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

[Jfdlsjfd]

The word you need is overschlorp.

 

[glass]

I just don't understand people who want "ancestry" and I will explain why.

The reasons you give are (some of) the reasons I think "species" is vastly superior to "ancestry". But OTOH I think ancestry works as a slot in replacement in every sentance that would have used "race", which puts it way above most of the options listed.

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

AIUI, they claim to have consulted multiple sensitivity consultants about it. I suppose technically that is paying someone else to put thought into it rather than doing it themselves, but that seems warranted in the circumstances.

I don't want to hear the story: The Species Between the Tortoise and the Hare.

Now that you have said that, I kinda do....

EDIT: Removed a bit that I did not think was contrary to mod guidance, but I do not want to take any chances.

 

[Frozen_Heart]

There is an alternate side to this. That something can be "inherently evil." And I am going to use the most hated words for anyone that debates verisimilitude or flying dragons ( @Vaalingrade ) or anything else in the game - because magic.

If magic can be the rule of thumb for so many of the debates on here, why can't it be the rule of thumb for an "inherently evil" species?

I am not saying I am in favor of this. But it seems hypocritical to disregard a god's will, a lich's curse, or even ancestral magic that's tainted, ie. feywild-shadowfell, seelie-unseelie court, hellish planes, demons, etc. If one can make an army of evil bone devils, why can't they have the power to make an army of something on the material plane?

Just a thought.

The problem is, many options presented as 'always evil' like orcs are player options. And as a rule I don't think players should be forced to be one alignment with their character.

Gnolls however are the alternate side to this. They have demon blood apparently making them 'always evil', and as a result are not a playable species. Though I do see people asking for playable gnolls on a regular basis.

 

[Bedrockgames]

@Bedrockgames appeared to me to be specifically saying that orcs belonged to multiple cultures, which seems like the opposite of making them a stand-in for any one.

In any case, doesn't "vikings" specifically refer to the raiders, rather than the culture that produced them as a whole? In which case saying "vikings are martially inclined" is a tortology, and says almost nothing about nordic culture(s) as a whole. Or did I get the wrong end of the stick somehow?

Just a heads up guys a mod posted that we shouldn't cover that subject anymore. So I would advise leaving the orc issue behind. Otherwise I'd respond to you and Yaarel's posts.

 

[glass]

Just a heads up guys a mod posted that we shouldn't cover that subject anymore. So I would advise leaving the orc issue behind. Otherwise I'd respond to you and Yaarel's posts.

I don't see how anything I said is contrary to @Dannyalcatraz's guidance (assuming that is what you are referring to and there wasn't some other mod post that I missed), but perhaps you are right. "Discretion is the better part of valour", after all. Edited.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I don't see how anything I said is contrary to @Dannyalcatraz's guidance (assuming that is what you are referring to and there wasn't some other mod post that I missed), but perhaps you are right. "Discretion is the better part of valour", after all. Edited.

It was this post:

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.

It came in response to a post I made about orcs and real world ethnicities. I interpreted to mean don't talk about orcs and race/real world people. Generally I err on the side of caution with mod notes.

 

[CreamCloud0]

i'm curious is it the absolutism of 'always X alignment' that people baulk against more or is it the sterotyping the members of a species as 'typically X' at all is what is objectionable? to say that 'the values of the society of [X species] typically produce people of [Y alignment]' does seem too terrible to me even if the alignments produce are evil* or chaotic.

*in the scenario where the bar for 'evil' is not 'complete monster who tortures puppies for kicks' but something more to the tune of 'will willingly and knowingly puts their own wants, needs and wellbeing above and at the expense that of others'

 

[Bedrockgames]

i'm curious is it the absolutism of 'always X alignment' that people baulk against more or is it the sterotyping the members of a species as 'typically X' at all is what is objectionable? to say that 'the values of the society of [X species] typically produce people of [Y alignment]' does seem too terrible to me even if the alignments produce are evil* or chaotic.

*in the scenario where the bar for 'evil' is not 'complete monster who tortures puppies for kicks' but something more to the tune of 'will willingly and knowingly puts their own wants, needs and wellbeing above and at the expense that of others'

I Think it is a style of play issue. I tend to ignore alignment requirements, or just see them as tendencies, but I think they are there because the races were largely influenced by things like Three Hearts, Three Lions and Elric where things like elves were aligned with cosmic forces, and I get the impression there people who still play using that approach. That is why it was Lawful, Chaotic and Neutral before (which I honestly think is a better alignment system for something like that). I can especially imagine that being a useful approach if one is primarily playing with dungeon delves.

 

[Hriston]

i'm curious is it the absolutism of 'always X alignment' that people baulk against more or is it the sterotyping the members of a species as 'typically X' at all is what is objectionable? to say that 'the values of the society of [X species] typically produce people of [Y alignment]' does seem too terrible to me even if the alignments produce are evil* or chaotic.

*in the scenario where the bar for 'evil' is not 'complete monster who tortures puppies for kicks' but something more to the tune of 'will willingly and knowingly puts their own wants, needs and wellbeing above and at the expense that of others'

"X species is always Y alignment" isn't going to cut it.

"X species is typically Y" isn't going to cut it either unless Y is something like "breathing".

"X species has a [monolithic?] society with Y values which typically produces individuals of Z alignment" is definitely not going to cut it.

What's going to cut it is a careful and conscientious writing that avoids racist tropes and thinking. There's no easy fix or formulaic approach that will produce that result.

 

[Scott Christian]

I find it ironic that true evil in the real world isn't a slavering demonic figure from another plane. True, real life Evil is instead outwardly calm, rational-sounding (maybe even scientific-sounding) justifications for treating other human beings poorly.

True evil is not just outwardly calm and rational-sounding to justify terrible, atrocious ideas. They are also crazy acting people brought up to hurt other people. They are dim-witted and quick to respond with violent outbursts. I think we can agree, in real life (that you brought up), "true evil" comes in many forms.