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

[Hriston]

That I agree with. If Elf etcetera existed in reallife, then the scientific taxonomy would necessarily require kinds of species that are nonphylogenetic (namely have zero evolutionary relationship to each other).

I anticipate that this will precisely happen in the near future because of gene splicing and artificial intelligence.



I am comfortable with many of the names that are in the poll of the original post.

I hate the term "race". The problem with "race" is, it means: 1) species and 2) ethnicity, whence 3. other ethnicities are nonhuman or subhuman. The term race is inherently problematic, and occasionally vividly offensive.

So there are actually two ways to avoid the problematic of "race". 1) Pick a term that can only mean biology and cannot mean culture. 2) Pick a term that can only mean culture and cannot mean biology.

From what I am understanding, you prefer the second option. So, in the context of the D&D "Humanoid", never refer to biology, because every Humanoid is too human. It is problematic to "other" the Humanoid.

I'm comfortable with both. A fantasy people can have both biological and cultural differences from other peoples, but it doesn't have to have one or the other. There can also be biological and/or cultural diversity within a people.

 

[glass]

If they existed in real life as they do in D&D, our entire phylogenic system would be overturned, because it would be definitive proof against the theory of evolution by natural selection

If you have anything like resembling real humans (and dogs, etc), who take after their parents but are not identical to them, then you have heredity with random mutation. If you have anything at all which makes it more likely that some creatures will survive to produce viable offspring than others, you have selection pressure.

If you have heredity with random mutation and selection pressure, then you have evolution by means of natural selection, even if it is not the only game in town.

Modern people have a concept of what the word species means, which is informed by how it’s used in their everyday lives, not how it has been historically used.

Most modern people are not evolutionary biologists. I am reasonably confident that to most English-speaking people, "species" means nothing more precise that "category for living creatures, like 'cat' or 'dog'". And this thread ably demonstrates that many of those who think they know a more precise definition are wrong.

 

[Charlaquin]

If you have anything like resembling real humans (and dogs, etc), who take after their parents but are not identical to them, then you have heredity with random mutation.

Do you? Certainly you have heredity, but in a world where gods exist, the changes you describe as mutations may not be random at all, and the mechanism behind their transference and alteration may be divine intervention rather than genetic mutation.

If you have anything at all which makes it more likely that some creatures will survive to produce viable offspring than others, you have selection pressure.

Not if something other than survival to produce offspring determines what traits get passed along. Again, divine will throws a monkey wrench in this theory.

If you have heredity with random mutation and selection pressure, then you have evolution by means of natural selection, even if it is not the only game in town.

But you have not demonstrated that you have those things in D&D’s multiverse.

Most modern people are not evolutionary biologists. I am reasonably confident that to most English-speaking people, "species" means nothing more precise that "category for living creatures, like 'cat' or 'dog'". And this thread ably demonstrates that many of those who think they know a more precise definition are wrong.

Yes, and I maintain that elf and dwarf are not categories “like cat or dog,” which means that the word species will communicate the wrong thing to the average English speaker about these categories.

 

[Cadence]

Do you? Certainly you have heredity, but in a world where gods exist, the changes you describe as mutations may not be random at all, and the mechanism behind their transference and alteration may be divine intervention rather than genetic mutation.

Not if something other than survival to produce offspring determines what traits get passed along. Again, divine will throws a monkey wrench in this theory.

But you have not demonstrated that you have those things in D&D’s multiverse.

We do have rules about falling damage and healing rates and material strengths and carrying capacity. And now I want a "science book" for D&D worlds if we assume nothing necessarily works like IRL unless spelled out in the rules.

Yes, and I maintain that elf and dwarf are not categories “like cat or dog,” which means that the word species will communicate the wrong thing to the average English speaker about these categories.

I wish I had your optimism about the biological knowledge of the average English speaker!

 

[Clint_L]

I maintain that elf and dwarf are not categories “like cat or dog,” which means that the word species will communicate the wrong thing to the average English speaker about these categories.

