relevant in that it's a change being made (or at least proposed) by Paizo as part of the PF redesign.



This thread isn't about the PF2 redesign, it's about the use of the word race in D&D.



> Perhaps not any more, but that is where it started.



No, this thread is about the use of the word.  Those _other_ threads in the PF2 discussion are about mechanics.



> Again, just for PF2 for now, as it's the only major game going through a revision.  Each other game or system will no doubt have the same discussion at the design level as part of any eventual redesign, and each will come to its own decision as to what to do.



Again, this isn't a PF2 discussion thread.  In fact it's specifically aimed at _having that discussion_ about keeping the term "race" in D&D, not Pathfinder.



> It's too late to switch 5e's terminology, as 5e is already out.  It's not like Hasbro can go out and retroactively edit all the however-many copies of the 5e PH and DMG they've sold...



Well obviously.  My point was that exchanging a word doesn't exchange rules.



> But PF2 is not already out - in fact it's not even in public playtest yet - and so there is still time to propose changes to it (e.g. the terminology) and-or point out possible problems (e.g. with the mechanics that look like they're going to accompany the terminology change); which is what I did in the post you quoted.
> 
> Lan-"there's always a knock-on effect"-efan



But you didn't.  The use of the term "Ancestry" is independent to the ancestry-related abilities.  These are two _separate_ and _distinct _changes.

The first is the change of _language_ from "race" to "ancestry".
The second is the change of _rules_ from having to select a fixed package to being able to select ancestral elements a-la-carte.

The change of language does not imply the change in rules, nor does the change in rules imply a change of language.


----------



## Celebrim

Riley37 said:


> Hah, you noticed that too. I levelled up in this thread! Ding! Should I take ASI or feat? Yes, I'm on a "team" in this thread. Are you? I dunno about "prove"; "statistically overwhelming evidence" is as far as I'll go.




I was going to make some interesting observations on that theme until I got further down into your reply, but yes, I seem to have been nominated by a number of parties in that regard. 



> That's... one thing you could say, rather than answering my question. In the process of answering it, you will either realize why I asked, or you would have to go through even more elaborate contortions of avoidance.




You see at the time, I was trying hard to see you as a person who wanted to have an honest discussion, and who had a rational viewpoint, and intended to make a meaningful contribution to the website.   But it kept seeming like you were really coy about something, and I couldn't figure out what it was.



> James Alex Fields Jr.
> 
> Learn for yourself, or not, as you will.




Oh, that's what you mean.  Yeah the name didn't ring a bell at all.  And here I thought you were talking about the economist, and you were trying to draw me into some sort of conversation about institutional economics.



> Answer the hardball question, or not, as you will.




Sir, now that I know the question, that's not a hardball question.  It's a question that makes you look bad, and not me.  The very fact that you asked it gives me the debate win.  And it makes me sad, and sorry for you.   I tried to believe in you, and it turns out that the thing you are being coy about is nothing less than you going full Godwin Law's on the thread.  

Here is my answer, just so you don't accuse me of not giving you one, the man you are interested in, in my opinion, is not representative of anyone in this thread.  And you should be embarrassed for thinking otherwise, but I don't think you actually will be.



> Are you familiar with Lewis's Narnia series, ending with "The Last Battle", and the dwarves who deny Aslan?




Yes, I am.   I will pray that your eyes are opened and your heart unhardened.  God bless.


----------



## Myrdin Potter

pemerton said:


> I've never read the 5e MM. The only other significant reference to their material culture in the AD&D MM is this:
> In the latter case [ie if the hobgoblins don't live underground] the lair will be a village with a ditch, rampart, and palisade of stones, earth and logs. There will be two gates and 3-6 guard towers. The dwellings inside are usually a mixture of wood and stone.​




It is unfortunate that you debate the point on the stereotypes in the monsters in D&D and yet have not read the much more carefully written 5e MM. Certainly not perfect but much better.

Now the art in the MM for the hobgoblin (which shows up in searches) has a somewhat Japanese style armor to it and the face and top knot has a certain suggestion if you are looking for it, but I found the actual lore, the descriptive fluff, to not call out one culture in particular.

D&D has evolved, have you at least read the 5e PHB, especially the introduction in Chapter 2 which is all about character races?


----------



## Parmandur

shidaku said:


> This is basically the "crunch vs. flavor" debate.  Me personally as an admitted fan of 4E and MTG, like my flavor and my crunch to the separate.  A rulebook is for rules.  A setting book is for flavor.  I don't have any problem with more scientifically accurate terms like "species" (interbreeding aside) being used in place of race.  I _also_ would like to see half-elves and half-orcs removed as playable "races", because if most of the humanoid races can interbreed, they make the use of the term "race" _worse_, because we've just decided that bloodlines can be watered down, so naturally there _must_ be 3/4ths elves, 1/8th orcs, and 7/16ths of both of them!  And if humans and elves can breed and humans and orcs can breed, logically elves and orcs can breed so WTF do we do with that knowledge?
> 
> And why is half-dwarf so rarely accounted for?  It seems like dwarves and humans would be far more likely to co-mingle than humans and elves.  (from the viewpoint of humans & dwarves generally sharing their favored past-times of drinking, eating, killing and being dirty and hairy)
> 
> I know I know, we have half-elves as playable because of Tanis, but Tanis was explicitly stated to be _rare_.  But nowadays half-elves are as common as anything else!
> 
> At least the "half-dragonborn" problem is resolved by saying they can't crossbreed (lizards with boobs or even psuedo-boobs aside....) and the problem is resolved with tieflings by saying that tieflings always create more tieflings, doesn't matter what the other half of the equation is.
> 
> _Personally_ I'd be happy if crossbreeding just _wasn't_ core by default.



In the Forgotten Realms, at least, you do get Half-Dwarves with Human, Gnome or Halfling parents: mechanically, they are Dwarves. Ed Greenwood wrote it in a source book, so it is true.


----------



## Parmandur

Eltab said:


> In reverse order...
> 
> Muls (Dark Sun) are the first place I've seen a half-dwarf addressed.  The 4e incarnation, more so than other half-races, says "you get half of the cool things each parent has".
> 
> Unwritten* Human Racial Trait:
> *Good Breeding.*  You can have children with almost anything you care to try.  Conversely, almost anything that cares to try can have children with you.
> * because only Rated-M and Rated-X campaigns will have cause to use this explicitly




From FR11 Dwarves Deep by Ed Greenwood, published in 1990:

"Humans, gnomes, and halflings are
cross-fertile with dwarves. Elminster says
elves and dwarves can have issue as well.
Common in Ardeep, Eaerlann, and Myth
Drannor of old, this is unheard-of today.
Mates who respect dwarven customs
and traditions are honored for their courage (in entering a strange society), loyalty
(to the customs of dwarves) and aid (in
preserving the Folk).

"Half-dwarves are not a distinct race.
Save for their height (a head taller than
most dwarves) all offspring of unions be-
tween dwarves and other races look and
act (and are treated in the rules) as pure-blood dwarves. Dwarven halfbreeds always have the stocky build and hirsute
appearance of purebloods.

"If halfbloods mate with pureblood
dwarves, the offspring will be a pure-blood. If halfbloods mate with another
halfblood or a nondwarf, the offspring
will be a halfblood."


----------



## Riley37

Myrdin Potter said:


> The core regions of FR (Sword Coast) is very Euro-centric. If that as a lenses is considered to be bad...




In a question about "Orient" and Kara-Tur, I gave my position on that question. Having it as a lens, as a starting point, is not bad. Presenting it as the only valid perspective, or as an innately superior perspective, *that* is bad.

Tolkien draw a map of a fantasy world, in which the Good Guys have grey or blue eyes, and they face West when they pray before a meal, and they fight the swarthy, sallow, slant-eyed people who live southwards and eastwards. I think Tolkien, and Kipling before him, was a fundamentally decent person, but he grew up with the British Empire as the moral standard for how Europeans can and should treat people in Asia, and he did not question that moral standard to the same extent that his near-contemporary George Orwell did. The AD&D Player's Handbook has a literal chart on race relationships. It's a direct match for Tolkien's canon, right down to which Halfling sub-tribe gets along better with dwarves. And then other writers came along... so now Faerun, and the Forgotten Realms in general, is a LOT less driven by the perspective of the British Empire, than OD&D and 1E were. For my values, that's an improvement.

You've lived in Japan, and you've returned to the USA, right? So you are familiar with USA perspectives which start with a basis of fundamental respect for the billions of humans who live elsewhere and who live more or less differently; and perspectives which don't start with that basis. So far as I can tell, both WotC and Paizo are doing their best to practice the former.


----------



## Parmandur

Celebrim said:


> Sure, but it doesn't have anything to do with whether you use the term 'ancestry' or 'race'.  If they change the term to 'ancestry' and they still map real life human cultures to demi-human ancestries with different packages, won't that be problematic as well?
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, let's look at that 'design space' again, because it is really beneficial.  This is what they say: "Ditching "Race" in favor of "Ancestry" lets us slice-and-dice across, er... racial lines, so we could—for example—easily confer the same mechanical benefit to characters who came from the same place without regard to whether they're human or elf, or we could give different mechanical benefits to Azlanti and Shoanti even though they're both human."
> 
> In other words, they are changing from 'race' to 'ancestry' because they want even more freedom to map real life human cultures to demi-human ancestries with different packages and indeed because they want to start giving different human racial groups different mechanical packages.   And you seem to think that this isn't going to be "problematic"?  Why?  You are putting conformity ahead of actual principles here.



Yeah, the weirdest part of the whole discussion, to me, is that Paizo is getting rid of the word race so that they can engage in weird race shennanigans.


----------



## Parmandur

TheCosmicKid said:


> Background would seem the logical place to put those. I mean, 5e doesn't do it that way, either, but...
> 
> You recommended I read that blog post to reassure me of PF2's direction. I have read it. I am quoting the specific passages that do the opposite of reassure me.
> 
> ...which indicates that "ancestry" represents both.



Yeeeeeah, the more they talk about the "design space" opened up by the "ancestry" terminology change, the weirder it seems.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Myrdin Potter said:


> No, humans get +1 to everything or +2 to distribute and a feat. Elves get a +2 to dexterity a few other traits like immune to sleep.
> 
> Since you have not played it, I guess you have not read Chapter 2 the 5e PHB? The intro uses race as a specific word and has thing like:
> 
> “Choosing a Race
> 
> Humans are the most common people in the worlds of D&D, but they live and work alongside dwarves, elves, halflings, and countless other fantastic species. Your character belongs to one of these peoples.”
> 
> If you don’t play it, and have not even read the chapter, then maybe you are latching onto the word “race”instead of how it is being used.




Like I’ve said multiple times, the use of “race” in FRPGs does not personally offend me.  But I also recognize that some could be offended by it, so I have no particular reason to oppose its replacement with something like “species”.


----------



## Riley37

Enevhar Aldarion said:


> Now you are just being sexist. Females do not have racial packages.




Now you're being phylum-ist and mammal-centric. Two words: thri-kreen ovipositor.

(You also might be eliding the relationship between anatomical sex and social gender, in which case, any worshipper of Corellon Larethian can set you straight... so to speak.)


----------



## Riley37

Leatherhead said:


> Blood.
> 
> Blood is the word everyone is grasping for. We are talking about something to define "genetics" in a non-anachronistic sounding way.
> 
> The word "Ancestry" is almost already a dogwhistle for the word "Race" right now anyway.




Actually, no. I'm grasping for "Origin", as another person suggested, which also applies for Warforged, and for Ents, and for other possible characters which don't even HAVE blood.

Participants at "Unite the Right" last year chanted "Blood and Soil", along with... well... other slogans. That's not what *you* mean; but if we're looking for a term which hasn't been dog-whistled, "blood" is as tainted as any other. It's as if race supremacists had already been exploring this territory for centuries!


----------



## Riley37

Obryn said:


> Who's actually arguing this?
> 
> And why's there a big pile of straw on the floor?




https://nethackwiki.com/wiki/Straw_golem


----------



## TheCosmicKid

pemerton said:


> Nor is there anything particularly liberal about disregarding or denying this.  Liberals aren't committed to denying that patterns of ideas can be a burden on autonomy.



Liberals are, however, pretty committed on the whole to the principle of _innocent until proven guilty_. Characterizing my position, at least, as "denying that patterns of ideas can be a burden on autonomy" would be like characterizing my skepticism about a particular criminal accusation as "denying that human beings can commit crimes". There's a few more dots you gotta connect before you get from the specific to the general, or vice versa.


----------



## Riley37

Lanefan said:


> So does that make Dragons the "People of Halitosis"?




My main PC, Boris the Green, is a green dragonborn (poison breath weapon) and a green paladin (Oath of Ancients), in a party which also includes an adolescent goblin wild mage. We met with a giant, whose people had been all but exterminated by humans and elves, and had gone into hiding. The giant addressed the party as "Scion of Toxin and Child of Mischief." Took me a moment to figure out that the first phrase was addressing my PC and the goblin, because he would not even talk with the humans and the half-elf.

We managed to get him talking with all of us. We may have found an opening for truce between the Giants and one of the human nations. In the long run, maybe even a peace treaty, and reconciliation. (The Giants in this setting are reduced to one nation... if that; they are one tribe, in one village.)

Anyways, I prefer Scion of Toxin, to People of Halitosis; but there's also other breath weapons.

More seriously, I've put some thought into how dragonborn society might differ from humans and other mammals, just from the anatomical differences of hatching from eggs rather than live birth, and the lack of nursing in child-raising. I figure that any adult can keep the eggs warm, and any adult can feed any child, and in a village, they take turns; those too old to hunt, take extra turns; therefore the role of "motherhood" is fundamentally different, and is less tied to anatomical sex than with mammals. It's been fun, and I look for opportunities to play the odd-man-out of a dragonborn hero travelling with an otherwise all-mammal party. (Also, green scales are not shiny metallic scales, so people who recognize Boris as a folk hero and paladin, have a *very* different reaction from those who see someone with chromatic dragon ancestry, and who assume that he's on Team Tiamat.)

As Order of the Stick once said: "Dragons, color-coded for your convenience!" Boris is inconveniently chromatic and on Team Bahamut. Yeah, yeah, done to death with Drizzt knock-offs, I know. It's not easy, being green.

Wait, did I say chromatic dragon ancestry? I mean Origin... well, maybe his Origin is dragonborn, and then Green/Poison is one of the possible Ancestry variations for the dragonborn origin, just as Wood Elf or Moon Elf is an available Ancestry for the Elf origin.


----------



## Riley37

Myrdin Potter said:


> At a certain point, people are going to get offended at something. I draw the line based on my personal experience. If you think it needs changing, then my point of view says we both get to make our case but that Habro/WoTC makes the call.




I partially agree. I think Hasbro/WOTC gets to make the call for D&D, and Paizo gets to make the call for Pathfinder. Customers choose to buy one, or the other, or both, or some other game entirely. I see a significant difference between the situation with multiple publishers, versus the dynamics back when D&D was more or less the only game in town, so to speak. 

Though that makes me curious whether Tunnels and Trolls (1975) handled races notably differently than D&D did. (quick research) T&T featured the "Peters-McAllister Chart For Creating Man-like Characters"! Not to mention the race rules in Bunnies & Burrows (1976), because AFAIK it had none. If you prefer an even more thinly veiled allegory than D&D, though, I recommend Shadowrun.

Anyways, I'm gonna go out on a limb here, and suggest that Paizo is gonna lose market share among Alt-Right customers, with some hope of gaining market share on the... well... if the usual phase is unwelcome on Enworld, then I'll just refer to them as the other side.


----------



## TheCosmicKid

Riley37 said:


> Anyways, I'm gonna go out on a limb here, and suggest that Paizo is gonna lose market share among Alt-Right customers, with some hope of gaining market share on the... well... if the usual phase is unwelcome on Enworld, then I'll just refer to them as the other side.



For what it's worth, Paizo has stated outright that _"the terminology change has nothing whatsoever to do with politics"_. So if they're courting "the other side", they're lying about it.


----------



## Riley37

Celebrim said:


> I think I was very explicit in summarizing my feelings on this back in the first post I made in the thread.  I invite you to refresh your memory of what my position is in this thread, since it largely hasn't wavered from that.




@ Aldarc: I have to say, Celebrim staked out a position early on, and has held it consistently.

Celebrim has described the racial mix of his setting. It's not current canonical D&D, but that's because he gave it some thought, decades and editions ago, and made decisions. At his table you play either a human, or a creature with fundamental differences from humans, which result in cognitive and social differences. He hasn't seen later editions as compelling reason to blow with the wind. (Celebrim, correct me as needed.)

As for whether to ditch the term "Race," and replace it with "Ancestry", he's not interested. I think he oversimplifies or dismisses where Paizo's going, but time will tell, probably depending on how well Paizo can get their playtesters to actually think through the intended changes, rather than just re-skinning old tropes. He's actively concerned about the possibility of rules-codified categorizations of different varieties of human, and how that could be mis-used or mis-understood. 
(Still a fair, reasonably accurate summary, of points made across dozens of posts?)

Riley's $.02: I have seen, no kidding, rules in which humans from Europe get +1 INT while humans from Africa get +1 WIS, so I also consider this a legitimate concern. Time will tell whether Paizo handles the rules codification of the relationship between nature and nurture with good judgement and/or adequate idiot-proofing.

Since these are not *my* positions, I am not the one to advocate or elaborate them, but Aldarc, you could try *asking* Celebrim about specifics, and he can clarify anything lost in translation (that is, distorted by my biases), if that suits him. *shrug* If that helps you to a good faith exchange of views with useful outcomes, then good luck. If not: "take what you can use, and leave the rest behind."


----------



## Riley37

TheCosmicKid said:


> For what it's worth, Paizo has stated outright that _"the terminology change has nothing whatsoever to do with politics"_. So if they're courting "the other side", they're lying about it.




Paizo under-estimates the degree to which politics will enter into any discussion of race, ancestry, breed, blood, folk, or any related topic (so to speak), which has substantial participation from people in the USA. When the USA has gone several years in a row without anyone killing multiple people on a specifically, overtly racial basis, *then* maybe Paizo can make such a statement accurately.


----------



## Riley37

Celebrim said:


> It's a question that makes you look bad, and not me. The very fact that you asked it gives me the debate win. And it makes me sad, and sorry for you.




If you are here to win debates, by a zero-sum measure of who looks good and bad, then... good luck with that? Not why I'm here.

You didn't answer the question *as asked*; you don't need to. I've seen several posts in this thread, using the language his "side" or "team" uses. Morrus tends to end their participation, but they're real, and without Morrus they'd dominate the conversation. Swastika graffiti became a thing I had to deal with, directly, last year, as never before. I am not embarrassed. I am sad for Heather, though everyone dies and she died with honor. If you are sad and sorry for me, then please extend your compassion to her family and friends.



Celebrim said:


> I will pray that your eyes are opened and your heart unhardened. God bless.




Thank you. Likewise. We cannot harm each other with such prayer, and if we're both fallible, imperfect mortals, then we can only benefit. There's a saying about two knives sharpening each other...


----------



## Riley37

Obryn said:


> Cherry picking one definition of an ambiguous word is a seriously terrible argument, particularly when RPGs are already known for using words in novel ways.




Gygax offered alternatives such as "rank" for class level, as opposed to physical level within a dungeon, but in practice, here's what we mean by "level":

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0012.html


----------



## Riley37

Hriston said:


> Why? Were the developers of 4e immune to influence from Tolkien?




Yes. 4E has "Immunity to Tolkien" as an origin feature, because 4E has WOTC Ancestry rather than TSR Ancestry.

Just as Fey Ancestry grants immunity to Sleep spells. Same principle.


----------



## Aldarc

TheCosmicKid said:


> Background would seem the logical place to put those. I mean, 5e doesn't do it that way, either, but...



First, thank you for your response. I agree with what you write here, but I am also not sure whether this would fit with the scope of how backgrounds (may) operate in 5e and PF2. So at least on this matter, we agree. 



> You recommended I read that blog post to reassure me of PF2's direction. I have read it. I am quoting the specific passages that do the opposite of reassure me.
> 
> ...which indicates that "ancestry" represents both.



Perhaps you are seeing something else causing you misgivings that I don't. For me, this represents at least a move in the right direction. Cultural abilities were being hard-baked into species, which was often a massive pain when homebrewing around that. But Paizo appears to be relegating that to ancestry feats: i.e., the realm of exchangeable parts. That in itself is a move towards disentangling culture from species. That shift also makes it easier for GMs potentially homebrewing settings to say, "Ignore these ancestry feats, because they do not represent the culture of dwarves in my setting" or "These are the in-setting cultures than any species can potentially claim for their upbringing." This still runs the risk of mapping real life human cultures to fantasy species. I will not pretend otherwise. But it adds a greater degree of depth than was previously available in comparison with past mechanical portrayals of species, culture, etc. But more interestingly for me as a fan of Eberron, this opens up a tremendous amount of space to delve into the cultures and nations of Khorvaire, where national identity often has a greater emphasis than racial identity. This is not to say that Eberron does not explore racial identity, as it does in a number of places, particularly with species on the margins of society (e.g., warforged, kalashtar, shifters, etc.). 

Overall, I think that this opens up design space for ancestral _cultures_ rather than an ancestral monoculture than how it was before (e.g., all dwarves know how to fight giants and goblins, all dwarves have stonecunning, all elves know how to wield longswords and longbows, etc.). As Paizo expressed elsewhere, and included in what you quoted, it appears that there will be ways to reflect via ancestry feats being an Elf raised in Varisia or a human of one ethnicity raised in another culture to reflect that. Why should an elf raised in Magnimar city be able to automatically know how to wield a longsword or bow? Now players can opt out of that. But they may say that they do want to take a feat that represents growing up in Magnimar. I don't think that Paizo's change is perfect, but it seems like a step in the right direction, as it permits a cross-pollinating weaving of species and cultures that was not as feasible before. 

But as I said before, if what Paizo has written in those specific passages does not "reassure [you]," then it might be more useful for our dialogue to elucidate a bit more about those misgivings or how they could be alleviated. I don't necessarily think that this is meant to be a PF2 discussion thread, but it does provide an interesting focus of conversation as it is dealing, partially, with thread topic issue. 



pemerton said:


> Eg Rawls emphasises the significance, to free and equal citizenship, of enjoying the social bases of self-respect;



XP for John Rawls.


----------



## pemerton

TheCosmicKid said:


> Liberals are, however, pretty committed on the whole to the principle of _innocent until proven guilty_.



I have no idea how that bears upon this discussion, which has nothing to do with a criminal trial.



TheCosmicKid said:


> Characterizing my position, at least, as "denying that patterns of ideas can be a burden on autonomy"



Who said that? You seem to be identifying as a liberal - and I posted that "[l]iberals aren't committed to denying that patterns of ideas can be a burden on autonomy."

To the extent that you think "race" is a sensible word to use in these rulebooks, I assume it is for some other reason. (Eg perhaps you are not recognising the way in which the rulebooks incorporate and promulgate patterns of ideas having that character.)

Which is to say, whatever the nature of the disagreements in this thread, there is nothing about them that suggests "postmodernist vs liberal'.


----------



## pemerton

Myrdin Potter said:


> It is unfortunate that you debate the point on the stereotypes in the monsters in D&D and yet have not read the much more carefully written 5e MM. Certainly not perfect but much better.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> D&D has evolved, have you at least read the 5e PHB, especially the introduction in Chapter 2 which is all about character races?



I was really referring more to racial descriptions than the MM. Though on that score, I don't think changing orcs from default LE to default CE is "progress", if what we are talking about is a tendency to treat biology, heredity, cutlure, capabilities and worth as an immutable package.

The 5e Basic PDF, on p 6, says

Every character belongs to a race, one of the many intelligent humanoid species in the D&D world. . . 

The race you choose contributes to your character’s identity in an important way, by establishing a general appearance and the natural talents gained from culture and ancestry.​
Page 11 adds that

[T]he people themselves—people of varying size, shape, and color, dressed in a dazzling spectrum of styles and hues—represent many different races . . .

Half-elves and half-orcs live and work alongside humans, without fully belonging to the races of either of their parents.​
I don't see how this is meant to show that "race" in D&D has a _different_ meaning from the way traditional race theory uses it.

