D&D General Elves, Dwarves, Gnomes and Halflings of Color

Levistus's_Leviathan

5e Freelancer
You can die from an awful lot of things in extremes. Doesn’t make the thing poison.
Chocolate is poisonous to us, but the amount of chocolate you have to eat for the poison to kill you is more than your stomach can physically hold. Just because other things can kill you if you consume too much of it does not make something else not be poison.

Alcohol is poison. It's relatively safe (it's not healthy in any amount, but relatively safe) in moderation and in settings where being drunk won't kill you. Chocolate is poisonous, but only in outrageous quantities, but it's still poisonous. Alcohol is dangerous in much smaller quantities, and is poison.
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

Dire Bare

Legend
What is the best technical terminology?

So far, official sources have used:
• race
• subrace
• kin ( = race and subrace)
• lineage ( = race?)
• ethnicity
• culture



For a while, it seemed WotC was planning to remove the term "race". But recently, they seem to have walked that back. I support that removal, because many races are too human, making the term race too close to racist thinking. The buzz word has too much baggage. If the term race, as in the "human race", is to mean species, then the other races need to more clearly nonhuman.

That said.

The Players Handbook lists the Human having a number of "ethnicities". An ethnicity seems to blend "culture" and "physical diversity", such as average height, average skin color, etcetera.

If so, does subrace and ethnicity mean the same thing?

When I look at elves, the difference between High Elf and Wood Elf and Drow Elf, is easily an ethnic diversity. I suspect some might say the differences are mechanical differences. But. Ability modifiers no longer apply. Want a high Strength Drow? Done. Want a high Intelligence Wood? Done. Some traits are necessarily learned from culture, such as weapon training. Meanwhile other differences derive from diverse magical cultures. The difference between a High Elf and a Wood Elf is less than the difference between one Feat Human and an other Feat Human. And skin color does not a subrace make. These seem like Elven ethnicities.

Since ethnicity includes culture, I suppose "culture" means "proficiencies and background"?



It is unclear to me what the difference between race and lineage is. They appear to be identical, but some sentences use both terms in a way that implies a difference.
If you've been looking at the many recent attempts to get away from the term race by various RPG companies . . . WotC, Paizo, others, and various fan-designers on the DMsGuild . . . you'll see the terms lineage, ancestry, and heritage all used somewhat differently in place of race. As uncomfortable as the word makes me, there isn't a straightforward substitute. I agree with @MGibster, we're on a well-meaning euphemism treadmill, and these words are somewhat interchangeable . . . lineage, ancestry, and kin are straight up synonyms and refer to your familial inheritance (biology mostly, but . . .), while heritage refers more to cultural inheritance . . . but they are all used interchangeably somewhat in the real world.

Race is a word social scientists don't like, as it doesn't have a precise scientific meaning. It's a cultural construct, and refers to someone's background combining and confusing their cultural and biological inheritances alongside a healthy dose of stereotyping. But yet, it DOES have meaning, it IS a word we use in everyday life. It's use isn't wrong per se, but is easily made problematic, both in the real world and in our fantasy games.

Ethnicity IS a word social scientists like, and does have a defined, scientific meaning. Ethnicity refers to a social group that shares a culture and/or nationality, and can be associated with minor physiological differences like skin color. Of course, we use this word too confusingly in everyday life . . . if you were born to a white parent and an Asian parent, but have a black grandparent, you are born with dark skin and raised in mainstream American culture . . . what is your ethnicity? You'll be labeled by others as African-American, and you might even choose to identify that way yourself, but are you?

In traditional D&D, your race usually and mostly correlates with your biology, your species (if indeed, species is even the right word). Your subrace usually and mostly correlates with your ethnicity, your culture. We can probably agree that all elves are part of the same species, and that the major differences between wood elves and high elves is cultural. There are differences in skin tone, hair color, and other minor physiological differences, just as in the real world. Of course, It doesn't quite break down that perfectly, as each subrace often has abilities that don't seem cultural and go beyond skin color (etc).

I think we're going to be stumbling our way through this for a while now before we find our footing in the fantasy gaming and sci-fi scenes. I appreciate that we're having the conversations and that designers are putting forth ideas. We'll see what sticks.
 



Zardnaar

Legend
True, but alcohol IS a toxin.

Gotta die of something right? Praise be to grog.

Go to your corner and say 15 hail hops. Or grapes.

IMG_20210722_174452.jpg

Might last to Monday. Australia has its uses.
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
Chocolate is poisonous to us, but the amount of chocolate you have to eat for the poison to kill you is more than your stomach can physically hold. Just because other things can kill you if you consume too much of it does not make something else not be poison.

Alcohol is poison. It's relatively safe (it's not healthy in any amount, but relatively safe) in moderation and in settings where being drunk won't kill you. Chocolate is poisonous, but only in outrageous quantities, but it's still poisonous. Alcohol is dangerous in much smaller quantities, and is by poison.
By a definition I challenged earlier, yes, chocolate and alcohol are poisons. Alcohol is arguable on a “reasonable colloquial definition” level, but chocolate is just ridiculous to call a poison.

So, definition is of questionable utility. It makes more sense to prioritize colloquial usage, so that “poison” doesn’t become a useless term that refers to anything that imparts any biochemical effect on any species.
 



Dannyalcatraz

Schmoderator
Staff member
Supporter
By a definition I challenged earlier, yes, chocolate and alcohol are poisons. Alcohol is arguable on a “reasonable colloquial definition” level, but chocolate is just ridiculous to call a poison.

So, definition is of questionable utility. It makes more sense to prioritize colloquial usage, so that “poison” doesn’t become a useless term that refers to anything that imparts any biochemical effect on any species.
But colloquially, we don’t refer to chocolate poisonings in most humans, mainly because we’re relatively immune to it as a species.*. Chocolate toxicity is largely a veterinary issue.

OTOH, people die from alcohol poisoning on a daily basis, and the damage it does to the brain, liver and other bodily functions is well documented.



* I, however, am mildly allergic to it...so I only eat it in small amounts.
 


Remove ads

Top