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

[Charlaquin]

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

I think “people/peoples” is much more sound.

 

[FrogReaver]

I think “people/peoples” is much more sound.

IMO that Runs into the same exact problems that the word ‘race’ does.

 

[Raiztt]

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

I would argue only coloqually. Maybe I'm just completely out of touch, but I've only ever understand that use of 'race' to be an informal usage. I.e.: there are not multiple races that all belong under human - all humans are the same race, namely 'human'. That's why humans aren't categorized into species, because theyre all the same 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.

So it was a political/strategic choice.

I personally don't care, I'm always going to say race just like I always say reflex save instead of dexterity save.

 

[Raiztt]

IMO that Runs into the same exact problems that the word ‘race’ does.

If "peoples" doesn't work, then why would ancestry? Like, to me this is just playing musical chairs trying to avoid using a word that means exactly what we mean it to mean: that there are different types of creatures, and that creatures have some traits that are shared throughout all of them.

I.e.: no human has infrared vision.

 

[FrogReaver]

I would argue only coloqually. Maybe I'm just completely out of touch, but I've only ever understand that use of 'race' to be an informal usage. I.e.: there are not multiple races that all belong under human - all humans are the same race, namely 'human'. That's why humans aren't categorized into species, because theyre all the same species.

That’s certainly one usage of the word, but definitely not the only.

So it was a political/strategic choice.

Being an inclusive choice is much more descriptive IMO. Are inclusive choices inherently political? Maybe, or maybe not, but you are most likely going to get extreme pushback on this site for going there.

I personally don't care, I'm always going to say race just like I always say reflex save instead of dexterity save.

I just answered your question about what makes it inclusive. If you want to keep using the term race go for it. I’m sure many others will too.

 

[Charlaquin]

IMO that Runs into the same exact problems that the word ‘race’ does.

I don’t think it does at all, since “people” doesn’t have the baggage “race” does.

 

[Raiztt]

Being an inclusive choice is much more descriptive IMO. Are inclusive choices inherently political? Maybe, or maybe not, but

I mean, I just don't agree that it's more inclusive. Does "inclusive" mean "more people like this"?

you are most likely going to get extreme pushback on this site for going there.

...so?

 

[FrogReaver]

I don’t think it does at all, since “people” doesn’t have the baggage “race” does.

I think it does.

 

[Marandahir]

MtG no longer limits to just 2 creature types (Race/Class) maximum - ever since the 2022 typal update when phyrexian can be added in front of 2 other creature types, it's really just creature type, but can mean their job or their heritage. So I guess in that case, Creature Type would count? Of course, Maro still uses the terms race/class.

 

[FrogReaver]

I mean, I just don't agree that it's more inclusive. Does "inclusive" mean "more people like this"?

Okay. Why not? What do you think makes something inclusive?