(By way of comparison, the AD&D PHB says nothing about "race" except that it is an element of PC build choice until we get to p 13. On that page, we are told only that "each racial stock has advantages and disadvantages" and the ensuing discussion makes it clear that these are basically game-mechanical in nature. We get nothing about races as contributing to the fiction - as opposed to mechanics - until p 15, which says that

All of the non-human or part-human races closely resemble humans in many aspects. It is assumed that similarities are sufficiently apparent so as to warrant no further comment, and only special racial characteristics which are dissimilar to humans will be dealt with. Characters differ slightly within their respective races as a whole.​
It's really in the AD&D DMG that we see the clear equation of biology and heredity with culture, capabilities and the like, with the obvious exception of half-orcs, where p 17 of the PHB tells us that

Orcs are fecund and create many cross-breeds, most of the offspring of such being typically orcish. However, some one-tenth of orc-human mongrels ore sufficiently non-orcish to pass for human. . . .

_t is assumed that player characters which are of half-orc race are within the superior 10% . . . )_​


----------



## Riley37

Rygar said:


> -Video games that went this route underperformed or outright crashed.  Mass Effect Andromedae had a very strong left wing push and it underperformed...




Well, if Paizo tanks because all their customers DEMAND the word RACE, then WotC will pick up the market share. If not WotC, then Palladium or someone else. Worst case, Breitbart will get into the TRPG market and publish FATAL 2020, and you'll still be able to buy a game with your preferred vocabulary.

But yeah, you've clearly established why fantasy movies with what the leftists call "representation", such as "Wonder Woman" and "Black Panther", always fail at the box office. When will Hollywood learn from the failures of "Princess Mononoke" and "Buffy the Vampire Slayer"?

Counter-example, though: The Call of Duty series has sold over 250 million copies, with gross revenue over US$15 billion. That's a very left-leaning game - it started as a WWII game, and there is absolutely *nothing* more Leftist than defeating the Third Reich. That united leftists all the way from George Orwell to FDR to gorram Stalin. The Wolfenstein series also did just fine, despite its political correctness.


----------



## Riley37

Hussar said:


> I believe the current favorites are "Origin" or "Descent".  Personally I like Heritage, but, hey, I'm pretty easy.




You're pretty easy? Is that why I meet so many young people with Hussar heritage?

I favor Origin, as the broadest term. Istari, such as Galdalf, don't have descent; each one is directly created. Same for Warforged. (Same for Elves, in one campaign I've played... well, actually, the world's first tree was directly created, and each elf grew out of a flower on that tree.)


----------



## Remathilis

Lanefan said:


> One concern: as it seems PF2 will allow one descent (e.g. Human) to poach abilities previously exclusive to another descent (e.g. Dwarven stonecunning), isn't that just going to open up a whole new set of tools for the munchkinizers and optimizers to break the game with?



Welcome to Pathfinder, where munchinizing is a sub-game all in itself.


----------



## Hussar

Parmandur said:


> Yeah, the weirdest part of the whole discussion, to me, is that Paizo is getting rid of the word race so that they can engage in weird race shennanigans.




Well, kinda.

See, the argument that heritage or ancestry is opening things up to ethnic based mechanics isn't quite true.  Race has already been used to do that in D&D.  I have the Scarred Lands campaign books which list different bonuses and whatnot for different ethnicities of humans.  Now, granted, that's a 3rd party book, but, I'm pretty sure if I started digging into my TSR and WOTC books I'd find the same thing.  Races of Faerun, for example, gives various human ethnicities access to racial feats which are, more or less, culturally based but all under the rubric of "race".  

So, it's not like using the term Race suddenly makes takes this sort of thing off the table.  

IOW, the issue isn't terminology, in this case.  It's a lack of awareness on the part of the writers.  But, leaving the term race unchanged isn't going to change that problem.


----------



## Riley37

Maxperson said:


> There is no problem with race in D&D.  There hasn't been for 40 years, and there won't be for the next 40.






pemerton said:


> (From the 1978 AD&D PHB) "Orcs are fecund and create many cross-breeds, most of the offspring of such being typically orcish. However, some one-tenth of orc-human mongrels ore sufficiently non-orcish to pass for human... player characters which are of half-orc race are within the superior 10%...




According to Gygax in 1978, the "mongrels" who can "pass" are the "superior 10%".

Maxperson, *you* don't have a problem with that.
You and I have different opinions about counts as a problem with race.
Are you within the superior 10% who can pass? What about the rest of us, though?


----------



## Maxperson

Riley37 said:


> According to Gygax in 1978, the "mongrels" who can "pass" are the "superior 10%".
> 
> Maxperson, *you* don't have a problem with that.
> You and I have different opinions about counts as a problem with race.
> Are you among the superior 10% who can pass? What about the rest of us, though?




You're claiming to be a half-orc now?


----------



## Aldarc

Riley37 said:


> According to Gygax in 1978, the "mongrels" who can "pass" are the "superior 10%".
> 
> Maxperson, *you* don't have a problem with that.
> You and I have different opinions about counts as a problem with race.
> *Are you within the superior 10% who can pass?* What about the rest of us, though?



To be fair, he is a Max Person.


----------



## Riley37

No, I'm referring to the real-world dynamic which makes this passage in the PHB a problem for me.

Can you pass for white?

A personal question, of course; you need not answer, nothing to be ashamed of.

But for some people, it's how their grandparents survived the Holocaust.


----------



## Maxperson

Riley37 said:


> According to Gygax in 1978, the "mongrels" who can "pass" are the "superior 10%".
> 
> Maxperson, *you* don't have a problem with that.
> You and I have different opinions about counts as a problem with race.
> Are you within the superior 10% who can pass? What about the rest of us, though?




On a more constructive note.  1e talks about some half-orcs being superior to other half-orcs.  That's entirely contained within a single race, which means that it cannot be racism.  Racism requires that one race believe that it is superior to another race which is believed to be inferior.  1e doesn't meet the definition.

In any case, it's irrelevant as 1e hasn't been widely played since.......1e.   2e didn't have half-orcs as a playable race, abd 3e, 4e and 5e had no such superiority statement within the half-orc race.  The one 10 word blurb about racial superiority in D&D was removed in 1989.  It's been very close to three DECADES without it being a problem(if it was really a problem waaaaay back then).


----------



## Maxperson

Riley37 said:


> No, I'm referring to the real-world dynamic which makes this passage in the PHB a problem for me.
> 
> Can you pass for white?
> 
> A personal question, of course; you need not answer, nothing to be ashamed of.
> 
> But for some people, it's how their grandparents survived the Holocaust.




That doesn't have anything to do with D&D or that one 10 word blurb in 1e, though. 

For the records, yes I can pass for white, being of Eastern European Jewish heritage.  My great grandparents fled the U.S.S.R. after the revolution.  That's one reason why I find all the people screaming about Trump being Hitler and a Nazi to be so offensive.  Of course, those are real world issues and not a game.  Were I playing a game set in the 30's and 40's and Nazis, along with the holocaust were a part of it, I wouldn't be offended at all.  Pretend is pretend is pretend.  D&D doesn't even pretend it's racist, though.


----------



## Myrdin Potter

I don’t spend time thinking about racial theories and nature vs. nurture to the point that the correct use of the word race in an RPG (in a chapter that says species and peoples have the same meaning) will cause me to lose sleep.

I am surprised that the name of the book, Monster Manual, with the most races in it has not been subject to mention because it calls them all “monsters”.

I don’t think that Paizo’s decision to use anscestry is opening up design space that is not already open in 5e D&D and I found the blog explaining it clumsily written and excusing classifying different humans with different bonuses because of their culture. 

Finally, it keeps being tossed into threads like this some idea that left-leaning movies or games or comics or other popular media does poorly because of being too left.

There are more than one reason for most things changing. I look at Marvel and comic shops selling less issues because a certain claimed narrative is pushed too much.

That ignores the fact that Marvel has always pushed those boundaries and not every Marvel series has been a success. That ignores comixology. That ignores that Marvel tried several writers without experience in the medium and that caused issues even though it did bring in new writers. Marvel has always tried to tell a story over anything else and has always been somewhat subversive (race and prejudice via X-men. Luke Cage having a white girl friend and then wife when that was not seen on TV or really discussed or allowed in mass media back then, etc.)

Even in the fondly remembered past, they went under and struggled to maintain a profitable business.


----------



## Aldarc

Myrdin Potter said:


> I am surprised that the name of the book, Monster Manual, with the most races in it has not been subject to mention because it calls them all “monsters”.



Many other systems use the term "Bestiary," including Paizo. 



> I don’t think that Paizo’s decision to use anscestry is opening up design space that is not *already open in 5e D&D*



Where?


----------



## Maxperson

Aldarc said:


> Many other systems use the term "Bestiary," including Paizo.




Beasts.  Monsters.  It's all the same "insult".



> Where?




Same place.  Racial feats can be used to vary things culturally, and ancestrally as well.  Race can  be used to encompass more than just genetics.  There is no new space opened up by a change in terms.  OR, D&D can just add ancestry feats to races.  Imagine that!


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> On a more constructive note. 1e talks about some half-orcs being superior to other half-orcs. That's entirely contained within a single race, which means that it cannot be racism. Racism requires that one race believe that it is superior to another race which is believed to be inferior. 1e doesn't meet the definition.




Which _completely _ignores the fact that real world racism exists entirely within one species, and that (as has been pointed out frequently in this thread) “race” is a sociological and not biological construction originally used to distinguish between who could be oppressed and wh got to do the oppressing.

Hell- read up on slavery in the Southern US, _especially_ in my home state of Louisiana.  My own people sorted themselves out along similar lines: who was light-skinned enough to “pass” for white or work in the house vs who was so dark they were best suited to be field hands and manual laborers.  See also The Quadroon Ball, the paper bag test, “good hair”, etc.  

And that stuff is going on today.  One of my cousins was dating a marine.  Real cool dude, @6’ tall, linebacker build, and dark as 80% cacao chocolates.  When he got to meet the parents, during a quiet moment alone, her mom told him he was “too dark for her daughter.”  (To the man’s credit, that did not deter him.)

Bob wasn’t the only dark guy to get vilified for his dark skin while dating a member of my family.

...which is precisely Riley37’s point.  Gygax’s lifted the language in that passage right out of some ugly history.  I don’t offhand recall anything like it in latter editions of the game, and I would not be surprised if that passage contributed to a lot of issues for minority gamers.

Don’t get me wrong, I understand why GG might have put it in there.  It provides a worldbuilding hook, a social dynamic that could be played with.  But presented in that manner, without narrative distance from the game designer, it could also come across as a peek behind the curtain at a racist game designer.  It simply wasn’t clear which it was.

And that, to me, means the game is better off without that passage or ones like it.


----------



## tomBitonti

Before stepping too the meaning of race as meaning cultural upbringing, I’m thinking a re-emphasis of race in the meaning of creature type should be made.  In a character description, knowing that a character is a human or a lizard man or an awakened stone golem is useful.  Or should we de-emphasize that meaning?  Should we keep a place in a character sheet for this detail (including significant game mechanic consequences) as a part of a chapter description?
Thx!
TomB


----------



## Eltab

Riley37 said:


> Can you pass for white?



Not after I get a sunburn.  Then I can pass for red-skinned.  Until it peels.

re Holocaust: 
Most* of the victims of the Holocaust were _white_, but/and "not the right kind" of white.
* maybe 'all', if you think of the Holocaust as aimed at civilians not soldiers


----------



## Hriston

pemerton said:


> Yes, I was thinking of 5e backgrounds when I made my post. I think that's the strongest mechanical innovation in 5e. 13th Age uses something similar. 4e struggled towards it with the "theme" idea part way through the life of the edition, but it's harder to do in 4e because everything in 4e has to be mechanically as well as narratively loaded (it's the way 4e works), and that means that desiging new elements is a chore. Whereas the 5e approach to both race and background is mechanically much ligther, and so makes it easier to come up with lists of interesting options.




It's entirely possible to deconstruct the 5e races into their components and assign point values to them for purchase at character creation. Due to some analysis I've done for an unrelated project, I happen to think the point value for a 5e race is 78 points, where a 1 point increase to an ability score is worth 12 points, and a language or tool proficiency is worth 3 points. The result of moving away from racial "packages", however, may be  to inhibit ease of play, as a player would be faced with a long list of possible choices that may or may not interact in various ways. It may also open up the possibility of overly optimized combinations, not that I'm particularly concerned about that.


----------



## Eltab

tomBitonti said:


> Before stepping too the meaning of race as meaning cultural upbringing, I’m thinking a re-emphasis of race in the meaning of creature type should be made.



Maybe helpful to disentangle these two aspects:

"Race and Culture" (book) by Thomas Sowell looks at the IRL influences of both, tangled together and not-so-tangled.


----------



## Rygar

Riley37 said:


> Well, if Paizo tanks because all their customers DEMAND the word RACE, then WotC will pick up the market share. If not WotC, then Palladium or someone else. Worst case, Breitbart will get into the TRPG market and publish FATAL 2020, and you'll still be able to buy a game with your preferred vocabulary.
> 
> But yeah, you've clearly established why fantasy movies with what the leftists call "representation", such as "Wonder Woman" and "Black Panther", always fail at the box office. When will Hollywood learn from the failures of "Princess Mononoke" and "Buffy the Vampire Slayer"?
> 
> Counter-example, though: The Call of Duty series has sold over 250 million copies, with gross revenue over US$15 billion. That's a very left-leaning game - it started as a WWII game, and there is absolutely *nothing* more Leftist than defeating the Third Reich. That united leftists all the way from George Orwell to FDR to gorram Stalin. The Wolfenstein series also did just fine, despite its political correctness.




Wonder Woman - Decades old established character, carried a TV Series decades ago in a very different culture climate, and was attacked by left wing political activists for its costume design before the movie's release.

Black Panther - Decades old established character, in a decades old established setting, was used as an example of how not to do certain cultures on this very site a couple of weeks a go.

Buffy the Vampire Slayer - Decades old character, created and completed long before the current political environment.

Princess Monoke - Really?  A Japanese Anime?  I think it's pretty safe to say that Japan has 0 interest in the west's politics.  Especially in 1997, nearly twenty years before left wing politics started pushing.

I'm not seeing the connection here.  Perhaps you can help me see where left wing politics was involved in the success of these properties that pre-date the present left wing politics?  I'm also extremely confused about how these properties are examples of how left wing politics is a recipe for success when left wing politics has problems with them and had no involvement in their creation or establishment?

In fact, it looks to me like a list of how properties will succeed by avoiding politics and just sticking to making quality content.


----------



## Maxperson

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Which _completely _ignores the fact that real world racism exists entirely within one species, and that (as has been pointed out frequently in this thread) “race” is a sociological and not biological construction originally used to distinguish between who could be oppressed and wh got to do the oppressing.
> 
> Hell- read up on slavery in the Southern US, _especially_ in my home state of Louisiana.  My own people sorted themselves out along similar lines: who was light-skinned enough to “pass” for white or work in the house vs who was so dark they were best suited to be field hands and manual laborers.  See also The Quadroon Ball, the paper bag test, “good hair”, etc.
> 
> And that stuff is going on today.  One of my cousins was dating a marine.  Real cool dude, @6’ tall, linebacker build, and dark as 80% cacao chocolates.  When he got to meet the parents, during a quiet moment alone, her mom told him he was “too dark for her daughter.”  (To the man’s credit, that did not deter him.)
> 
> Bob wasn’t the only dark guy to get vilified for his dark skin while dating a member of my family.




Sure.  We have done very ugly things to others of our species, which just makes this push to change race to species or the equivalent even more silly.  If you believe that the real world somehow is impacted by and impacts race in the game, then it will do the same thing if you change it to species.  



> Gygax’s lifted the language in that passage right out of some ugly history.  I don’t offhand recall anything like it in latter editions of the game, and I would not be surprised if that passage contributed to a lot of issues for minority gamers.




Regardless of similarity, we don't know that he lifted that passage out of history or came up with it on his own.  Or for that matter, whether the more human half-orcs weren't genuinely physically and mentally superior to the less human looking ones.  Perhaps the non-PC versions got many more penalties and it wasn't actually racist/speciesist to call the PC version superior.  Regardless, though, it was gone by 1989 and so has no bearing on the game as it presently stands, or stood for the last 29 years.



> Don’t get me wrong, I understand why GG might have put it in there.  It provides a worldbuilding hook, a social dynamic that could be played with.  But presented in that manner, without narrative distance from the game designer, it could also come across as a peek behind the curtain at a racist game designer.  It simply wasn’t clear which it was.




I can agree with that.  It doesn't sound great, which is probably why it's gone.



> And that, to me, means the game is better off without that passage or ones like it.



I can agree with that as well.  The word race, though, isn't a passage or term like that.


----------



## Maxperson

Hriston said:


> It's entirely possible to deconstruct the 5e races into their components and assign point values to them for purchase at character creation. Due to some analysis I've done for an unrelated project, I happen to think the point value for a 5e race is 78 points, where a 1 point increase to an ability score is worth 12 points, and a language or tool proficiency is worth 3 points. The result of moving away from racial "packages", however, may be  to inhibit ease of play, as a player would be faced with a long list of possible choices that may or may not interact in various ways. It may also open up the possibility of overly optimized combinations, not that I'm particularly concerned about that.




While possible, it wouldn't be D&D if you did that.  It would be a new game akin to GURPS.  And really, why stop at race.  If you're deconstructing things and making a new game, let's pull all the classes apart and allow  you to just buy class abilities as you level.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Maxperson said:


> While possible, it wouldn't be D&D if you did that.  It would be a new game akin to GURPS.  And really, why stop at race.  If you're deconstructing things and making a new game, let's pull all the classes apart and allow  you to just buy class abilities as you level.




Some people call that game HERO System.


----------



## Remathilis

Myrdin Potter said:


> I am surprised that the name of the book, Monster Manual, with the most races in it has not been subject to mention because it calls them all “monsters”.




That is a real slippery slope...

While there are a few non-evil creatures in the MM, the term "monster" is generally reserved for antagonists to justify there killing and the taking of thier stuff. If you want to open the door as to whether orcs, dragons, or even ithilids are truly "monsters" (as in hopelessly evil and must be destroyed) you are fundementally changing a big part of the game. 

Which is why the game best functions when the narrative is simple and divorced from real world concepts of race, morality, culture, religion, and other "hot button" concepts. Once you bring real-world politics and sociological thinking in, you can start to compare a group of adventures killing an orc and taking it's gold to a group of cops killing a minority suspect in self defense and using assest forfeiture to claim his car...

That's not a rabbit hole I want to go down.


----------



## TheCosmicKid

Aldarc said:


> Perhaps you are seeing something else causing you misgivings that I don't. For me, this represents at least a move in the right direction. Cultural abilities were being hard-baked into species, which was often a massive pain when homebrewing around that. But Paizo appears to be relegating that to ancestry feats: i.e., the realm of exchangeable parts. That in itself is a move towards disentangling culture from species. That shift also makes it easier for GMs potentially homebrewing settings to say, "Ignore these ancestry feats, because they do not represent the culture of dwarves in my setting" or "These are the in-setting cultures than any species can potentially claim for their upbringing." This still runs the risk of mapping real life human cultures to fantasy species. I will not pretend otherwise. But it adds a greater degree of depth than was previously available in comparison with past mechanical portrayals of species, culture, etc. But more interestingly for me as a fan of Eberron, this opens up a tremendous amount of space to delve into the cultures and nations of Khorvaire, where national identity often has a greater emphasis than racial identity. This is not to say that Eberron does not explore racial identity, as it does in a number of places, particularly with species on the margins of society (e.g., warforged, kalashtar, shifters, etc.).
> 
> Overall, I think that this opens up design space for ancestral _cultures_ rather than an ancestral monoculture than how it was before (e.g., all dwarves know how to fight giants and goblins, all dwarves have stonecunning, all elves know how to wield longswords and longbows, etc.). As Paizo expressed elsewhere, and included in what you quoted, it appears that there will be ways to reflect via ancestry feats being an Elf raised in Varisia or a human of one ethnicity raised in another culture to reflect that. Why should an elf raised in Magnimar city be able to automatically know how to wield a longsword or bow? Now players can opt out of that. But they may say that they do want to take a feat that represents growing up in Magnimar. I don't think that Paizo's change is perfect, but it seems like a step in the right direction, as it permits a cross-pollinating weaving of species and cultures that was not as feasible before.



Cultural traits are no longer hard-baked into biology (except for language proficiencies...), but they're still linked to it under this unified concept of "ancestry". Furthermore, Paizo could have done exactly the same thing with "race": all that you're describing is Paizo pulling the cultural bits out of the old race packages and turning them into racial feats alongside the loads of racial feats they already have. But what the terminological change _does_ allow them to do, and what they have expressly stated they're interested in doing, is create different ancestries for different human ethnicities. Which looks to me like it's _doubling down_ on the conflation of biology with culture, by equating "Varisian" with "elf" as concepts -- even if when you get to the ancestry feats you can mix and match.

Granted, all this is from early comments about a playtest game. We haven't actually seen any of the human ancestries yet. But from what we've seen so far, yeah, I have misgivings about their direction. Especially since I don't think the best solution to the problem is very complicated at all: _culture is a part of background_. In 5E terms, just put starting languages into backgrounds and maybe expand them with another, slightly more powerful benefit "slot" that can provide something like a weapon proficiency or giant-slaying.


----------



## TheCosmicKid

pemerton said:


> I have no idea how that bears upon this discussion, which has nothing to do with a criminal trial.



The parallels are instructive.



pemerton said:


> Who said that? You seem to be identifying as a liberal - and I posted that "[l]iberals aren't committed to denying that patterns of ideas can be a burden on autonomy."



In context, describing the nature of the disagreements in this thread, it appeared that the thrust of that sentence was "One side of the discussion is doing this denial thing, but they could stop doing that and still be liberal".



pemerton said:


> (Eg perhaps you are not recognising the way in which the rulebooks incorporate and promulgate patterns of ideas having that character.)



You keep using phrasing like "denying", "disregarding", "not recognizing". Try instead "remaining unconvinced due to a dearth of persuasive reasoning that the mere use of this one particular word constitutes an instance of the incorporation and promulgation of patterns of burdensome ideas". _You_, in fact, appear to be denying, disregarding, or not recognizing the disconnect between the general principle you're espousing, which is a good one, and the specific case that you're trying to apply it to.


----------



## Aldarc

TheCosmicKid said:


> Cultural traits are no longer hard-baked into biology (except for language proficiencies...), but they're still linked to it under this unified concept of "ancestry". Furthermore, Paizo could have done exactly the same thing with "race": all that you're describing is Paizo pulling the cultural bits out of the old race packages and turning them into racial feats alongside the loads of racial feats they already have. But what the terminological change _does_ allow them to do, and what they have expressly stated they're interested in doing, is create different ancestries for different human ethnicities. Which looks to me like it's _doubling down_ on the conflation of biology with culture, *by equating "Varisian" with "elf" as concepts* -- even if when you get to the ancestry feats you can mix and match.
> 
> Granted, all this is from early comments about a playtest game. We haven't actually seen any of the human ancestries yet. But from what we've seen so far, yeah, I have misgivings about their direction. Especially since I don't think the best solution to the problem is very complicated at all: _culture is a part of background_. In 5E terms, just put starting languages into backgrounds and maybe expand them with another, slightly more powerful benefit "slot" that can provide something like a weapon proficiency or giant-slaying.



It seems for me at least disingenuous to say that they are doubling down conflating biology with culture given how you originally quoted to me a statement from Paizo where they talk about the possibility Shoanti elves. That does not seem like doubling down on biology = culture. But perhaps we have different senses of "doubling down" or what this change signals. 

In regards to bold, which appears to be an underlying assumption, I'm not entirely sure to the extent this will be the case. It remains to be seen, for example, whether elves and dwarves will also have multiple cultures of their own. One of the big problems, IME, is that Golarion is predominately human, with human nations being those that have the bulk of the lion's share of focus in the setting. (Also, based on the hints, background seems narrower in focus, much like it is in 5e, almost in terms of "profession" rather than culture.)


----------



## Maxperson

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Some people call that game HERO System.




That, too.  Those sorts of systems are fun, but D&D isn't one of those systems.


----------



## Maxperson

Remathilis said:


> While there are a few non-evil creatures in the MM, the term "monster" is generally reserved for antagonists to justify there killing and the taking of thier stuff. If you want to open the door as to whether orcs, dragons, or even ithilids are truly "monsters" (as in hopelessly evil and must be destroyed) you are fundementally changing a big part of the game.




