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

[Scars Unseen]

Species is so awkward for any use other than its noun form. "Special" is the adjective form, but referring to "special abilities" would get confusing really quickly. Which I suppose is on brand for 5E.

I begrudgingly acknowledge that "ancestry" has almost as much utility as "race" for both in-world and game jargon purposes. I still think "race" is more plainly understood, but if it's got to change to something, "ancestry" is my second choice.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

Is "ancestry" also commonly used to describe national origins IRL? So "I'm of German ancestry." But a person of German ancestry (maybe 3/4 of whose ancestors emigrated from Germany a century and a half ago and the rest are from somewhere else) might very well not consider themselves German, but rather whatever their new country is. Saying one is of Elvish ancestry in this context would mean that they actually are an Elf, right? Or maybe Half-Elf I guess? Is the half-Elf of Elvish and Human ancestry? Or are they of Half-Elvish ancestry?

Or a human could be of Elvish ancestry. Ar-Pharazon has Elvish ancestry, yet he's definitely considered human. Or Isildur, about whom Elrond says : "Men are weak. The race of Men is failing." While a little off with regard to the vocabulary, he could have said "The species of Men is failing". I am not convinced he could have says "The Ancestry of Men is failing" or "Those whose Ancestry is Human are failing." Especially in his particular situation.

 

[Charlaquin]

Do any of the words suggested mean exactly what race was used for in D&D? It feels like they don't, which makes me want to ask which is closest.

I stand by parentage meaning exactly the way race was used. But I do think ancestry sounds better. People also works pretty perfectly.

I get that species sounds too science/sci-fi for some.

The problem for me isn’t that it sounds too sci-fi, it’s that the word species is part of a system that organizes life forms by their evolutionary branch from a common ancestor, which just isn’t how it works in D&D.

But I'm still a bit befuddled on what confusion "species" would cause someone playing D&D (assuming they knew that hybridization and interbreeding between some IRL species in the same genus is fairly common IRL)?

I don’t think confusion is the problem. I think the problem is that the word species implies something about the relationships between the peoples of D&D that isn’t lore-accurate. Dwarves are not to elves as dogs are to cats.

I get that someone who doesn't know the IRL science would be confused (but then learning some science might be a good thing). And I get that what divisions between some species (or lack of division) are things scientists who specialize in that argue about (which is also something that is probably good if everyone knew).

What are mules in your D&D world and why?

The interbreeding thing really isn’t the problem, it’s just illustrative of the problem. This is why I keep bringing up the common ancestor thing. All life on Earth is related through evolution from a single common ancestor. Life forms that are more distantly related are typically less similar (though there are cases of convergent evolution where very distantly related species develop similar traits), and it is usually only very closely related species that can interbreed. In D&D? None of that is the case. Life forms are directly created by gods or magic, and have no evolutionary relationship to other created life forms, yet they can interbreed freely. The entire taxonomic system just makes absolutely no sense to apply to D&D.

 

[Charlaquin]

I think it’s fine. I mean it might have more particular meanings scientifically, but as an indication for a game of large differences between humanoids it seems fine to me (my quibbles about it feeling a bit off for fantasy aside, which are probably more a legacy of its long usage in the genre). Like I said in my last post, I think of dwaves and elves as different from one another and from humans, as humans were from neanderthals. My understanding, which could be wrong as I am not particularly knowledgeable about biology, is humans and neanderthals were the same genus but different species. So it seems to align okay. I do get there is debate around that, and some of it has to do with the definition of species. But I also think for a game that involved scientific debate isn't really that important if we are just trying to find a way of classifying different human-like options

The thing is, elves, dwarves, and humans wouldn’t even be different genera. They wouldn’t even be different kingdoms. They would be entire different trees of life because they don’t share a common ancestor.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

I favor "People" (as in : "The Free Peoples of Central Earth"). But not on the poll, so would take Ancestry or Heritage.

Or, you know, Elf, Dwarf, and Halfling classes. Though you have to rename the last two since they define themselves in relation to humans, which is specist.

 

[Charlaquin]

I favor "People" (as in : "The Free Peoples of Central Earth"). But not on the poll, so would take Ancestry or Heritage.

Or, you know, Elf, Dwarf, and Halfling classes. Though you have to rename the last two since they define themselves in relation to humans, which is specist.

People would also be my first choice, but it is a bit more unwieldy. What’s the adjective form, popular?

 

[Lidgar]

I'm sorry, where is schmorp???

This.

 

[Hriston]

People would also be my first choice, but it is a bit more unwieldy. What’s the adjective form, popular?

Yes, popular in the sense of societal, public, or group (used as an adjective), not in the sense of "well liked".

 

[Charlaquin]

Yes, popular in the sense of societal, public, or group (used as an adjective), not in the sense of "well liked".

Yeah, that’s what I thought. Has the same problem as species -> special, in that both are correct but are likely to call to mind their more common meanings. You could get around that by saying “features granted by your species/people” instead of “youe special/popular features.” But “Your ancestral features” is definitely cleaner.

 

[Cadence]

The problem for me isn’t that it sounds too sci-fi, it’s that the word species is part of a system that organizes life forms by their evolutionary branch from a common ancestor, which just isn’t how it works in D&D.

Species used to designate different types of animals predates Darwin by over two centuries. I assume it is used by most of the 40% (or whatever) of Americans who don't believe mankind arose by evolution? If it works as a term for Lamarck, Darwin, and many modern creationists, it felt ok for whatever is going on in D&D to me. Once told the Dwarves were created by Moradin, it doesn't feel to me like calling them species would make people think they weren't evolved from something else. [Insert link to digression on "kind" vs. "species"].

All life on Earth is related through evolution from a single common ancestor.

I'm guessing that's disputed by the approx 40% of Americans I mention above.

Life forms are directly created by gods or magic, and have no evolutionary relationship to other created life forms, yet they can interbreed freely. The entire taxonomic system just makes absolutely no sense to apply to D&D.

In your D&D world and Tolkien's. And in our world to some.