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

[Hriston]

The dictionary that I like best for American English is the American Heritage Dictionary. When I was in college I compared a bunch of dictionaries because I needed one that supplied excellent etymologies. Since then, this dictionary has be continued to prove itself both precise and accurate while remaining succinct. I love this online website TheFreeDictionary.com because it cites the American Heritage Dictionary for American dialects and the Collins English Dictionary for British dialects, and sometimes adds other dictionaries if necessary to help catch a specific nuance or technical jargon.

Here in brief:
1. a plural of person
2a. a body of persons in the same country under one government
2b. citizens
3. (pl. peoples) a body of persons sharing a culture
4. persons with regard to their group: city people, farming people [= city persons, farming persons]

Honestly the Collins English Dictionary does better here laying out this particular entry. But both dictionaries are clear.

Anyway none of these definitions means "a race". Either it means anyone anywhere indefinitely, or it means a specific culture or state. Elves are many cultures and many governments. Elves are many peoples and many citizenries.

Look a little further down the page you linked to the section from Collins COBUILD English Usage. There you'll find this:

2. 'peoples'​

When you are referring to several countries, tribes, or races, you can use the plural form peoples.​

​

They all belong to the ancient group of Indo-European peoples.​

So there it is. In English usage, as listed on the website you love, peoples is considered an equivalent to races.

Which dictionary are you citing? It is a less good dictionary. It fails to make clear the first, main, and most frequent meaning which is: a nonstandard plural for the noun "person". Altho the plural "persons" happens in official and formal writing, it is uncommon in spoken usage. Instead, English speakers mostly use the term "people" when referring to more than one "person": one person, two people. Moreover, the dictionary entry fails to make clear that definition 2. is a singular countable noun: one people, two peoples.

Definition 1 first says:
"the earthquake killed 30,000 people"
This means exactly the same thing as:
"the earthquake killed 30,000 persons"

But then the subdefinitions switch to a different meaning, which is "citizens", leaving the main meaning "persons" unclear.

I wouldnt use the dicitionary that you cite, whichever one it is.

It's Google's English dictionary which is provided by Oxford Languages, publisher of the Oxford English Dictionary. It works fine for me. I find it doesn't waste words and is intelligently organized. The fact that people is most commonly used as a plural noun is covered at the beginning of the entry where it says "plural noun: people". That it can be used as a singular noun is covered by what immediately follows: "noun: people; plural noun: peoples; noun: one's people; plural noun: one's peoples"; as well as by the example for definition 2: "the native peoples of Canada". I.e. the plural of people is peoples. Information about the word person is in the entry for that word, including that the plural of person is people.

The sub-definitions under definition 1 are special usage cases having to do with use of the definite article the in conjunction with the word people which retains its normal definition 1 meaning of "human beings in general or considered collectively." Use of the definite article in "the people" means that a particular collection of humans is being referred to, the citizens (as opposed to those who govern) or "the masses". In courtrooms in the USA, the People is also used to refer to the state's prosecution because the state's sovereign power is considered to flow from the people. These are all plural usages of the word people meaning the same thing as persons. It's just that it isn't normal usage to say "the persons" with any of the above meanings.

 

[Hriston]

It feels odd to me to pick the term that will be used for PC "races" in the future without considering how those PC races will be handled. But ok.

Considering how they could be handled is different from making a prediction about how you think they will be handled. Your personal feelings on the matter don't constitute the context for the entire poll!

 

[Yaarel]

Thank you for the detail.

So the elves or Alfar can be trained to become physically like humans and the humans can be trained to become physically like elves or Alfar?
And, the elves or Alfar have the same culture as the humans?

If so, why are they actually the same thing where the elf or Alfar was raised in the spirit/nature world and the other was raised in the material world in human shape?

It can be that simple.

