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."

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Honestly, this is just pointing out another major problem with D&D and fantasy tropes, where virtually every nation is an ethnostate.

Yep. There are some notable subversions, though (Wildemount's Menagerie Coast and Kryn Dynasty, for example).

 

[Bagpuss]

I dislike the term species as this could imply the biological species concept as members of a population that can potentially interbreed. Where does this leave half-orcs, half elves etc? Its too loaded a term to be of use for the game as is race. My preference is ancestry

Leaves them the same as Ligers, Zebroids, Mules, etc. The exceptions to the general rule.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

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

Dog people drool at the table and lap mead out their mug. Cat people lift their bag legs up and lean down for a refreshing bath.

(I jest, I jest)

Origin is my vote too. I like blood or bloodline as well but am waiting for someone to say it has negative connotations.

Species is fine for me but is a bit anachronistic feeling.

 

[John R Davis]

Dog people drool at the table and lap mead out their mug. Cat people lift their bag legs up and lean down for a refreshing bath.

(I jest, I jest)

Origin is my vote too. I like blood or bloodline as well but am waiting for someone to say it has negative connotations.

Species is fine for me but is a bit anachronistic feeling.

He he.
Bloodline would cause to many triggers

 

[Bagpuss]

Personally I liked the fact D&D had a "human race", no matter what colour your skin was you were all part of the same race. It wasn't a divisive term in D&D like it has been increasingly used in society. I can't see people that are use to using race to describe elves, dwarves, etc. to suddenly change their conversational habits overnight because of the change in the books.

Fine with species as a replacement. I like it better than ancestry or heritage. We are all part of the same human species, but we don't all share the same ancestry or heritage.

 

[Cadence]

The elven monarch, pushed back his chair, causing everyone to turn to his direction as his chair scrapped along the stone-tiled floor. Standing up and placing his fists upon the hard oak table, he leaned in, "We have discussed this long enough, which [lamp] can we count on to fight united against this impending threat?"

Treebeard used peoples:

"Learn now the lore of Living Creatures!
First name the four, the free peoples:
Eldest of all, the elf-children;
Dwarf the delver, dark are his houses;
Ent the earthborn, old as mountains;
Man the mortal, master of horses"
[Later appending Hobbits]

 

[Dire Bare]

Heck, folks keep returning to real-world biology for how these things should work, but really, it doesn't have to. It is a fantasy world, after all. It can be that breeding is achieved via combination of spiritual essence, and all birth is basically a natural magic.

That gives us the ability to make the rules of interbreeding as arbitrary as any of the other rules of magic.

True.

But there is a concept from theatre that I think applies to fantastic fiction and gaming . . . suspension of disbelief . . . for an audience member to "suspend" their disbelief and BELIEVE in the reality of the play, most of the play's elements are grounded in as much reality as possible, with only some elements pushing past those bounds. In a fantasy setting, if humans exist and behave much the same way humans do in the real world, it makes it easier to believe in the fantastical, like dragons, while engaging with the story.

It's why, whether we use the word "species" or not, we tend to view the various fantasy races as species . . . because it jives with our understanding of the real world, and makes the more fantastical elements of the game "believable" while we play (or read novels).

D&D races don't have to follow the "rules" of real world biology, but tracking generally with that understanding is already a thing, regardless of the words we use.

 

[Dire Bare]

But being a revenant isn't an ancestry. It's a magical condition. How is that any more accurate to being a revenant or warforged than "species" is?

The word "species" doesn't just apply to different categories of living things in the real world. At a more basic level, it just means "different kinds of things within a larger category". So, being a revenant or some other type of transformative character, is just as much a "species" as being an elf. The word works just fine for both concepts.

 

[Dire Bare]

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

No it isn't.

It isn't a rigid category. It's a category whose lines are debated by scientists all the time. But it's not meaningless, not by a long shot.

As humans, we like clearly defined and rigid categories when we classify things . . . but the more we learn about the natural world, the more we realize nature doesn't play that way.

 

[Xamnam]

As far as a word, it's fine to me. I like others more, but if this is it going forward, whatever. The biggest problem I see with species is that the response elsewhere is "Oh, fine, can we bring back locked ASIs then?"