Orcs, chromatic dragons and illithids haven't been hopelessly evil in, oh, ever.  All of them have included some percentage of the race that wasn't evil, or was even good.  Even in those books where the alignment was "always evil", specifically had passages that said that some individuals of that race would be of alignments other than evil.  It's just that the overwhelming number of them were evil.  Even demons/devils, arguably the most rigidly evil races that exist, had a good individual in one of the Planescape mini-adventures that came with one of the boxed sets.


----------



## Remathilis

Maxperson said:


> Orcs, chromatic dragons and illithids haven't been hopelessly evil in, oh, ever.  All of them have included some percentage of the race that wasn't evil, or was even good.  Even in those books where the alignment was "always evil", specifically had passages that said that some individuals of that race would be of alignments other than evil.  It's just that the overwhelming number of them were evil.  Even demons/devils, arguably the most rigidly evil races that exist, had a good individual in one of the Planescape mini-adventures that came with one of the boxed sets.



Which would then open the game to a moral relativism concerning fighting them and taking thier stuff. What justifies a group of PC's going into a dungeon, fighting and killing the inhabitants, and leaving with thier money and wealth? It can go even further; if you find an altar to an evil God or demon Lord, is it religious intolerance to destroy it?

See, the rabbit hole it moral relativism is deep, which is really why even in the deeper dives into monsters in Volo that they found ways to make most monsters slayable "guilt free", such demonic heritage or ties to evil gods. Because once you open up that orc lives matter, the game ends up about settling peace negotiations with tribes of orcs and leveling sanctions on evil creatures.

It loses something in the process.


----------



## TheCosmicKid

Aldarc said:


> It seems for me at least disingenuous to say that they are doubling down conflating biology with culture given how you originally quoted to me a statement from Paizo where they talk about the possibility Shoanti elves. That does not seem like doubling down on biology = culture. But perhaps we have different senses of "doubling down" or what this change signals.



Can we not call each other "disingenuous"? That leads nowhere good.



Aldarc said:


> In regards to bold, which appears to be an underlying assumption, I'm not entirely sure to the extent this will be the case. It remains to be seen, for example, whether elves and dwarves will also have multiple cultures of their own.



Again, we haven't seen the finished product, but that's not the impression I'm getting. They're just talking about "elf" and "dwarf" and "goblin" as mechanical packages in these blog posts so far.


----------



## Parmandur

TheCosmicKid said:


> Cultural traits are no longer hard-baked into biology (except for language proficiencies...), but they're still linked to it under this unified concept of "ancestry". Furthermore, Paizo could have done exactly the same thing with "race": all that you're describing is Paizo pulling the cultural bits out of the old race packages and turning them into racial feats alongside the loads of racial feats they already have. But what the terminological change _does_ allow them to do, and what they have expressly stated they're interested in doing, is create different ancestries for different human ethnicities. Which looks to me like it's _doubling down_ on the conflation of biology with culture, by equating "Varisian" with "elf" as concepts -- even if when you get to the ancestry feats you can mix and match.
> 
> Granted, all this is from early comments about a playtest game. We haven't actually seen any of the human ancestries yet. But from what we've seen so far, yeah, I have misgivings about their direction. Especially since I don't think the best solution to the problem is very complicated at all: _culture is a part of background_. In 5E terms, just put starting languages into backgrounds and maybe expand them with another, slightly more powerful benefit "slot" that can provide something like a weapon proficiency or giant-slaying.



I could see the game benefitting from a "Sub-Background" system, with broader culture being the main background, which opens up specific occupational "Sub-Backgrounds."


----------



## Riley37

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Some people call that game HERO System.




Let's stay closer to the d20 SRD, and call that game Mutants & Masterminds.

I played a LOT of Hero and was briefly vice-president of the company which owns the IP. But for purposes of the current conversation, I see M&M as a closer example, since it has the d20 stats, levels, etc.

https://mutantsandmasterminds.com


----------



## Maxperson

Remathilis said:


> Which would then open the game to a moral relativism concerning fighting them and taking thier stuff. What justifies a group of PC's going into a dungeon, fighting and killing the inhabitants, and leaving with thier money and wealth?




Not really.  You can tell by their surroundings and behavior(not just an attack) if they are evil or not.  Most of the time you will be able to tell which very few non-evil members of the race are non-evil.



> It can go even further; if you find an altar to an evil God or demon Lord, is it religious intolerance to destroy it?




Yes, but so what.  The game isn't the real world and intolerance of evil, religious or otherwise, is a good thing in the game.  



> See, the rabbit hole it moral relativism is deep, which is really why even in the deeper dives into monsters in Volo that they found ways to make most monsters slayable "guilt free", such demonic heritage or ties to evil gods. Because once you open up that orc lives matter, the game ends up about settling peace negotiations with tribes of orcs and leveling sanctions on evil creatures.
> 
> It loses something in the process.




Given the ease with which you can tell which of the few non-evil members of the race are non-evil(hint, if they're in the stronghold you are attacking, they are almost surely a slave or prisoner and behave differently), there really is no guilt involved.  Things are still guilt free.  Events don't progress to the point you describe until a significant percentage of an evil race is non-evil, because then you can get villages and strongholds that are completely non-evil.  And if a significant percentage are non-evil, you just take the extra step of ascertaining whether this stronghold is evil or not BEFORE you destroy it.  There's simply not going to be a requirement that you negotiate with and/or just level sanctions against evil.


----------



## Remathilis

Maxperson said:


> Not really.  You can tell by their surroundings and behavior(not just an attack) if they are evil or not.  Most of the time you will be able to tell which very few non-evil members of the race are non-evil.
> 
> Yes, but so what.  The game isn't the real world and intolerance of evil, religious or otherwise, is a good thing in the game.
> 
> Given the ease with which you can tell which of the few non-evil members of the race are non-evil(hint, if they're in the stronghold you are attacking, they are almost surely a slave or prisoner and behave differently), there really is no guilt involved.  Things are still guilt free.  Events don't progress to the point you describe until a significant percentage of an evil race is non-evil, because then you can get villages and strongholds that are completely non-evil.  And if a significant percentage are non-evil, you just take the extra step of ascertaining whether this stronghold is evil or not BEFORE you destroy it.  There's simply not going to be a requirement that you negotiate with and/or just level sanctions against evil.




We're arguing past each other, I think.

I'm not arguing that specific individuals of a race cannot be anything but evil (although some like fiends are harder to justify), merely that the game works at better level when such individuals are exceptions. 

For example, Drow is listed both in the PHB (as a PC race) and MM (as a "monster"). This implies a couple of things.

1.) Most drow are nonredeemable creatures of evil bred only to serve their vile goddess.
2.) Some drow fight against that culture and can become heroes.
3.) Those that do tend to be emo rangers with dual scimitars. 

What I am arguing against is the relativist take:

1.) The presence of non-evil Drow signifies that they are creatures of free-will and thus can be taught to change their ways.
2.) The fact they are redeemable means killing them in an act of murder.
3.) Modern concepts of war, justice, and international law means drow should ideally be captured, put on trial, and rehabilitated rather than fought or killed, unless in self-defense. 

Which is the slippery slope of taking concepts of real world politics and sociology and applying them to the game.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Riley37 said:


> Let's stay closer to the d20 SRD, and call that game Mutants & Masterminds.
> 
> I played a LOT of Hero and was briefly vice-president of the company which owns the IP. But for purposes of the current conversation, I see M&M as a closer example, since it has the d20 stats, levels, etc.
> 
> https://mutantsandmasterminds.com



I know the game well.


----------



## Lanefan

Remathilis said:


> That is a real slippery slope...



Agreed.



> While there are a few non-evil creatures in the MM ...



Maybe now, but that wasn't always the case.

The 1e MM includes all the "kindred" races (Humans, Elves, etc.) along with a widely-varying assortment of (suggested) alignments among the other creatures listed there.  A better name for it, in hindsight, might have been "Creature Catalogue".

MM2 and FF both tend to have a much higher "monster" ratio, largely because most of the goodly-type ones were covered in the first MM.



> the term "monster" is generally reserved for antagonists to justify there killing and the taking of thier stuff. If you want to open the door as to whether orcs, dragons, or even ithilids are truly "monsters" (as in hopelessly evil and must be destroyed) you are fundementally changing a big part of the game.



Can't speak for your experience, but the whole "They're not evil, they're just misunderstood" debate has come up at least once in every campaign I've played in, regarding some creature or other.

Also, within any intelligent species there's liable to be a wide variety of alignments or ethos between individuals or even entire communities - just because the MM says a certain subset of Dragon types are evil or that Elves are chaotic good doesn't necessarily mean every one of them will be. (though in fairness, with Dragons it's often mighty hard to differentiate between "evil" and "hungry")  And I try to keep this in mind when running "monsters" as opponents, not that the PCs often notice while they're busy mowing 'em down. 

Lanefan


----------



## pemerton

Myrdin Potter said:


> I don’t spend time thinking about racial theories and nature vs. nurture to the point that the correct use of the word race in an RPG (in a chapter that says species and peoples have the same meaning) will cause me to lose sleep.



I don't lose sleep over it. For the reasons I've explained, I care about it.



Myrdin Potter said:


> Marvel has always pushed those boundaries and not every Marvel series has been a success.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Marvel has always tried to tell a story over anything else and has always been somewhat subversive (race and prejudice via X-men. Luke Cage having a white girl friend and then wife when that was not seen on TV or really discussed or allowed in mass media back then, etc.)



As I posted upthread, if D&D took the same approach to these issues as Marvel and the X-Men, I don't think we'd be having this discussion. At least, not in the same terms.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> in fairness, with Dragons it's often mighty hard to differentiate between "evil" and "hungry"




“It’s not personal, it’s just dinner.”


----------



## pemerton

Hriston said:


> It's entirely possible to deconstruct the 5e races into their components and assign point values to them for purchase at character creation. Due to some analysis I've done for an unrelated project, I happen to think the point value for a 5e race is 78 points, where a 1 point increase to an ability score is worth 12 points, and a language or tool proficiency is worth 3 points. The result of moving away from racial "packages", however, may be  to inhibit ease of play, as a player would be faced with a long list of possible choices that may or may not interact in various ways. It may also open up the possibility of overly optimized combinations, not that I'm particularly concerned about that.



I'm no sort of expert in 5e design. But my intuition would be to do this sort of thing at a less granular level.

The stat bonuses could probably be taken out altogether, and just rolled into the point buy rules for stats - so that if you want your PC to have some stat spread that (you feel) represents your ancestry and/or training, you just pay for it with your points.


----------



## pemerton

Myrdin Potter said:


> I am surprised that the name of the book, Monster Manual, with the most races in it has not been subject to mention because it calls them all “monsters”.





Remathilis said:


> While there are a few non-evil creatures in the MM, the term "monster" is generally reserved for antagonists to justify there killing and the taking of thier stuff. If you want to open the door as to whether orcs, dragons, or even ithilids are truly "monsters" (as in hopelessly evil and must be destroyed) you are fundementally changing a big part of the game.



The original Monster Manual included humans (under the label "Men") - with a "tribesman" entry that I won't reproduce but will leave to your imagination.

"Monster", at that time in the game's history, didn't even really mean "antagonist" and certainly didn't mean "for killing and looting". As the PHB explained (p 40):

t is necessary to stress that the usage of the term "monster" is generic for any creature encountered during the course of adventuring. A monster can be exactly what the name implies, or it can be a relatively harmless animal, a friendly intelligent beast, a crazed human, a band of dwarves, a thief - virtually anything or anyone potentially threatening or hostile.

When your referee indicates your character has encountered a monster, that simply indicates a confrontation between your character and some type of creature is about to take place. The results of such a meeting will depend on many factors, including the nature​


Remathilis said:


> the game best functions when the narrative is simple and divorced from real world concepts of race, morality, culture, religion, and other "hot button" concepts.



I don't agree with this at all. It's quite contrary to my own RPGing experiences.


----------



## pemerton

TheCosmicKid said:


> You keep using phrasing like "denying", "disregarding", "not recognizing". Try instead "remaining unconvinced due to a dearth of persuasive reasoning that the mere use of this one particular word constitutes an instance of the incorporation and promulgation of patterns of burdensome ideas". _You_, in fact, appear to be denying, disregarding, or not recognizing the disconnect between the general principle you're espousing, which is a good one, and the specific case that you're trying to apply it to.



There is no disconnecte of the sort you describe. I quoted the passage upthread (from Gygax's PHB) about "mongrel" half-orcs. I quoted the passages from the 5e PDF, which associate vibrant cultural difference with different "races".

_That's the "problem" I'm talking about_. As I've already posted, I don't regard it as a theoretical problem. It's a practical problem which affects the way I and people I know interact with these cultural artefacts.


----------



## Maxperson

Remathilis said:


> We're arguing past each other, I think.
> 
> I'm not arguing that specific individuals of a race cannot be anything but evil (although some like fiends are harder to justify), merely that the game works at better level when such individuals are exceptions.
> 
> For example, Drow is listed both in the PHB (as a PC race) and MM (as a "monster"). This implies a couple of things.
> 
> 1.) Most drow are nonredeemable creatures of evil bred only to serve their vile goddess.
> 2.) Some drow fight against that culture and can become heroes.
> 3.) Those that do tend to be emo rangers with dual scimitars.
> 
> What I am arguing against is the relativist take:
> 
> 1.) The presence of non-evil Drow signifies that they are creatures of free-will and thus can be taught to change their ways.
> 2.) The fact they are redeemable means killing them in an act of murder.
> 3.) Modern concepts of war, justice, and international law means drow should ideally be captured, put on trial, and rehabilitated rather than fought or killed, unless in self-defense.
> 
> Which is the slippery slope of taking concepts of real world politics and sociology and applying them to the game.




Let me start by saying there is a lot of good stuff, as well as good humor in there, so I went with laugh.

I think we are mostly in agreement.  Where we differ is that I really do think that drow are redeemable, but given their society, power level, and their gods, it would take an epic party(in 3e terms) of 40+ level to be able to even have a chance of redeeming them.  That means that short of that, they are effectively irredeemable and can be treated as such.  Similar difficulties would affect most races, and those races where it isn't so difficult, generally already be neutral or good.  It takes a lot of outside/supernatural influence to make an entire society/race evil like that.


----------



## TheCosmicKid

Parmandur said:


> I could see the game benefitting from a "Sub-Background" system, with broader culture being the main background, which opens up specific occupational "Sub-Backgrounds."



I don't think you need to get that granular. Just provide options and let the player decide whether the character picked them up culturally or professionally. One PC may get sword proficiency because he's an elf, another might get it because she's a soldier. A few notes saying "Elvish culture often teaches this" and "Dwarvish culture often teaches that" should suffice.


----------



## TheCosmicKid

pemerton said:


> There is no disconnecte of the sort you describe. I quoted the passage upthread (from Gygax's PHB) about "mongrel" half-orcs. I quoted the passages from the 5e PDF, which associate vibrant cultural difference with different "races".
> 
> _That's the "problem" I'm talking about_. As I've already posted, I don't regard it as a theoretical problem. It's a practical problem which affects the way I and people I know interact with these cultural artefacts.



How would changing the term "race" solve the problem? If we changed the content of these passages but left the term "race" in the book, would there still be a problem? You're still not drawing a connection between the problem you're identifying and the specific course of action being discussed in this thread. I'm not saying it's a theoretical problem. I'm saying that, as a practical problem, we should be practical about our approach to it.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

One practical solution to problematic language is to change the language.


----------



## Enevhar Aldarion

Dannyalcatraz said:


> One practical solution to problematic language is to change the language.




No matter what you change anything to, someone out there will have a problem with it. And it will not matter whether it is a legitimate problem or just a bunch of noise-making trolls taking something people are serious about and turning it into a joke.


----------



## Hussar

Enevhar Aldarion said:


> No matter what you change anything to, someone out there will have a problem with it. And it will not matter whether it is a legitimate problem or just a bunch of noise-making trolls taking something people are serious about and turning it into a joke.




However, we shouldn't make the mistake of letting perfect be the enemy of good.  Just because someone might find a term objectionable, does not mean that we must never change any terms.


----------



## Sunseeker

pemerton said:


> I don't agree with this at all. It's quite contrary to my own RPGing experiences.




Not to mention, it's silly.

Sure, it's fine for a game of "Kill the Orc."  But to suggest that every D&D game should exist without corollaries for real-world issues would be to suggest a game without..._life_ to it really.  Not to mention the fact that much of the famous literature that plays into D&D are themselves corollaries for real-world issues.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Enevhar Aldarion said:


> No matter what you change anything to, someone out there will have a problem with it. And it will not matter whether it is a legitimate problem or just a bunch of noise-making trolls taking something people are serious about and turning it into a joke.




There’s a difference between finding words objectionable because of racist connotations and taking issue with them because they are too vague, too “scientific” and so forth.  A *big* difference.


----------



## Myrdin Potter

pemerton said:


> I don't lose sleep over it. For the reasons I've explained, I care about it.
> 
> As I posted upthread, if D&D took the same approach to these issues as Marvel and the X-Men, I don't think we'd be having this discussion. At least, not in the same terms.




This is where I don’t think you are reading the rules. WoTC did the Marvel thing already, it is called 5e.


----------



## Afrodyte

Remathilis said:


> Which would then open the game to a moral relativism concerning fighting them and taking thier stuff. What justifies a group of PC's going into a dungeon, fighting and killing the inhabitants, and leaving with thier money and wealth? It can go even further; if you find an altar to an evil God or demon Lord, is it religious intolerance to destroy it?
> 
> See, the rabbit hole it moral relativism is deep, which is really why even in the deeper dives into monsters in Volo that they found ways to make most monsters slayable "guilt free", such demonic heritage or ties to evil gods. Because once you open up that orc lives matter, the game ends up about settling peace negotiations with tribes of orcs and leveling sanctions on evil creatures.
> 
> It loses something in the process.




I don't think how you define moral relativism is the same as how most people define it. IMO, not being able to tell right off the bat if a person is good or evil because of what they look like is _not_ moral relativism. Moral relativism is the belief that everyone defines good and evil differently, so good and evil are, at most, different points of view.

Although some groups may lean on the, "Kill them and take their stuff" aspect of D&D (which can be fun for an evil campaign), the game is so much more than that. Personally, I find it more enjoyable when we allow the game to jettison the ickier aspects of the pulp adventure and epic fantasy that it draws from.

The notion that the circumstances of a sentient being's birth determines their moral worth is not an idea I consider fun. I have several identities that have had to deal with centuries of that nonsense, so I don't like games that reinforce the idea that, "The only good X is a dead X." This doesn't mean I'm going to storm out of a session that involves killing goblins or drow or whatever who are trying to kill/maim/enslave the PCs, but I will feel increasingly uncomfortable in a game where the only viable option for interacting with, ahem, "certain kinds of people" is to kill them on sight, especially if that game discourages good-aligned characters and players from even questioning that.

For example: the drow. I have no problem with an evil empire of subterranean elves who worship an evil spider deity and have a leather fetish. I have a problem when that evil is visually represented by, oh, skin color. Aside from the distinctly uncomfortable implications, it's lazy and boring. If you need visual representation for the drow, why not a spider-themed logo that shows up as a brand, uniform or tattoo?

Does the game really become less fun without mapping morality to skin color?


----------



## TheCosmicKid

Dannyalcatraz said:


> One practical solution to problematic language is to change the language.



I agree.

I am unconvinced that _this_ language is problematic. People seem to be just sort of assuming that it is. Furthermore, the problematic elements  [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] was identifying were not language based. Change the word "race" in Howard's or Gygax's writing, and it doesn't get any better.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

TheCosmicKid said:


> I agree.
> 
> I am unconvinced that _this_ language is problematic. People seem to be just sort of assuming that it is. Furthermore, the problematic elements  [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] was identifying were not language based. Change the word "race" in Howard's or Gygax's writing, and it doesn't get any better.




Except they _were_ language based.  The whole quoted section about “mongrels”, etc. has been expressly pointed out as being a bit too on the nose.


----------



## Hussar

Myrdin Potter said:


> This is where I don’t think you are reading the rules. WoTC did the Marvel thing already, it is called 5e.




Umm, but, I don't think the "Marvel thing" quite means what you want it to considering 5e is probably the most popular version of D&D since the 80's.  So, wouldn't that kinda mean that being more inclusive has worked for WotC?


----------



## Myrdin Potter

Hussar said:


> Umm, but, I don't think the "Marvel thing" quite means what you want it to considering 5e is probably the most popular version of D&D since the 80's.  So, wouldn't that kinda mean that being more inclusive has worked for WotC?




I am not sure where you are coming from. I like it being more inclusive and more careful about the way the rules are expressed to make it clear that the hobby is an open one. That is why I said they already did what Marvel is said to have done.

I am refuting the comment that if D&D had been like Marvel (more inclusive and open) that we would not have to have this conversation.

I am arguing that the word race in the 5e rules is being used properly and does not give the connotations of how race has been used in the past. Those you may bring in yourself, but they are not there because of the way the word race is used. I think that Pathfinder is now avoiding the word but doing what D&D 5e does not do which is classify humans with different attribute packages.


----------



## Hussar

Myrdin Potter said:


> I am not sure where you are coming from. I like it being more inclusive and more careful about the way the rules are expressed to make it clear that the hobby is an open one. That is why I said they already did what Marvel is said to have done.
> 
> I am refuting the comment that if D&D had been like Marvel (more inclusive and open) that we would not have to have this conversation.
> 
> I am arguing that the word race in the 5e rules is being used properly and does not give the connotations of how race has been used in the past. Those you may bring in yourself, but they are not there because of the way the word race is used. I think that Pathfinder is now avoiding the word but doing what D&D 5e does not do which is classify humans with different attribute packages.




The thing is, people ARE classifying humans with different attribute packages.  At least, I know that it was done in 3e.  I'm pretty sure that there are works on the DM's Guild that have this as well.  While WotC might not be doing it, they are not the only ones producing material for 5e.  

A quick hunt on DM's Guild turns up this:  http://www.dmsguild.com/product/173...-and-Home?filters=0_0_45428_0_45356_45462_0_0 Heritage and Home, "Heritage and Home is all about providing a more customizable way of creating player character races.  Within these pages, you will find a unique mechanic that will allow you to choose a race and it's racial traits, and then customize an upbringing that provides a foundation upon which you can build your background.  All officially released races for 5E are represented along with rules on creating ANY half-race you can imagine."

So, it's not like race is preventing this sort of thing.


----------



## Myrdin Potter

Hussar said:


> The thing is, people ARE classifying humans with different attribute packages.  At least, I know that it was done in 3e.  I'm pretty sure that there are works on the DM's Guild that have this as well.  While WotC might not be doing it, they are not the only ones producing material for 5e.
> 
> A quick hunt on DM's Guild turns up this:  http://www.dmsguild.com/product/173...-and-Home?filters=0_0_45428_0_45356_45462_0_0 Heritage and Home, "Heritage and Home is all about providing a more customizable way of creating player character races.  Within these pages, you will find a unique mechanic that will allow you to choose a race and it's racial traits, and then customize an upbringing that provides a foundation upon which you can build your background.  All officially released races for 5E are represented along with rules on creating ANY half-race you can imagine."
> 
> So, it's not like race is preventing this sort of thing.




You could take the OGL and write KKK and Dragons if you wanted to. WoTC does not really read and screen all DMs Guild additions for content and the official WoTC 5e stance on the use of the word race is clear in chapter 2of the PHB.

I could use ancestry or species of people and write a racist tract with each of them.

That is one of my arguments, as long as what your species is determines something in the game rules, you automatically are classifying by it. 5e is careful to show there is one human race, not many. The others are not humans. All races get attribute bonuses, not penalties, and the intro words before the mechanical meat use people and species interchangeably with race.

Other than the word supposably causing other associative thoughts, there has been no reason why it should not be used.

You could start all characters off as a featureless blob and build a character using points (like Champions),but you would not be playing D&D.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> You could start all characters off as a featureless blob and build a character using points (like Champions),but you would not be playing D&D.




Side note: you _can_ use HERO system to model the various editions of D&D pretty well- I’ve done it.  Heck, I did one campaign in which you could pick & choose which edition’s version (AD&D-3.5Ed) of a given class you wanted to play.

Sure, there are things that won’t map particularly well, like Magic Missile and alignment rules, but for the most part, you can get very, very close to DD’s feel.