Your character is a particular waterfall of a particular mountain. He likes being the resounding plunging currents. He is a prominent waterfall that humans notice and find significant. This waterfall has a strong mind and forms a strong mental impression among humans. This strong mind can manifest magic. The waterfall is curious about humans and decides to become a human, figures out how to do it, and does. The waterfall is a conscious sapient person − a nature being. Its mind projects outofbody during a magical trance. The mind visualizes the self-identity of a human, and manifests a human form, and becomes a human creature of flesh and blood. He immigrates from one kind of nature being to an other kind of nature being. In the same way a human shaman who projects outofbody still feels a link to her body, he still feels a link to his waterfall and can return to it. Meanwhile, he is truly human. If he isnt careful he might die as a human, tho normally he would revert to the waterfall before the human death happened.

To represent this nature being in D&D, it is possible to use the Human species stats. Then it helps for there to be a Nature Being (Vættir) Background. The Background feat grants a special relationship to a specific feature of nature, in this case a waterfall: the character can revert to this nature feature while the human body vanishes, then back into the human form. The character remains Conscious while being the natural feature. The Skills would be ones pertinent to the concept. In Norway, the waterfall connotes beauty and charm, as well as extreme strength and deadliness to drown, and within its rushing waters one can hear the most beautiful music possible. Skills like Persuasion, Athletics, Intimidation, Survival, Nature, Insight. A musical instrument proficiency would be inappropriate for the Viking Period but appropriate for the Renaissance Period. A Bard is an appropriate Class to choose. But if the waterfall is curious about being Human, any choice of class is possible.

Note, the waterfall has a choice. The waterfall can choose to manifest as an adult human without a childhood, or as a vulnerable infant then growing up as a human.

The waterfall is a concrete example of what a nature being is. The Norse Alfar is specifically a manifestation of sunlight. The Scottish Sith is specifically a manifestation of fertile soil.

Nature Being can be simple: Human with a special Background.



That said, there are specific concepts relating to the Norse Alfar. More than just doing magic, they are magic itself, and personify magic. Because they are "fates", there is direct equivalence of meaning, between a seer prophesying someones fate, speaking words to change someones fate, and using speech to alter reality itself. One can see a similar shift in the British folkbelief with "fatum" (fate), whence "faie" (fey), whence "fairie" (magic).

The Alfar and the Dvergar are antitheses of each other. The Alfar speak the good fate of success. The Dvergar speak the ill fate of unsuccess. The unsuccess is mostly about futility − the life is decent but without much impact on others. But unsuccess can be about destruction, which is why Dvergar make the best magic weapons.



I am mostly on board with the One D&D Elf. Its features describe innate magic. The only difference between one Elf culture and an other Elf culture is the choice of which spells to cast. I feel this can represent how the Norse Alfar is "innately" magic. The hint of magic is telltale enough to convey this "human" comes from a nonhuman origin. For the rest of the magical skills the Alfar needs to study and practice, the same way the Humans do. In D&D take levels in a caster class. For the Alfar, Bard and Paladin are solid thematic choices, but any caster class is suitable. The Alfar are known for being "many-knowing", able to master any kind of magic.

Here are the traits of the One D&D playtest UA:

ELF
Creature Type: Humanoid
Size: Medium
Speed: 30 feet
Lifespan: 750 years on average
Darkvision.
Fey Ancestry. Charm Resistance
Keen Senses. Perception
Trance. Sleep Immunity, 4-Hour Long Rest while Conscious.
Elven Lineage. [Magical Talent], Cantrip, Slot-1 Spell at Level 3, Slot-2 Spell at Level 5.

Here, what I call the Lineage Magical Talent refers to certain listed traits: Drow improves Darkvision, High can swap the Cantrip, and Wood improves Speed. I perceive these to be a choice of magical alteration, similar to a Warlock Invocation. Something like magical Half-Feat.



For the Norse Alfar, and for every D&D Elf, I would make the following tweaks to the One D&D Elf.

Note, I am over the over one hundred different kinds of D&D Elf traditions. I want one simple Elf with one set of traits that is versatile enough to represent any of these Elves of D&D. By means of letting the player choose the spells that one can cast innately, this one Elf can represent a High culture, a Drow culture, a Sea culture, or any other kind of Elf. Likewise, I can use this same versatile D&D Elf to also represent a mythologically accurate Alfar or Sith.

