D&D (2024) What new jargon do you want to replace "Race"?

[Yaarel]

The Taxonomy of D&D Creature Types looks something like the following.

Notes

Speculatively, what makes a Monstrosity monstrous is its simultaneous blending of biology and undeath construction. It is neither Undead nor Living, but both. Typically, it results from individuals who do necromantic engineering to intentionally rupture the natural processes of the Material plane. A frankenstein.

Two sapient Types evolve from the Beast Type. The many Humanoid Species ultimately radiate from an apelike Species, the many Dragon from snakelike. The sapience transcends their beastly origins, via adaptation to the unknown, often self-modifying via magic, thus classifying new Types.

Strictly speaking, the Material plane is the emptiness of spacetime. Positive Energy enters it via forms of the Elemental plane, thus becoming matter and activity. From this matter, biological Life springs.

 

[codo]

I don't think you read my words, or you would have noted that I specifically wrote: "D&D should avoid mandating terms with serious real-world connotations that we don't need to be debating at our tables." So as it turns out, I am not an idiot.

But that's not what most people are endlessly debating. Pretty much everyone on this thread agrees that we should avoid loaded terms. Instead, we are getting endless discussion about whether "species" can include non-biological creatures, or whatever. It just reads as hopelessly pedantic, like medieval scholars arguing about how many angels can fit on the head of a pin.

Like, let's say you don't think species is a perfect fit that exactly sums up all the different vagaries of playable creature options in this outlandish fantasy game. So what? It should be obvious by now that there is no perfect term from the real world that will fit exactly. That's why I suggested, way back, and somewhat facetiously, that WotC should just make up the word. But setting that option aside, the only other choice is to choose a real world word that doesn't have unfortunate connotations and then just declare that "in the context of D&D, this world means playable creatures." It doesn't really matter what the word is, again as long as it doesn't offend.

I'm sorry in i misunderstood your post. What I was responding to was

I still don't understand why people care so much. No one seems to really explain that. How are people so invested in this tiny change that a thread can reach 48 pages?

Like, I get why race was problematic, and agree that D&D should avoid mandating terms with serious real-world connotations that we don't need to be debating at our tables. I just don't understand why folks are so invested in the replacement word. Can folks explain why this matters to them?

On first read I took it as you were saying both that race was problematic and should be changed and that it is not something that people should care about. They are mutually exclusive things, which is why I asked you a question to clarify. If you were just criticizing people for denying that the term race had any problems and shouldn't change, then I read your words wrong and I apologize.

If you were including people like me and others, who only keep posting in this thread because other people keep denying that there was any problems with "race" and WotC only made the change to pander to the woke, than no I won't apologize for still talking about the change. I think the word race, especially combined with D&D's history of racism, is harmful to the game and need to be changed.

Again I apologize if if didn't read your words more generously and give you the benefit of the doubt. You can see however, that starting a post, in a hot button topic where tempers are already raised, coming in starting your post with "I still don't understand why people care so much" could put someone on the defensive.

 

[Scott Christian]

I don't think it is controversial saying that vast swathes of American culture and society has historically demeaned, belittled, mocked and oppressed Indians. For literally decades the most popular film and television genre in the country was based on celebrating murdering Indians, while you are stealing their land. The definitive children's game of this era is literally "cowboys and Indians". Children literally grew up pretending to kill Indians. Most Americans didn't consider Indians human beings.

I am curious, did you grow up in America?

Half the films depict Indians as oppressed. Many of the films, even series, like Gunsmoke, depict many of the Indians as wiser than the settlers, stronger and braver, and more in touch with nature. The movies later often made them the heroes. In real life, by the 80s, over 1/2 of American households claimed to have Native American lineage. Think about that? More than 1/2! People generally don't want to claim lineage if they hate that particular group of people.

And referring to the game of cowboys and Indians, where most people I knew wanted to be the Indian, isn't a telltale sign of racism. No more than re-enactors that get together to re-enact Norman vs. Saxon.

I fear you are both generalizing an enormous amount and pigeonholing a group of people as racists.

 

[codo]

I am curious, did you grow up in America?

Half the films depict Indians as oppressed. Many of the films, even series, like Gunsmoke, depict many of the Indians as wiser than the settlers, stronger and braver, and more in touch with nature. The movies later often made them the heroes. In real life, by the 80s, over 1/2 of American households claimed to have Native American lineage. Think about that? More than 1/2! People generally don't want to claim lineage if they hate that particular group of people.

And referring to the game of cowboys and Indians, where most people I knew wanted to be the Indian, isn't a telltale sign of racism. No more than re-enactors that get together to re-enact Norman vs. Saxon.

I fear you are both generalizing an enormous amount and pigeonholing a group of people as racists.

Ok you got me, Indians were also stereotyped as "Nobel Savages". That isn't any better. Positive stereotypes are not better than negative ones. Indians were not some magical nature spirits, they were just normal people with their own vast array of cultures and societies, just like everyone else.

The fact that 1/2 of Americans "claim" Indian ancestry is just another example of same fetishization and disregard of Indians as actual human beings. The stories of "Indian" ancestors is almost never, "My great-grandfather was Tashunka of the Lakota." It's almost inveritably more along the lines of "A distant ancestor married an beautiful Indian princess." Now that the few Indians who are still living are neatly tucked away on reservations were most Americans don't have to think about them, pretending to have "Indian" ancestors is an fun and "exotic" identity to play with. It is basically a Halloween costume.