----------



## Emily

Yes. May be adding race like Mermaids and bird men could be nice additions.


----------



## Myrdin Potter

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Side note: you _can_ use HERO system to model the various editions of D&D pretty well- I’ve done it.  Heck, I did one campaign in which you could pick & choose which edition’s version (AD&D-3.5Ed) of a given class you wanted to play.
> 
> Sure, there are things that won’t map particularly well, like Magic Missile and alignment rules, but for the most part, you can get very, very close to DD’s feel.




0E to Holmes Basic (I bought the boxed set) then AD&D. Then Runequest (reference to SCA in fumble charts and then my group really liked it, talk about a game that takes culture seriously) and finally Champions. We tried the fantasy rules to run a D&D style game but it was not really D&D.


----------



## Aldarc

TheCosmicKid said:


> Again, we haven't seen the finished product, but that's not the impression I'm getting. They're just talking about "elf" and "dwarf" and "goblin" as mechanical packages in these blog posts so far.



Perhaps, but again from my reckoning, Paizo appears to be opening up design space, whether intentionally or not, for multiple cultures to exist within various species via the cultural side of ancestry feats. These are things that are not hard-baked into races (3e/PF1 and 5e) or sub-races (5e), but are placed within the realm of interchangeable parts that can be ignored, substituted, expanded, or specified. So regardless of how the final ancestry package turns out with PF2, that shift gives me a modicum of hope about what I and others can achieve with such a system in rethinking the association of race with culture.


----------



## Ogre Mage

First off I will say I am a gay Asian man who is familiar being at tables where everyone else is a (mostly) heterosexual white man.

Yes, I do think there is still a place for race in D&D as I think it helps suggest details about your character and his or her place in the world.  Did your character grow up in an area where there was a lot of racial diversity or in an area where one race was mostly dominant?  Is he or she a member of the region's dominant group or a minority?  How did this affect the character?  

I am currently playing a female dwarf PC living in a society which is 95% human.  Dwarves are relatively welcome in Ustalav compared to some others, but she has faced some prejudice.  It's been an opportunity to explore some themes of being a minority at a certain safe buffer distance and I'd like to think my life experience has made me better at portraying this.  Given the current state of U.S. politics, I certainly would not want to play a person of color/LGBTQ PC in present-day America.  The reality for us is f**king depressing and I need to escape that reality for awhile.


----------



## TheCosmicKid

Myrdin Potter said:


> You could take the OGL and write KKK and Dragons if you wanted to.



"Dungeons and Grand Dragons", obviously.


----------



## TheCosmicKid

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Except they _were_ language based.  The whole quoted section about “mongrels”, etc. has been expressly pointed out as being a bit too on the nose.



I wouldn't call that language based. I'm pretty sure the problem would still be there if Gygax had described a genetic hierarchy using different language. (That was Gygax, right? I'm losing track.)


----------



## Hussar

Myrdin Potter said:


> You could take the OGL and write KKK and Dragons if you wanted to. WoTC does not really read and screen all DMs Guild additions for content and the official WoTC 5e stance on the use of the word race is clear in chapter 2of the PHB.
> 
> I could use ancestry or species of people and write a racist tract with each of them.
> 
> That is one of my arguments, as long as what your species is determines something in the game rules, you automatically are classifying by it. 5e is careful to show there is one human race, not many. The others are not humans. All races get attribute bonuses, not penalties, and the intro words before the mechanical meat use people and species interchangeably with race.
> 
> Other than the word supposably causing other associative thoughts, there has been no reason why it should not be used.
> 
> You could start all characters off as a featureless blob and build a character using points (like Champions),but you would not be playing D&D.




But, that is kind of missing the point that's being made.  The argument is that using "race" as a term will mean that humans in D&D will not have any mechanical differentiation.  However, we've already passed that point.  Race as a term has been, and most likely will be, used to differentiate humans based on ethnicity and culture.  By changing the terminology, and then making it abundantly clear what the new terminology means, it's possible to break with that past association and make sure that it doesn't happen again.

If we retain the terminology, are we not giving at least the appearance that previous usages are ok?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

TheCosmicKid said:


> I wouldn't call that language based. I'm pretty sure the problem would still be there if Gygax had described a genetic hierarchy using different language. (That was Gygax, right? I'm losing track.)




He may not have known it, but the words he used were loaded.  In another context, it would be called a “dog whistle”.

(To be clear, I absolutely do not think he was using those words with intent, and may not gave even been conscious of the fuse he lit.)

But remember, someone in this thread _already_ quoted a self-proclaimed white supremacist who stated he found resonance with his noxious worldview in the pages of D&D.  It wasn’t GG explicitly presaging the work of those who wrote RaHoWa he saw, it was the unfortunate coincidence of GG employing the same language in the same way as those who believe in race-based bigotry.


----------



## Jhaelen

Rhianni32 said:


> Race+background+culture is bad.
> Ancestory is ok?



Leaving the discussion about the proper term for 'race' aside, I'd prefer not to mix background and culture into it.

While I don't like how complicated character creation in "The Dark Eye" ("Das Schwarze Auge") 5th edition is, there's one thing I really like about it:
Each character picks a race, a culture, and a profession*. That allows for a lot of flexibility and has no problems to model 'exotic' characters, 
like an elf foundling brought up by dwarves.

A system gets extra points from me, if it allows you to mix and match several options from each category.



*: This is especially interesting, considering that TDE/DSA started out quite similar to OD&D, i.e. there wasn't even a distinction between 'race' and 'class', 
i.e. you could be an adventurer, a fighter, a mage, a dwarf, or an elf.


----------



## TheCosmicKid

Dannyalcatraz said:


> He may not have known it, but the words he used were loaded.  In another context, it would be called a “dog whistle”.
> 
> (To be clear, I absolutely do not think he was using those words with intent, and may not gave even been conscious of the fuse he lit.)



What makes a word loaded? It can't just be that it has been used in racist theories, because racist theories use lots of words. "Evolution", for instance, I hope we can agree is not a racist dog whistle, even though racists have used it to prop up their ideas. "Mongrel" I would agree is one, if not an outright insult, because it's not really used (of humans) _outside_ the context of racist thought, and (even of dogs) connotes a negative value judgment. But the word we're talking about in this thread is "race". Where does that fall, and why?



Dannyalcatraz said:


> But remember, someone in this thread _already_ quoted a self-proclaimed white supremacist who stated he found resonance with his noxious worldview in the pages of D&D.  It wasn’t GG explicitly presaging the work of those who wrote RaHoWa he saw, it was the unfortunate coincidence of GG employing the same language in the same way as those who believe in race-based bigotry.



White supremacists can read the New Testament's message of universal love and forgiveness and think the take-home point is "Kill the Jews". Pick the absolute least problematic item of media you can think of and hand it to the Stormfront community, and I bet you at least some of them will find a way to twist it to fit into their twisted minds. So as far as "Is this racist?" tests go, one that always returns a positive is not really useful.


----------



## TheCosmicKid

Hussar said:


> If we retain the terminology, are we not giving at least the appearance that previous usages are ok?



Which previous usages are we talking about here? Because "race realism" is a previous usage, but so are "critical race theory" and "All persons shall be entitled to be free, at any establishment or place, from discrimination or segregation of any kind on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin..."


----------



## pemerton

Myrdin Potter said:


> This is where I don’t think you are reading the rules. WoTC did the Marvel thing already, it is called 5e.





Myrdin Potter said:


> I am arguing that the word race in the 5e rules is being used properly and does not give the connotations of how race has been used in the past. Those you may bring in yourself, but they are not there because of the way the word race is used. I think that Pathfinder is now avoiding the word but doing what D&D 5e does not do which is classify humans with different attribute packages.



I understand your argument. I don't agree. The passages I quoted upthread from 5e illustrate that the game still puts forward a strong conception of cultural difference and social role/belonging tracking "biology" and heredity.

It's not vicious (either deliberately or casually), which marks a clear difference from Gygax's characterisation of half-orcs (which could be taken straight from HPL). But it's still there.



Myrdin Potter said:


> as long as what your species is determines something in the game rules, you automatically are classifying by it. 5e is careful to show there is one human race, not many.



The second of the sentences I've quoted is tricky, because - in one obvious sense - there are multiple human races. If [MENTION=19675]Dannyalcatraz[/MENTION] and I fill in a form which asks us to tick a box for _race_, we're going to tick different boxes. One strength of 5e is that it in fact seems comfortable with this variety in human races, whereas earlier editions have tended to equate (in their art) _being human_ with _being white_.

The first sentence is probably true - but there are ways of loosening this connection between "species" and capability, and also of loosening the connection between "species" and culture. I think changing the way the rulebooks talk about "race" might be one part of such a loosening. While the language of "race" is retained, I don't think it is going to happen.


----------



## Riley37

Eltab said:


> Most* of the victims of the Holocaust were _white_, but/and "not the right kind" of white.
> 
> * maybe 'all', if you think of the Holocaust as aimed at civilians not soldiers




I hope you're bringing that up to make a specific point, rather than because you think I don't know which groups were sent to the camps. Also, not "all", not if you count Hilarius Gilges, whom the Gestapo killed in 1933; his skin was brown, he had African ancestry, as did a few people living in Germany at the time, either from German colonization of Africa, or from German mothers and French Foreign Legion fathers. Gilges was not the only one. You can learn more on that, if you like, but details are beyond the scope of this thread.

Here's the connection I see, for this thread: people use the term "race" for several different things, simultaneously and with overlap. "Race" has more shades of meaning than "light", which is the opposite of heavy, and of dark, and of serious; but "light armor" doesn't resist Radiant damage, and when "light infantry" tell jokes, they're as grim as any other military humor.

So yes, the Holocaust targeted people in the human race. Of the two main human races of Europe, Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon, the Neanderthals were already dead, possibly in an earlier genocide. Of the white Cro-Magnon humans, Slavs Jews and Romani were targets, more than Aryans; but as mentioned earlier, some Jews were more visible, and more immediately targeted, than others. Was Stella Kübler, who first tried to escape by passing as Aryan, and then bought her own life by betraying other "passing" Jews to the Gestapo, really a member of the same race as Victor Frankl?

If there had also been D&D races in the lands Germany conquered... I dunno, I guess Hess and Himmler would have argued about where they fell in the Thule Society mythos, and whether they shared Atlantean origin with the Aryan race? The Reich would assign them a classification of some sort. Maybe the Finns cut a deal during the Winter War to save their wood elves. Insofar as D&D dwarves are Norse, well, Norway didn't shelter its Jews during the German occupation, so don't count on any mercy for Dwarves either. (See below, on the other side of their heritage.) Ents would become firewood - perhaps even fuel for the crematoria. Orcs, mostly death by forced labor, as with Polish and Russian Slavs, but maybe with an option to become auxiliary soldiers, in expendable cannon-fodder units, always on the front lines.

The most horrible, least optimistic outcome I can imagine, in that scenario, is that the humans would sneer at the half-orcs, and the half-orcs would sneer at the orcs, even as they marched side by side under the gates of "Arbeit Macht Frei". When Tolkien invented the Khudzul language of Dwarves, he wrote "their words are Semitic obviously, constructed to be Semitic", with what linguists call "triconsonantal roots"; but the Dwarves would deny any affinity with the Jews; "the Dwarves are for the Dwarves". They would choose to enter the gas chambers on Tuesday, rather than Wednesday, if delaying to Wednesday meant sharing the chambers with "gypsies". Elrond would say "You know what I hate about humans? It's the smell of them", echoing Agent Smith, but coughing from crematorium smoke.

The distinction that matters, in the long run, is who volunteered to serve as "kapo", or assistant to the camp guards, and who didn't.

Not that I have any strong opinions on the topic.


----------



## Aldarc

TheCosmicKid said:


> What makes a word loaded?



Cognitive semantics and grammar, intellectual history, its associated connotative value judgments, context, usage in colloquial vernacular, and the term's centrality to various forms of discourse (e.g., ideological, political, socio-historical, and scientific). 



> But the word we're talking about in this thread is "race". Where does that fall, and why?



It may be helpful for you to answer this question as well. Where do you think that the word "race" falls, and why? 

That asked, I would wager, as you likely would as well, that the term "race" is probably more central to racial supremacist discourse than the word "evolution." In particular, the term "race" in its modern conception, as it applies to people and not athletic competition, has a longer history of use in its justification of colonialism, imperialism, slavery, apartheid, eugenics, genocide, bigotry, and other forms of systematic oppression and exploitation, etc. than it does for "pick your fantasy race in D&D." Though the term "evolution" predates Darwin, Darwinian notions of "evolution" were later misappropriated by "social Darwinists" and racist ideologies as a means to justify pre-existing racial supremacist ideologies. So regardless of whether race supremacists used the word "evolution" and other words (e.g., genetics, God, Bible, superiority/inferiority, Europe/Africa, white, black, etc.), the term "race" as a means to distinguish and denegrate fellow humans is undoubtedly more important to the discourse of racism, which relies on the presumption that "race" applies to human peoples. 

And though "races" in D&D are biologically/magically distinct, they are classified as "humanoids" and possess remarkably human outlooks, dispositions, personalities, cultures, governments, etc. that are otherwise indistinguishable from humans apart from the superficialities of fantasy (e.g., short and stocky, pointy ears, short with hairy feet, long lives, don't sleep, breathes underwater, immortal faerie realms, etc.). This likely stems from how their biological differences that we have ascribed them are otherwise too alien for own human mentalities such that they must remain familiarly "human enough" for human players to roleplay them, rendering them functionally human in play. (See Thomas Nagel's essay "What is it like to be a bat?") We even see this in how "races" in D&D are often derided as being just "pointy-eared humans" and "short and stocky humans," with the implied underlying sense that the "races" in D&D are fundamentally humans with different sets of aesthetics (and culture). And so it is that "human enough" and "functionally human in play" that moves these biologically-distinct "races" closer towards or arguably within the realm of human social conceptions of "race" and its aforementioned associated baggage. 



> *White supremacists can read the New Testament's message of universal love and forgiveness and think the take-home point is "Kill the Jews".* Pick the absolute least problematic item of media you can think of and hand it to the Stormfront community, and I bet you at least some of them will find a way to twist it to fit into their twisted minds. So as far as "Is this racist?" tests go, one that always returns a positive is not really useful.



And you don't think that Biblical scholars, priests, theologians, etc. are not persistently grappling with the portrayals of race and ethnicity in the Bible in a post-Holocaust world, particularly because of your listed reason? But the critical difference is that D&D and other tabletop FRPGs are more openly subject to revisions and new editions when it comes to the language used. (The extent to which this is possible in biblical translations is limited.)


----------



## Riley37

Dannyalcatraz said:


> One practical solution to problematic language is to change the language.






Enevhar Aldarion said:


> No matter what you change anything to, someone out there will have a problem with it.




That is true: someone out there will have a problem with it. Clearly, some people participating in this thread, have a deeply held objection to Paizo using any word other than "race".

If your victory condition is "PEOPLE STOP COMPLAINING, GET OVER IT" then there's no change of terminology which will accomplish that goal. Even if there are zero further complaints from D&Ders whose grandparents were unwelcome at the WHITES ONLY swimming pool... and I can't guarantee that... then alt-right-channers will still complain, for the lulz and to sabotage any conversation which doesn't serve their agenda. Do you have a problem with the artwork in the 5E PHB? No? Cool. Do you need 5E to have artwork that *no one* complains about? Too bad, because some people argued that 5E would benefit from depicting a wider range of humanity, and others argued that D&D's artwork should focus on white characters, and leave other characters to other publishers. (Yeah, that happened, complete with "I'm not racist but to each their own.")

If your victory condition is "no one ever brings their racist assumptions into D&D", then there's no change in terminology which will accomplish that goal. That guy who didn't like playing at the same table as DannyAlcatraz isn't gonna change his mind just because Pathfinder 2 uses different terms than Pathfinder 1. (Maybe he'll change his mind because Danny de-escalated and also ran an amusing character who helped the party win fights and find treasure. Paizo can't make that happen, and I'm not holding my breath.)  A DM who's a fan of Andrew Jackson ("a very tough person, but he had a big heart") might run a setting in which the High King's policy on killing goblins, cutting off their ears, and turning them in for a reward, is similar to the bounty practices of Jackson's time. No matter how the rules book describes the steps of character creation, his table won't feel right to me. Even if he's using GURPS, which doesn't even have a line for RACE (or anything equivalent) on the core-rules character sheet, that table *still* won't feel right to me. Fortunately, there are other tables. I'm currently playing at a table in which dragons are not quite so conveniently color-coded for immediate visual determination of alignment, as they are in the MM, and neither are the various bipedal tool-users.

If your victory condition is D&D which, over time, gets farther and farther away from Gygax's "superior 10%" defined as the "mongrels" who can "pass", then THAT is a viable goal. It can be done. One way or another.

There are some who prefer "ancestry" and others "origin" and so forth, but that's like a table of D&Ders who agree that they want pizza, and then negotiate which toppings. We might end up compromising, then adding a plain pizza, to make sure that the vegetarians and the meat-eaters both get enough to eat. The D&Der who's allergic to dairy is not entirely satisfied, even though she took toppings from both meat and veggie pizzas, and made them into a stir-fry. (She learned that method of dealing with pizza because many of the people on the Asian side of her family tree are lactose-intolerant.) There might be some leftover slices, because we had to buy a lot of pizza to fulfill all of the compromises. When the worst remaining problem, is leftover pizza, then it's time to declare victory.

Do you recognize a "racism optional, but at least less built-in" victory condition for Paizo? Are you reluctant to let go of the "good old days" when half-orcs knew their place and did not become wizards or paladins... and if you are, then what would make that letting-go easier for you?


----------



## Eltab

Riley37 said:


> Also, not "all", not if you count Hilarius Gilges, whom the Gestapo killed in 1933; his skin was brown, he had African ancestry, as did a few people living in Germany at the time, either from German colonization of Africa, or from German mothers and French Foreign Legion fathers. Gilges was not the only one.



I had not heard of him before.  So I learned something new today !


----------



## Riley37

TheCosmicKid said:


> What makes a word loaded?




Safety Rule #1: Treat all words as if they are loaded. Always assume that a word is loaded even if you think it is unloaded. Every time a word is handled for any reason, check to see that it is unloaded. If you are unable to check a word to see if it is unloaded, leave it alone and seek help from someone more knowledgeable about words.

One of the most common mistakes, is ejecting the clip, but leaving a round in the firing chamber... no, wait, that's specific to firearms, doesn't apply to words. Never mind that part.

Anyways, back to words. I've never been called "kaffir" by someone who was trying to put me in my place. A black guy from South Africa tells me that it's loaded. I could, if I were arrogant (well, more than I am), dismiss him. "What, I've never heard that word, it's not loaded. What are you even talking about. Chill out." 

Or I could go all academic, and find the ruling in Prinsloo v State (Supreme Court of Appeals, 2014). Which still might not inform me how usage in South Africa differs from usage in Sri Lanka. (It's not loaded, among the Sri Lankans who call themselves kaffirs; whenever a word has been handled...)

Anyways, when a black guy from South Africa tells me that "kaffir" is loaded, then all else being equal, I'm gonna take his word for it. "If you are unable to check a word to see if it is unloaded, leave it alone and seek help from someone more knowledgeable about words.". Or, where relevant, that specific type of word; my familiarity with revolvers doesn't make me an expert on pump-action shotguns, and vice versa.

So if you really, honestly can't tell where "race" falls, and why... then maybe you should leave it alone until you've checked with someone more familiar with what's it's like to be a *target*? Targets understand bullets in ways that the rest of us generally don't, even if we've read all about how the muzzle velocity of the 115-grain 9mm Parabellum relates to its kinetic energy in foot-pounds.

Or check with several people. Any one person can be wrong, or biased, or misunderstanding your question, or pulling your leg. You're skeptical of DannyAlcatraz, fine, cross-confirmation is a good thing. But if you are *defaulting* to the assumption that because you don't see how "race" is loaded, *therefore it isn't*, not until he *proves* to you that it's loaded...

...then please don't apply the same behavior to firearms. Just sayin'.


----------



## Arilyn

Words matter and can, pun sota intended, say a lot. It's why I don't really understand people who dismiss swearing as "just words". If swear words don't have shock value, what's the point of swearing?

I remember similar arguments, back in the day, over the use of man, as in fireman, chairman, etc. Feminists wanted a change, but there was protest. They're just words, people cried (even women). Everyone knows the term man encompasses all of mankind. Chairperson just sounds silly. We're not excluding women from jobs. What's next, we change human to get rid of the man part? And so on...Yet, the change in words was important, because having more inclusive language helps make our culture more inclusive. They go hand in hand. What words exist in a language say a lot about the people who use that language.  

Race is loaded. It's an inaccurate term, and although, mostly used innocently in rpgs, and not actually a huge issue, it's time to shed it.


----------



## Eltab

Riley37 said:


> Clearly, some people participating in this thread, have a deeply held objection to Paizo using any word other than "race".



That sounds like an overstatement, but I will assume that you are exaggerating for effect.

I have been pleasantly surprised that this thread has not (so far) drawn red ink, over some comments that were more insults than descriptions of a thought process.

Given that 'race' tangles together several things - part of the problem encountered in this discussion - how about 'culture' and 'genetics'* to cover the concept?  Are there other 'threads' involved that should be mentioned separately?
Of course I'm open to synonyms as proposed previously.

* Do characters in a fantasy game _have_ genes, in-game?


----------



## Eltab

Arilyn said:


> If swear words don't have shock value, what's the point of swearing?
> 
> Everyone knows the term man encompasses all of mankind.



In order,

1) It still drives me nuts when somebody complains "People don't treat me with respect" and records themselves describing other people with a string of four-letter words.

2) Yah, that was a bobbled opportunity to enhance the education of the persons who were upset but did not recognize their personal extent of knowledge / ignorance: that 'Man' already means 'everyone' and is inherently inclusive.  Maybe schools (grammar and civics classes) should put emphasis on using a dictionary when composing an argument?


----------



## Riley37

Myrdin Potter said:


> Tolkien was not a Hebrew scholar.




He did a translation of the book of Jonah from Hebrew to English. That's not enough for you to recognize him as a Hebrew scholar? Sure, it's not his *primary professional identity*, but he had proficiency with the language.

Why did you assert that Tolkien was not a Hebrew scholar? Were you trying to deny that Tolkien used Hebrew roots when he created Khuzdul, even though *he explicitly said so*? You're not trying to counter any and every point I make, just because we disagree on Paizo's plans for P2, are you? If that wasn't your goal... then what was?


----------



## Riley37

Eltab said:


> That sounds like an overstatement, but I will assume that you are exaggerating for effect.




I said what I said, because that is what I've noticed at several points across the previous 100 pages of this thread. 

If you assume that people are exaggerating for effect, every time they make a statement which which you don't agree, then you may miss some opportunities for useful dialogue across difference of opinion. That is, if you don't take people at their word, they may lose interest in taking you at yours.

When actually in doubt as to someone's intent, then I recommend *asking*. Asking is more diplomatic than "I know what you meant, better than you do" or "You cannot possibly have drawn different conclusions than mine".



Eltab said:


> * Do characters in a fantasy game _have_ genes, in-game?




I've given my answer, upthread. So have others.

If the answer to the genes question is "yes", does that settle the issue of whether Paizo and D&D should (a) stick with "race", or (b) explore alternatives?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

TheCosmicKid said:


> What makes a word loaded? It can't just be that it has been used in racist theories, because racist theories use lots of words. "Evolution", for instance, I hope we can agree is not a racist dog whistle, even though racists have used it to prop up their ideas. "Mongrel" I would agree is one, if not an outright insult, because it's not really used (of humans) _outside_ the context of racist thought, and (even of dogs) connotes a negative value judgment. But the word we're talking about in this thread is "race". Where does that fall, and why?




People have already answered this one, but I’ll contribute nonetheless.

Context is important.  When one of my grandfather’s best friends called me “boy” despite my being in law school, it wasn’t an insult.  Not only was he my elder, he was also another black man.  It was highly improbable that he was using the word as a racial insult.

When Phil Anselmo used that word as the closing word of “Walk”, it is very difficult NOT to hear the racism since it is uttered with pointed aggression, he’s a white man from Louisiana, and basically my contemporary*.  He’s also used racial epithets in public.  There is virtually no chance he doesn’t have full knowledge of how that will sound combing out of a white man’s mouth.

