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

[Cadence]

, it’s more Lamarckian than Darwinian. I would call them heritages, or ancestries, or parentages, or something to that effect, communicating that the relevant factor is descent from parent to child, not phylogenic category.

And now I'm resisting the urge to look up what term Lamarck used for his animal groups. Did he call them (or have them translated at that time) as species?

 

[Yaarel]

I just don’t think “species” is a good choice of words to describe individual types of humanoid within that system, whatever it may be.

There are a few I’d be fine with. Currently I think heritage would be the most accurate, but I would be fine with ancestry, which seems to be the top contender next to species, at least in this specific poll. People would actually be my first choice.

In other words, you want a term that absolutely doesnt mean biology, and specifically means culture?

I can understand that.

 

[glass]

It’s she, and I have objected to the use of “species” to describe the playable humanoids of D&D since long before this announcement on these same grounds. On these very forums, among other places. So, no, your guess is incorrect.

Apologies for missing that you list your pronouns.

That said, you are still using nonsense arguments to try to dress your subjective dislike as objective problems with the term. That you have been using the same arguments for a while makes does not make them any less spurious.

 

[Charlaquin]

I dont understand the argument: "it doesnt exist in reallife".

Because − hypothetically − if Elf, Dwarf, Celestial, etcetera did exist in reallife, then reallife science would probably use the term "species" to classify and taxonomize them.

If they existed in real life as they do in D&D, our entire phylogenic system would be overturned, because it would be definitive proof against the theory of evolution by natural selection. And of the existence of multiple gods, which would throw a lot of other things into question.

 

[Charlaquin]

And now I'm resisting the urge to look up what term Lamarck used for his animal groups. Did he call them (or have them translated at that time) as species?

I think he did. But I don’t think that matters. Modern people have a concept of what the word species means, which is informed by how it’s used in their everyday lives, not how it has been historically used. I believe that concept is at odds with how the groupings of PC races function in D&D, and therefore, using that term will miscommunicate what they are and how they work.

 

[Charlaquin]

In other words, you want a term that absolutely doesnt mean biology, and specifically means culture?

I can understand that.

It’s not that I don’t want a term that refers to biology at all, it’s that I don’t want a term that suggests these traits were developed by process of adaptation due to pressures of natural and sexual selection.

 

[Bedrockgames]

We agree on that much.

This is the fundamental point of disagreement. Certainty, I think if the relationship between humans and elves was meaningfully analogous to that between humans and Neanderthals, species would be a perfectly cromulent way to describe them. But I do not think it is meaningfully analogous, because of the point above on which we agree.

I don’t think it needs to absolutely hold up in every circumstance, I just think it needs to adequately describe what these groups are. They aren’t the furthest ends of the branches of a tree of life, they’re groupings of traits a character inherits from one or both of their parents. As @Cadence observed earlier, it’s more Lamarckian than Darwinian. I would call them heritages, or ancestries, or parentages, or something to that effect, communicating that the relevant factor is descent from parent to child, not phylogenic category.

I definitely have a different view on this (and I think we've both clearly stated why we feel how we feel so there is no point in offering additional points of debate) but I do understand your opinion more fully now.

 

[Charlaquin]

Apologies for missing that you list you pronouns.

It’s all good

That said, you are still using nonsense arguments to try to dress your subjective dislike as objective problems with the term. That you have been using the same arguments for a while makes does not make them any less spurious.

I’m not trying to present my dislike of the term as objective, I’m trying to express the reason for my dislike of the term. That you don’t find my reasoning compelling doesn’t mean it’s nonsense.

 

[Yaarel]

If they existed in real life as they do in D&D, our entire phylogenic system would be overturned, because it would be definitive proof against the theory of evolution by natural selection. And of the existence of multiple gods, which would throw a lot of other things into question.

That I agree with. If Elf etcetera existed in reallife, then the scientific taxonomy would necessarily require kinds of species that are nonphylogenetic (namely have zero evolutionary relationship to each other).

I anticipate that this will precisely happen in the near future because of gene splicing and artificial intelligence.



I am comfortable with many of the names that are in the poll of the original post.

I hate the term "race". The problem with "race" is, it means: 1) species and 2) ethnicity, whence 3. other ethnicities are nonhuman or subhuman. The term race is inherently problematic, and occasionally vividly offensive.

So there are actually two ways to avoid the problematic of "race". 1) Pick a term that can only mean biology and cannot mean culture. 2) Pick a term that can only mean culture and cannot mean biology.

From what I am understanding, you prefer the second option. So, in the context of the D&D "Humanoid", never refer to biology, because every Humanoid is too human. It is problematic to "other" the Humanoid.

 

[Charlaquin]

That I agree with. If Elf etcetera existed in reallife, then the scientific taxonomy would necessarily require kinds of species that are nonphylogenetic (namely have zero evolutionary relationship to each other).

I anticipate that this will precisely happen in the near future because of gene splicing and artificial intelligence.



I am comfortable with many of the names that are in the poll of the original post.

I hate the term "race". The problem with "race" is, it means: 1) species and 2) ethnicity, whence 3. other ethnicities are nonhuman or subhuman. The term race is inherently problematic, and occasionally vividly offensive.

So there are actually two ways to avoid the problematic of "race". 1) Pick a term that can only mean biology and cannot mean culture. 2) Pick a term that can only mean culture and cannot mean biology.

From what I am understanding, you prefer the second option. So, in the context of the D&D "Humanoid", never refer to biology, because every Humanoid is too human. It is problematic to "other" the Humanoid.

Nah, it’s not about biology vs. culture to me, and in fact I prefer that “race” features be entirely inborn* rather than cultural.

*I prefer “inborn” over “biological” here for much the same reason I prefer “people” over “species” - in a world of gods and magic, our modern scientific understanding of the term “biology” isn’t applicable. To use another analogy, I wouldn’t call the process by which a dead titan’s body forms a mountain “geologic.”