Here is what the D&D Elf can look like:

ELF
Creature Type: Humanoid and a Planar Origin of your choice.
[Note, an Elf can be an Eladrin Fey or Celestial, a Shadar-kai Shadow, a High Elf Material, an Astral Elf. Any Planar Origin is possible. Because the Norse Alfar is sunlight, this is something like an Elemental relating to the luminous Fire of sunlight thru the Air of the sky.]
Size: Medium
Speed: 30 feet
Lifespan: Immortal, you reach physical adulthood around age 20, then remain eternally youthful.
Elf Ancestry. Charm Resistance.
At Higher Levels. When your character reaches Level 14, your Charm Resistance improves to Magic Resistance.
[Note, Eladrin monster statblocks have Magic Resistance, as do many Fey.]
Trance. Sleep Immunity, 4-Hour Long Rest while Conscious.
[Note, Trance is a D&D-ism. But it is not so terrible to represent the bond with ones natural feature. The Alfar would be mentally with the shining sunlight during the trance.]
Innate Spellcasting. You are the magic of fate and wield it innately. You gain two Cantrips, a Slot 1 Spell and a Slot 2 Spell. See the Elven Cultures table. When you create your character, you can gain the spells that are typical for your Elven Culture, or choose other spells of the same slots. Decide your casting ability: Intelligence, Wisdom, or Charisma. You can cast each of these spells once after a Long Rest. Additionally you can use any Spell Slots (or Spell Points) to cast them. These spells are innate, thus you cast them without a Spell Focus or Spell Components.
[Note, the innate spells of Slot 1 and Slot 2 are available at Level 1. But there is no automatic Darkvision, Perception skill, nor Lineage Magical Talent. The Elf design is simple, versatile, and straightforwardly about innate spellcasting. There will be a Darkvision Cantrip and a Waterbreathing Cantrip, that a player might choose for their innate Cantrip. There is too much Darkvision in 5e, and it is wrong for a sunlight Alfar. But it is available as a choice for a Cantrip if a player wants it. A DM can easily create a new Elf culture by deciding the prominent spells that are typical for it.]

ELVEN CULTURES
Astral: Light, Sacred Flame; Bless, Misty Step
Drow: Darkvision, Dancing Lights; Faerie Fire, Darkness
Eladrin: Frostbite, Sacred Flame; Charm Person, Misty Step
High: Prestidigitation, Mage Hand; Detect Magic, Misty Step
Sea: Darkvision, Waterbreathing; Speak with Animals, Enhance Ability
Shadar-Kai: Darkvision, Resistance; False Life, Misty Step
Wood: Darkvision, Druidcraft; Longstrider, Pass Without Trace



For mythological accuracy, several D&D spells might make sense for the Norse Alfar and the Scottish Sith. Misty Step can kinda-sorta make sense for both: there is an account where an Alfar moves invisibly thru a keyhole, traveling via thought, and the Sith vanish and appear from the Fey realm and the theme is insubstantiality. Other spells can relate to some accounts. A folkbelief can inspire a new D&D spell. I would like to see a Sith spell (or ritual) to visit in a quasireal way someone dreaming nearby but in an other plane. Also, the Scottish Elf is known for shooting magical arrows, a suitable Elfshot Cantrip (visualizing like the D&D cartoon Ranger energy bow) with invisible arrows that deal painful psychic damage and at zero hit points inflicts the Paralyzed condition instead of Dying. For the Alfar, the Light cantrip is a must-have, especially the body glows the aura of sunlight. I am torn between Prestidigitation for spontaneous magic versus Resistance for a helpful fate. Bless is for fate. Here Suggestion associates with charm, beauty, illusion, and compulsion. Abjuration healing magic can be appropriate too. Maybe a new Wildshape-like spell can grant an alternate form, like a swan, wolf, or snake, chosen ahead of time when prepping the spell.

It is good when the player can choose these innate spells for ones own Elf character. Whatever makes sense to the player is accurate enough to convey being good at any kind of magic. Examples of possible choices.