“Race” is, as stated many times before, a word steeped in bigotry.  It is a social construct, with only so much real scientific grounding as “breed” does in animal husbandry.  Its has predominantly been used to rhetorically establish, maintain, and discuss hierarchies.  That’s why people are having a problem with that word.

And when Gygax used it in that quoted section, he was using it in the _precise_ way in which a RW racist would, complete with the further use of contextual words like “mongrel” and “passing for” human.





* it’s impossible for a southern white man in his 40s-50s of normal faculties to credibly claim he doesn’t understand how “boy” has been used as a belittling term for black men


----------



## Myrdin Potter

Riley37 said:


> He did a translation of the book of Jonah from Hebrew to English. That's not enough for you to recognize him as a Hebrew scholar? Sure, it's not his *primary professional identity*, but he had proficiency with the language.
> 
> Why did you assert that Tolkien was not a Hebrew scholar? Were you trying to deny that Tolkien used Hebrew roots when he created Khuzdul, even though *he explicitly said so*? You're not trying to counter any and every point I make, just because we disagree on Paizo's plans for P2, are you? If that wasn't your goal... then what was?




As much as it is annoying to answer posts like this, it did make me recheck my sources, so I guess that it is worth it.

He did not translate the book of Jonah from Hebrew to English. He translated it from French to English and double checked against the Hebrew (the Bible was also written in Greek and that is a language as a former classics scholar that he knew as well). He was a prodigy in languages, but I can’t find any particular mention of Hebrew as being anything he did scholarly work in when he was a professor (of a English with Germanic languages and Old Norse as a speciality).

If people wonder why D&D seems to have such a Tolkien stamp on it, he was obsessed about writing the background of the made up worlds he wrote in. That included mythology and language, much like a DM world creating today. 

All the references i can I can easily find on the origin of Khuzdul (secret language of the dwarves) was [FONT=&quot]"their words are Semitic obviously, constructed to be Semitic." Hebrew is not the only semetic language, it is actually not even the most spoken by a large factor (Arabic is). Tolkien liked inventing languages and liked grammar, semetic languages have their own structure and I have seen many others use it and their base sounds for new languages without really knowing the languages themselves all that well.

i personally am not super familiar with it. I am fluent in English and French and heard it often enough but the only “Jewish” language I heard much was badly accented Yiddish from my grandfather (was apprenticed to Jewish tailors and almost ended up in a concentration camp because he spoke German with a Yiddish accent. Ended up in a work camp and almost starved to death but was much better than the alternative). I heard lots of Slavic languages growing up (Ukrainian and Polish)but never learned them. I do decent with romance languages because I learned Latin in HS and my French is good. My tones are terrible so my Mandarin is poor (I lived in China, Japan was just a vacation trip).

The construct seems to be dwarves horde gold and have big noses and their language has semetic roots, therefore they are really reskinned Jews with the negative money stereotype. Look, Tolkien even translated a book in the Bible and the Bible was originally written in Hebrew. 

Tolkien was obviously not perfect, but the evidence seems to be much better that the dwarves are more Norse based and those dwarves also have big noses and horde gold. 

So, I stand by my statement that he was not a scholar of Hebrew, at least not of any note. He was a scholar of English and liked languages, but my grandfather I noted above spoke 9 or 10 languages pretty well and I don’t think it is as rare as it seems in the USA.[/FONT]


----------



## LordNightwinter

Celebrim said:


> I can't really tell you exactly what is going on in the head of the poster you are quoting, but I will tell you what is basically going on in the thread.  There is a fight going on between classical liberals and post-modernists that buy into critical race theory.  Sometimes that fight is explicit, and sometimes that fight is going on without the participants in the fight actually knowing what viewpoints motivate them or having the terminology to labels those things.  And basically that fight comes down to the classical liberals calling the post-modernists racists, and the critical race theory proponents calling the classical liberals racists because each side believes the others plan to fix racism actually perpetuates racism.  Heck, both sides believe that a certain segment of the other side is deliberately trying to perpetuate racism.
> 
> So that's what this thread is about.   Consequently, through the biases that may be obvious by this point, what I read out of the sentence you quote is: "The final word here is that your [critical race theory] has nothing to with a fictional game."  And I suspect the poster you quote might add, "And not a lot to do with the real world either."
> 
> As for fictional games, again I don't know what he means why don't you ask him instead of me, but it is possible to set a game in what is nominally the real world.




That's the part of my quote that was missed. The fact that somewhere (maybe not on that post) I asked what it has to do with real world views.


----------



## tomBitonti

Dannyalcatraz said:


> And when Gygax used it in that quoted section, he was using it in the _precise_ way in which a RW racist would, complete with the further use of contextual words like “mongrel” and “passing for” human.




Additional text omitted.

I'm a little surprised that this line hasn't been pursued more vigorously.

I'm seeing three uses of "race" in D&D: One for very clear species differences.  For example, the difference between a Human and a Troglodyte, an Awakened Golem, or a Beholder.  For such differences, I'm preferring instead of "race" the term "creature type".  Based on the lack of response to my previous posting to this point, I'm taking the response to be that this is entirely non-controversial.

The second usage is to differentiate humanoid types which are almost human: Human, Elf, Dwarf, Orc, and Halfling.

A third use is for "blooded" ancestry.  This has many examples: Angel, Devil, Dragon, Aberrant, or Elemental blooded.  But also Hag, and perhaps, Grave Touched.

The third use factors off cleanly as an "ancestry" option, after which we can ignore this use.

The second usage is at the heart of the controversy.  

For the second usage, the problem seen in the usual rules that Elves, Humans, and Orcs interbreed.  And is seen through Elves' being  enlightened and noble, while Orcs are evil, thuggish, uncivilized, brutes.  Put together, this appears as a presentation of racial debasement.

A similar example appears in Golarian (Pathfinder), with the Azanti as being superior humans (by their statistics, although, not by their outlook).

I have two take aways from this.  

One is to appreciate a modifications made in Eberron, which changed the outlook for Orcs.

Two is that the problem that D&D has with race won't be simply solved by changing the term "race".  There are deeper structural issues which are present and which should be addressed.

Thx!
TomB


----------



## Myrdin Potter

Elves and Orcs being as they are portrayed does not originate with D&D. As a game construct, since you cannot write a novel for every NPC and where you have an alignment system, what exactly is the deeper structural issue?


----------



## Aldarc

Myrdin Potter said:


> All the references i can I can easily find on the origin of Khuzdul (secret language of the dwarves) was [FONT=&quot]"their words are Semitic obviously, constructed to be Semitic." Hebrew is not the only semetic language, it is actually not even the most spoken by a large factor (Arabic is). Tolkien liked inventing languages and liked grammar, semetic languages have their own structure and I have seen many others use it and their base sounds for new languages without really knowing the languages themselves all that well.



Hebrew is not the only Semitic language, but JRRT's quote that you found is immediately preceded with JRRT saying "The dwarves of course are quite obviously, wouldn’t you say that in many ways they remind you of the Jews?" So his use of "Semitic" in this context appears equated with "Hebrew," regardless of whether that is a misuse of the term "Semitic." I also found a book online - Arda Philology - that compares Khuzul grammar to Hebrew. I don't think, however, that this makes Tolkien well-versed in Hebrew. For a linguist, he likely only needed a smattering of familiarity with how the grammar works. 



> i personally am not super familiar with it. I am fluent in English and French and heard it often enough but the only “Jewish” language I heard much was badly accented Yiddish from my grandfather (was apprenticed to Jewish tailors and almost ended up in a concentration camp because he spoke German with a Yiddish accent.



Yiddish is a Germanic language, though I suspect you know this. 



> The construct seems to be dwarves horde gold and have big noses and their language has semetic roots, therefore they are really reskinned Jews with the negative money stereotype. Look, Tolkien even translated a book in the Bible and the Bible was originally written in Hebrew.



And likely the fact that Tolkien admitted that he drew unintended inspiration from the Jewish people: 


> “I didn’t intend it, but when you’ve got these people on your hands, you’ve got to make them different, haven’t you?” said Tolkien during the 1971 interview. “The dwarves of course are quite obviously, wouldn’t you say that in many ways they remind you of the Jews? Their words are Semitic, obviously, constructed to be Semitic. The hobbits are just rustic English people,” he said.



Even JRRT connected his own dots.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty!

Riley37 said:


> Asserting which exact thing, is the primary cause of a widespread dynamic or pattern, is one of the trickiest assertions one can make, in any field which includes controversy. LordNightWinter says it *was* true, ShinHakkaider says it *still is* true. Without agreement on whether the D&D player community *is* mostly white, then I don't see any chance of success of this particular forum exploring *why* it's mostly white.
> 
> That said, when I played AL at a game store, there was a player new to 5E, making his first character. When he turned to the page in the 5E PHB about different kinds of humans, and saw illustrations which matched his appearance, he smiled, and chose to play a Rashemi cleric of Lathander. This is an anecdote, a sample size of one, not enough to make a broad statement about causality; but it IS enough to make me glad that 5E has a more intentionally inclusive depiction of what "humans" look like, than I saw in 1E.




Well part of the problem was the art in the 1e PH was in black and white.


----------



## Gradine

Lanefan said:


> One concern: as it seems PF2 will allow one descent (e.g. Human) to poach abilities previously exclusive to another descent (e.g. Dwarven stonecunning), isn't that just going to open up a whole new set of tools for the munchkinizers and optimizers to break the game with?




Isn't that the appeal of PF in the first place?

Honestly, someone a few posts before this one started saying that the change to "ancestry" adds "unnecessary complexity" and while many can (and have) quibbled on the "unnecessary" part, I rather thought that "complexity" was Pathfinder's raison de vivre.


----------



## TheCosmicKid

Aldarc said:


> It may be helpful for you to answer this question as well. Where do you think that the word "race" falls, and why?



Close to "evolution". Its usage extends well beyond supremacist discourse. People often talk or write about race without claiming that some races are superior to others, just as people often talk or write about gender and religion without claiming that one of those things are superior to the others. When I see objections to "race" used in a non-supremacist context, my reaction is the same as when I see creationists tying any mention of "evolution" to Nazism.



Aldarc said:


> That asked, I would wager, as you likely would as well, that the term "race" is probably more central to racial supremacist discourse than the word "evolution."



Centrality doesn't seem like it establishes your point here. "Race" and "class" and "sex" and "gender" and "religion" and "god" are all central to various strains of hateful discourse, but the rest of us use them too, both in real life and on D&D character sheets.



Aldarc said:


> Though the term "evolution" predates Darwin, Darwinian notions of "evolution" were later misappropriated by "social Darwinists" and racist ideologies as a means to justify pre-existing racial supremacist ideologies.



I might say that the notion of "race" was misappropriated by imperialists and slavers as a means to justify their activities.



Aldarc said:


> And you don't think that Biblical scholars, priests, theologians, etc. are not persistently grappling with the portrayals of race and ethnicity in the Bible in a post-Holocaust world, particularly because of your listed reason?



You focused on the first sentence of that paragraph, but my point was in the second. Pick _anything_. Show it to Stormfront. Watch them twist it into their worldview. Does that make the thing you picked suddenly more problematic, or is it Stormfront that's "problematic"?


----------



## TheCosmicKid

Riley37 said:


> But if you are *defaulting* to the assumption that because you don't see how "race" is loaded, *therefore it isn't*, not until he *proves* to you that it's loaded...
> 
> ...then please don't apply the same behavior to firearms. Just sayin'.



If we're dealing in metaphors, I've already put forward the "innocent until proven guilty" principle which leads us to the _exact opposite_ conclusion.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

In fairness, the problematic connotations of “race” predate Stormfront by, ohhhh...a century or more?  Arguably as far back as the word’s origins.


----------



## TheCosmicKid

Dannyalcatraz said:


> And when Gygax used it in that quoted section, he was using it in the _precise_ way in which a RW racist would, complete with the further use of contextual words like “mongrel” and “passing for” human.



What I take from that is that the problem lies in the actual ideas he was expressing, not the words he was using to express them. If, as you say, a southern white man in his 40s-50s calls you "boy", that's expressing a very different idea than a black older acquaintance calling you "boy". What's going on here, to me, seems like if you asked your grandfather's friend to stop calling you "boy" because of how other people at other times used the word.


----------



## Phasestar

Dannyalcatraz said:


> And when Gygax used it in that quoted section, he was using it in the _precise_ way in which a RW racist would, complete with the further use of contextual words like “mongrel” and “passing for” human.




Understood and followed all of this except for this part - what is a "RW racist" as opposed to a racist?


----------



## Lanefan

Phasestar said:


> Understood and followed all of this except for this part - what is a "RW racist" as opposed to a racist?



RW = real world, I think; as opposed to racism expressed within the confines of the game e.g. Dwarves and Elves disliking each other, or only the top 10% of human-orc crossbreeds being playable.


----------



## Hussar

TheCosmicKid said:


> What I take from that is that the problem lies in the actual ideas he was expressing, not the words he was using to express them. If, as you say, a southern white man in his 40s-50s calls you "boy", that's expressing a very different idea than a black older acquaintance calling you "boy". What's going on here, to me, seems like if you asked your grandfather's friend to stop calling you "boy" because of how other people at other times used the word.




Is that a bad thing?


----------



## TheCosmicKid

Hussar said:


> Is that a bad thing?



Yes. He's doing nothing wrong.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> What's going on here, to me, seems like if you asked your grandfather's friend to stop calling you "boy" because of how other people at other times used the word.




Except again, as noted, Gygax used the word in that passage in _exactly the same way as a klansman. _ He’s expressing the same  concept, but directing it at a fictional people.  Seeing a racist concept clearly expressed- with the real world serial numbers filed off- could be extremely jarring to some. 

Whereas my grandfather’s friend was expressing an entirely diffeeent, non-racist concept.  





It’s an age-old problem authors and artists face, especially as time passes.  Their prose or other creation is fixed in time; the meanings of words and images may change.  The Nazis ruined swastikas for cultures worldwide.  Writers of the past using racial epithets get grilled over whether their word usage was for verisimilitude of a character & setting, or whether that reflected their true inner selves.


----------



## Hussar

TheCosmicKid said:


> Yes. He's doing nothing wrong.




Really?  By using a term, even completely innocently, that is so heavily steeped in racist history, isn't that more or less condoning how the term is used?  After all, that grants the racist the defense of, "Well, I'm just using it how he meant it".

I remember years ago, driving in Detroit with a friend of mine from Newfoundland.  Now, if you know Newfie English, you know that they use "boy" all the time, but, it's pronounced as rhyming with "bye".  Well, we got a bit lost and my friend leans out the window and asks the young black man at the corner, "Hey, b'y, where's t' Ford Museum at?"

Now, again, 100% innocent, but, this time from a white dude in the middle of Detroit in the early 1990's.  Still doing nothing wrong?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

“Poor optics” to be sure.  (I believe the phrase of yesteryear would be “tin eared”.)

Go to New Orleans (and other places in Louisiana, Texas and Mississippi) at any point prior to @1985, you could find a lot of places serving an Italian salad called “W*p salad”.
http://www.gumbopages.com/food/app/wop-salad.html

There are places that, up until the 1960s-70s had names like “N****r Creek”.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negro_Creek_(Tongue_Creek)

Most locals wouldn’t have blinked twice about those usages, and probably had no racial animus in their heart.

But we know the words offend, so they were changed.

Some people are saying now that the way “race” is used in FRPGs is distasteful or offensive.  Why discount their narrative?


----------



## TheCosmicKid

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Except again, as noted, Gygax used the word in that passage in _exactly the same way as a klansman. _ He’s expressing the same  concept, but directing it at a fictional people.  Seeing a racist concept clearly expressed- with the real world serial numbers filed off- could be extremely jarring to some.



 Absolutely. That passage was wrong, and Gygax was wrong to write it. Later editions of D&D were improved by not reprinting it. But it doesn't follow that they'd be improved by avoiding the word "race" entirely, because it also expresses different, non-racist concepts.



Dannyalcatraz said:


> It’s an age-old problem authors and artists face, especially as time passes.  Their prose or other creation is fixed in time; the meanings of words and images may change.  The Nazis ruined swastikas for cultures worldwide.  Writers of the past using racial epithets get grilled over whether their word usage was for verisimilitude of a character & setting, or whether that reflected their true inner selves.



Fitzgerald's use of swastikas in _Gatsby_ sure jumped out at me, the first time I read it.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

TheCosmicKid said:


> Absolutely. That passage was wrong, and Gygax was wrong to write it. Later editions of D&D were improved by not reprinting it. But it doesn't follow that they'd be improved by avoiding the word "race" entirely, because it also expresses different, non-racist concepts.




We in this thread may know/believe the designers aren’t racists.  But someone new to the game or hobby won’t necessarily be able to figure that out.  At least, not before having their initial gut reaction.  By then, the damage may have already been done.  Perhaps too much to overcome.

To use an old aphorism, *why borrow trouble? * Why continue to use a word with lots of baggage when there are others with less?



> Fitzgerald's use of swastikas in _Gatsby_ sure jumped out at me, the first time I read it.




See also photos of Army units comprised mainly of Native Americans whose regimental symbols included swastikas, prior to their engagement in WW2.  Like the 45th Infantry:
View attachment 96221

Or, perhaps more disturbing, the pre-war “Bellamy salute” given to the American flag during the Pledge of Allegiance.





(FWIW, for the past few years in the Catholic Church, pastors have asked congregations to “extend their right hand in prayer” over/for certain purposes.  I participate, but I do it from the elbow only, without raising my arm.  It looks too creepy for me to do otherwise.)


----------



## TheCosmicKid

Hussar said:


> Really?  By using a term, even completely innocently, that is so heavily steeped in racist history, isn't that more or less condoning how the term is used?  After all, that grants the racist the defense of, "Well, I'm just using it how he meant it".



No, because the racist _ isn't_ using the term how he meant it. And use doesn't and can't condone all other uses, because, once again, lots of people use lots of different words to say horrible things.



Hussar said:


> I remember years ago, driving in Detroit with a friend of mine from Newfoundland.  Now, if you know Newfie English, you know that they use "boy" all the time, but, it's pronounced as rhyming with "bye".  Well, we got a bit lost and my friend leans out the window and asks the young black man at the corner, "Hey, b'y, where's t' Ford Museum at?"
> 
> Now, again, 100% innocent, but, this time from a white dude in the middle of Detroit in the early 1990's.  Still doing nothing wrong?



He's in a context where he's almost certainly going to be misunderstood. People are going to hear him and think he's expressing a racist idea -- and it's reasonable for them to do that, because that's what the word means in the dialect of the place they're in. If he knows this, yeah, he's doing something wrong.


----------



## Riley37

tomBitonti said:


> I'm seeing three uses of "race" in D&D




I agree with your three examples. I would not be surprised to find a fourth or fifth, if one dug deeper into the huge volume of all books published for D&D. 

"Level" has at least three uses, when a 13th rank druid casts a seventh magnitude spell on the fourth floor of the dungeon. (The spell is "sideways gravity", a home-brew variation on Reverse Gravity, and the material component is a spirit level. No, not that kind of spirit!) Nethack plays with this: a blessed potion of Gain Level adds one to the character's class rank, while a cursed potion of Gain Level moves the character one dungeon floor upwards. But I digress.



tomBitonti said:


> The second usage is at the heart of the controversy.




Yes, and you're not wrong about presentation of racial debasement. Afrodyte mentioned "The only good (race) is a dead (race)". (That's been said at a virtual D&D table, where (race)=Goblin.)

Playing a shell game with the differences in usages, has been SUPER EFFECTIVE for those uncomfortable with the topic, who prefer to deflect away from the emotionally unpleasant part. Among many other examples, and as Afrodyte mentioned, the Elves are enlightened and noble, *except for the ones with black skin*. The black-skinned ones are evil, *except for the one who renounces his people, and lives among others*. The parallels are unsubtle, and for some of us, painful.

(Ben Carson is a skilled surgeon, but does he dual-wield scalpels? Digressing again, sorry not sorry.)



tomBitonti said:


> Two is that the problem that D&D has with race won't be simply solved by changing the term "race".  There are deeper structural issues which are present and which should be addressed.




If I agreed any more strongly, I would nod so hard that I'd break my neck. I am doing my best to spotlight that structural issues exist, which is necessary but not sufficient for addressing them.

There's a LOT of push-back on even recognizing that they exist. MaxPerson asserts that there's *nothing* wrong with race in D&D, in the last forty years and also the next forty years. Show him some dripping-with-racial-supremacism passage from the 1978 PHB, and he might revise his claim to *thirty* years, without ever admitting that 40 years was a non-factual assertion.

(George Wallace's 1963 speech claimed more than forty years: "In the name of the greatest people that have ever trod this earth, I draw the line in the dust and toss the gauntlet before the feet of tyranny, and I say segregation today, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever." Wallace was at least open about his goals, gotta give him that much. But I digress *again*.)

Back to your second take-away: "Necessary" is not always "sufficient". Beware of those who conflate "terminology change is not sufficient" with "terminology change is not necessary" with "terminology change is neither possible nor useful".

When I entered this conversation, I was kinda meh on the merits of shifting away from the term "race". Now that I've seen the arguments of the Status Quo Defenders, I will ally with almost any side but theirs. I mean, when D&Der A goes out on a limb with "I've experienced some racism, here and there, playing D&D while black", and D&Der B dismisses that story, casts doubt on D&Der A's honesty, (on the grounds that forum posts are non-verifiable), and equates that story with hatred of white people... then I still dunno if D&Der A is right about Paizo's usage, but I've also learned something about Player B's perspective on the usage issue.


----------



## Hussar

TheCosmicKid said:


> No, because the racist _ isn't_ using the term how he meant it. And use doesn't and can't condone all other uses, because, once again, lots of people use lots of different words to say horrible things.
> 
> 
> He's in a context where he's almost certainly going to be misunderstood. People are going to hear him and think he's expressing a racist idea -- and it's reasonable for them to do that, because that's what the word means in the dialect of the place they're in. If he knows this, yeah, he's doing something wrong.




So, ignorance makes it okay?  If he didn't know this (and, he certainly didn't mean it that way) then it's the other folk's fault for taking offense?  I disagree.


----------



## Parmandur

Dannyalcatraz said:


> We in this thread may know/believe the designers aren’t racists.  But someone new to the game or hobby won’t necessarily be able to figure that out.  At least, not before having their initial gut reaction.  By then, the damage may have already been done.  Perhaps too much to overcome.
> 
> To use an old aphorism, *why borrow trouble? * Why continue to use a word with lots of baggage when there are others with less?
> 
> 
> 
> See also photos of Army units comprised mainly of Native Americans whose regimental symbols included swastikas, prior to their engagement in WW2.  Like the 45th Infantry:
> View attachment 96221
> 
> Or, perhaps more disturbing, the pre-war “Bellamy salute” given to the American flag during the Pledge of Allegiance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (FWIW, for the past few years in the Catholic Church, pastors have asked congregations to “extend their right hand in prayer” over/for certain purposes.  I participate, but I do it from the elbow only, without raising my arm.  It looks too creepy for me to do otherwise.)



Yeah, the "Nazi Blessing" drives my wife crazy, hates it when priests do that.


----------



## Riley37

Dannyalcatraz said:


> See also photos of Army units comprised mainly of Native Americans whose regimental symbols included swastikas, prior to their engagement in WW2.  Like the 45th Infantry




MaxPerson, if you're about to assert that the regimental symbol change is a coincidence, that surely it must result from other factors: don't bother.

Shortly after the beginning of World War II, several Native American tribes (the Navajo, Apache, Tohono O'odham, and Hopi) published a decree stating that they would no longer use the swastika in their artwork. This was because the swastika had come to symbolize evil to the tourists who purchased their crafts. This decree was signed by representatives of these tribes. The decree states:

"Because the above ornament which has been a symbol of friendship among our forefathers for many centuries has been desecrated recently by another nation of peoples.

Therefore it is resolved that henceforth from this date on and forever more our tribes renounce the use of the emblem commonly known today as the swastika or fylfot on our blankets, baskets, art objects, sandpainting, and clothing."

Okay, who's gonna dismiss those tribes and their resolution, on the grounds that this shift in their use of symbols in their baskets and blankets, *wasn't enough* to stop the rise of the Third Reich, and therefore *wasn't meaningful*?"

Step right up, if you've argued, anywhere in the last 100 pages, that "not a solution to the real problem" means "not meaningful". 

