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

[Cadence]

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.

Different species IRL have different inborn features. It feels like different IRL nationalities, cultures, and ethnicities having them is a bad road.

Except for implying to you common descent and sounding too sci-fi, does species have any other flaws? (If it is ok except for those two it gives me a direction to ponder).

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.

I wonder if "heritage not hate' about the confederate battle flag has left that one a bit charged (at least enough a sensitivity reader might flag it)?[/QUOTE]

 

[Charlaquin]

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.

It isn’t though. Like, at all. Cats and dogs share a common ancestor, elves and dwarves don’t. Cats and dogs can’t interbreed, elves and dwarves can. Cats and dogs have significant anatomical differences, elves and dwarves are broadly anatomically similar, with only a slight difference in average size and a few minor superficial differences. Apart from the common ancestor part, elves and dwarves are more like different breeds of dog than like cats and dogs.

 

[Charlaquin]

Different species IRL have different inborn features. It feels like different IRL nationalities, cultures, and ethnicities having them is a bad road.

D&D [not-races] aren’t like species or ethnicities. They’re their own, fantasy thing.

Except for implying to you common descent and sounding too sci-fi, does species have any other flaws? (If it is ok except for those two it gives me a direction to ponder).

Yes, because it either implies that the evil, dark-skinned drow are an entirely different species than the good, pale-skinned high elves, or that they’re both subspecies of elf. Either way, it’s a gross implication.

I wonder if "heritage not hate' about the confederate battle flag has left that one a bit charged (at least enough a sensitivity reader might flag it)?

I dunno, nobody seems to have a problem with PF2 using the word heritage for its sub-ancestries.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

It isn’t though. Like, at all. Cats and dogs share a common ancestor, elves and dwarves don’t. Cats and dogs can’t interbreed, elves and dwarves can. Cats and dogs have significant anatomical differences, elves and dwarves are broadly anatomically similar, with only a slight difference in average size and a few minor superficial differences. Apart from the common ancestor part, elves and dwarves are more like different breeds of dog than like cats and dogs.

Elves and dwarves might have common ancestor and cats and dogs might be created depending on the setting's lore. Also, elves and dwarves traditionally do not interbreed. But sure, both are probably hominids, so it might be more analogous to tigers and lions etc.

In any case, I really don't get what your hung-up is. It has been stated many times that the term species to describe groups of living creatures is fat older than the current taxonomical system.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Yes, because it either implies that the evil, dark-skinned drow are an entirely different species than the good, pale-skinned high elves, or that they’re both subspecies of elf. Either way, it’s a gross implication.

I agree with you on this. I really think they should do away with "subspecies" and write the main species to be flexible and let them have different ethnicities and cultures. Drow are just dark skinned elves that live underground. They don't need to be "subspecies" any more than different human cultures and ethnicities. It has always bugged be how cultural and ethnic diversity among non-humans is handled super weirdly in D&D and would be highly inappropriate if the same was applied to humans.

 

[Charlaquin]

Elves and dwarves might have common ancestor and cats and dogs might be created depending on the setting's lore.

Well in real life, cats and dogs do have a common ancestor, and in the lore in the D&D PHB, elves and dwarves don’t.

Also, elves and dwarves traditionally do not interbreed.

It’s entirely possible under the rules in the playtest.

But sure, both are probably hominids, so it might be more analogous to tigers and lions etc.

Probably a closer analogy.

In any case, I really don't get what your hung-up is. It has been stated many times that the term species to describe groups of living creatures is fat older than the current taxonomical system.

Because it doesn’t matter what the history of the term is. There’s a specific way it’s used now, and that way does not accurately describe what the thing we’re renaming from race is. Moreover, it creates really strange and uncomfortable implications, like drow and high elves being different species.

 

[Cadence]

Yes, because it either implies that the evil, dark-skinned drow are an entirely different species than the good, pale-skinned high elves, or that they’re both subspecies of elf. Either way, it’s a gross implication.

Aren't there cities of non-evil drow now? I assume there are cities of evil pale skin high ones somewhere?

In any case, it feels like Drow being the "dark skinned evil ones" isn't somehow less problematic because their parents, heritage, or ancestry involves being dark skinned and evil?

I dunno, nobody seems to have a problem with PF2 using the word heritage for its sub-ancestries.

I imagine there are lots of smaller games that don't draw the fire D&D does. For any of the articles bringing up something problematic shared across a bunch of ttrpgs, do the articles and blogs usually target D&D or do they usually cast a wider net? It feels like a lot of issues hit the big time when a big enough blogger or podcaster or scholar gets traction, and that happens a lot more with the more popular products?

 

[Charlaquin]

I agree with you on this. I really think they should do away with "subspecies" and write the main species to be flexible and let them have different ethnicities and cultures. Drow are just dark skinned elves that live underground. They don't need to be "subspecies" any more than different human cultures and ethnicities. It has always bugged be how cultural and ethnic diversity among non-humans is handled super weirdly in D&D and would be highly inappropriate if the same was applied to humans.

Traditionally, these sub-groups have different features than each other. To make that work mechanically, they need a different construct to deliver the appropriate package of mechanics. I think this is part of why WotC has taken to using the term “race” only to refer to that game construct rather than to the in-universe group. Because whatever you call it, you can’t avoid uncomfortable implications of the mechanical construct is tied to an in-universe line of descent.

 

[Charlaquin]

Aren't there cities of non-evil drow now? I assume there are cities of evil pale skin high ones somewhere?

Sure. Drop the “evil” and “good,” and what you’re left with separating high elves from dark elves is akin tone. And that makes them different species? No. That’s not better.

In any case, it feels like Drow being the "dark skinned evil ones" isn't somehow less problematic because their parents, heritage, or ancestry involves being dark skinned and evil?

If heritage or ancestry refers to the package of mechanical traits, literally inherited from the character’s parents, as “race” currently refers to, yeah.

I imagine there are lots of smaller games that don't draw the fire D&D does. For any of the articles bringing up something problematic shared across a bunch of ttrpgs, do the articles and blogs usually target D&D or do they usually cast a wider net? It feels like a lot of issues hit the big time when a big enough blogger or podcaster or scholar gets traction, and that happens a lot more with the more popular products?

I dunno, I think Pathfinder is big enough to draw attention. Maybe I’m wrong about that.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Well in real life, cats and dogs do have a common ancestor, and in the lore in the D&D PHB, elves and dwarves don’t.

But do cats and dogs in D&D have common ancestor? Are you also opposed referring cats and dogs in D&D as being different species?

It’s entirely possible under the rules in the playtest.

It probably is just simplification to cover all sort of "wizard did it" cases and custom lore. But in established settings half-dwarves are not a thing, except in Dark Sun and they explicitly are sterile.

Probably a closer analogy.

Some species are more closely related, some more distantly related. Doesn't really change the utility of the term.

Because it doesn’t matter what the history of the term is. There’s a specific way it’s used now, and that way does not accurately describe what the thing we’re renaming from race is.

It does reflect it far more accurately than the other proposed terms.

Moreover, it creates really strange and uncomfortable implications, like drow and high elves being different species.

That is unfortunate, but really not improved by alternate terms. The issue with the drow really isn't about semantics.

Traditionally, these sub-groups have different features than each other. To make that work mechanically, they need a different construct to deliver the appropriate package of mechanics. I think this is part of why WotC has taken to using the term “race” only to refer to that game construct rather than to the in-universe group. Because whatever you call it, you can’t avoid uncomfortable implications of the mechanical construct is tied to an in-universe line of descent.

And that's why they should stop doing this. Write the species rules to be flexible so that they can reflect different subgroups.