D&D (2024) One D&D Permanently Removes The Term 'Race'

In line with many other tabletop roleplaying games, such as Pathfinder or Level Up, One D&D is removing the term 'race'. Where Pathfinder uses 'Ancestry' and Level Up uses 'Heritage', One D&D will be using 'Species'.

Moving On From 'Race' in the 2024 Core Rulebooks

We understand "race" is a problematic term that has had prejudiced links between real world people and the fantasy peoples of D&D worlds.

www.dndbeyond.com

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

 

[Charlaquin]

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

That is in fact the correct adjective form.

 

[Charlaquin]

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

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

 

[MNblockhead]

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

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

 

[Charlaquin]

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

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

 

[Charlaquin]

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

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

 

[MNblockhead]

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

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

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

 

[Charlaquin]

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

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

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

 

[payn]

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

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

 

[Marandahir]

We started using Ancestry last year, and we have no complaints.

"Let me tell you about my race" - too personal, impolite, at best it sounds like you're talking to your track coach
"Let me tell you about my species" - weird, clinical, sounds like a bad sci-fi trope
"Let me tell you about my origin" - vague, elusive, sounds like the start of a long, dull backstory
"Let me tell you about my ancestors" - mysterious, proud, you order another round of ale because this is going to be an epic story

I love this SOOOO much.

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Charlaquin]

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

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