The 45th changed their symbol. They also "directly addressed" soldiers wearing swastikas, from Sicily to the Rhineland. They were not sent to Berlin, which was arguably the main geographical location of the "deeper issue", so to speak, but their battles contributed to the larger effort which culminated in the fall of Berlin. They acted on the symbolic level AND on the physical level (in a notably gritty way). I see this as evidence that both are possible, and even inter-related.

When people whose culture has used a symbol for generations, are willing to drop that symbol, *because of how it's been used, elsewhere* in the previous decade, that raises the bar for my willingness to drop Gygax's terminology. If the 45th can let go of the one, then I can give up on the other.

Similarly, in the theoretical event that DannyAlcatraz ever asks me not to address him as "boy", then I'm inclined to acquiesce to his request, rather than double down on the grounds that I wasn't doing anything wrong in context. (Actually, I'm gonna act *as if he already had*, because I'm more interested in inclusivity than in pedantry, even though Pedant is my primary class. Most of my skill points are in Pedant-related skills, but it's just my class, not my *origin*.)

So, gentle reader, if you're reluctant to let go on whether Pathfinder uses "race", if you're calling out as Paizo as so far left that they'll destroy the entire TRPG industry: what could make letting go easier for you?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

I didn’t know there was a formal declaration like that.  I learned something today; my day has not been wasted.


----------



## Riley37

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I didn’t know there was a formal declaration like that.  I learned something today; my day has not been wasted.




Ever since I came face-to-face with a swastika, at my workplace, last year, I've been paying more attention to that part of history. I knew, from written news, that more American drew more swastikas, on synagogues and elsewhere, following the 2016 election, than at the height of the German-American Bund in the 1930s. But face to face was more visceral.

Arguing with my supervisor, about how far out of our way we would go, to *remove* the swastika: even harder. In the end, I prevailed, but it wasn't as easy as I had hoped.

The insignia change of the 45th, in my opinion, make it even more shameful, by comparison, that decades later, some of their fellow soldiers in the Marine 1st Reconnaissance Battalion chose to write the abbreviation for "Sniper Scout" with the runes of the Waffen SS.

Those who do not learn from history...


----------



## MoonSong

I have differing opinions on this. I don't really have a horse in this race -wow, that wasn't meant to be punny-. From my context, the very concept of race makes little sense. I'm quite close to being milky white, yet on my family alone everybody runs the gamut from quite dark to quite light, and all of them are my family, I share blood ties with all of them. The mere idea of race is weird. More so, last week the National University divulgated a genetic study of indigenous people, they sought tons of samples in order to find the "purest of the purest", and even then they have at least one European or African ancestor.   It makes cero sense to me to make a distinction between white and non-white. Now ethnicity -and social class- is the distinction that makes sense in my immediate environment.

In part because of this, I don't quite like this "PoC" label, because it makes no sense on countries other than America -and maybe some European countries-. There's this weird conflation of race with ethnicity that just breaks down for me. By ethnicity I'm not part of this "Caucasian" thing, but the only way I could be whiter would be if I was blonde.

Also I'm not a fan of modeling racial/ethnic differences for humans on D&D. I always say this, I used to have no problem seeing me reflected on the media, until they began to make this big deal about race and started marking my ethnicity in the media and I learned that I wasn't supposed  to identify with any and all of the people on the screen., except for the maid, and the hooker, and the undocumented gardener, and this "Bumblebee Man". Curiously, none of them look like me. Whenever someone who looks like me appears, there's a clear message now that "this is not you".  

I'm not married to keeping "race" as a thing in the game -I like "kin" though-, but I'm not in love with this "Ancestry" thing from PF2, that sounds like quite a fiddly way to enable powergaming and just reinforce "Yes this is still not you".


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

[video=youtube;g9n_UPyVR5s]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g9n_UPyVR5s&sns=em[/video]


----------



## Sunseeker

Hussar said:


> So, ignorance makes it okay?  If he didn't know this (and, he certainly didn't mean it that way) then it's the other folk's fault for taking offense?  I disagree.




To interject myself into this conversation:  Ignorance must always be fought.  At home, abroad, in ourselves and in others.  If someone says something out of true ignorance, they should be corrected.  Not belittled for being ignorant, but informing them of the larger context that they are missing.  If they at that point, choose _not_ to correct themselves, everyone else is well withing their rights to belittle, berate and generally shame them into a corner.  That's pretty much how society works.

At this point, even if Gygax used the word from a point of ignorance, even if he used the entire linguistic phrasing of his writing completely from ignorance, *Gygax is dead.*  His ignorance or intention cannot be corrected.

However, the current writers, creators, publishers and so forth producing D&D are alive and their ignorance (which I find to be a questionable foundation for an argument) _can_ be corrected.  Which is in large part the point of this discussion, to discover: "Are the current creators truly ignorant of the subject?" and "If they are not, how do we deal with that?" and "If they are, how can we help them change?" and "What do we do if they are not ignorant, *and* refuse to change?"


----------



## TheCosmicKid

Hussar said:


> So, ignorance makes it okay?  If he didn't know this (and, he certainly didn't mean it that way) then it's the other folk's fault for taking offense?  I disagree.



I thought I was sufficiently clear in saying that it's _not_ the other folk's fault. Their interpretation is _reasonable_ given the context. If the Newfoundlander is truly ignorant, then it's nobody's fault, just one of those unfortunate cultural misunderstandings. In theory, if you _had_ to assign blame, you could say the onus is on him as a visitor to understand the culture and dialect of the place he's visiting, and thus he has committed a sin of negligence as it were.

But I think the situation changes rather dramatically if a Detroiter were to go to Newfoundland and say, "You all should stop using 'boy' in your dialect".


----------



## TheCosmicKid

Dannyalcatraz said:


> We in this thread may know/believe the designers aren’t racists.  But someone new to the game or hobby won’t necessarily be able to figure that out.  At least, not before having their initial gut reaction.  By then, the damage may have already been done.  Perhaps too much to overcome.



What does this hypothetical person think about critical race theory? Or news reports on race relations? Or the US Civil Rights Act declaring race a protected class?

I'm sorry, but given how widespread the use of the term "race" is outside of racist theories, I have a hard time buying "this writer uses 'race', so they're racist" as a reasonable reaction. In sharp contrast to a black man's reaction to being addressed as "boy" by a white southerner, because _that_ can really only mean one thing.


----------



## TheCosmicKid

Riley37 said:


> When people whose culture has used a symbol for generations, are willing to drop that symbol, *because of how it's been used, elsewhere* in the previous decade, that raises the bar for my willingness to drop Gygax's terminology. If the 45th can let go of the one, then I can give up on the other.



You have very persuasively argued that WotC should immediately cease to print the swastika symbol in all their books.

But then you just sort of waved your hands and said, "the word 'race' is like that". When it... isn't.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

TheCosmicKid said:


> What does this hypothetical person think about critical race theory? Or news reports on race relations? Or the US Civil Rights Act declaring race a protected class?
> 
> I'm sorry, but given how widespread the use of the term "race" is outside of racist theories, I have a hard time buying "this writer uses 'race', so they're racist" as a reasonable reaction. In sharp contrast to a black man's reaction to being addressed as "boy" by a white southerner, because _that_ can really only mean one thing.




Do Native Americans offended by the name of Washington’s NFL team need to accept that there are also potatoes called redskins?  Was the term originally translated from native tongues to English?  Does either fact mean they shouldn’t be offended?

“Race” has a very shady history that has been somewhat sanitized and rehabilitated.  Far better than the attempted normalization of the “N-word”.  

But while the obviously problematic passages in D&D have mostly been eradicated, some of the the context still exists.  Half Elves generally get positive press, but it is noted that they still face societal stumbling blocks.  The other major sentient species, in contrast, get fuller, broader treatment.

But Half-orcs and the Orcish half of their ancestry are not described in positive ways...almost ever.  Is it coincidental that their attribute adjustments- bonuses to strength, deficits to intelligence and charisma map neatly with old descriptions of Africans and American slaves?  Probably, but that doesn’t make it any less problematic.  And why did the first evil elves havevto be black?

That the context still exists unchanged in conjunction with the term with the checkered past just plays right into the dreams of racists and nightmares of minorities.

Again, most veteran gamers get it: there was no (known) racist intent.  New blood?  Maybe it isn’t so obvious.


----------



## Aldarc

TheCosmicKid said:


> What does this hypothetical person think about critical race theory? Or news reports on race relations? Or the US Civil Rights Act declaring race a protected class?



Regardless of whether "god" exists or not, we use the term "theology" for discussing the langue and parole humans use about "god." Chicago University, Oxford, and a number of other schools have Oriental Institutes. That doesn't make their use of the term "orient" or "oriental" appropriate. And the term does make a number of their professors and students squeamish. Its largely preserved because of the longevity of "tradition," its use in publications, and financial backing by donors. 

Likewise "race" exists in so far as society must continually grapple with how this social construct continues to be treated as meaningfully real and as long as this concept negatively impacts the lives of other. If we deem our fellow people as belonging to different "races," then people of all "races" must be protected as equal regardless of any supposed legitimacy of the division. Ideally, the term "race" would not be needed at all. But our society continues to discriminate others on the basis of "race," so even if "race" does not exist outside of its social construction, there are people for whom are negatively (and also positively) affected by constructions of "race." So in that regard, the Civil Rights Act seeks to protect "race" as a class. Do you honestly think that critical race theory or the US Civil Rights Act are seeking to preserve the use of the term "race" in society, much less in D&D? Do you think that D&D's use of "race" is equally as magnanimous in its use of the term "race" as Critical Race Studies or the US Civil Rights Act? 



> I'm sorry, but given how widespread the use of the term "race" is outside of racist theories, *I have a hard time buying "this writer uses 'race', so they're racist" as a reasonable reaction.* In sharp contrast to a black man's reaction to being addressed as "boy" by a white southerner, because _that_ can really only mean one thing.



Probably because its your strawman reaction.


----------



## Riley37

Dannyalcatraz said:


> (video on racism)




As humor, it's quite well done. As commentary, I must disagree with the assertion that no one benefits from racism. White plantation owners in the 1840s, for example, made profits hand over fist, using methods which relied on racism. Enumerating the contemporary aspects is beyond the scope of this thread; those interested can research elsewhere.


----------



## pemerton

TheCosmicKid said:


> I'm sorry, but given how widespread the use of the term "race" is outside of racist theories, I have a hard time buying "this writer uses 'race', so they're racist" as a reasonable reaction.





Dannyalcatraz said:


> We in this thread may know/believe the designers aren’t racists.  But someone new to the game or hobby won’t necessarily be able to figure that out.  At least, not before having their initial gut reaction.  By then, the damage may have already been done.  Perhaps too much to overcome.



Just to say a little more about my own view: I don't know, and don't really care, if the authors a racist or not. I'm not interested in their morals; my interest is in the cultural artefacts - the books, pictures etc - that they produce.

Those books currently ask players, in the course of building a character, to choose a race. And it is clear that the choice of race _isn't_ primarily to locate the character within a social structure - this isn't _sociology of race: the RPG_. The point of that choice is to establish a total (_essential_, if you like) package that establishes, all at once, biology, heredity, culture, capabilities and (elements of) worth. This is not a use of race that falls "outside" of racist theories; it's a use that _emulates_ those theories.

It doesn't mitigate the emulation to say "But in the gameworld all that's true, so the use is accurate". That's just doubling down on the emulation!



TheCosmicKid said:


> the problematic elements  [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] was identifying were not language based. Change the word "race" in Howard's or Gygax's writing, and it doesn't get any better.



But take away the word "race" and you at least loose the conceptual pressure towards the current features that I identified. As I posted upthread,



pemerton said:


> there are ways of loosening this connection between "species" and capability, and also of loosening the connection between "species" and culture. I think changing the way the rulebooks talk about "race" might be one part of such a loosening. While the language of "race" is retained, I don't think it is going to happen.




EDIT: I think this is an instance of  [MENTION=6786839]Riley37[/MENTION]'s point about necessity and sufficiency.


----------



## Lanefan

Riley37 said:


> ... even though Pedant is my primary class. Most of my skill points are in Pedant-related skills, but it's just my class, not my *origin*.



It's not?  Are you sure you're not descended from Pedants whose lineage can be traced back to Roman times? 

Lan-"I jest, of course"-efan


----------



## Riley37

shidaku said:


> ...shame them into a corner. That's pretty much how society works.




There's a theory in which some culture rely more on guilt, and other cultures rely more on shame. That's beyond the scope of this thread, so check it out elsewhere if you're interested. Also, how that process plays out face-to-face, versus online, is not quite the same in my experience.



shidaku said:


> "Are the current creators truly ignorant of the subject?" and "If they are not, how do we deal with that?" and "If they are, how can we help them change?" and "What do we do if they are not ignorant, *and* refuse to change?"




In the 5E PHB, the Paladin illustration is clearly a half-orc. A half-orc who cannot even pass for human, who is also a paladin, is an implicit rejection of old-school racial superiority. In 1E, that was flat-out against the rules; that particular half-orc would not be a PC of *any* class, and even the "superior 10%" (or "Talented Tenth") of half-orcs could not be paladins. So over the long term, I see change. I see it as change for the better. For others, it's change for the worse. I'm confident that game designer Theodore Beale, for example, would disapprove. It's a controversial topic. (Rygar, you wanna throw in your $.02 on that illustration, PHB p.82? Not to exclude MaxPerson, TheCosmicKid, Myrdin Potter, LordNightwinter or other fine people on both sides.)

As for tieflings: "To be greeted with stares and whispers, to suffer violence and insult on the street, to see mistrust and fear in every eye: this is the lot of the tieflings. And to twist the knife..."

Yeah, that description rings a bell, if you know what I mean, with real-world race-related experiences. Whoever wrote *that* passage was not ignorant, nor turning a blind eye.


----------



## Aldarc

pemerton said:


> Those books currently ask players, in the course of building a character, to choose a race. And it is clear that the choice of race _isn't_ primarily to locate the character within a social structure - this isn't _sociology of race: the RPG_. The point of that choice is to establish a total (_essential_, if you like) package that establishes, all at once, biology, heredity, culture, capabilities and (elements of) worth. This is not a use of race that falls "outside" of racist theories; it's a use that _emulates_ those theories.
> 
> It doesn't mitigate the emulation to say "But in the gameworld all that's true, so the use is accurate". That's just doubling down on the emulation!
> 
> But take away the word "race" and you at least loose the conceptual pressure towards the current features that I identified.



Agreed. Things you are likely to hear in both the context of D&D and racist discourse: "Some races are more intelligent or stronger than others." And that's the thing about "race" in D&D. It's presented as real biological and cultural differences between sentient humanoids that quantifies their abilities.


----------



## Riley37

Lanefan said:


> It's not?  Are you sure you're not descended from Pedants whose lineage can be traced back to Roman times?




Depending on what emerges from the playtest, I might have Pedant Ancestry features even with another Origin.

On another hand, if by Roman times, you mean the Republic and/or Empire (roughly 500 BCE to 400 CE), at that point the exemplar of the lineage was a "paedagogans" (plural "paedagogantes"), in the sense of a teacher in an school for children. This evolved into pedant, in the sense of "person who trumpets minor points of learning", sometime around the 1590s.

On yet another hand, if by "Roman times" you mean my semester at the Intercollegiate Center for Classical Studies, then yes, since the ICCS campus is on the Gianicolo hilltop, and I descended from the Gianicolo, into downtown Rome, many times.


----------



## Riley37

Maxperson said:


> That's one reason why I find all the people screaming about Trump being Hitler and a Nazi to be so offensive.




Side topic, and again, personal, if you're willing to honor the question, but since you say so...

You find these people offensive?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...607e0e265ce_story.html?utm_term=.278e3d7d2ab8

And these ones?

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/media/92487408-132.html

Do you perhaps prefer these ones?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_German_National_Jews


----------



## Riley37

TheCosmicKid said:


> You have very persuasively argued that WotC should immediately cease to print the swastika symbol in all their books.




By no means! They should work with Darren Watts and his upcoming new version of "Golden Age Champions", which already plans for "Mutants and Masterminds" compatibility. That will include swastikas, just as "Raiders of the Lost Ark" prominently featured swastikas, as did "Return to Castle Wolfenstein". If you arrive late to a GAC game, just as the Big Fight starts, and you're not clear on who your character should punch: you can't tell good guys from bad guys by skin color, nor ear shape, nor by who has fangs, but anyone wearing a swastika is a valid target.

Meaning varies by context. My objection to Mein Kampf isn't its use of the word "Jew" (or "Jude"). It's the MK *perspective* on "Jew" that really rubs me the wrong way. And it's the GAC *perspective* on "swastika" that I'd like to see more of. Which is rather different than a swastika painted on the door of a synagogue or a mosque; that's rude.



TheCosmicKid said:


> But then you just sort of waved your hands and said, "the word 'race' is like that". When it... isn't.




I waved my hands? Pictures or it didn't happen. Strong claims require strong evidence!

You are sure punching the snot out of that straw man argument, "no one should ever say the word race". Wait, lemme quote: "this writer uses 'race', so they're racist". I don't think you're gonna get much more XP from driving that straw golem further into negative HP. Also: FNORD!

(I say fnord, sir, but I do not call you fnord, sir.)

If you wanted to understand my position on use of "race" in P2, you'd get that from posts 993, 995 and 1023. (See also 1004 by TomTiBatonti.) As long as you're fixated on the strawman, then I can lead you to water but I can't make you drink.

Also, as you may have guessed, I'm generally on the same page as DannyAlcatraz and Afrodyte. Birds of a feather... no, wait, that's not what we are. All we have in common is that we're each somewhere on the Niemoller Scale of whether they come for you first, or second, or later, or in the endgame. Holocaust, eugenics, Trail of Tears, Middle Passage, Inquisition, an Gorta Mór - different parties, same dance. But if none of your people were ever invited to any of those parties, then you'd have to cultivate understanding *across difference of perspective*, to understand at all. (Which you totally can... you clearly have the INT minimum, and then some... whenever you choose to.)

τῇ καλλίστῃ !


----------



## Maxperson

Riley37 said:


> Side topic, and again, personal, if you're willing to honor the question, but since you say so...
> 
> You find these people offensive?
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...607e0e265ce_story.html?utm_term=.278e3d7d2ab8
> 
> And these ones?
> 
> http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/media/92487408-132.html
> 
> Do you perhaps prefer these ones?
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_German_National_Jews




For the first two yes, I find them offensive.  There's nothing sacred or saintlike about being a survivor that prevents them from using a past horror to their current political advantage.  For the last one, I don't understand why you even put it here.


----------



## Aldarc

Sorry that I missed this. 



TheCosmicKid said:


> Close to "evolution". Its usage extends well beyond supremacist discourse. *People often talk or write about race without claiming that some races are superior to others, just as people often talk or write about gender and religion without claiming that one of those things are superior to the others.* When I see objections to "race" used in a non-supremacist context, my reaction is the same as when I see creationists tying any mention of "evolution" to Nazism.



The bold is an irrelevant non-point. Just because the usage of "race" extends beyond racial supremacist discourse does not mean that this implies that everything about "race" as a term is otherwise hunky-dory and harmless to use. People often talk about "race," because those socially placed in certain categories are repeatedly getting shafted by socio-politicial realities regardless of whether (1) race is a meaningful concept, and (2) they are nominally supposed to receive equal status and privileges. We still talk about "race," because the racists of the past got to dictate its initial terms of discourse. So a lot of "race" talk exists for the expressed purpose of its deconstruction, dismantling, and invalidation rather than its preservation as a valid concept. Like who in the flying flippity-floppity do-dah would ever ask anyone "What is your race?" outside of the context of fantasy gaming, the US Census Bureau,* or racists? Our hobby has perpetuated an antiquated term. 

Furthermore, racism still exists outside of racial supremacist discourse, and we do a huge disservice to combating racism when we relegate the harshness of racism strictly to something that "those" extremists or supremacists do. It's trying to get away scot-free of any of our own culpability in perpetuating racism as individuals and in our socio-economic and political systems. 

And it's precisely for this reason that "benign racism" is some of the most difficult racism to combat, because people think that racism is something that extremists do rather than something they perpetuate through their own behavior, words, and deeds. Going back to my earlier example of the racism in Warcraft: I don't think, for example, that most of the creators of Warcraft's world of Azeroth are intentionally racists who think white Europeans are superior to Afro-Caribbean and Mesoamerican peoples and cultures. But they nevertheless have incorporated racist tropes into their world as part of their "races." Again, non-racial supremacist use of the word "race" does not mean that its usage is non-racist or detached from the discourse of racism. 

*And how could the US Census Bureau possibly be racist? It's "official." But even then, statements from the US Census indicate that they use the term not because they like or think that it's benign as a term but because it reflects persisting social constructions that still negatively impact various citizens to this day. 



> Centrality doesn't seem like it establishes your point here. "Race" and "class" and "sex" and "gender" and "religion" and "god" are all central to various strains of hateful discourse, but the rest of us use them too, both in real life and on D&D character sheets.



And your use of false equivalence doesn't seem like it establishes _your_ point here, though perhaps you play with a different set of rules where "gender" and "sex" provide you with differing mechanical benefits, privileges, and statuses. Are these the alternative rules that state if you play a female character you get seven silver pieces for every gold piece that your male adventurering equals acquire? 



> I might say that the notion of "race" was misappropriated by imperialists and slavers as a means to justify their activities.



I'm not interested in what you "might say"; I'm interested in what you are saying. 



> You focused on the first sentence of that paragraph, but my point was in the second. Pick _anything_. Show it to Stormfront. Watch them twist it into their worldview. Does that make the thing you picked suddenly more problematic, or is it Stormfront that's "problematic"?



Both.


----------



## Gradine

Dannyalcatraz said:


> “Poor optics” to be sure.  (I believe the phrase of yesteryear would be “tin eared”.)
> 
> Go to New Orleans (and other places in Louisiana, Texas and Mississippi) at any point prior to @1985, you could find a lot of places serving an Italian salad called “W*p salad”.
> http://www.gumbopages.com/food/app/wop-salad.html
> 
> There are places that, up until the 1960s-70s had names like “N****r Creek”.
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negro_Creek_(Tongue_Creek)
> 
> Most locals wouldn’t have blinked twice about those usages, and probably had no racial animus in their heart.
> 
> But we know the words offend, so they were changed.
> 
> Some people are saying now that the way “race” is used in FRPGs is distasteful or offensive.  Why discount their narrative?




There's a dive bar about 45 minutes inland from me that, until about _three_ years ago, was named "Simon Legree's Bar".


----------



## Phasestar

I think that part of the disconnect in this thread is between the academic and the practical or "non-theoretical". 

Some folks here are clearly well versed in critical race theory and other similar philosophies that are currently popular among academics and many of those academics fully believe that the lens created by these theories shows the present and the past in the most accurate way.  Others are arguing from the more practical standpoint of how have gamers and D&D used this term and if there hasn't been a problem, why should there be one now, which (in my opinion correctly) leaves the non-game problems aside and focuses on the confines of the game.  

A few good points have been made on connections where the real world issues have inevitably crossed that fiction/non-fiction divide and those are in my opinion the strongest in favor of why a word that is not used offensively could still cause offense.  Some of those points have been convincing to me.  However, while I understand that, I also disagree that there is a better term for the game's purposes and I disagree that the number of people who would actually be offended is large enough or the game's usage of the term bad enough, that it must be changed rather than the questionable "real world" usages simply left in the non-fiction dust which is gradually receding in our rearview mirrors as time marches on.

The last point of disagreement I have comes from the compromised origins of critical race theory, which was devised as a tactic not aimed at seeking truth, but to do whatever it took - including twisting truth and creating perceptions of oppression even if untrue - to further a perceived end of justice, but in actuality to create division through oppressor/oppressed class warfare.  The best-case characterization is "the end justifies the means", but it's actually more cynical than that.  I question anything that is based on a view through that lens and doubt the positive outcome of any efforts towards justice that start without a genuine desire for truth and reconciliation, but rather a never-ending and somewhat self-perpetuating search for the next oppressor in order to achive ulterior motives.  In my lifetime, I've seen this point of view generate more division and bitterness than progress and justice.  Real justice and progress comes from a more constructive truth-seeking view, in my experience.

I'd also like to ask, if Morrus is still reading this, if there are any rules against insinuating that other posters are Nazis based on nothing but polite disagreement.  I've had about enough of seeing that here and it's happened more than once so far in this thread.


