D&D 5E If not the word "race", what word instead?

[AbdulAlhazred]

To me, these kind of arguments sound a lot like the fallacy of origins and the association fallacy. Just because somethib bears a casual resemblence, or even a distant relationship, to some old racist argument from previous centuries does not mean that it is the same thing or should be treated as the same thing.

In the context of academic rational discussion I might agree. This is not rational discussion, this is people subjected to hatred and abuse, or at least exclusion. When they say "this reflects what I have suffered, it's identical to characterizations of me." It is irrelevant what YOU think might have been the overt intent, the effect is the same.
If I say posts of spider pictures freak me out do you think it matters if you were trying to get that reaction or not? Either way the effect is the same.
Beyond that, can you be sure of an author's intent? Can you be sure they are free of bias, conscious or not? Why drag these tired depictions into the future? You can still have evil orcs and whatever in your game.

 

[Bohandas]

In the context of academic rational discussion I might agree. This is not rational discussion, this is people subjected to hatred and abuse, or at least exclusion. When they say "this reflects what I have suffered, it's identical to characterizations of me." It is irrelevant what YOU think might have been the overt intent, the effect is the same.
If I say posts of spider pictures freak me out do you think it matters if you were trying to get that reaction or not? Either way the effect is the same.

By that logic we ought to remove the entire game because the depictions of combat could demoralize people with PTSD

That said, I do think you've helped me understamd where all of this is coming from. Thank you for that.

Species sounds too SF for me.

It's no more science fiction than illithids, or Murlynd*, or Gond^‡, or anything related to psionics or Spelljammer or Eberron

*a steampunk themed deity from the Greyhawk setting

^‡a steampunk themed deity from the Forgotten Realms setting

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

I vote Seed. Wonderful entertainment value.

Orc: "From whose seed did you spawn?"

Elf: "I was spawnt from the seed of the Sing-Song-Father, progenitor of the elves. His blessings rained fertile down upon the forest, and from his life-giving sap, we rose. What about you?"

Orc: "The Axe-Feather, lifeblood of the orcs, rained his all-mighty seed upon his fallen foes and impregnated their blood, from which the orcish line originated."

Teenage Boy: "Whatever. I rain my seed twice a day. It's really not that amazing, but it feels good."

 

[Haldrik]

I vote Seed. Wonderful entertainment value.

Orc: "From whose seed did you spawn?"

Elf: "I was spawnt from the seed of the Sing-Song-Father, progenitor of the elves. His blessings rained fertile down upon the forest, and from his life-giving sap, we rose. What about you?"

Orc: "The Axe-Feather, lifeblood of the orcs, rained his all-mighty seed upon his fallen foes and impregnated their blood, from which the orcish line originated."

Teenage Boy: "Whatever. I rain my seed twice a day. It's really not that amazing, but it feels good."

"Seed" is a bit too patriarchal for me. (Technically patrilineal.) But I like its visceral terminology. If there was a gender-neutral equivalent, I am up for it. (Um, no pun intended.)

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

By that logic we ought to remove the entire game because the depictions of combat could demoralize people with PTSD

That said, I do think you've helped me understamd where all of this is coming from. Thank you for that.

Eh, I think there's a point where, if your PTSD is really such a major issue, you might not want to be running around in boards dedicated to a game which is quite upfront having violent content as a central theme. OTOH some of these other themes (spiders, racial stereotypes, etc.) are much less central to D&D itself, IMHO. So, I do acknowledge that you could take things to an extreme, but I would say your argument might involve an 'excluded middle' too

Realistically, I think its appropriate for us to say that "race is a central theme in D&D, but racism isn't" and thus we can try to portray it in a way that doesn't scan, to anyone who is at all reasonable, as demeaning. That might mean we avoid certain types of situations and favor depiction of the world in a certain light, but D&D has already been doing that for a long time. I mean, its depiction of women in society bears no resemblance to that of any pre-modern historical society that I know of, for example. It exists simply to remove an element of oppressiveness against female PCs, which is likely to offend or discourage female players (and maybe men too, whomever). Likewise certain 'adult' themes are not referenced in D&D, at least not overtly.

In the case of racism, we should probably make even more clear that D&D 'races' (aka species) are not intended to reflect human races in the world, and discarding the loaded term 'race' seems like a fairly reasonable step. WotC's decision to emphasize that none of the D&D races must be 'inherently bad' or 'inherently inferior' seems like an OK idea too, since inevitably someone WILL draw parallels between them and human races in the real world. You can still have barbaric violent evil orc tribes, and you may eschew having any which are other than that in a given setting, but this way a player is able to play any race and not assume it depicts their actual ethnicity in a bad light, at least as a game rule.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

In the case of racism, we should probably make even more clear that D&D 'races' (aka species) are not intended to reflect human races in the world, and discarding the loaded term 'race' seems like a fairly reasonable step. WotC's decision to emphasize that none of the D&D races must be 'inherently bad' or 'inherently inferior' seems like an OK idea too, since inevitably someone WILL draw parallels between them and human races in the real world. You can still have barbaric violent evil orc tribes, and you may eschew having any which are other than that in a given setting, but this way a player is able to play any race and not assume it depicts their actual ethnicity in a bad light, at least as a game rule.

I'm pretty sure the existence of Mind Flayers proved the inferiority of humans, orcs, elves, ect. No one would say the average human is equal to the average mind flayer. Face it, in D&D, some races are just better than others. I don't think there's any getting around that fact. What we do about it, however, is a different questions. But let's not lie to ourselves; D&D does not present all (or even most) races as inherently equal.

To that affect, I think removing the word race is a good start.

As stated above, I advocate in favor of the word seed - most because it's hilarious.

* * *

Mind Flayer: The seed of our tentacled fathers is strong in us.

Human Victim: Then why aren't there any half-mind flayers like there are half elves?

Mind Flayer: The mind flayer's seed consumes the whole. Now let me impregnate your brain.

 

[Danzauker]

I voted species. Biologically relatively correct. Easily understood by everyone. Does not overlap with other game terms like "type".