D&D (2024) One D&D Permanently Removes The Term 'Race'

In line with many other tabletop roleplaying games, such as Pathfinder or Level Up, One D&D is removing the term 'race'. Where Pathfinder uses 'Ancestry' and Level Up uses 'Heritage', One D&D will be using 'Species'.

Moving On From 'Race' in the 2024 Core Rulebooks

We understand "race" is a problematic term that has had prejudiced links between real world people and the fantasy peoples of D&D worlds.

www.dndbeyond.com

In a blog post, WotC announced that "We have made the decision to move on from using the term "race" everywhere in One D&D, and we do not intend to return to that term."

 

[Minigiant]

I know I’ll get used to it, but as a biologist, now I’m going to want the Latin names for all the species, subspecies, and genetic variants…

That's the only way I'm be okay with it.

Draco nati metalicum
Draco kobold metalicum

 

[Mortus]

Not a fan of species. I’ve heard and read it used just as much as the word race in a negative way. No real difference in my opinion so it does not matter which of the two they use.

Maybe bloodline? A bit dark sounding but seems neutral.

 

[agrayday]

I agreed with "Ancestry". I understand PF uses it, but it makes the most sense to me.

 

[Charlaquin]

Magic. Dragons are obviously a different species from humans, but Half-Dragons exist because of magic.

And, the other hominid species that we know were pretty similar in intelligence level to Homo Sapiens interbred with us. You're probably descended from some Neanderthals and Denisovans.

Sure. But at that point “species” is a meaningless category.

 

[Scribe]

Funny to me that this was the most contentious topic of discussion today.

Poor form Wizards, give us something to fight over!

(No way does Species last, it has to be Ancestry, thank you for coming to my Ted Talk.)

 

[M_Natas]

I think it is good to move away from "race". Even without the racist problematic usage of that term it is just wrong. Humans and Elves are not different races. There is no race in any scientific way outside of breeding stock (like dog races). It is an outdated concept that never was used correctly and in the majority of cases to discriminate. But also it is not a medieval term. It started to get usage in the 15th century. It is quite a modern word and thus not fitting for a medieval based fantasy setting.

That's why I also don't like the term species. That started to get used in that context in the 18th century, so an even more modern word. I could imagine that the sage dwarf Charelius Darwinius would use the word in game but not as a commonly used name. Also it brings a lot of problems with it. Different species usally can't create offspring with each other. Elves, Humans, Orcs, Dwarfs, Tieflings ... all can. So species would be used incorrectly in these cases.

I would propose the term Folk. The Goblin folk, elve folk and so on. And the subcategory could be tribe. The Elven folk from the woodland tribe (woodelves). Folk is a medieval term. It feels medieval. It fits directly in a fantasy setting and is not immersion breaking. With the Folk and Tribe name you don't have to worry about scientific accuracy, interbreedability and usage history.

 

[Clint_L]

The problem with "folk" is that the German version, "Volk," was the Nazi's favourite term for describing their preferred racial group, so when you use the word "folk" to denote something similar you kinda run into the same problem as "race."

 

[M_Natas]

The problem with "folk" is that the German version, "Volk," was the Nazi's favourite term for describing their preferred racial group, so when you use the word "folk" to denote something similar you kinda run into the same problem as "race."

The german Translation of DND 5e already uses the term "Volk" to not use the term race (Rasse).
Rasse/Race is way worse than Volk/Folk.
And the term Folk was used even way back in Ancient Greece.
So while the term Folk was misused by the nazis, it has a long history of okay use, while the term race never was used in any way in an okay way.

 

[Parmandur]

I was going to blame the whole 1/2 thing in D&D on Tolkien, but then just remembered John Carter and Dejah Thoris. (And it would get rid of a bunch of Glen Cook things).

Would restricting it to humanoids hurt too badly in exchange for avoiding wondering about Thri-Kreen/Halflings? (So, Thri-kreen are out; as are centaur being Fey).

This is actually how it already works in Packet 1 for OneD&D: the hybrid rule specifically calls out only Humanoids, which excludes Thri-Kreen, Hexbloods, Plasmids, or Centaurs, and leaves room for.oddball future species of other Creature types.

Glad Race is gone, meh on Species as a replacement: I'd love to get an in-depth explanation of the conversations with consultants to go over the reasoning and other alternatives that were rejected.

 

[John R Davis]

On the origin of species.

Origin is the better of the two words.

If you are going to have furries as a PC choice then you do that so the player can do what the animal does.
Monkeys are agile, climby and noisy.
Apes are strong and look wise