----------



## Gradine

Phasestar said:


> The last point of disagreement I have comes from the compromised origins of critical race theory, which was devised as a tactic not aimed at seeking truth, but to do whatever it took - including twisting truth and creating perceptions of oppression even if untrue - to further a perceived end of justice, but in actuality to create division through oppressor/oppressed class warfare.  The best-case characterization is "the end justifies the means", but it's actually more cynical than that.  I question anything that is based on a view through that lens and doubt the positive outcome of any efforts towards justice that start without a genuine desire for truth and reconciliation, but rather a never-ending and somewhat self-perpetuating search for the next oppressor in order to achive ulterior motives.




I certainly have concerns over the actual _efficacy_ of academic, theoretical models for changes, but this right here is, if you'll pardon me a language, is a load of horse. I could just as easily (if not _much more_ easily, given the long and storied history of anti-justice & anti-equality movements) disparage the motivations of those who downplay evidence of oppression and dismiss concerns of offense. I try not to; I almost certainly have done as much, in other contexts, so it's not like I don't understand the impulse. But this arguing in bad faith developed from a theory with no grounding in fact.

But history of critical race theory is grounded in _centuries_ of resistance movements and struggles for justice. To suggest that such divisiveness and inequity was invented in an ivory tower only recently is to ignore history.

Either cite your evidence or start arguing in good faith.


----------



## TheCosmicKid

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Do Native Americans offended by the name of Washington’s NFL team need to accept that there are also potatoes called redskins?  Was the term originally translated from native tongues to English?  Does either fact mean they shouldn’t be offended?



No, because "redskin" is a racial slur.



Dannyalcatraz said:


> But Half-orcs and the Orcish half of their ancestry are not described in positive ways...almost ever.  Is it coincidental that their attribute adjustments- bonuses to strength, deficits to intelligence and charisma map neatly with old descriptions of Africans and American slaves?  Probably, but that doesn’t make it any less problematic.  And why did the first evil elves havevto be black?
> 
> That the context still exists unchanged in conjunction with the term with the checkered past just plays right into the dreams of racists and nightmares of minorities.



All those things persist in Pathfinder, though, except the term. (More so than in D&D, even, which got rid of attribute penalties in 5E.) If that's where the problem lies, this terminological discussion has just been a massive 102-page distraction.


----------



## TheCosmicKid

Aldarc said:


> Do you honestly think that critical race theory or the US Civil Rights Act are seeking to preserve the use of the term "race" in society, much less in D&D?



I think "seeking to preserve" is the wrong way to put it. The Clean Water Act isn't "seeking to preserve" the use of the term "water" -- it's just using the natural term for the thing it pertains to.



Aldarc said:


> Do you think that D&D's use of "race" is equally as magnanimous in its use of the term "race" as Critical Race Studies or the US Civil Rights Act?



When Gygax was writing? No. In 5E? Getting there.



Aldarc said:


> Probably because its your strawman reaction.



 @_*Dannyalcatraz*_'s words were, _"We in this thread may know/believe the designers aren’t racists. But someone new to the game or hobby won’t necessarily be able to figure that out."_ If this is a strawman, it isn't mine. It's like some strange inversion of the strawman where a hypothetical person is set up to make a mistake, and this is used to _support_ an argument.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Gradine said:


> There's a dive bar about 45 minutes inland from me that, until about _three_ years ago, was named "Simon Legree's Bar".




Noice.


----------



## Remathilis

Aldarc said:


> Like who in the flying flippity-floppity do-dah would ever ask anyone "What is your race?" outside of the context of fantasy gaming, the US Census Bureau,* or racists?




Doctors. Certain diseases and drug interactions correlate with groups of people who share similar biological benchmarks that refer to as "race". It's being debated, but for now it's still being used as predictor of disease and medical treatment effectiveness. 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3167748/


----------



## TheCosmicKid

pemerton said:


> Those books currently ask players, in the course of building a character, to choose a race. And it is clear that the choice of race _isn't_ primarily to locate the character within a social structure - this isn't _sociology of race: the RPG_. The point of that choice is to establish a total (_essential_, if you like) package that establishes, all at once, biology, heredity, culture, capabilities and (elements of) worth. This is not a use of race that falls "outside" of racist theories; it's a use that _emulates_ those theories.



What if the game separated out biology/heredity and culture into two different decision points, like just about everybody on this thread starting with the OP and including me has been talking about?

What if it called those decision points "race" and "background"?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

TheCosmicKid said:


> All those things persist in Pathfinder, though, except the term. (More so than in D&D, even, which got rid of attribute penalties in 5E.) If that's where the problem lies, this terminological discussion has just been a massive 102-page distraction.



No, it hasn’t.  

Like I said, the pairing of the word “race” with the stats & description of Orcs, etc. might’ve been copypasted from racist tracts.  Sub “species” for  “race”, and the muddied waters clear, revealing that Orcs are _actually_ bigger and not quite as bright & charming as some of the other sentiments they share the campaign space with _for reasons contained within the setting_.  

Zero baggage, zero mess.  Don’t start nothin’, won’t be nothin’.



> It's like some strange inversion of the strawman where a hypothetical person is set up to make a mistake, and this is used to support an argument.




Not a strawman.  People _have_ complained, or this wouldn’t be happening at all, anywhere.  All I’m assuming is that those who are offended are are far more likely to be new to the hobby than veteran gamers.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Remathilis said:


> Doctors. Certain diseases and drug interactions correlate with groups of people who share similar biological benchmarks that refer to as "race". It's being debated, but for now it's still being used as predictor of disease and medical treatment effectiveness.
> 
> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3167748/




While true, _part_ of the reason for those commonalities is cultural., especially things like cuisine.  No matter where you go, “soul food” is likelier than not to be made with what _used to be _ considered low-grade ingredients, and are loaded with salt and fats.  We did the best we could with what we were allowed.  Now, it’s ingrained in the subculture.

But yeah, we are also more likely to have sickle cell trait, just like Ashkenazi Jews are more likely to get Tay-Sachs, and other races have their issues.  

Not a surprise, though.  “Breeds” of animals also vary in their susceptibility to disorders.  Dalmatians are more likely to be deaf, German Shepherds are prone to hip displasia, etc.

Neither “race” nor “breed” denote major genetic differences, just important corner-case variations within species.


----------



## Remathilis

Dannyalcatraz said:


> While true, _part_ of the reason for those commonalities is cultural., especially things like cuisine.  No matter where you go, “soul food” is likelier than not to be made with what _used to be _ considered low-grade ingredients, and are loaded with salt and fats.
> 
> But yeah, we are also more likely to have sickle cell trait, just like Ashkenazi Jews are more likely to get Tay-Sachs, and other races have their issues.
> 
> Not a surprise, though.  “Breeds” of animals also vary in their susceptibility to disorders.  Dalmatians are more likely to be deaf, German Shepherds are prone to hip displasia, etc.
> 
> Neither “race” nor “breed” denote major genetic differences, just important corner-case variations within species.



True, but in answering Aldrac's questions, race still serves a minor beneficial role beyond census statistics and rpgs...


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Remathilis said:


> True, but in answering Aldrac's questions, race still serves a minor beneficial role beyond census statistics and rpgs...




Agreed.  As “Big Pharma” and medical researchers are really just beginning to fully grasp, you can’t just test your new meds and other treatments & procedures on 1000 white males between 18-30 and expect to have anything like a complete picture of predictable results.  See also _gender_.


----------



## Aldarc

TheCosmicKid said:


> I think "seeking to preserve" is the wrong way to put it. The Clean Water Act isn't "seeking to preserve" the use of the term "water" -- it's just using the natural term for the thing it pertains to.



I'm sure that would be an absolutely fantastic point if we were debating the use of the term "water" in D&D. 



> When Gygax was writing? No. In 5E? Getting there.



So in 2018 our hobby has not even got as far as a piece of legislation from 1964? PROGRESS! 



TheCosmicKid said:


> What if it called those decision points "race" and "background"?



Then I would still be debating the use of the term "race," as would likely others. As it stands, it sounds like you are advocating for status quo since 5E has "race" and "background" as decision point terms. 



Remathilis said:


> Doctors. Certain diseases and drug interactions correlate with groups of people who share similar biological benchmarks that refer to as "race". It's being debated, but for now it's still being used as predictor of disease and medical treatment effectiveness.
> 
> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3167748/



The fact that the debate is happening suggests a growing recognition that a problem exists with the term and its usefulness for doctors. But usually other terms are increasingly used such as "ethnicity," "nationality," or "genetic ancestry" rather than "race."


----------



## Gradine

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Noice.




At least they are well-read racists?


----------



## Tanin Wulf

Aldarc said:


> The fact that the debate is happening suggests a growing recognition that a problem exists with the term and its usefulness for doctors. But usually other terms are increasingly used such as "ethnicity," "nationality," or "genetic ancestry" rather than "race."




The problems with that (which is why it's a debate) are that that ethnicity is a social grouping often based on a nationality, so someone can be ethnically South African and genetically Caucasian. Nationality is just... not useful in the slightest (a disease, like sickle cell anemia, that disproportionately affects black Americans doesn't care that they're Americans, it "cares", as it were, meaning that the genetic predisposition required to cause it to affect you, that they're black). And, of course, genetic ancestry is basically just a longer form of saying "race" and is just as loaded.


----------



## TheCosmicKid

Riley37 said:


> Also, as you may have guessed, I'm generally on the same page as DannyAlcatraz and Afrodyte. Birds of a feather... no, wait, that's not what we are. All we have in common is that we're each somewhere on the Niemoller Scale of whether they come for you first, or second, or later, or in the endgame. Holocaust, eugenics, Trail of Tears, Middle Passage, Inquisition, an Gorta Mór - different parties, same dance. But if none of your people were ever invited to any of those parties, then you'd have to cultivate understanding *across difference of perspective*, to understand at all. (Which you totally can... you clearly have the INT minimum, and then some... whenever you choose to.)
> 
> τῇ καλλίστῃ !



Dannyalcatraz and Afrodyte have been saying challenging and thought-provoking things which, even if I don't always agree, I can respect.

You have been saying stuff like this. You could argue for _anything_, however wrongheaded or absurd, with this rhetoric. Why am I supposed to believe you when every far-out position from anti-evolutionism to radical anarchism is also trying to blackmail me with "Do what we say or else you're heartless and supporting the next Holocaust!"?


----------



## Sunseeker

TheCosmicKid said:


> Dannyalcatraz and Afrodyte have been saying challenging and thought-provoking things which, even if I don't always agree, I can respect.
> 
> You have been saying stuff like this. You could argue for _anything_, however wrongheaded or absurd, with this rhetoric. Why am I supposed to believe you when every far-out position from anti-evolutionism to radical anarchism is also trying to blackmail me with "Do what we say or else you're heartless and supporting the next Holocaust!"?




Speaking of the use of rhetoric....


----------



## TheCosmicKid

Aldarc said:


> I'm sure that would be an absolutely fantastic point if we were debating the use of the term "water" in D&D.



"Race" is the term for the thing the Civil Rights Act pertains to. Whether the thing is a social construct or not, it is a thing.



Aldarc said:


> Then I would still be debating the use of the term "race," as would likely others. As it stands, it sounds like you are advocating for status quo since 5E has "race" and "background" as decision point terms.



Pretty close. As has been discussed earlier, the races in 5E still have some baked-in cultural features. I'd expand backgrounds and move the option of taking those features over there.


----------



## Afrodyte

Serious question: what is the problem with being considerate of other people? What is so off the wall insane about changing the name of _one_ game mechanic so that it doesn't remind people of real-world nonsense they don't want to deal with while playing D&D? Why is keeping this _one_ word more important than not driving people away from the gaming table, D&D or the hobby as a whole? Why is it more important to debate and interrogate the ones who have a problem with it instead of, I dunno, look for an alternative that doesn't alienate people?

Seriously, what is so hard about that?

*Player:* Er, about this race thing. I like elves and dwarves and halflings and stuff, but I'm not comfortable with using terms like race to describe them. Is there another term we could use?
*GM and other Players:* Um...sure, what would work for you?
*Player:* How about ancestry/origin/heritage/kin/chromosomes?
*GM and other Players:* OK, no problem.

Or this?

*Book:* We've moved away from using race to describe the playable creatures because it has far heavier connotations than what we intend for this game.
*GM and Players:* *shrug* OK.

What is so mind-boggling about that?


----------



## Hussar

For all the back and forth in this thread [MENTION=8713]Afrodyte[/MENTION], that's pretty much my take on it.  

But, you have to remember, in D&D, words MATTER.  To an insane degree.  And any change must be fought tooth and nail no matter what.  Change is bad.  Change is just "change for change's sake" regardless of any other justification.

That's why it's such a hard thing to do here.


----------



## Phasestar

Afrodyte said:


> Serious question: what is the problem with being considerate of other people? What is so off the wall insane about changing the name of _one_ game mechanic so that it doesn't remind people of real-world nonsense they don't want to deal with while playing D&D? Why is keeping this _one_ word more important than not driving people away from the gaming table, D&D or the hobby as a whole? Why is it more important to debate and interrogate the ones who have a problem with it instead of, I dunno, look for an alternative that doesn't alienate people?




For me personally, there's nothing wrong with being considerate, but that's not what this debate is about in my case.  I am against racism, in favor of good manners and consideration and believe in judging each person individually by who they actually are underneath their skin.  Racism is stupid and unfounded and I find it personally repellent.  I'm also in favor of introducing D&D to everyone in the world, if possible and making them feel welcome.

For me this is about a bigger debate than this one question - a debate about principle that focuses on free speech and the long-term consequences on civilization when speech is too greatly limited.  There has been a growing pattern of speech censorship and limitation and reclassification in our society in general.  Much of this has seemed well-intentioned on the surface, but the unintended negative consequences have been greater than any benefit.  Within this thread, many moved quickly from asking the question "is the word race offensive even when used inoffensively" to deciding that it was and that therefore no one should use it.  From there, it's a very short step to declare anyone using it, past/present/future as a racist and an evil person.  I have a very high bar when it comes to declaring words off-limits because of that, especially when they have a neutral meaning and can be used in good faith without causing offense.

If you were at my table and asked me not to use the word "race", I would be initially puzzled (because until reading this thread I had no idea folks were offended by what on its own to me had always been a neutral word used without negative connotations in D&D) but would agree until we could discuss in private.  Afterwards, I would ask you what bothered you about it and listen with an open mind to try to understand your position as to why it personally upset you.  I would also hope that you would listen and understand my position.  Whether we agreed or not would depend on that discussion, but my reluctance to accomodate your concerns on a personal level is much lower than my reluctance to ban words in all cases, so I expect I would agree.  

In this debate though, it comes down to something closer to "should the word race, in any context, be banned in general", which concerns me much more.

A great deal of history has taught me that we need free speech precisely to protect offensive speech, not to protect popular or considerate speech, because when those who want to limit speech seek power over all, they will declare any speech that is against them as offensive.  Free speech as a principle is a key natural right and bulwark against all kinds of things that are much worse than being considered ignorant or inconsiderate.  This to me is one of the core principles of our civilization and should not be compromised.  Most of human history was much different and much worse than the relative golden age in which we all now live and the principles that established this unique period in human history could be easily lost (and along with it, much of what we now take for granted) if they are not understood and defended.  

For those reason, I would rather not avoid or ban words that in and of themselves are not offensive but could be or have been used offensively in the past.  I would rather say "let's understand that when used this way, this word is offensive, so don't use it that way if you do not intend to offend".


----------



## Tony Vargas

Phasestar said:


> A great deal of history has taught me that we need free speech precisely to protect offensive speech, not to protect popular or considerate speech, because when those who want to limit speech seek power over all, they will declare any speech that is against them as offensive.  Free speech as a principle is a key natural right and bulwark against all kinds of things that are much worse than being considered ignorant or inconsiderate.  This to me is one of the core principles of our civilization and should not be compromised.  Most of human history was much different and much worse than the relative golden age in which we all now live and the principles that established this unique period in human history could be easily lost (and along with it, much of what we now take for granted) if they are not understood and defended.



 Perhaps the hardest part of defending freedom is the need to defend the freedoms of those who despise freedom, itself, and will abuse every freedom they have in trying to abridge those of others.


----------



## Afrodyte

But none of what you wrote answers my questions: What is wrong with changing _one_ word to be considerate of other people? Why is it so important to dig your heels in and refuse to even look for alternatives to _one_ word that some people have said alienates them from the game, or at least makes things more uncomfortable than they need to be? Why is this _one_ word more important than the people at the table or in the hobby?


----------



## Tony Vargas

Afrodyte said:


> But none of what you wrote answers my questions: What is wrong with changing _one_ word to be considerate of other people?



 At best, it's a narrow end of the wedge thing.  If someone gets to dictate that you can or can't use word, do they get to dictate other words, as well?  Can it be taken to the point that certain concepts can't be meaningfully discussed any more because the words that are needed to express one side of an argument are forbidden?  

If an idea is wrong, it need only be confronted and refuted (not merely shouted down) every time it is expressed, (I say 'only,' but, obviously, that's a major, continuous undertaking).  If, instead, public expression of an idea is suppressed, it goes underground, where it an be expressed in echo-chambers without being refuted in public, and it's proponents can take up the mantle of the oppressed struggling against their oppressors.  

That said, a game has a fair amount of latitude in choosing it's jargon, and a term like heritage or ancestry could easily work better than race as such jargon, while side-stepping the current loading of the term, not to mention the sense of anachronism that loading adds to the use of the term.  No telling what term might be loaded up on later, though... maybe someday, for some unforeseeable reason, 'Hit Points' will become a horribly offensive phrase...?


----------



## Afrodyte

Tony Vargas said:


> At best, it's a narrow end of the wedge thing.  If someone gets to dictate that you can or can't use word, do they get to dictate other words, as well?  Can it be taken to the point that certain concepts can't be meaningfully discussed any more because the words that are needed to express one side of an argument are forbidden?
> 
> If an idea is wrong, it need only be confronted and refuted (not merely shouted down) every time it is expressed, (I say 'only,' but, obviously, that's a major, continuous undertaking).  If, instead, public expression of an idea is suppressed, it goes underground, where it an be expressed in echo-chambers without being refuted in public, and it's proponents can take up the mantle of the oppressed struggling against their oppressors.
> 
> That said, a game has a fair amount of latitude in choosing it's jargon, and a term like heritage or ancestry could easily work better than race as such jargon, while side-stepping the current loading of the term.  No telling what term might be loaded up on later, though... maybe someday, for some unforeseeable reason, 'Hit Points' will become a horribly offensive phrase...?




This seems like a slippery slope argument, and it doesn't answer my questions. Why is it wrong to be considerate of other people by changing this _one_ word? Why does this _one_ word mean more than the people at the table or in the hobby?


----------



## MoonSong

Tanin Wulf said:


> The problems with that (which is why it's a debate) are that that ethnicity is a social grouping often based on a nationality, so someone can be ethnically South African and genetically Caucasian. Nationality is just... not useful in the slightest (a disease, like sickle cell anemia, that disproportionately affects black Americans doesn't care that they're Americans, it "cares", as it were, meaning that the genetic predisposition required to cause it to affect you, that they're black). And, of course, genetic ancestry is basically just a longer form of saying "race" and is just as loaded.




There's way more nuance to ethnicity than that. Ethnicity is a social group based upon common cultural heritage: history, customs, traditions, idiosyncrasies, values, and overall worldview. Sometimes it also includes common language, and even some genetic resemblance. -though this last one is not a guarantee, for example the Nahua people come from quite distinct genetic lineages only one of which is genetically close to the ancient Aztecs-. It is not synonymous with nationality, as a single nation/state can include tons of ethnicities and a single ethnicity could easily be spread around different nations.        



Afrodyte said:


> Serious question: what is the problem with being considerate of other people? What is so off the wall insane about changing the name of _one_ game mechanic so that it doesn't remind people of real-world nonsense they don't want to deal with while playing D&D? Why is keeping this _one_ word more important than not driving people away from the gaming table, D&D or the hobby as a whole? Why is it more important to debate and interrogate the ones who have a problem with it instead of, I dunno, look for an alternative that doesn't alienate people?
> 
> Seriously, what is so hard about that?
> 
> *Player:* Er, about this race thing. I like elves and dwarves and halflings and stuff, but I'm not comfortable with using terms like race to describe them. Is there another term we could use?
> *GM and other Players:* Um...sure, what would work for you?
> *Player:* How about ancestry/origin/heritage/kin/chromosomes?
> *GM and other Players:* OK, no problem.
> 
> Or this?
> 
> *Book:* We've moved away from using race to describe the playable creatures because it has far heavier connotations than what we intend for this game.
> *GM and Players:* *shrug* OK.
> 
> What is so mind-boggling about that?




Nothing, we could easily switch it.

However, the mere premise over which the initial argument rests, can be alienating. Not the actual fights for equality, just the overgeneralizations that come with it. Merely assuming the sociopolitical climate of a given country holds true for all countries. Like I said in an earlier post, I don't know what to make of things as simple as the "PoC" moniker. I'm sure in America things are more clear cut, but in my country, that doesn't make any sense. I'm not saying skin color isn't a problem in my country -it is, specially the Higher the socioeconomic class of the people involved, but my brother being darker skinned than I makes no difference between us, if anything he is more privileged than I though for totally unrelated reasons-, but the worst and most urgent inequalities aren't racially based, they are economically driven, ethnically driven, regionally driven, even religiously driven. I empathize with the feelings and I wish you the best of luck, but American issues driving the hobby and taking center stage on it, while the issues of non-americans are basically unheard of and quickly dismissed -as it happened to me when I complained about a certain holiday themed adventure. No biggie, it just makes a mockery of my ancestors, a quite sacred holiday to me and throws in quite casually a few insensitive stereotypes while at it.- makes me feel as if I don't belong in the hobby. Heck I wouldn't be able to take part in this conversation if I hadn't taught myself English!


----------



## Tony Vargas

Afrodyte said:


> This seems like a slippery slope argument



 Yes.  Slippery slope, narrow end of the wedge.  It's not a logically valid argument by itself.



> Why is it wrong to be considerate of other people by changing this _one_ word? Why does this _one_ word mean more than the people at the table or in the hobby?



 I don't think it's wrong to be considerate.  I think it's wrong to go too far in punishing people for being inconsiderate, especially, in their speech, because punishing speech can become a tool of oppression.  And it's better to just let everyone have their say, and express themselves as they see fit - even if they're terribly, horribly wrong and actively malevolent in doing so, at least we know where we stand with them - and, we, in turn, can call them on it.  (For instance, here on the boards, you can lie all you want, but calling someone on it is verboten, because it's inconsiderate to call them a liar.  Not an ideal situation, IMHO, but it's Morrus's forum and he can do what he wants with it.)

The way I see it, 'race' has been used in modern contexts in a way that makes it less useful as game-rules jargon in evoking the fantasy genre than an alternative like 'heritage' or 'blood' or 'people,' for some instances, might.  It's not that someone might be offended, it's that the drift of the language and the stench of politics has placed connotations on the word that rendered it less valuable for the purpose.  At least, for now.


----------



## Afrodyte

MoonSong said:


> There's way more nuance to ethnicity than that. Ethnicity is a social group based upon common cultural heritage: history, customs, traditions, idiosyncrasies, values, and overall worldview. Sometimes it also includes common language, and even some genetic resemblance. -though this last one is not a guarantee, for example the Nahua people come from quite distinct genetic lineages only one of which is genetically close to the ancient Aztecs-. It is not synonymous with nationality, as a single nation/state can include tons of ethnicities and a single ethnicity could easily be spread around different nations.
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing, we could easily switch it.
> 
> However, the mere premise over which the initial argument rests, can be alienating. Not the actual fights for equality, just the overgeneralizations that come with it. Merely assuming the sociopolitical climate of a given country holds true for all countries. Like I said in an earlier post, I don't know what to make of things as simple as the "PoC" moniker. I'm sure in America things are more clear cut, but in my country, that doesn't make any sense. I'm not saying skin color isn't a problem in my country -it is, specially the Higher the socioeconomic class of the people involved, but my brother being darker skinned than I makes no difference between us, if anything he is more privileged than I though for totally unrelated reasons-, but the worst and most urgent inequalities aren't racially based, they are economically driven, ethnically driven, regionally driven, even religiously driven. I empathize with the feelings and I wish you the best of luck, but American issues driving the hobby and taking center stage on it, while the issues of non-americans are basically unheard of and quickly dismissed -as it happened to me when I complained about a certain holiday themed adventure. No biggie, it just makes a mockery of my ancestors, a quite sacred holiday to me and throws in quite casually a few insensitive stereotypes while at it.- makes me feel as if I don't belong in the hobby. Heck I wouldn't be able to take part in this conversation if I hadn't taught myself English!




