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

[Scribe]

There used to be a substantive difference but they took away the +2 Dex!!!!!!

Yeah, now they can just be : Humanoid (note the root word) - Elf.

We are getting closer to just putting on those funny hats.

 

[Bill Zebub]

FWIW:

 

[broghammerj]

That I agree with. If Elf etcetera existed in reallife, then the scientific taxonomy would necessarily require kinds of species that are nonphylogenetic (namely have zero evolutionary relationship to each other).

I anticipate that this will precisely happen in the near future because of gene splicing and artificial intelligence.



I am comfortable with many of the names that are in the poll of the original post.

I hate the term "race". The problem with "race" is, it means: 1) species and 2) ethnicity, whence 3. other ethnicities are nonhuman or subhuman. The term race is inherently problematic, and occasionally vividly offensive.

So there are actually two ways to avoid the problematic of "race". 1) Pick a term that can only mean biology and cannot mean culture. 2) Pick a term that can only mean culture and cannot mean biology.

From what I am understanding, you prefer the second option. So, in the context of the D&D "Humanoid", never refer to biology, because every Humanoid is too human. It is problematic to "other" the Humanoid.

I got banned on another thread so I am trying to tread lightly. I also am not dismissing your feelings of offense. I accept that your perspective is valid. To me you have actually defined why race fits perfectly for the tropes of DnD elves, dwarves, etc.

If you take common DnD tropes that dwarves look a certain way, short/stout/sturdy physique, resistant to poison, they have a culture around mining, live 400 years, form clans, worship a set pantheon of gods, dislike water, and are distrustful of outsiders. Dwarves are well defined as both a species and ethnicity. Dwarves have similar biological characteristics, can reproduce with one another, etc. They also have a similar cultural features I defined above. Based on your definition the term "race" works really well. I think that's why some people are having an issue with this change. I can't think of an English word that has both a definition of biology and culture that is a suitable replacement to race but doesn't have the real life historical baggage, hence the heated discussion.

There are some historical aspects of race within DnD that are problematic like the term demi-human or subrace. Taken as "smaller" demi works fine. Taken as inferior and it stinks of racism. I can understand why someone doesn't like the term "race" due its historical use to dehumanize people of color. Obviously the biology difference on real humans was a false premise. That being said the word race based on definition is a technically appropriate albeit offensive to some.

I always took humanoid to mean a group that walks upright on two legs like a human.

 

[broghammerj]

I don’t think “species” would be the right word to describe, for example, varieties of artificially intelligent constructs.

Was thinking of warforged. One could perhaps have them forge their offspring and imbue them with some form of magic, energy, or must have some component gifted from their parent.

If the replicants in blade runner reproduce biologically like bladerunner 2 or they consciously decide to construct their offspring does that change your opinion?

 

[Xamnam]

FWIW:

View attachment 268754

 

[Charlaquin]

Was thinking of warforged. One could perhaps have them forge their offspring and imbue them with some form of magic, energy, or must have some component gifted from their parent.

If the replicants in blade runner reproduce biologically like bladerunner 2 or they consciously decide to construct their offspring does that change your opinion?

Species still probably wouldn’t be my first choice of words.

 

[Bill Zebub]

View attachment 268755

Yeah I tried it.

 

[hbarsquared]

In my opinion, "species" is as charged of a word as "race" when comparing free-thinking beings.

Honestly, I would prefer the word "Ethnicity," (add to the poll?) over either.

With that said, I prefer Ancestry, Lineage, and Heritage. I love the concept of Dwarf with a hint of orc, or Elf with a hint of halfling, that you can imply. Words have meaning, and both Race and Species is a hurdle to envisioning such a character.

Not happy with the change: either commit to it or keep "Race."

 

[Branduil]

In my opinion, "species" is as charged of a word as "race" when comparing free-thinking beings.

Honestly, I would prefer the word "Ethnicity," (add to the poll?) over either.

With that said, I prefer Ancestry, Lineage, and Heritage. I love the concept of Dwarf with a hint of orc, or Elf with a hint of halfling, that you can imply. Words have meaning, and both Race and Species is a hurdle to envisioning such a character.

Not happy with the change: either commit to it or keep "Race."

This is another good point in favor of terms such as ancestry in the context of player characters: everyone has multiple sources of ancestry, whereas "species" still has the problem of attempting some level of essentialism. Ideally players would be able to freely choose traits from multiple ancestries, but I don't think we're going to be able to get there in D&D 5.5.

 

[Yaarel]

Dwarves are well defined as both a species and ethnicity. Dwarves have similar biological characteristics, can reproduce with one another, etc. They also have a similar cultural features I defined above. Based on your definition the term "race" works really well.

The reason why the word "race" works so well here, is because this way of thinking is racist.

D&D traditions have drawn some inspiration from literature that includes racist worldviews.

To make the stereotypes that are attributed to human cultures be biological and nonhuman, is itself the ethical problem that many gamers today strive to remedy.