D&D General Words which replaced "race" in fantasy games

[CreamCloud0]

i prefer species given that i feel it's the most accurate term for classifying what they are than lineage or heritage or kin or whatever, and given how long we used 'race' before with no problem (and the reasons for the change not being anything to do with it's inaccuracy as a descriptor but it's implications using it to describe other biologically disparate lifeforms reflecting on the true meaning of race) are we really so concerned about getting 100% linguistic fidelity to the terminology we use to classify these lifeforms?

 

[Yaarel]

In Norse, elves, dwarves, giants, humans, aesir, vanir, and the corpses distinct from them, are each a kind of "family", ætt. In this context, "ancestry" is a reasonable translation in the sense of the family that one descends from. Even "lineage".

However, these groups are also referred to as a "kind", kyn, a term that does mean "species" in context.


For D&D, the term "species" is exactly what the Human, Elf, and Dwarf, are. The D&D 5e 2024 term eliminates ambiguity while avoiding the seriously problematic implications of the other terms.

The English word "species" doesnt always mean DNA. For example, when artificial intelligence starts to reproduce itself, scientific discussion can and probably will begin to refer to the trending kinds as different "species" of AI. Possibly these species will be understood as members of a different "kingdom" or "domain" of life.

Likewise, if there is extraterrestrial life, perhaps its reproduction lacks terrestrial DNA.


Species is the best term, even for a medievalesque fantasy game.

 

[Raiztt]

Is the abandoning of the term "race" a purely political or aesthetic choice? I could have never imagined that it would be such a hot button issue. I've always understood 'race' to mean "type of creature"; i.e. the race of men = humans. In this sense, it's very similar to species which I also think is fine... but it's fewer syllables so it wins.

Arguably (and I would argue) it's 'subrace' that is problematic, not 'race'.

 

[FrogReaver]

Is the abandoning of the term "race" a purely political or aesthetic choice? I could have never imagined that it would be such a hot button issue. I've always understood 'race' to be "type of creature"; i.e. the race of men = humans.

Arguably (and I would argue) it's 'subrace' that is problematic, not 'race'.

It’s the inclusive choice. Whether that also makes it a political or aesthetic choice doesnt seem like it has much bearing, nor something that can be openly talked about here.

 

[Raiztt]

It’s the inclusive choice. Whether that also makes it a political or aesthetic choice doesnt seem like it has much bearing, nor something that can be openly talked about here.

What do you mean the "inclusive" choice? I genuinly don't understand how one word for 'a type of creature' can be more or less inclusive if they're synonyms.

What makes this change more inclusive?

 

[Corinnguard]

Is the abandoning of the term "race" a purely political or aesthetic choice? I could have never imagined that it would be such a hot button issue. I've always understood 'race' to be "type of creature"; i.e. the race of men = humans.

Arguably (and I would argue) it's 'subrace' that is problematic, not 'race'.

Good question. The word has a lot of historical baggage in RL, not all of it good.

As for subraces, Level Up's fix was to replace them with the word, Culture. If you wanted to play a Dwarf in Level Up, you select the Dwarven heritage and then select a particular Dwarven culture (Mountain, Hill, Deep and Godbound). Each of which has its' own set of mechanical cultural traits. Even better, you could belong to a different heritage and be raised in a Dwarven culture (thus granting the mechanical benefits of that culture).

 

[Charlaquin]

i prefer species given that i feel it's the most accurate term for classifying what they are than lineage or heritage or kin or whatever,

I don’t think it is accurate, is the thing. Use of the word species implies a lot about how different creatures are related to each other, none of which I think holds up in a mythical world.

and given how long we used 'race' before with no problem (and the reasons for the change not being anything to do with it's inaccuracy as a descriptor but it's implications using it to describe other biologically disparate lifeforms reflecting on the true meaning of race) are we really so concerned about getting 100% linguistic fidelity to the terminology we use to classify these lifeforms?

If the word is being changed either way, why not change it to something linguistically sound?

 

[Corinnguard]

I don’t think it is accurate, is the thing. Use of the word species implies a lot about how different creatures are related to each other, none of which I think holds up in a mythical world.

Especially one where magic and fertility deities are real.

 

[FrogReaver]

What do you mean the "inclusive" choice? I genuinly don't understand how one word for 'a type of creature' can be more or less inclusive if they're synonyms.

What makes this change more inclusive?

Real World categorizes real humans into racial categories. Real world humans are not ever categorized into different species.

Defining d&d species as races doesn’t personally cause me pain or pause but it’s a touchy enough subject it can for some, even if the authors didn’t intend it. If possible the best choice is probably to distance oneself from such controversy where one reasonably can.

 

[CreamCloud0]

I don’t think it is accurate, is the thing. Use of the word species implies a lot about how different creatures are related to each other, none of which I think holds up in a mythical world.

If the word is being changed either way, why not change it to something linguistically sound?

well it's not like the other terms on the table are MORE sound.