Alfar (Norse): Light, Resistance; Bless, Suggestion
Sith (Scottish): Druidcraft, Elfshot; Cure Wounds, Misty Step



In sum, a player can use either a normal Human or better yet the Elf above. In either case, a Nature Being Background helps to establish a special link with a specific feature of nature. For the Alfar it is sunlight. For the Sith it is an area of soil of lush vegetation, typically nourishing a cluster of trees. The specific Sith feature might be a nearby location that is simultaneously above ground and below ground, like an earth mound above a flat area or a cave in a cliff.

 

[Hriston]

Race in D&D is a simplification for the purposes of making a character just like class. Race used to be a class in the game. And it still was in basic for many years. A lot of people liked that approach. And if you think of it as race as class, we all understood these weren't representative of all elves. They were just the iconic elves, the iconic dwarves (what leapt to mind when you thought of them). And it was also a game simplification. They weren't trying to do anthropology. The monster manuals often had entries for demihumans in them and it was similarly simple, but that works in a game, where the GM just needs a stat block to use for general elves. You can expand on that much more in individual settings, but by starting simple you create a much easier dial for a GM to start with.

Again, I think a lot of this comes down to how much people see this as a game, and a willingness to engage conceits that are part of it being such. With Evil Orcs its the same, if you are playing a very involved, dramatic and story driven campaign, you probably are not going to be comfortable with evil, kill on sight orcs. Because they've been brought to life more. If you are just going to friends house to roll some dice, kill some orcs and drink soda, it is a different thing entirely.

I generally agree with how you characterize "race" as a game element. You can still see this in how PC races are designed in 5E. Dwarven Weapon Training isn't a world building dictum that says all dwarves are trained in these four weapons because of some monoculture or whatever. It's a flavorful menu of four weapons a player can choose from to have their dwarf character use with proficiency, or not. If none of those weapons are used in-game by the dwarf, the feature has no bearing on the fiction whatsoever.

I have a small nitpick though, which is that "race" was only ever "class" in Basic. In OD&D (1974), they were independent. You could have an elf, for example, that only ever operated as a fighter or one that only ever operated as a magic-user, or you could have one that switched back and forth because elves were allowed to do that. The thing is, as far as I've been able to determine, the term race doesn't appear in OD&D. You would pick a "character type" (either human or non-human) and a class. I guess this was confusing to some, so I think it was Moldvay that made the innovation of making everything a class as a way of simplifying the game. Race first appears in the Monster Manual (1977), and then in the PHB (1978), Gygax makes extensive use of the phrase "racial stock". I think, with AD&D, Gygax was looking for a term more flavorful than character type and hit upon race. I think the choice now after 45 years of race is between going back to something bland (species), finding a new flavorful alternative, or maybe doing away with the mechanic entirely by folding it into class (the Moldvay solution).

 

[Bedrockgames]

I have a small nitpick though, which is that "race" was only ever "class" in Basic. In OD&D (1974), they were independent. You could have an elf, for example, that only ever operated as a fighter or one that only ever operated as a magic-user, or you could have one that switched back and forth because elves were allowed to do that. The thing is, as far as I've been able to determine, the term race doesn't appear in OD&D. You would pick a "character type" (either human or non-human) and a class. I guess this was confusing to some, so I think it was Moldvay that made the innovation of making everything a class as a way of simplifying the game. Race first appears in the Monster Manual (1977), and then in the PHB (1978), Gygax makes extensive use of the phrase "racial stock". I think, with AD&D, Gygax was looking for a term more flavorful than character type and hit upon race.

That is a fair point. I do believe it was type in OD&D but it has been a while since I've read that version. I also can't recall exactly how those details keyed to Chainmail. But I was thinking more Basic set onward into Rules Cyclopedia

I think the choice now after 45 years of race is between going back to something bland (species), finding a new flavorful alternative, or maybe doing away with the mechanic entirely by folding it into class (the Moldvay solution).

