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

What new jargon do you want to replace "Race"?

  • Species

    Votes: 59 33.1%
  • Type

    Votes: 10 5.6%
  • Form

    Votes: 3 1.7%
  • Lifeform

    Votes: 2 1.1%
  • Biology

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Taxonomy

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Taxon

    Votes: 2 1.1%
  • Genus

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Geneology

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Family

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Parentage

    Votes: 3 1.7%
  • Ancestry

    Votes: 99 55.6%
  • Bloodline

    Votes: 13 7.3%
  • Line

    Votes: 1 0.6%
  • Lineage

    Votes: 49 27.5%
  • Pedigree

    Votes: 1 0.6%
  • Folk

    Votes: 34 19.1%
  • Kindred

    Votes: 18 10.1%
  • Kind

    Votes: 16 9.0%
  • Kin

    Votes: 36 20.2%
  • Kinfolk

    Votes: 9 5.1%
  • Filiation

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Extraction

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Descent

    Votes: 5 2.8%
  • Origin

    Votes: 36 20.2%
  • Heredity

    Votes: 3 1.7%
  • Heritage

    Votes: 47 26.4%
  • People

    Votes: 11 6.2%
  • Nature

    Votes: 1 0.6%
  • Birth

    Votes: 0 0.0%

SanjMerchant

Explorer
Pardon me, but wasn't the real issue generalising a whole group of people as evil based on their appearance, rather than which specific term was used to divide those groups into categories? So the word "race" not being the actual issue, but saying "all orcs are always evil due to being of the orc race" is? And if so, replacing "race" with "species" seems to matter little. "All orcs are always evil due to being of the orc species" is equally problematic.

Or am I missing something?
The following is speculation on my part, but here goes:

I think it's that people are talking a lot about race IRL, making the term more loaded then ever (at least in recent memory).

Then there's the whole rabbit hole of "But what even is the concept of race, really?", which I can definitely appreciate looking at and going "Nope! Do not want to get involved!"
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Bagpuss

Legend
As I’ve noted a few times now, species implies that dark-skinned drow are an entirely different species than pale-skinned high elves, which yeah, is problematic.

No it doesn't, in the current PHB High Elves and Drow are all part of the same Elven race, so I would assume in the next edition they would be part of the same species. Why would they change that? Also it appears they already released subrace was an issue before they got rid of Race, and they referred to Drow and High Elves as being from different lineage in the Character Origins playtest material rather than subraces (PHB) so I imagine they would stick with that.
 
Last edited:


Bagpuss

Legend
This is another good point in favor of terms such as ancestry in the context of player characters: everyone has multiple sources of ancestry, whereas "species" still has the problem of attempting some level of essentialism.
Right but some level of essentialism should exist when you are talking about different species.

I mean you're comparing say an elephant with a field mouse, you expect one to be always be larger, have a trunk and tusks, while the other will have will be considerably smaller, and nimbler. While in the distant past they will have shared and ancestor you aren't going to suddenly find a 3m tall mouse, or a 2" high elephant.

Comparing dwarves with elves, dwarves will always be shorter, while elves don't need to sleep. This is why I never had a problem with attribute adjustments and think it is a shame they are gone. I liked that on the whole elves were more graceful, and dwarves more sturdy, that's flavour has gone, when there was nothing wrong with it in the first place.
 


In my opinion, "species" is as charged of a word as "race" when comparing free-thinking beings.

Honestly, I would prefer the word "Ethnicity," (add to the poll?) over either.

With that said, I prefer Ancestry, Lineage, and Heritage. I love the concept of Dwarf with a hint of orc, or Elf with a hint of halfling, that you can imply. Words have meaning, and both Race and Species is a hurdle to envisioning such a character.

Not happy with the change: either commit to it or keep "Race."
Why is species a problematic word? Ethnicity suggests that all the DnD playable creatures are just different ethnic groups of the same species, with next to no differences. Much like irl ethnicities.

Species fits what they are much more accurately. A lizardfolk isn't just a slightly different ethnic group of halflings. The two species aren't even the same class (using the taxonomic meaning of the word). One being a reptile while the other is a mammal.

