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

[Charlaquin]

Hypothetically, near future transhumanism:

A consciousness could exist in a virtual reality − a thought construct without flesh and blood. Then print out a body, and transfer the consciousness from the virtual reality to the new body.

The material body can have a human DNA, and be a human-species construct, and sexually reproduce offspring with natural humans.

But the virtual reality consciousness would be a nonhuman species.

In other words, a conscious mind can immigrate from one species to become a member of a different species.

A more competent scientific understanding of how consciousness itself works might come with its own implications about what a lifeform is.



This hypothetical transhumanism is actually closer to how Norse animism works.

The natural world is conscious. Just like a human body is a feature of nature that has its own consciousness, every phenomenon of nature is its own body with a consciousness. A mountain is conscious, a field, a lake, the sky, the sun, etcetera.

It is possible for a member of one kind of nature being to emigrate to become an other kind of nature being. For example, at death, the consciousness of a human nature being immigrates to become a member of the corpse nature beings. But it is also possible to become a member of the æsir nature beings in the sky as one of the einherjar among the clouds. There are examples of humans becoming vanir, jǫtnar becoming humans, and so on. Immigration from any species of nature being to become a member of any other species of nature being is possible. Essentially, this is a transfer of consciousness.



This Norse animistic worldview influences my perception of D&D fantasy settings. For example, the original Elf is a Celestial thought construct, whose consciousness translated into Fey force, and even Material body. The High Elf is an example of a Material Elf culture. The High Elf body is humanlike and can even sexually reproduce with humans. In other words, the body that Elf materializes actually is a human body with human D&D. The High Elf actually transfers the Elf consciousness into the human genepool. At the same time, the Elf maintains an affinity with the other modes of consciousness, including Fey and Celestial. The Elf consciousness has the potential to revert back to the nonhuman species. Perhaps the Elf Trance feature is a method to maintain the immaterial aspects of Elf consciousness.

Likewise, it is possible for a human consciousness to immigrate to an immaterial species, to become a Fey spirit-force consciousness among the Eladrin Elf, or a thought construct among the Celestial Elf. Perhaps an aspect of this Human-to-Eladrin consciousness maintains an affinity with the material species of humanity.



I like the One D&D approach. A character can be an entanglement of any combination of magical creatures. But pick one of these species for the mechanical stats for the character.

You lost me

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Which unlike elves and halflings, do share a common ancestor - a fairly recent one at that.

I still don’t understand why you think this matters. You had no problem with calling dogs and cats living in D&D land different species even though they might be created too.

 

[Charlaquin]

I am not familiar with the 5E demihuman entries (I don't play 5E). Does it specify things like elves don't come from a common ancestor?

Well, elves are Fey and halflings aren’t, so there’s that. I’m not sure off the top of my head how much of the PHB goes into the elf creation myth, but I’m pretty sure it mentions them having been created by Corellon.

Either way though, and maybe this is my 2E era showing, I tend to look at the PHB as starting points but see the demihumans and classes always being subject to the specifics of the individual world.

Sure, a DM can change whatever they want. But by the same token they can change the word species too. I think the default term and the default lore should agree with each other.

 

[Charlaquin]

I still don’t understand why you think this matters. You had no problem with calling dogs and cats living in D&D land different species even though they might be created too.

It matters because the entire system of taxonomy just doesn’t apply in a world of gods and magic. None of it makes any sense in that context. Since dogs and cats exist in real life, it’s acceptable to use the same term we use in real life to describe them, much as it’s acceptable to, for example, call the metal mercury by its name, even though it’s named after a god that doesn’t exist in the setting, because we’re describing a real thing that exists and has been ported over to the fictional setting. Elves and halflings aren’t a real thing that exists, and their relationship to each other is not analogous to the relationship between different real-world species, so species is not an effective term to use to describe them.

 

[glass]

EDIT: On second thoughts, that was probably unwise.

 

[Cadence]

It matters because the entire system of taxonomy just doesn’t apply in a world of gods and magic. None of it makes any sense in that context. Since dogs and cats exist in real life, it’s acceptable to use the same term we use in real life to describe them, much as it’s acceptable to, for example, call the metal mercury by its name, even though it’s named after a god that doesn’t exist in the setting, because we’re describing a real thing that exists and has been ported over to the fictional setting. Elves and halflings aren’t a real thing that exists, and their relationship to each other is not analogous to the relationship between different real-world species, so species is not an effective term to use to describe them.

It's not effective for you; it's apparently perfectly effective for lots of other people. Trying to parse how many are in each camp, and how strong their objections are, is something I'm glad WotC has to do and not me!