Will it? Will it really? I am very confident that the average English speaker will understand what is meant and will not think about it twice. They will get that it means that a dwarf is a different thing than an elf, and they should choose one. I think they won't worry about these irrelevant, pedantic points at all. They will have better things to do.

I am very, very confident that 99.9% of readers will not immediately wonder, "gee, do you think that this means that elves and dwarves are different like cats and dogs are different? Or are they more like different breeds of dogs? Or should I say wolves, because technically dogs and wolves are still one species, though according to the most recent paper that may not be as clear cut as once thought? But then when we factor in genetic drift..."

Yeah, I am confident that the average English speaker is not going to have that problem. They will pick an elf or a dwarf (or whatever) and move on.

Edit: I want to clarify that I don't really care much what term issued, as long as it solves the inadvertent racism issue. Species: fine. Ancestry: whatever. Kindred: sure. Schmorp: absolutely. WHO CARES?

 

[Charlaquin]

We do have rules about falling damage and healing rates and material strengths and carrying capacity. And now I want a "science book" for D&D worlds if we assume nothing necessarily works like IRL unless spelled out in the rules.

I don’t assume that. On the contrary, I assume things work like they do in real life unless otherwise indicates. I would consider the presence of gods creating beings fully formed is sufficient indication that adaptation does not work like in real life.

I wish I had your optimism about the biological knowledge of the average English speaker!

my concern stems from pessimism about the biological knowledge of the average English speaker.

 

[Scott Christian]

I think he did. But I don’t think that matters. Modern people have a concept of what the word species means, which is informed by how it’s used in their everyday lives, not how it has been historically used. I believe that concept is at odds with how the groupings of PC races function in D&D, and therefore, using that term will miscommunicate what they are and how they work.

Off Subject: I often think about this in terms of how the game changes on a table/world building level. How words and even available abilities, such as how common flights are or the ability to gather information, changes the mindset of newer players, especially ones that have not seen how hard travel is or how difficult information used to be to find. To me, it's an interesting observation. There is probably a correlative paper in there somewhere.

Anyway, sorry about the sidestep. Carry on.

 

[Charlaquin]

Will it? Will it really? I am very confident that the average English speaker will understand what is meant and will not think about it twice. They will get that it means that a dwarf is a different thing than an elf, and they should choose one. I think they won't worry about these irrelevant, pedantic points at all. They will have better things to do.

Certainly I agree that the average player won’t put much critical thought into it. I think it is therefore all the more important that thought be put into it now, before a term is settled on.

 

[glass]

Nah, it’s not about biology vs. culture to me, and in fact I prefer that “race” features be entirely inborn* rather than cultural.

I have strongly disagreed with pretty much everything you have said in this thread, and with hindsight, I have maybe been a little harsh in expressing that. But this OTOH, I completely agree with!

With my homebrew setting, every character picks a Culture in addition to their Species/Ancestry/whatever, and which separates out things like languages, weapon training, and other non-inborn characteristics.

But you have not demonstrated that you have those things in D&D’s multiverse.

TBF you're right, in rebutting your claim I overstated my case. What I should have said was that you can have evolution in the presence of active divinities, not that you necessarily do. Either way, the presence of active divinities who can do create species from whole cloth do not prove that evolution by means of natural selection is not also occurring.

Yes, and I maintain that elf and dwarf are not categories “like cat or dog,”

The ways that they are (in some settings) unalike are not ways that would matter or even be noticeable to the vast majority of people.

 

[glass]

my concern stems from pessimism about the biological knowledge of the average English speaker.

Certainly I agree that the average player won’t put much critical thought into it. I think it is therefore all the more important that thought be put into it now, before a term is settled on.

Is it your contention that using "species" for categories of created beings might lead more people than currently do to believe that real-world species are also created? Because that was not coming across before, and might be something to be concerned about. I'd like to dismiss it out of hand, but unlike your previous arguments I cannot - it does bear thinking about at least!