Even playable creatures which look almost identical could be different species. Elves would easily be a different species but same genus as humans, as that doesn't prohibit half elves existing.

Irl there have been free thinking sapient beings which aren't humans in the past. The neanderthals and denisovans being examples which ended up interbreeding with us despite being a completely different species to homo sapiens.
 

DEFCON 1

Legend
Supporter
Comparing dwarves with elves, dwarves will always be shorter, while elves don't need to sleep. This is why I never had a problem with attribute adjustments and think it is a shame they are gone. I liked that on the whole elves were more graceful, and dwarves more sturdy, that's flavour has gone, when there was nothing wrong with it in the first place.
No, the flavor can still be there... the book can still describe the typical dwarf and elf in that way. The game however, doesn't need to attempt to portray this by using minor ability score bonuses. 1) Because it inspires/lightly forces players more often to make use of those bonuses and continually play classes for which those bonuses apply (leaving a bunch of class options off the table unless the player is okay with being less optimal than they otherwise could be) and 2) Because players can set their stats however they want... so often you WON'T have sturdy dwarves and lithe elves-- thus rendering the idea that these ability score bonuses accomplish something meaningful completely moot.

When people say they need elves to get a +2 DEX to illustrate how "graceful" they are... they are thinking about the elven species on the whole. They see +2 attributed to the race write-up and it allows them to visualize the idea that every single elf is somehow more graceful than everyone else. But that doesn't take into account that a whole bunch of other races also get a +2 DEX, meaning that elves aren't actually more graceful than anyone else, they are only equally as graceful as like a half-dozen other species in the game (including some variant Humans who put their +2 into DEX). And it also doesn't take into account that just because they desire to see all elves as these lithe and graceful creatures... the +2 DEX only applies to Player Characters... and more often than not that elf in the party WON'T be more graceful than many of the other characters. In fact, you can easily have parties where the Dwarf has a higher DEX than the Elf does. Thus proving that ability score bonuses don't accomplish what they are trying to do. If the primary elf we see in the campaign week after week, session after session is a blundering fool compared to the dwarf, what did that +2 DEX functionally accomplish towards the description of "elves"? Nothing. So why bother having it as a game option, when all it does is cut down on a number of other game options people will feel as though they are willing or able to play?

The game of Dungeons & Dragons wants characters to have high primary stats. And that can run counter to what the narrative of the campaign world might feel like it wants to get across. And when those two things are in disagreement... I believe (and I would say at this point WotC does too) that the game takes precedence. Make the game more open to more players. And then let those who want to restrain their game's options do so... but do it on their own time at their own table. After all... you don't need the book to tell you that all Elves should put their +2 bonus into DEX... you can just tell your players you are instituting that rule yourself.
 

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
No it doesn't, in the current PHB High Elves and Drow are all part of the same Elven race, so I would assume in the next edition they would be part of the same species. Why would they change that? Also it appears they already released subrace was an issue before they got rid of Race, and they referred to Drow and High Elves as being from different lineage in the Character Origins playtest material rather than subraces (PHB) so I imagine they would stick with that.
Again, drow was just one example. Species still implies duergar, for instance, are a different species from dwarves, svirfneblin from gnomes, githyanki from githzerai, etc.
 

Cadence

Legend
Supporter
Again, drow was just one example. Species still implies duergar, for instance, are a different species from dwarves, svirfneblin from gnomes, githyanki from githzerai, etc.

Why does it imply that? Are war horse and riding horse different species just because they have different listings? Are all apes the same species because they have one entry?
 

Celebrim

Legend
As I’ve noted a few times now, species implies that dark-skinned drow are an entirely different species than pale-skinned high elves, which yeah, is problematic.

Ok, yes, agreed. That's the opposite of the problem I worry about with ancestry or heritage, but still valid.

Though in my campaign's variant 3.X rules, built not even really considering this issue, a drow character uses the exact same racial template as a high elf character or a wood elf character, and the standard differences would be built with optional traits and racial feats. So technically, you could be a high elf with darkvision and dark magic and you'd be functionally identical to my world's standard drow. This approach might get in the way of the standard trope that drow are just better than other races... ancestries... folk...whatever at everything though.
 

Remove ads

Top