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

[CleverNickName]

In the sentence, "All flumphs are good at math compared to other races" my problem isn't the word "races."

The problem is the word "All."

Changing the word "race" to "species" isn't going to solve anything, if we're just going to let Species become the same old stand-in for stereotypes and sweeping generalizations of entire groups.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

One issue is that describing the different DnD species in any way at all can be linked at some point to language which racists have used in the past. X species is stronger/smarter/can do this thing which Y species can't do, is classic eugenicist language.

Honestly I haven't been aware of racist claiming other group "from another species". Degenerate humans sure, beast-like sure but not really part of another species. They'd would have been met with the common usage definition that they wouldn't be able to breed with humans.

I feel that the word species is not loaded like the word race is, and probably more representative of how schlorps have been used in fantasy gaming. On the other hand, it lacks the association with race, both the negative (a word loaded with bad connotations linked to racist depictions of human real-life groups) and the positive (since races are just arbitrary grouping of people based on color-coding or "origin" born in the mind of racists, they are all equal in reality).

I'd say it's more exact, but it opens the way to distinctions among schlorps. Because species can be described with no ill intent to be stronger or more intelligent (humans are smarter than dogs).

Ultimately the only way around it is to make all playable species completely identical. But then you just have humans in different hats

That's the risk unless one puts a great deal of thought in how schlorpic differences affects the development of society.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

In the sentence, "All flumphs are good at math compared to other races" my problem isn't the word "races."

The problem is the word "All."

Changing the word "race" to "species" isn't going to solve anything, if we're just going to let Species become the same old stand-in for stereotypes and sweeping generalizations of entire groups.

How about: "Most cheetahs are fast runners compared to other species?"

 

[codo]

Neither humans nor whales pair well with tartar sauce. Checkmate.

Salmon is also not a fish by this metric, but it's a hill I will die on.

You can't argue with science.

 

[Charlaquin]

A species can have a specieswide physical or mental difference to humans, without all being one giant monoculture.

True, but one should be conscious of what specieswide differences one uses, lest one end up accidentally reproducing racist tropes.

Even if you blanket statement 'almost all orcs are more aggressive than almost all humans', that doesn't prevent those same orcs from having just as much diversity and unique cultures / beliefs as humans.

Case in point. This isn’t untrue, but a people who have a greater than average tendency towards aggression resembles the way certain ethnicities have been portrayed in order to dehumanize them.

By all means, have fantastical species that are inhuman. Just make sure that if they’re thinking people, you don’t make them inhuman in the same ways that bigots have painted real people as inhuman.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I think because the whole debate hinges on whether orcs are stand-ins for black people or other racial groups, saying you don't think they are so (at least generally, obviously there may be cases where a writer is specifically injecting bad stereotypes into the game) isn't about being dismissive of that person but about being honest about what you really think.

Mod Note:

There have been enough threads on ENWorld regarding the use of RW racial & ethnic stereotypes in describing fantasy races and cultures- “with receipts”, as they say- that we don’t really need to interject that controversy into this discussion. Thank you.

 

[CleverNickName]

How about: "Most cheetahs are fast runners compared to other species?"

That's a completely different sentence, and lacks the word "all," so...sure?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

That's a completely different sentence, and lacks the word "all," so...sure?

But has it ever been "all"?

 

[CleverNickName]

But has it ever been "all"?

Ever? In the history of time? Probably, infinite monkeys and typewriters and all that.

 

[Frozen_Heart]

'All' is generally a pretty bad word to use when describing species traits.

Like for example, saying "All humans are between 4'6 and 7'0" is clearly not correct. But then just writing "Humans vary between 2ft and 9ft" also doesn't give a very accurate view of humans, despite it being correct. This applies to any trait or description for playable species.

It would probably be best to say "Humans typically range between 4'6 and 7'0". And then have a paragraph at the start of the 'species' section of the PHB, explaining that these are just typical common values, and that outliers will always exist.