No matter what term is used, it feels really odd to me to think that wizards and the like wouldn't do some sort of taxonomy on living things in their bestiaries and theories (What does "Charm Person" affect? "Charm Monster"? What can one be reincarnated into? What can be turned by a cleric? How do we classify these things?). Just as it didn't for Linnaeus, a taxonomic system for living creatures doesn't need to be explicitly based on phylogenetics - it just needs some set of principles.

Are the fourteen types of creatures in DnD part of a taxonomic system? Is whatever grouping they decide on for the thing formerly known as race part of one too?

In any case, I completely agree with you that instantiating phylogeny into the game isn't a route to go.

[And now I have to really avoid reading Are the Linnean and Phylogenetic Nomenclatural Systems Combinable? Recommendations for Biological Nomenclature so that I can get and the like and get my work done!! Augh! Why can't work be as fun as message board conversations!?!?]

 

[Bedrockgames]

It's not effective for you; it's apparently perfectly effective for lots of other people. Trying to parse how many are in each camp, and how strong their objections are, is something I'm glad WotC has to do and not me!

No matter what term is used, it feels really odd to me to think that wizards and the like wouldn't do some sort of taxonomy on living things in their bestiaries and theories (what does "Charm Person affect? What can one be reincarnated into? What can be turned by a cleric? How do we classify these things?). Just as it didn't for Linnaeus, a taxonomic system for living creatures doesn't need to be explicitly based on phylogenetics - it just needs some set of principles.

Are the fourteen types of creatures in DnD part of a taxonomic system? Is whatever grouping they decide on for the thing formerly known as race part of one too?

In any case, I completely agree with you that instantiating phylogeny into the game isn't a route to go.

I know this term was brought up before but I think race and class in D&D never really were meant to be diegetic. I remember there was a Drizzt book, and I think many other TSR novels around that time, where they had characters speaking about class and it was really strange (someone said to Drizzt something like "you know what you are, you are a ranger"). And it wasn't just dialog. It was a plot point about Drizzt coming to understand himself and what he was deep down. But it always struck me as something the writers might have been instructed to do in order to make those terms diegetic (though I doubt anyone was using that particular term at the time at TSR).

For how wizards do these things in game, I think looking to something like Aristotle.

 

[Bedrockgames]

My guess: Because "species" sounds off to them, but "it sounds off" is a poor counter to "sensitivity readers have said 'species' is the least problematic term", so they are reaching for something else to justify their preferences.

Species sounds off to my ears as well, and I think there can also be an issue with revising language too much (where it makes it more difficult to understand editions over time). Like I said, I think it is better if we put the critical engagement on the reader end so writers and designers can more freely use evocative and colorful language, provided these things are not intentionally being used in a way that is meant to advocate real world evils. But given that they have established this is a problem they want to address, I do think species is the best term because it has the least amount of the issues they are trying to avoid (next to type, which is probably too neutral) and it most accurately captures what race meant in D&D in the first place: which is something like the difference between a human and neanderthal (maybe a slightly larger difference due to the presence of magic, but essentially that analogy is sound IMO).

 

[Bedrockgames]

Well, elves are Fey and halflings aren’t, so there’s that. I’m not sure off the top of my head how much of the PHB goes into the elf creation myth, but I’m pretty sure it mentions them having been created by Corellon.

Sure, a DM can change whatever they want. But by the same token they can change the word species too. I think the default term and the default lore should agree with each other.

I do think the presence of magic, the fact that this is a fantasy setting where in many or most settings something like evolution probably isn't even a thing (EDIT: Misspelled Thing as Think), these scientific categories are not going to be precise matches. Still I think it is a perfectly accurate term in terms of what it conjures up in peoples minds, and I think using the word species in a setting where things might have different origins due tot he nature of the worlds in question works (humans and elves are analogous enough to humans and neanderthals, and species is used enough to distinguish those two things, that I think it is fair). If you do want a term that absolutely holds up in every circumstance, type is probably your best bet. But the problem with that is it is so uninspiring and bland.

 

[Cadence]

I know this term was brought up before but I think race and class in D&D never really were meant to be diegetic. I remember there was a Drizzt book, and I think many other TSR novels around that time, where they had characters speaking about class and it was really strange (someone said to Drizzt something like "you know what you are, you are a ranger"). And it wasn't just dialog. It was a plot point about Drizzt coming to understand himself and what he was deep down. But it always struck me as something the writers might have been instructed to do in order to make those terms diegetic (though I doubt anyone was using that particular term at the time at TSR).

For how wizards do these things in game, I think looking to something like Aristotle.

I read a short story in a collection recently that had lots of game terms in it, wow... it was painful.

On the other hand, the different groupings of elves in Tolkien, always, seems pretty natural. As do different fields of magic study in Earthsea and others.