And they could go the Moldvay direction, and I wouldn't necessarily object as I like basic and think it actually much easier for people new to the hobby as well. But I would add that big mechanical changes like that, as well as changes that make race meaningless or make it more complicated and customizable, have impact on playability, how wide of a player base they retain, how the game feels, etc. I think the two best options, no matter what it is called, is to keep its mechanical function that its had (which admittedly has changed somewhat) or go the Basic direction (which I like but also think could be a tough sell, as that was always one of the bigger hurdles of getting people to play Basic campaigns). Ultimately they will do what they think works based on feedback I am assuming. I just think if they chase what other games are already doing, and move away from that core Race+Class (including the simple packages of abilities those have), it has weakened what makes the game tick. For example there were an explosion of option books in the 90s that chased more skill based games (and admittedly they went in a skill based direction in 3E onward). But I find the game works much better if you go back to periods when it didn't have skills (there are games that are built around skills and do them much better as a result).

I should say though, I don't play 5E, I am probably much more old school in my sensibilities, so I don't expect my thoughts to translate into anything as I well could be quite out of touch with what the present player base wants.

In defense of a Moldvay or Basic approach, when I was in highschool the most popular campaign in my area was with a GM who strictly ran the game with Rules Cyclopedia. Part of the popularity was due to the GMs charisma (he was just very good with people and generating interest in things), but I also think a large part was how easy it is for non-gamers to make characters with basic. Whereas AD&D at the time took conservable explanation, people had to make a few characters before they really got it, and there was quite a bit more to read in the book for the players to get started. I don't know if they could go back to that as the default, but I do think there is a case to be made for that simpler structure having more broad appeal if they want to reach a wider audience.

 

[Hriston]

Yeah, we both definitely agree it is a mixture of the two, and it doesn't help authors do not clarify. (As a side note, maybe it's better they don't?)

My personal preference is for it to be left to the group to imagine the reasons for traits. When everything has an answer, it starts to feel a bit stale and uninteresting to me, like everything has a scientific explanation. It's actually just unnecessary baked-in lore. I understand if that's not everyone's preference though.

I think where we differ is the meaning of those words. Natural is written three times in three differnt races. Here is the very first definition of natural in Google:
1. existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind.

"As a forest gnome, you have a natural knack for illusion"
I don't think that definition captures the way natural is being used here. That would mean that gnomes have a knack for illusion that exists in nature or is caused by natural processes. I don't think that's what it's saying. Here's definition 2 (also from Google):

2. of or in agreement with the character or makeup of, or circumstances surrounding, someone or something.​

This would mean that gnomes have a knack for illusion that agrees with their character, or is part of their makeup or circumstances that surround them. I.e. for gnomes, illusion comes naturally.

Here is inherent's first definition:
1. existing in something as a permanent, essential, or characteristic attribute.
Its major synonyms are inborn, intrinsic, and innate.

"As a forest gnome, you have ... inherent quickness and stealth."
Right, so quickness and stealth are attributes that exist in gnomes permanently and are essential to and characteristic of what a gnome is. This doesn't tell us what makes a gnome quick and stealthy. Maybe it's their small size and a genetic predisposition for fine motor control. Or maybe there's something magical about gnomes that explains their speed and ability to disappear. They are, after all, naturally gifted when it comes to illusion.

Here is the first definition of inborn:
1. existing from birth.

"Your dwarf character has an assortment of inborn abilities"
This could mean a dwarf has these abilities as soon as it's born, but see the usage note below the definition:

• natural to a person or animal.

When inborn is used this way, the quoted passage could mean a dwarf has these abilities that are part of its dwarven makeup or are in agreement with its dwarven character. This really doesn't tell us much.

I think the evidence here weighs too much for this to be a passed down cultural influence. But I am happy to agree to disagree too. Thanks for the discussion, it is appreciated.

I'm not sure what you mean by "this". I think some things are obviously passed down, like weapon training or language, and some other things, like Keen Senses, are questionable as to whether they are attributable to "nature" or to "nurture". Nature, however, doesn't necessarily mean biology.

 

[Yaarel]

Look a little further down the page you linked to the section from Collins COBUILD English Usage. There you'll find this:

2. 'peoples'​

When you are referring to several countries, tribes, or races, you can use the plural form peoples.​

​

They all belong to the ancient group of Indo-European peoples.​

So there it is. In English usage, as listed on the website you love, peoples is considered an equivalent to races.

