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."

 

[MNblockhead]

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

Really doesn't matter if they did or didn't. The term predates the theory of evolution.

Whether a class of beings' appearance or outward form are the result of divine creation, magic, evolution, or a mix of the three, the term retains its utility.

Personally, I don't care much what term they use. I'm sure I'll get used to whatever term is decided upon. How peoples refer to themselves and other creatures in game will differ based on the setting I'm running.

I care more about what it means mechanically. I'll use "species" for now because it looks like that will be the term. I would expect that species will be used as a classification for creatures sharing similar forms. Traits, abilities, bonus, etc. that are innate to that group are applied on the selection of species.

Everything that is not innate, should come from the PCs class and background (ancestry/heritage).

Origins feels a bit too all encompassing. But again, as long as I'm given the trifold parts of PC creation: (1) innate nature. (2) background/culture, and (3) highly-specialized, dedicated training (class)... I'm not all that invested in the labels.

 

[Rabulias]

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

Pathfinder 2nd edition came out in August 2019. That product you link to came out in 2020. That being said, I don't think there is any legal reason to prevent WotC from using the term "ancestry" if they chose to (though note IANAL).

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

This raises an interesting question. If an NPC villain is known for hating elves (for example), what do citizens of the game world call them? "Racist" would not make sense in a world without the term "race," so I guess it would be "bigot" or "prejudiced" or "<insert villain's ancestry here> supremacist."

 

[MGibster]

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

Wasn't this problem solved by separating ability score modifiers from species in the first place? Now we're just going to use species to describe what we previous called races, and while they won't have ASIs, they'll still have different abilities based on their species.

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

Ditto. At this point, they might as well pull the trigger and make a cafeteria style creation system where each player selects the abilities they want their character to have.

DM: Okay, John, please describe your elf, Yinro Lightdew, to the group.

John: Okay! Lightdew is very much a traditional elf who specializes in the outdoors and archery. His dark green skin and three foot stature helps him blend into the forest, and his little wings allow him to reach the top of any tree very quickly. Though he does not smoke a pipe, on occasion a small cloud of blue smoke exits his mouth when he burps, which is the telltale sign that he can breath fire when necessary.

 

[Twiggly the Gnome]

Wasn't this problem solved by separating ability score modifiers from species in the first place?

Floating ASIs was mostly about placating minmaxer fomo, couching it as an inclusivity measure was just greasing the tracks.

 

[reelo]

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

Are you against folk music, also?

Seriously, though, folk is of Germanic origin, it existed as "folc" in Old English and meant "people". Just as the French word "peuple" does. Without a definite article it just means "a number of persons" and with a definite article it means "A people". It's completely neutral and perfectly fine, imho.

 

[MNblockhead]

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

How does any other term solve that? Whether gods or wizards or evolution created the creatures, people are going to group and classify them. You'll still have beasts, humanoids, giants, dragons, fey, fiends, etc. and elves, dwarves, humans, orcs, etc. Whether any can interbreed because of biology or magic, that's just flavor. Do humans, elves, and orcs share a common ancestor and share the same number of chromosomes to enable, or do the gods just allow, half orcs and half elves?

Personally I would rather they do away with half elves and half orcs and replace with rules for make hybrid species player characters. I think half elves and half orcs may be too iconic now to drop, but it would be good to mention in a side bar in the PHB that other hybrids are possible if they make sense in your game--see the DMG for further guidance. Actually, full rules for creation of new species of PCs should be given in the DMG to allow players and DMs to work on creating concepts players bring to the table without breaking game balance.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

This raises an interesting question. If an NPC villain is known for hating elves (for example), what do citizens of the game world call them? "Racist" would not make sense in a world without the term "race," so I guess it would be "bigot" or "prejudiced" or "<insert villain's ancestry here> supremacist."

Honestly, hating another species isn't problematic in our world. We have no qualms not giving them the same rights as our species, and being from different species afford different rights (any animal can afford some modicum of protection against cruelty, but it might be sanctionned more to torture a domestic animal owned by a human and in no case killing one is as bad as killing a human -- and nobody will bat an eye if you're trying to make several species extinct, smallpox, while global extinction will certainly bring concern... mostly because of how it affects Homo sapiens. We also have no problem having other species being property, not people). Sure, it's because the last time our species met another intelligent species, said species soon became extinct (bye-bye Denisovans, bye-bye Neanderthals...) so we didn't have to deal with affording rights to other intelligent species, but at least with calling elves and gnomes and humans "races" implied a common people, it was implied by the connotations of the real-world use that everyone of them was equal and making distinction between them morally faulty. Depending on your game world, the local people could use bigot if they are more socially advanced than our world and grant equal rights to every living being (maybe requiring them an intelligence test? But it is extremely ableist.. or they'd have closed list of species afforded civil rights, which will make first contact awkward...), but it's probably just being called elfhater and might not have the same connotation as racist.

 

[MNblockhead]

Does the word Ilk have any bad connotations?

It is often used in the phrase "[so-and-so] and their ilk" in an often derisive manner. But the word itself seems neutral and doesn't carry much political baggage as far as I'm aware.

Oh no...I just looked up the etymology in the OED:

Etymology: Apparently < the Germanic pronominal stem seen in Old Dutch er , Old High German ir , er , Gothic is , etc. (see he pron. and compare it pron.) + the Germanic base of lich n.

 

[MNblockhead]

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

It can take a lot of work to come to the conclusion that your competition got it right. Sometimes trying to hard to find different words for things for which apt and commonly words already exists comes across like a juvinile with a thresaurus trying too hard to be different. Not saying that's the case here. I much prefer species over ancestry, but if WOTC went with ancestry, I wouldn't have accused them of being lazy.

 

[Scribe]

John: Okay! Lightdew is very much a traditional elf who specializes in the outdoors and archery. His dark green skin and three foot stature helps him blend into the forest, and his little wings allow him to reach the top of any tree very quickly. Though he does not smoke a pipe, on occasion a small cloud of blue smoke exits his mouth when he burps, which is the telltale sign that he can breath fire when necessary.