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

[jmartkdr2]

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

...so?

Inclusive here means "fewer people are offended by this."

 

[Raiztt]

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

If I have a club that says "Only X type person can belong to this club" but then we amend the rule to say "Only X type and Y type people can belong to this club" we have made the club more inclusive because it includes more things.

 

[Burnside]

In my case, it's probably personal preference of euphony. Elven ancestry sounds more appealing to me than elven peoples.

Edit- I suppose another reason why I am not into the word species here is its' definition in biology. Ancestry, Heritage, Lineage, Folk and Kin are cultural terms and just sound more appropriate.

But the term generally IS being applied to biology, not culture, in this context. I could have dwarven cultural heritage if I was a human raised by dwarves, but my species would be human.

 

[Charlaquin]

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.

The colloquial usage is the problem. Yes, scientifically the idea of multiple “races” of human is complete bunk. But there is a long history of (pseudo-)scientific racism trying to use the notion of multiple distinct races of humans to justify racial hierarchies and imbalances of power. Many people still believe in this notion of race as a biologically significant category, and in much of the world, especially the US, it is still a socially significant category despite its lack of scientific validity.

The whole thing is a very touchy subject that fun imaginary elf games are probably better off distancing themselves from.

 

[Raiztt]

The colloquial usage is the problem. Yes, scientifically the idea of multiple “races” of human is complete bunk. But there is a long history of (pseudo-)scientific racism trying to use the notion of multiple distinct races of humans to justify racial hierarchies and imbalances of power. Many people still believe in this notion of race as a biologically significant category, and in much of the world, especially the US, it is still a socially significant category despite its lack of scientific validity.

The whole thing is a very touchy subject that fun imaginary elf games are probably better off distancing themselves from.

Right so, it was a political/strategic decision. There's nothing wrong with that.

 

[Burnside]

species isn't as useful as that however - a whole lot of hybrids exist eg Lion and Tiger are both different species yet they can breed successfully,

Not really "successfully". Like most hybrid animals, ligers and tigons suffer from birth defects and shorter lifespans than their parents, and all male ligers and tigons are sterile. They exist only as a result of human cruelty. Like mules, they're not a viable, successful crossbreed of two species at all.

 

[Raiztt]

But the term generally IS being applied to biology, not culture, in this context. I could have dwarven cultural heritage if I was a human raised by dwarves, but my species would be human.

Exactly, and you would have the biological features of a human, not a dwarf. But you'd have the cultural features of a dwarf, and not a human (if we're going to treat dwarf and human cultures monolithically).

 

[FrogReaver]

If I have a club that says "Only X type person can belong to this club" but then we amend the rule to say "Only X type and Y type people can belong to this club" we have made the club more inclusive because it includes more things.

So doesnt being offensive to less people also mean more people will feel included? I don’t think people usually feel included in things they find offensive.

 

[Charlaquin]

Right so, it was a political/strategic decision. There's nothing wrong with that.

I mean, yes, but everything is political, and given a particular tendency of reactionary thinkers to label everything that doesn’t tacitly support the status quo as “political,” I don’t think describing it as “a political decision” is, well, a politically prudent move.

 

[Raiztt]

So doesnt being offensive to less people also mean more people will feel included? I don’t think people usually feel included in things they find offensive.

"Feel included" here is the problem for me. I'm interested in if people are included, not their subjective experience. In my example, we have a hard/clear change where more types are allowed into the set, it wouldn't matter how the types feel it's just a fact about the set that certain ones are included within it.