This does not answer my questions: Why is it wrong to be considerate of other people? Why is keeping this _one_ word more important than making people feel welcome and included at the table or in the hobby? Why is this keeping this _one_ word in the game text more important than the real people at the table and in the hobby?


----------



## Afrodyte

Tony Vargas said:


> Yes.  Slippery slope, narrow end of the wedge.  It's not a logically valid argument by itself.
> 
> I don't think it's wrong to be considerate.  I think it's wrong to go too far in punishing people for being inconsiderate, especially, in their speech, because punishing speech can become a tool of oppression.  And it's better to juts let everyone have their say, and express themselves as they see fit - even if they're terribly, horribly wrong and actively malevolent in doing so, at least we know where we stand with them.
> 
> The way I see it, 'race' has been used in modern contexts in a way that makes it less useful as game-rules jargon in evoking the fantasy genre than an alternative like 'heritage' or 'blood' or 'people,' for some instances, might.  It's not that someone might be offended, it's that the drift of the language and the stench of politics has placed connotations on the word that rendered it less valuable for the purpose.  At least, for now.




Again, this seems like the slippery slope fallacy as well as a strawman. The hypothetical cause and effect you're presenting here is neither inevitable nor is "punishing people for being inconsiderate" an accurate representation of what people in favor of changing this _one_ word actually asking for.


----------



## Tony Vargas

Afrodyte said:


> Why is keeping this one word more important than making people feel welcome and included at the table or in the hobby? Why is this keeping this one word in the game text more important than the real people at the table and in the hobby?



This seems like the slippery slope fallacy as well as a strawman. The hypothetical cause and effect you're presenting here is neither inevitable nor is "making people feel unwelcome and excluded" an accurate representation of what people in favor of keeping this _one_ word actually asking for.

But, my opinion is that D&D would do well to step away from 'race,' with its modern connotations of political controversy, and choose an alternative that better fits the D&D concept of radically different sentient beings - elves, dwarves, orcs, lizard_folk_, fairies, dragons, etc -  all inhabiting a fantasy world.
But, it's just an opinion, not a demand.


----------



## Afrodyte

Tony Vargas said:


> This seems like the slippery slope fallacy as well as a strawman. The hypothetical cause and effect you're presenting here is neither inevitable nor is "making people feel unwelcome and excluded" an accurate representation of what people in favor of keeping this _one_ word actually asking for.




Again, you are _grossly_ mischaracterizing what I'm saying, and you are flat-out putting words in my mouth.

Nowhere do I accuse anyone of any malicious intent, nor do I, in any of my posts, say that people are engaging in any deliberately exclusive behavior.

If you can't answer my questions without grossly distorting my point, I have no desire to converse with you.


----------



## Gradine

Tony Vargas said:


> This seems like the slippery slope fallacy as well as a strawman. The hypothetical cause and effect you're presenting here is neither inevitable nor is "making people feel unwelcome and excluded" an accurate representation of what people in favor of keeping this _one_ word actually asking for.
> 
> But, my opinion is that D&D would do well to step away from 'race' and choose an alternative that better fits the D&D concept of radically different sentient beings - elves, dwarves, orcs, *lizardmen*, fairies, dragons, etc -  all inhabiting a fantasy world, rather than one that carries modern connotations of political controversy.
> But, it's just an opinion, not a demand.




*Lizardfolk


----------



## aramis erak

mykesfree said:


> In Adventure in Middle-earth, which is D&D 5e based, it is called Cultures.  Cultures cover Elves of Mirkwood, Men of Bree, and Hobbits of the Shire.




Only because it's a port of The One Ring.


----------



## Afrodyte

*Pathfinder:* "It seems that this word we use has some unintended baggage we don't want in the game. Why don't we change this word to address the concerns a few people brought up?"

*Some People:* "Not really something I worry about, but if it means more people feel welcome and included, OK."

*Some Other People:* "Nyah, nyah, nyah, you can't make me, and you're a big ol' PC meanie if you say this means I'm acting like a jerk."

*Me:* "Why is it so important to not do this simple thing if it means making someone feel more comfortable at the table or in the hobby? Why is being a little more considerate of fellow D&D players a bad thing?"

*Some Other People:* "I have the right to be inconsiderate, and even if somebody did have a problem with the word (which I doubt despite several people flat-out saying that they do), changing one word is limiting free speech."

*Me:* "Uh...you do you, I guess."


----------



## MoonSong

Afrodyte said:


> This does not answer my questions: Why is it wrong to be considerate of other people? Why is keeping this _one_ word more important than making people feel welcome and included at the table or in the hobby? Why is this keeping this _one_ word in the game text more important than the real people at the table and in the hobby?




Why is this one word so important to fight over? This whole discussion is alienating to me, I don't even fit into this "race" category as is the case for basically everybody I know and hold dear. Am I white? Am I PoC? the mere fact that I had never needed a racial label for myself speaks by itself. The whole premise over which this discussion is a thing is just so alien, and that it is that huge of a deal just makes me feel like an outsider and unwelcome. You're American? yeah your issues matter. You're not? what are you doing here?  

I'm all for making people feel welcome, but I'm not even sure if I'm in the position to make others feel welcome, when I don't feel welcome myself. Who cares enough to make me feel welcome? Apparently nobody...


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Tony Vargas said:


> But, my opinion is that D&D would do well to step away from 'race,' with its modern connotations of political controversy, and choose an alternative that better fits the D&D concept of radically different sentient beings - elves, dwarves, orcs, lizardmen, fairies, dragons, etc -  all inhabiting a fantasy world.
> But, it's just an opinion, not a demand.



Agreed, 100%.


----------



## Tony Vargas

Afrodyte said:


> *Some People:* "Not really something I worry about, but if it means more people feel welcome and included, OK."
> *Some Other People:* "Nyah, nyah, nyah, you can't make me, and you're a big ol' PC meanie if you say this means I'm acting like a jerk."
> *Some Other People:* "I have the right to be inconsiderate, and even if somebody did have a problem with the word (which I doubt despite several people flat-out saying that they do), changing one word is limiting free speech."



Again, you are _grossly_ mischaracterizing what Some Other People saying, and you are flat-out putting words their mouths.



> *Pathfinder:* "It seems that this word we use has some unintended baggage we don't want in the game. Why don't we change this word to address the concerns a few people brought up?"



*Me:* Y'know, the word's been so contaminated by political baggage, why not use another word that'll evoke medieval fantasy instead of modern politics?


----------



## pemerton

Phasestar said:


> Some folks here are clearly well versed in critical race theory and other similar philosophies that are currently popular among academics and many of those academics fully believe that the lens created by these theories shows the present and the past in the most accurate way.  Others are arguing from the more practical standpoint of how have gamers and D&D used this term and if there hasn't been a problem, why should there be one now, which (in my opinion correctly) leaves the non-game problems aside and focuses on the confines of the game.



I don't think this is a correct characterisation.

My concerns - which I've tried to articulate, straightforwardly, from my first post in this thread - is that my RPG books are _real things_ that I would like to be more easily able to share with _real people_ - actual family and actual friends. This is a practical thing.

What is the current obstacle to sharing them? Because these books incorporate an idea, and stories that employ that idea - they _recapitulate_ and _treat as unremakarble_ an idea - which some of my family and friends would rather not have to deal with on those terms: namely, the idea that biology, heredity, culture, capabilities and worth on a hiearchy of people all travel together in some total package called "race".



Phasestar said:


> A few good points have been made on connections where the real world issues have inevitably crossed that fiction/non-fiction divide and those are in my opinion the strongest in favor of why a word that is not used offensively could still cause offense.





Phasestar said:


> For me personally, there's nothing wrong with being considerate, but that's not what this debate is about in my case.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> For me this is about a bigger debate than this one question - a debate about principle that focuses on free speech and the long-term consequences on civilization when speech is too greatly limited.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I have a very high bar when it comes to declaring words off-limits because of that, especially when they have a neutral meaning and can be used in good faith without causing offense.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> In this debate though, it comes down to something closer to "should the word race, in any context, be banned in general", which concerns me much more.
> 
> A great deal of history has taught me that we need free speech precisely to protect offensive speech



These remarks don't really bear on this discussion at all.

As best I can recall, no one in this thread has said of him-/herself that s/he is _offended_ by the use of the word "race". And as best I can recall, the only _offensive_ text that's been exhibited is from Gygax's PHB, which I posted upthread (concerning half-orcs).

And no one in this thread is talking about banning words, or censoring anyone. I have a copy of Gygax's PHB on my shelf. I have copies of REH and HPL on my shelf.

This is a discussion about what sorts of words and ideas one wants to be required to engage with to play a game. And it's obvious - I would have thought - that for some people that engagement brings stresses and burdens that it may not for others.



Afrodyte said:


> What is wrong with changing _one_ word to be considerate of other people? Why is it so important to dig your heels in and refuse to even look for alternatives to _one_ word that some people have said alienates them from the game, or at least makes things more uncomfortable than they need to be?



_Alienation_ and _discomfort_ are much better words to capture what I'm talking about than _offence_.


----------



## Eltab

Afrodyte said:


> Why is keeping this _one_ word more important than making people feel welcome and included at the table or in the hobby? Why is this keeping this _one_ word in the game text more important than the real people at the table and in the hobby?



A mirror: why is _removing_ this one word more important than making people feel welcomed and included at the table or in the hobby?  Why is _removing_ this one word from the game text more important than the real people at the table and in the hobby?

It was put very well upthread: not all the effort to change language and culture is being put forward in good faith.  The bad faith actors are a lot noisier and quickly level highly flammable insults at non-agree-ers.
I've seen more good faith and gentlemanly behavior in this thread - including your contributions except for this evening - than I've seen in socio-political discourse as a whole.  Maybe this is because RPG'ers are different from the average person: we have experience with the idea "put yourself in the other fellow's shoes," because that is what we do for fun.


----------



## TheCosmicKid

Afrodyte said:


> Serious question: what is the problem with being considerate of other people? What is so off the wall insane about changing the name of _one_ game mechanic so that it doesn't remind people of real-world nonsense they don't want to deal with while playing D&D? Why is keeping this _one_ word more important than not driving people away from the gaming table, D&D or the hobby as a whole? Why is it more important to debate and interrogate the ones who have a problem with it instead of, I dunno, look for an alternative that doesn't alienate people?



I interrogate the reasons for taking an action because that's what it means to be a rational human being. I'm... disturbed by your implication that I should do otherwise. What you're describing does not sound like common courtesy to me. What would you say if a player from a culture with conservative modesty norms said to you, "The women in this game's art should wear headscarves. It's just one small change. Why are the bare heads of fictional characters more important than making real people like me feel welcome? Isn't it inconsiderate of you even to question my request?" (Please note that I am not drawing equivalence between the proposed changes of "race" and headscarves, but rather the coercive means being used to argue for them. If you want to start pointing out the ways in which "race" is a different case than headscarves... great! It means you're interrogating the merits of the proposals.)



Afrodyte said:


> Player: Er, about this race thing. I like elves and dwarves and halflings and stuff, but I'm not comfortable with using terms like race to describe them. Is there another term we could use?
> GM and other Players: Um...sure, what would work for you?
> Player: How about ancestry/origin/heritage/kin/chromosomes?
> GM and other Players: OK, no problem.



That's roughly how I would react at the actual table. I'm not there to argue, I'm there to play D&D. I also keep the peace when somebody says something I find politically or religiously objectionable at dinner, because of course I do. But we are here, on a forum, in a thread entitled "Do we still need 'race' in D&D?" If there's anywhere to cross-examine the stuff that doesn't make sense to us, it's here.


----------



## Sunseeker

Eltab said:


> A mirror: why is _removing_ this one word more important than making people feel welcomed and included at the table or in the hobby?  Why is _removing_ this one word from the game text more important than the real people at the table and in the hobby?




The problem with reversing the argument is that it doesn't hold up.

The people who are feeling _unwelcome_ generally attribute some level of unwelcomeness to the use of the term "race".  As expressed by folks like [MENTION=19675]Dannyalcatraz[/MENTION]
Removing the word, updating it to something less unwelcoming helps being more _real people_ into the hobby.

You can't really reverse that.  If you say "Worry about the people, not the word!" well...those people are concerned about the word.  So if we are to be concerned about _them_ then we should share in their concern over the word.


----------



## Afrodyte

Tony Vargas said:


> Again, you are _grossly_ mischaracterizing what Some Other People saying, and you are flat-out putting words their mouths.




This is annoying. Please stop or leave me alone.


----------



## Afrodyte

Eltab said:


> A mirror: why is _removing_ this one word more important than making people feel welcomed and included at the table or in the hobby?  Why is _removing_ this one word from the game text more important than the real people at the table and in the hobby?




I don't play this game. It's irritating. People have explained, at length, why they're in favor of removing it.


----------



## Afrodyte

TheCosmicKid said:


> That's roughly how I would react at the actual table. I'm not there to argue, I'm there to play D&D. I also keep the peace when somebody says something I find politically or religiously objectionable at dinner, because of course I do. But we are here, on a forum, in a thread entitled "Do we still need 'race' in D&D?" If there's anywhere to cross-examine the stuff that doesn't make sense to us, it's here.




Then what are you arguing about?


----------



## pemerton

TheCosmicKid said:


> What if the game separated out biology/heredity and culture into two different decision points, like just about everybody on this thread starting with the OP and including me has been talking about?
> 
> What if it called those decision points "race" and "background"?



Speaking for myself, and re-aticulating points I've already made in this thread, that doesn't resolve the issue, and in some ways makes it more accute.

Under this model, "race" becomes even more a marker of biological inheritance, and equates that with a person's identity and capabilities, while also making questions about biological purity all the more pressing. To explain further: at the moment, maybe some "elves" are really  "half-elves" - ie people with ancestry that most would regard as human - raised among the elves - a sort-of D&D approximation to Elrond. Once you make race unequivocally biology, how does such a person fit into the mechanical scheme?

Upthread some poster were discussing rules for quarter-elves, eighth-orcs etc. My view is that those sorts of rules do nothing to resolve the issue I have been posting about in this thread, and indeed tend to exacerbate it.

I'm not a designer, and haven't tried to do any sort of systematic study of the mechanical alternatives and how they might be rendered well in the fiction. That said, upthread - in discussion with [MENTION=6787503]Hriston[/MENTION] - I already sketched an idea of elaborating on the existing background rules that are found in 5e, 13th Age and maybe some other recent d20 games. Being an elf, a dwarf, a half-elf or whatever could just be another component of background choices.


----------



## MoonSong

pemerton said:


> Speaking for myself, and re-aticulating points I've already made in this thread, that doesn't resolve the issue, and in some ways makes it more accute.
> 
> Under this model, "race" becomes even more a marker of biological inheritance, and equates that with a person's identity and capabilities, while also making questions about biological purity all the more pressing. To explain further: at the moment, maybe some "elves" are really  "half-elves" - ie people with ancestry that most would regard as human - raised among the elves - a sort-of D&D approximation to Elrond. Once you make race unequivocally biology, how does such a person fit into the mechanical scheme?
> 
> Upthread some poster were discussing rules for quarter-elves, eighth-orcs etc. My view is that those sorts of rules do nothing to resolve the issue I have been posting about in this thread, and indeed tend to exacerbate it.
> 
> I'm not a designer, and haven't tried to do any sort of systematic study of the mechanical alternatives and how they might be rendered well in the fiction. That said, upthread - in discussion with [MENTION=6787503]Hriston[/MENTION] - I already sketched an idea of elaborating on the existing background rules that are found in 5e, 13th Age and maybe some other recent d20 games. Being an elf, a dwarf, a half-elf or whatever could just be another component of background choices.




Personally I'm not a fan of modeling ethnicity with mechanics, which is basically what it would be. It'd be easier to just give up on it entirely and have race be pure flavor, without mechanical backing. Just give some feats or something that allows to pick Darkvision, breath weapon and stuff if you really need it, or not, that stuff is biological after all.


----------



## ccs

pemerton said:


> Speaking for myself, and re-aticulating points I've already made in this thread, that doesn't resolve the issue, and in some ways makes it more accute.
> 
> Under this model, "race" becomes even more a marker of biological inheritance, and equates that with a person's identity and capabilities, while also making questions about biological purity all the more pressing. To explain further: at the moment, maybe some "elves" are really  "half-elves" - ie people with ancestry that most would regard as human - raised among the elves - a sort-of D&D approximation to Elrond. Once you make race unequivocally biology, how does such a person fit into the mechanical scheme?
> 
> Upthread some poster were discussing rules for quarter-elves, eighth-orcs etc. My view is that those sorts of rules do nothing to resolve the issue I have been posting about in this thread, and indeed tend to exacerbate it.
> 
> I'm not a designer, and haven't tried to do any sort of systematic study of the mechanical alternatives and how they might be rendered well in the fiction. That said, upthread - in discussion with [MENTION=6787503]Hriston[/MENTION] - I already sketched an idea of elaborating on the existing background rules that are found in 5e, 13th Age and maybe some other recent d20 games. *Being an elf, a dwarf, a half-elf or whatever could just be another component of background choices.*




It already is.  See PHB (5e), P11,  paragraph 6.  It's step 1 of creating a character (though plenty of people tend start by picking their class). 
Now to some players it's IMPORTANT if their character is an Elf, Dwarf, etc.
To others their caring seems to stop at the stat mods & other special abilities.


----------



## Tony Vargas

Afrodyte said:


> This is annoying. Please stop or leave me alone.




I'm sorry, it's just that you make it so easy by repeatedly doing exactly what you accuse others of, often in the same breath.  



Eltab said:


> A mirror: why is _removing_ this one word more important than making people feel welcomed and included at the table or in the hobby?  Why is _removing_ this one word from the game text more important than the real people at the table and in the hobby?.



 Even assuming someone would feel put off by replacing the politically-charged-in-America term race with 'ancestry' or something, wouldn't stepping away from the modern issue and focusing on the fantasy be desirable?


----------



## Sunseeker

MoonSong said:


> Personally I'm not a fan of modeling ethnicity with mechanics, which is basically what it would be. It'd be easier to just give up on it entirely and have race be pure flavor, without mechanical backing. Just give some feats or something that allows to pick Darkvision, breath weapon and stuff if you really need it, or not, that stuff is biological after all.




Frankly, I'd be perfectly happy to do away with racial ability modifiers.  I think they do a lot to enforce certain choices when creating certain types of characters.  And I don't like that.  I'd rather see a +2 floating based on class and a +1 based on background.  Something to say "Your ability in this area is better because of your life experiences, not your biology."

That said, I don't mind biological-based abilities, but I don't feel that _most_ of them are defining enough to really scream "ELF!" or "DWARF!".  They're mostly just tropey, like a Dwarf's "Iron Stomach" which plays upon ideas of how much they eat and drink, which plays upon stereotypes that first let to defining Dwarves as a "race" which are themselves based on stereotypes of _real people_.  

And really, I've run games where "race" is nothing but flavor (it's actually my preferred method).  I do this by letting players choose whatever "racial ability block" they want to use mechanically, and then letting them say "Well I'm an .....".  You know what it changes about the gameplay?  ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.  People who play elves still tend to be arrogant tree huggers.  People who play dwarves still tend to be scottsman parodies.  People who play humans tend to be...human.  And so forth.


----------



## Riley37

Maxperson said:


> For the first two yes, I find them offensive.  There's nothing sacred or saintlike about being a survivor that prevents them from using a past horror to their current political advantage.  For the last one, I don't understand why you even put it here.




Well, I asked you a question, and you gave a non-evasive, yes-or-no answer, so thanks for that.

Your answer horrifies me, but *shrug* better to know and be horrified, than to turn a blind eye.


----------



## Hussar

So, to sum up, the reason against changing the word is a slippery slope fallacy without any actual supporting evidence. There is no evidence that previous changes, like lizard folk , have had any negative impact so claims of “thin edge of the wedge” seem rather disingenuous considering changes that have already been made and accepted.


----------



## Maxperson

Riley37 said:


> Well, I asked you a question, and you gave a non-evasive, yes-or-no answer, so thanks for that.
> 
> Your answer horrifies me, but *shrug* better to know and be horrified, than to turn a blind eye.




This is one of the big problems with this country.  People are willing to excuse people for their actions because bad things happened in their past.  Killers and rapists get off or get reduced sentences because they got beat by their fathers or grew up really poor.  I got beat by a father who was an alcoholic.  Not only have I never even come close to wanting to kill or rape someone, I don't abuse my kids.  Despite what happened to me, I still make my own choices as do others who had horrible experiences in the past.

Oh no you di’nt!  That's not acceptable.

THAT was unacceptable.  Don’t go there again.


----------



## Riley37

Remathilis said:


> What I am arguing against is the relativist take:
> 
> 1.) The presence of non-evil Drow signifies that they are creatures of free-will and thus can be taught to change their ways.
> 2.) The fact they are redeemable means killing them in an act of murder.
> 3.) Modern concepts of war, justice, and international law means drow should ideally be captured, put on trial, and rehabilitated rather than fought or killed, unless in self-defense.
> 
> Which is the slippery slope of taking concepts of real world politics and sociology and applying them to the game.




i suspect that you might be misrepresenting relativism. I don't know if relativism asserts that all humans are redeemable. (Humans as in real world Homo sapiens, the only animal on Earth which sparks fire from flint.) If it does, then I don't understand relativism, because I don't see how Charles Manson was redeemable. Well, not by his fellow mortals. By a divinity with infinite time and infinite love, maybe, but not by any nation's criminal justice system, nor mental health system.

But I know that modern concepts of war, justice, and international law don't require that *humans* be "captured, put on trial, and rehabilitated rather than fought or killed, unless in self-defense." For example, Seal Team Six did not capture Osama bin Laden for trial and rehabilitation, nor was he holding some innocent at gunpoint just before they paid a visit to his household. I'm not saying they should have tried for a capture; I'm just pointing out that they *didn't*, and so far as I know, that mission was within modern concepts of war, justice, and international law. Insofar as we don't hold that standard for humans, you need not worry about applying it to high elves, wood elves, or drow.

Those concepts also distinguish between rules of engagement appropriate to "an unarmed tourist from (x) walks into a Tibetan bar" and "an army from (x) invades, pillages and occupies the nation of Tibet", whether (x) stands for China or for Drow.

So if you don't understand concepts of real world politics and sociology well enough to apply them to the game, then leave that to those of us who do, and let us have our fun with that. You can still have fun, at your table, with "the only good (x) is a dead (x)". Take what works for you, and let the rest go by.


----------



## Riley37

Maxperson said:


> Those holocaust survivors are using their past to make up lies about the present for political advantage.




Hey now. You brought up Trump, and disagreement with Trump. So far as I know, you're the first one to bring him into this thread. I asked a yes-or-no question, and I included links which readers can follow or not as they please, but without giving *my* personal opinion of the 45th president of the USA. You provided brief explanations for your yes answer, and I expressed a general feeling, but did not argue my specific reasons for disagreement into this thread. I thanked you for the directness of your answer.

I disagree with your description of the survivors, as a matter of fact-or-false rather than as a matter of what is or isn't unacceptable; but I'm not gonna elaborate, in this thread, not unless Morrus encourages me to.

For what it's worth, since you've shared some of your past, I am glad that you survived your father's abuse, and that you are breaking the cycle by treating your children better. No matter how deeply I disagree with you, and would oppose you in other venues, I tip my hat to breaking that cycle. (I have no children of my own genes, but if I did, then my #1 goal, and low bar, would be providing them a healthier, safer childhood than mine.)


----------



## Riley37

Gradine said:


> At least they are well-read racists?




My mother's childhood nickname, which some of her East Coast relatives *still* use despite her expressed preferences, was "Topsy". Yeah, that Topsy, because she was much darker than her siblings. (From Trans-Bering genes rather than Trans-Atlantic genes, according to family lore, but they weren't good at that kind of nuance.) Someone once gave her a 1930s-ish poster about a song "Topsy" which probably qualifies for the Museum of Racist Memorabilia at Ferris State.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

This has gone far enough. Waaaay too political & getting distasteful up in here.  Shutting it down.
View attachment 96287


----------

