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."

 

[Digdude]

Yes, because everything the mainstream doesn't accept is quickly labelled a conspiracy theory so it can be misaligned and easily dismissed.

This is exactly the problem that exists that the so-called professional archaeologists who are unwilling to explore different hypothesis nevermind update the current dogma given the mountain of growing evidence which tears holes through The Narrative.
There is a video between Graham Hancock debating the very thing you stipulate here re the Sphynx with the head honcho of Egypt who dismissed him (without reason I might add) as well as the German Archaeological Institute that determined age of the Gobleki Tepe in Turkey to be over 11,000 years in age. There is massive gatekeeping by professionals - to keep the current paradigm fixed.

And if you do not toe-the-line you are quickly smeared and the funding stops. That is not how science progresses.

Professional archaeologist here. To quote Luke Skywalker..."everything you just said is wrong". This is not how it works. You are literally making up a conspiracy, to support your conspiracy.

 

[AnotherGuy]

Professional archaeologist here. To quote Luke Skywalker..."everything you just said is wrong". This is not how it works. You are literally making up a conspiracy, to support your conspiracy.

Nice post.
So which part is making things up?
The video between Graham Hancock and the Zahi Hawass?
The fact that a German archaeologist Klaus Schmidt from the German Archaeological Institute dated the Gobleki Tepe at 12,000?
If the Gobleki Tepe is 12,000 years old that throws the standard narrative out the window - yes or no?

EDIT: I'm referring to the findings found in this clip some 4 minutes in. I'd be happy to learn where errors have been made. I am not averse to correction.

 

[Digdude]

Your mind was made up in the first post, and so I will not waste a minute of my time trying to change your mind. In almost twenty years I have yet to meet a colleague who shuts out alternate possible hypotheses, as long as they are based on scientific theory. What we do reject is pseudoscience, aliens did it, and all the other non-scientific quack theories out there that are not part of the scientific method. Advances in technology and dating techniques are getting better all the time and we continue to evolve our understanding of the past as new data emerges. That's how it really works, not some smoke filled back room where a select group of archaeologists decide what is right or wrong as you have suggested. The peer review process is public and very often brutal at times.

 

[MGibster]

When did this thread become about Ancient Aliens?

::History Channel has entered the chat::

 

[Yaarel]

I havent watched the video, but a few quick thoughts:

The video between Graham Hancock and the Zahi Hawass?

Archeologists can and do disagree with each other.

The fact that a German archaeologist Klaus Schmidt from the German Archaeological Institute dated the Gobleki Tepe at 12,000?

As far as I know, most archeologists who are familiar with Turkish archeology accept that Goebekli Tepe is around 12,000 years old. (Or rather around 11,500 years old.)

If the Gobleki Tepe is 12,000 years old that throws the standard narrative out the window - yes or no?

No. The "standard narrative" remains the same.

The standard narrative is the Neolithic Revolution, namely the discovery of farming, sometimes referred to as "herding-and-gardening", is happening around this time, somewhere in this wider region.

The controversy is about what Goebekli Tepe is, exactly.

Currently, there is a vigorous debate about whether the nomadic hunter-gatherers settled down in permanent homes because they had started farming. Or, the other way around, they started farming because they had settled down. This Tepe is an important feature of the debate.

Originally, the archeologists identified Goebekli Tepe as some kind of shrine, and that none of the nomads actually lived there, but just visited there to participate in the sacred site. But recent findings suggest there might have been people living there permanently.

So the debate continues.

 

[CleverNickName]

Hot damn I love it when actual, professional scientists chime in to the discussion.

Your mind was made up in the first post, and so I will not waste a minute of my time trying to change your mind. In almost twenty years I have yet to meet a colleague who shuts out alternate possible hypotheses, as long as they are based on scientific theory. What we do reject is pseudoscience, aliens did it, and all the other non-scientific quack theories out there that are not part of the scientific method. Advances in technology and dating techniques are getting better all the time and we continue to evolve our understanding of the past as new data emerges. That's how it really works, not some smoke filled back room where a select group of archaeologists decide what is right or wrong as you have suggested. The peer review process is public and very often brutal at times.

I can't believe so many people finish high school without an understanding of the scientific method (but that's a discussion for another thread). And anyone who's ever had their work subjected to peer review will flinch involuntarily when they read that last sentence, Dig. "Brutal" is an understatement.

 

[AnotherGuy]

Your mind was made up in the first post, and so I will not waste a minute of my time trying to change your mind. In almost twenty years I have yet to meet a colleague who shuts out alternate possible hypotheses, as long as they are based on scientific theory. What we do reject is pseudoscience, aliens did it, and all the other non-scientific quack theories out there that are not part of the scientific method. Advances in technology and dating techniques are getting better all the time and we continue to evolve our understanding of the past as new data emerges. That's how it really works, not some smoke filled back room where a select group of archaeologists decide what is right or wrong as you have suggested. The peer review process is public and very often brutal at times.

Once again you followed up with a nice professional post.
I never once mentioned aliens or any non-scientific quack theories or pseudoscience but you did indirectly infer that I did.
I did however mention two things in my previous post which I note you did not challenge.
What I have since discovered is that it is unproductive discussing anything of substance with you, disappointingly so as the subject matter pertains to your qualifications/job apparently and so I would think you would have taken the conversation a little more seriously. Your argument seems to be based on appeals to authority.
As for the Peer Review Process...
So good day to you.

In ending I will quote something from the video you may not have seen/heard.

...the reality is some of what we see was simply out of their technological reach. This technological gap between what we know of ancient civilisations and what we see is attested to by so many professionals - craftsmen, builders and engineers, experts who study these things in detail. People who are far more qualified to offer opinions on ancient technology or engineering than the Egyptologists or archaeologists who commonly derive such opinions but couldn't engineer the chair they are sitting on when they do it.

 

[CleverNickName]

"There are more things in heaven earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
"Whatever, Bill. If you don't help me finish these titrations we're both gonna fail chem lab."

 

[Vaalingrade]

Man, thread have been shifting into OverChaos even more than is usual for EnWorld.

I haven't seen such instability since I went back in time to teach people to build aqueducts.

 

[AnotherGuy]

I havent watched the video, but a few quick thoughts:

Archeologists can and do disagree with each other.


As far as I know, most archeologists who are familiar with Turkish archeology accept that Goebleki Tepe is around 12,000 years old. (Or rather around 11,500 years old.)


No. The "standard narrative" remains the same.

The standard narrative is the Neolithic Revolution, namely the discovery of farming, sometimes referred to as "herding-and-gardening", is happening around this time, somewhere in this wider region.

The controversy is about what Goebleki Tepi is, exactly.

Currently, there is a vigorous debate about whether the nomadic hunter-gatherers settled down in permanent homes because they had started farming. Or, the other way around, they started farming because they had settled down. This Tepi is an important feature of the debate.

Originally, the archeologists identified Goebleki Tepi as some kind of shrine, and that none of the nomads actually lived there, but just visited there to participate in the sacred site. But recent findings suggest there might have been people living there permanently.

So the debate continues.

Yaarel, I do want to say how I appreciate the manner in which you have replied.
There is a common misconception that just because one questions the orthodoxy in archaeology one immediately accepts any other theory and/or alien involvement.

With regards to Tepi, you are right but if I'm understanding the UnchartedX clip I posted correctly the issue is that it changes the date as to when they believe human civilisation started (orthodoxy puts it at 6,000BC). Given Tepi's carbon dating this would push it further back.

EDIT: I will also remind you that you did say there is consensus amongst archaeologists and yet now in your reply admit archaeologists disagree.