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

[Cadence]

I mean, I’m pretty sure that was the intent of the changes seen in the Origins playtest packet, moving ability score increases, proficiencies, and languages over to Background and leaving “race” to be strictly inherited traits. They kinda fumbled a bit on that with dwarves and dragonborn IMO, but it was at least their intent to silo learned traits in background and inherited traits in race.

Sorry, I meant for the term "ancestry".

I can't imagine them objecting to background not being due to genetics

 

[Charlaquin]

The relevant paragraph in the playtest reads:
"Thanks to the magical workings of the multiverse, Humanoids of different kinds sometimes have children together. For example, folk who have a human parent and an orc or an elf parent are particularly common. Many other combinations are possible."

This doesn't specifically put restrictions on what pairings are possible, but neither does it declare that all combinations are possible. The details are left open-ended, with general mechanics provided to facilitate whatever combinations are possible in a given setting.

Right, but if any combinations are possible depending on the setting (which, they are) then all combinations are possible within the D&D multiverse.

 

[Celebrim]

It had better be because they’re inculcated in a culture that prizes it. Otherwise we’re implying that gifted ness at artistic work is an inherited, rather than learned trait, which brings us into eugenicist territory.

I think there is probably good evidence that giftedness at many things whether intelligence, artistic ability, or athletic ability is inherited. Maybe not perfectly inherited, but definitely with statistically relevant chances. And practical experience tells me that things like foot speed, mathematical ability and so forth can be trained but that every person has their own plateau. Foot speed is not only a learned trait nor is it some random chance. Your parentage matters. While artistic ability is harder to measure, I know it isn't nothing and some people have more ability to draw representative art or produce musical scores as prodigies than I would ever have through training.

This I think is going to bring you into a situation where you are at war with reality, not wanting the world to function the way it evidently does.

Your reasoning that eugenics is wrong is not wrong, but your reasoning for why it is wrong certainly is. And while this doesn't seem like a big deal as long as you get the answer right, the problem with answers that depend on bad foundations is undermining the foundation creates the perception that the answer probably isn't right either.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Right, but if any combinations are possible depending on the setting (which, they are) then all combinations are possible within the D&D multiverse.

But everything possible in the multiverse doesn't have to be a class or race option. These are crafted to maximize the fun of the game, for balance issues, etc. Liches also exist, but players aren't allowed to be liches. Obviously some settings can vary. Maybe you make a setting where Lich is a race or class options (or werewolves, or some other powerful monster). But for the core I think part of the idea is pick a an assortment that best fits whatever D&D is supposed to be at that time.

 

[Yaarel]

My only problem with ancestry is that it feels like its real life usage is about country of origin (and thus conflated with culture). Is it common for an English speaker in the US to say something like "I have <insert other country> ancestry"? If that isnt' common, then I have no objection.

Yeah, "nation" is an other blurry word.

If ancestry becomes the official term, it is necessary to clearly refer to genetic heredity only (including any magical equivalents).

 

[Charlaquin]

Personally terms like ethnicity, ancestry, peoples all seem much more like they have potential to be connected to ideas like blood and soil, than the way race is meant to be used in D&D (which as Celebrim pointed out, humans are all one race, drwarves and elves another, effectively different species, maybe distantly related to humans. I'm Jewish, Italian and Irish, someone having Jewish ancestry is certainly something that that has manifested in real world racism towards them. And all three of those, at least here in Boston, have cultural things associated with (things I experience when I visit different sides of the family). That concept of ethnicity or ancestry is different from the idea that all humans belong to one category: the human race (which is how D&D means it: like I said the one time I saw modifiers for different human groups in a D&D book, I found it pretty off-putting for that reason). The demihuman groups aren't really meant to be stand ins for human cultural or ethnic groups (we just draw on those and blend them to produce something new and interesting, or as shorthand: i.e. Dwarven vikings are an easy thing to grasp without much further explanation---but it isn't a commentary on viking culture, nor is it a lesson in it). To me, since there seems to be a lot of confusion around what race means in this context, species appears to be the closest thing to capturing its original meaning in the game. I would say Type could also work but that might lack flavor for people. At least that is how I have always viewed it.

I think the ship has sailed on the originally intended meaning. People are going to draw parallels to various human ethnicities, regardless of what we do. I would rather we take a descriptive rather than prescriptive approach to the language we use in the game, so that the words we use reflect how people actually play it.

 

[Charlaquin]

Lets just use the term 'player entity'. Instead of race, species, or whatever else.

It covers every potential option in every setting, without corner cases and exceptions. And it has no connections at all to historically problematic words.

But it is extremely abstract and boring.

 

[Bedrockgames]

If ancestry becomes the official term, it is necessary to clearly refer to genetic heredity only (including any magical equivalents).

But isn't this the problem people are complaining about. Because you are not just opening the door to mechanical differences between demihumans, you are opening the door to mechanical differences between humans. This gets us very much back to the racialist science of the early 20th century where people were viewed as different breeds. Granted the players get to choose what that mixture is, but the logic is that its ancestry and so the dwarves of the north in a particular campaign might have a blending of human and orc that makes them get bonuses as good fighters (which again the player is choosing but its clearly a type of logic that will naturally bring you back to that thinking). This is what produced ideas like the concept of the Aryan race, and some human groups being better or worse than others. That is why ancestry would be such a potential issue I think.

 

[Frozen_Heart]

Tieflings and Genasi all being part human is one of the reasons why I think that those player entities should be templates which are applied to existing player entities such as humans, elves, or lizardfolk.

Aasimar, tieflings, genasi, warforged (can be built in any shape), dragonborn (or half dragon). All are potential template options for players.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

Tieflings and genasi are both part human so them being able to interbreed makes sense.

But I agree that there is certain inconsistency in their approach. On one hand using moniker species and getting rid of mechanics for half species, on the other hand saying that the species can freely mix.

The mention that species can freely mix is also a key boon to dissociate totally your mechanical benefits and your appearance/physical form, if you're only interested in the mechanical side of the schlorps.

Since, as far as I understand, anything can breed and the child gets to choose the traits. So if you wanted to be Aarockroa with Tortle appearance, you can be thanks to your "parents". If it weirds you that they'd breed together, you can have them at various point of your family tree, each line keeping only the special traits (= the mechanical benefits) you're interested in. Basically, the new half-X is "I am mechanically a X, but with 100% human appareance and behaviour." It doesn't even requires one to wear plastic ears.

With regards to mechanical differences between humans, this isn't a problem I had considered before. True, if you are an elf, and you breed with a human, your child will no longer be a half-elf (since there is no more half-schlorps) but a human with elf traits. And this child will mate with another human, but the child of this side will have the choice of the special abilities of his parents too... so he can be human, but carry the elven specific abilities from his elven grandparents. At some point you get a big city with lots of humans but very diverse mechanical traits. I am not sure if it's evocative of eugenics or diversity.

Edit: after giving it some thought, I think it promotes bad ideas. It would make sense mechanically for a group of adventurer to say "we're looking to hire a human with a tortle ancestor" because they seek the specific mechanical qualities..." and such an ad would be incredibly offensive.