Regarding the long back and forth about 'species', I think it's fine. Not good,
fine; good enough.
@Charlaquin is right that it's technically incorrect... but 'race' was always technically incorrect, the problem with it was the cultural baggage it connoted and not its exact meaning.
The big issue with picking a word to describe [the category formerly known as race] is that, in the way it's always been used, it's a fuzzy category. It was never a biological category, it was always biology + culture. But the degree of biology versus culture differs between, say, centaurs (almost entirely about biology), githzerai (almost entirely about culture), and elves (a mix of both).
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.
I'm not certain I'm using 'construct' in the same way as you are... but I feel like WotC should outright switch constructs. Instead of using a new word to describe the one that's already in use, switch to a new paradigm entirely.
And I thought they
were already doing that, based on the choices they made in Mordenkainen Presents Monsters of the Multiverse, where, for example, eladrin, sea elf, and shadar kai--as well as githzerai and githyaki--are different 'races' instead of different 'sub-races'. That, to my thinking, meant they were going to recognize the incoherence of the term 'race' and change to a different type of categorization--with a word that describes the new categorization system, and not just a new word for the old one.
But, too bad, because they already seem to have walked that back as of the character origins playtest packet.
I prefer people and would vote for it if it were on the poll.
I also think folk and kind are okay but not as good as people.
ETA: In the same vein as kind, I think type would work just as well and has precedent as the term used in Chainmail.
I think 'people' is best for the new categorization I outlined above, in that it conveys a coherent community that treats itself as a group. A people could be be organized by biology, or by culture, or by some combination of both. I would also agree with
@Jack Daniel that 'kindred' is pretty good, due to its fairytale feel. Folk and kin are good too. I don't particularly like 'kind' because it is synonymous with class in common usage, potentially leading to confusion among those unfamilliar with D&D jargon.
And I don't care for ancestry, bloodline, lineage, parentage etc. because they are individual, they don't convey a sense of groupness.
People or people is used for ethnicities and national groups usually, and can also indicate tribes or people who live in a particular area.
exactly!
And taking this a step further:
There would be no reason to remove features like elf weapon training if we could accept that high elf, wood elf, etc. refer to culture
and biology. Moreover, we might be able to rethink human being the blandest of all [the categories formerly known as race] by letting them have some features tied to culture--i.e. why couldn't a society of humans have universal weapon training.