We Americans love to name our sports teams after Indians as well. Do you want to explain how the following are just a respectful tribute next?

 

[Vaalingrade]

Yeah, First Nations Peoples were basically gaudy jewelry and decoration to people! That's not racist!

Wait, no. The other thing.

Edit: it says a lot that even people speaking positively and even defending them from racist depictions still use the term for 'Dumb Italian Guy Doesn't Know Directions and Makes Millions of People Pay For That' when referring to them.

 

[Scott Christian]

Yeah, First Nations Peoples were basically gaudy jewelry and decoration to people! That's not racist!

Wait, no. The other thing.

Edit: it says a lot that even people speaking positively and even defending them from racist depictions still use the term for 'Dumb Italian Guy Doesn't Know Directions and Makes Millions of People Pay For That' when referring to them.

I don't know how many times it needs to be said for everyone here to understand: NO ONE on this forum is saying there wasn't or isn't prejudice against Native American people. NO ONE on this forum is saying the atrocities committed against these people were small. They are huge and it was, and still is, terrible.

But I find it hard to believe you clump everyone into the "Halloween" costume and don't see the irony in that. 150 million American claiming they have Native American ancestry - and they are all just doing it for "decoration"?

Ok you got me, Indians were also stereotyped as "Nobel Savages". That isn't any better. Positive stereotypes are not better than negative ones. Indians were not some magical nature spirits, they were just normal people with their own vast array of cultures and societies, just like everyone else.

The fact that 1/2 of Americans "claim" Indian ancestry is just another example of same fetishization and disregard of Indians as actual human beings. The stories of "Indian" ancestors is almost never, "My great-grandfather was Tashunka of the Lakota." It's almost inveritably more along the lines of "A distant ancestor married an beautiful Indian princess." Now that the few Indians who are still living are neatly tucked away on reservations were most Americans don't have to think about them, pretending to have "Indian" ancestors is an fun and "exotic" identity to play with. It is basically a Halloween costume.

I am going to say it twice in one post so it is clear: NO ONE is defending prejudice against Native Americans. It is a made-up argument. My response and claim to you is clear: Many movies did not depict them as villains. And the game of cowboys and Indians doesn't allow you to use it as evidence that an entire generation of people grew up believing Indians were not human beings. I pointed out to you the contrary - many people idolized Indians. They wanted to be them. Not as some romantic fetish, but because they saw their cultural customs to be something they wanted to follow. Heck, half of the environmental movement couldn't have happened without the idolization of Native Americans. So this overgeneralization you have is just that: an overgeneralization that is just as damaging as the idiots who actually did believe Indians were not human beings.

We Americans love to name our sports teams after Indians as well. Do you want to explain how the following are just a respectful tribute next?

And the Celtics, Trojans, Fighting Irish, The Maroons, Pistol Pete, The Mountaineers, Aztecs, etc... There are many mascots that can offend. No doubt about it. But none of it has to do with my claim.

 

[codo]

I don't know how many times it needs to be said for everyone here to understand: NO ONE on this forum is saying there wasn't or isn't prejudice against Native American people. NO ONE on this forum is saying the atrocities committed against these people were small. They are huge and it was, and still is, terrible.

You do see people making those sorts of claims, but Morrus and the mod team do a good job smacking that crap down, and banning people who post it. However what you do see is lot of people saying there is nothing wrong with using "race", that D&D has not history of racism, and dismissing the issue as unimportant and the WotC is only making changes to pander to the woke mob.

I have only brought up the the horrible examples I have, in direct response to people, to show that, yes, D&D, and America for that matter, does have a long history of racist content.

 

[Vaalingrade]

But I find it hard to believe you clump everyone into the "Halloween" costume and don't see the irony in that. 150 million American claiming they have Native American ancestry - and they are all just doing it for "decoration"?

Because that's what the whole 'I'm 1/1,000,000,000 Cherokee fad was? Just wearing the concept of native peoples as a bit of cultural fashion.

 

[Irlo]

IMO idolization of First Nations people is also a sign of thinking of them as fictional constructs and not as actual human beings.

 

[Scott Christian]

You do see people making those sorts of claims, but Morrus and the mod team do a good job smacking that crap down, and banning people who post it. However what you do see is lot of people saying there is nothing wrong with using "race", that D&D has not history of racism, and dismissing the issue as unimportant and the WotC is only making changes to pander to the woke mob.

I have only brought up the the horrible examples I have, in direct response to people, to show that, yes, D&D, and America for that matter, does have a long history of racist content.

I applaud your motive. I think it is the right mindset to have. But from reading these forums, I do not see anyone claiming that D&D has no history of racism. And, I guess, if I am being honest, is what I find frustrating. I see people arguing author's intent, which is quite different than dismissing the issue or saying there was never any racism. I also see people arguing context, which again, is quite different from saying D&D has no history of racism.

From the writing on these forums, the people here are anything but racist. Maybe they are too open minded for you. Maybe they give the benefit of the doubt too often for you. Or maybe they don't use the correct terminology to explain their opinion for you. But they are anything but racist.