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

[Mistwell]

So, this is a great thing to put on monster stat blocks and PC character sheets. But, how would you phrase it it in the step-by-step character creation instructions?

1. Choose your Class
2. Choose your (what?)
3. Choose your Background

That’s an earnest question, I think if we could find a way to render “Creature type: Humanoid (elf)” in a way that would work in that context, it would probably be the ideal option.

Choose your creature type for #2, which comes with Humanoid or Fey or whatever along with the descriptor in the parenthesis. Like it currently does.

Also I think it's important to note the distinction between "Creature Type" and just "Type".

Type is sterile. Creature type is more emotive of a fantasy setting. You're a type of Creature. And Creature is defined as "an animal or person or imaginary or fictional being." It fits better with a fantasy game than Species, which I think fits better with a sci-fi game.

 

[Charlaquin]

Choose your creature type for #2, which comes with Humanoid or Fey or whatever along with the descriptor in the parenthesis. Like it currently does.

Also I think it's important to note the distinction between "Creature Type" and just "Type".

Type is sterile. Creature type is more emotive of a fantasy setting. You're a type of Creature. And Creature is defined as "an animal or person or imaginary or fictional being." It fits better with a fantasy game than Species, which I think fits better with a sci-fi game.

Hmm… Ok, I guess that works. It’d take some doing for me to get used to the shmorp being imparted by creature type rather than the other way around, but only because I’m not accustomed to it. Practically speaking that is probably the least objectionable approach any way you look at it. Guess I’m onboard the Creature Type train.

 

[Micah Sweet]

As soon as the half orc got out, and when there are actual orc children, you really get to the problem, that orcs are just other humanoids.

So if you want something evil, you need to make sure, that you don't speak about humanoids, but demons or the like who just take the shape of humanoids. It is still not ideal, but at least it is better. Gnolls in 5e fill that niche, except that they were falsely adressed as humanoids.

No, they were correctly addressed as humanoids, and then changed in 5e because of fears regarding this issue.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

No, they were correctly addressed as humanoids, and then changed in 5e because of fears regarding this issue.

Nope. They were terribly at being humanoids as of 5e lore.

If you go by older lore, you are right. They were about as problematic as orcs.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Why make them identical? Just make them diverse.

Humans are the ultimate in diversity. Culturally, any other heritage is going to be a subset of that, unless you take options away from humans.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

No, they were correctly addressed as humanoids, and then changed in 5e because of fears regarding this issue.

How does denying a two-leg, two-arms, one-head creature the adjective of humanoid allays the fear? Saying it's a monstrosity doesn't help, imho. If you don't want to have always evil things that can be mistaken for humans, it's the shape and not the creature type one would need to change. (not that I disagree with you, just commenting your post).

Or you could call them unaligned. Which might very well be a stand-in for the old "always evil" descriptor. It's probable smallpox is unaligned in D&D terms, yet we have no qualms eradicating this species without ethical dilemma. "This species survive by feeding on humans" doesn't make it always evil, it makes it... very unpopular with humans. Much like humans are unpopular among carrots.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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).




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

Do you really think WotC is going to put a great deal of thought into this? They basically cut and pasted a new term.

 

[Charlaquin]

Humans are the ultimate in diversity. Culturally, any other heritage is going to be a subset of that, unless you take options away from humans.

Ok? Doesn’t mean all the other species have to be identical to each other. There is a whole lot of daylight between “all identical” and “the ultimate in diversity.”

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

Do you really think WotC is going to put a great deal of thought into this? They basically cut and pasted a new term.

I don't know, but since they are doing a public statement about dropping race for species (instead of just quietly changing a term they no longer like for another), I think they should be expected to do it right. Just making a global replace of race by species and saying everything is well won't work. I hope they'll be called out for it MORE after they make the change than before.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Nope. They were terribly at being humanoids as of 5e lore.

If you go by older lore, you are right. They were about as problematic as orcs.

Did I not say, "they were changed in 5e"?