I know, but in this context, race means "ethnicity" (not "species"). The website makes some effort to find a dictionary to make it clear that the Black American "race" is a people.

In the context of D&D, this meaning of race means that the Elf species includes many races: Uda, Aeven, Loren, Grey, Faerie, High, Wood, Grugach, etcetera.

 

[Yaarel]

To me, it seems one of the definitions of "monstrosity" they're using is, "humanoid we don't want to be playable, for whatever reason".

Yeah. The recent "Monstrosity" to serve as a lampshade for an "always Evil race" is the new-old problem.

Heh, I get the impression, that you are smirking in delight. But this recent development is a concern.

There is no meaningful difference between:
• A 3e player who wants to play an "Evil Orc race"
• A 5e player who wants to play an "Evil Gnoll race"
• A OneD&D player who wants to play an "Evil Yuan-ti monstrosity"
• Likewise, a OneD&D player who wants to play an "Evil Red Hat fey"

This eye of the needle needs threading.

OneD&D needs to think clearly about exactly WHY and HOW certain archetypes of evil are unworkable as player characters.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yeah. The recent "Monstrosity" to serve as a lampshade for an "always Evil race" is the new-old problem.

Heh, I get the impression, that you are smirking in delight. But this recent development is a concern.

There is no meaningful difference between:
• A 3e player who wants to play an "Evil Orc race"
• A 5e player who wants to play an "Evil Gnoll race"
• A OneD&D player who wants to play an "Evil Yuan-ti monstrosity"
• Likewise, a OneD&D player who wants to play an "Evil Red Hat fey"

This eye of the needle needs threading.

OneD&D needs to think clearly about exactly WHY and HOW certain archetypes of evil are unworkable as player characters.

Do you think they're likely to?

 

[Yaarel]

Do you think they're likely to?

Yeah. For the same reason WotC is willing to go thru the trouble of obsoleting the term Race and restructuring the Player Species, they are probably also willing to implement a more careful definition of what is and isnt a Player Species ... if simple enough and practicable. WotC wants the game to have "killable villains", and there is a desideratum for how to go about this in the least objectionable way possible.



Towards threading the needle. The term "Humanoid" describes a character concept that is mentally comparable to a human, a Consciousness, including the capacity to feel pain, and language, learning, teaching, culture, and ethics resulting from the capacity of compassion.

Humanoid is a "Structure", where independent origins can converge toward similar form and function.

A Humanoid is always a playable character concept.



The Human Species can classify as "Material Humanoid Beast":
• Material Planar Origin
• Humanoid Structure
• Beast Creature Type.

Here "Beast" signifies that the Human is a member of the Creature Type "Beast", relating to the animal kingdom.

By contrast, the Warforged is a "Humanoid Construct", and Plasmoid is a "Humanoid Ooze".



An effect that targets a Beast can affect the Human Species. The Beast descriptor can come with default features, including the need to Breath, Eat, and Sleep, along with susceptibility to all Damage Types. A specific Species might override the general rule for Beast.

The important part here is, what makes the Human a "Humanoid" Structure is unrelated to being a Beast Creature Type.

Note, Plant and Ooze are not Beast. So the term "Creature Type" itself means something like the taxonomic "kingdom" of life.



The term "Monstrosity" might come with a technical meaning, such as a creature that derives from splicing together different Creature Types. For example, the Yuan-ti might be splicing together the Beast and Fiend Creature Types, thus a Monstrosity. Moreover, the more Fiend its transformations become, the less Humanoid and playable it might become.

By contrast, some rumors speculate the Owlbear splices together an owl and a bear. But since both of them are Beasts, the Owlbear too is a Beast.



In this way, consider the hypothetical distinctions.

• Fairy (Humanoid Fey)
• Red Hat (Fey)

• Yuan-ti (Humanoid Monstrosity)
• Sea Sworn (Monstrosity)

In these contexts, the lack of humanity, including the lack of the ability to feel, learn and grow, is precisely what makes certain creatures unplayable. In other words, these Non-Humanoids are Animate but Unconscious.