D&D (2024) What new jargon do you want to replace "Race"?

[Charlaquin]

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




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




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

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

 

[delericho]

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

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

 

[Charlaquin]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Cadence]

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

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

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

 

[Cadence]

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

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

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

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

 

[GMMichael]

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

 

[Charlaquin]

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

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

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

I don’t see the issue, personally.

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

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

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

 

[Hriston]

@Yaarel, would it be too much to ask to put People on the poll as an option? It tied for third with Folk on this poll two years ago behind Species and Ancestry. There were 139 respondents 36 of which chose People as one of their preferred terms.

 

[Charlaquin]

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

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

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

 

[Crimson Longinus]

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

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