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

[Bedrockgames]

@Bedrockgames you keep bringing up modifiers for different groups of humans, but I don’t think there’s any indication WotC would ever do that?

If you are allowing people to justify modifiers based on the mixing of their species (just to stick to the term they are using) then surely that allows for players to explain their choice by being a type of human with ancestry that is orc or dwarfish. Right, because you aren't just picking options of various half races, you are blending them to taste? Unless I am mistaken about this. Maybe I misunderstand what they are allowing as an options or what they've said, but this appears to be what people are saying is the case in this thread.

 

[Celebrim]

I don't want to get into this but I do strongly reject this idea.

Well, I think you are at war with reality then.

But we are in agreement about the end point (we agree as to what is right or wrong), even if we don't agree on the reasoning how you get there (we disagree over why it is right or wrong).

Like I said, I think the birthright campaign setting, could be wrong here so someone correct me if so, had modifiers for human groups, and the groups seemed to have obvious human analogs. That didn't sit very well with me.

Yeah, that's exactly where I see this change headed, and I think because people lack imagination and even ironically because they think that they are doing representation, once you make this change we're going to see all of that creep into the game.

 

[Charlaquin]

Nation is a word you really want to avoid because the last thing you want to do is bring up the once primary but now secondary definition of nation. Historically, "nation" was used as a synonym for what we would now call "race" or "ethnicity". The "nation of France" meant "the group of people descended from the Franks and having the characteristics of that family of mankind". The word had the secondary definition of "people living under a shared sovereign", but this was almost a duplicate of the first in practical terms. The term "empire" in fact meant "many nations (ethnicities) with a shared sovereignty".

Starting with the rise of the United States, the term "nation" started to favor what had been the secondary definition - a group of people part of the same government. That definition is now almost completely dominant, so much so that in the USA at least, we almost never think of "nation" as "ethnicity" (contrast China or Japan). Now think what "nation" implies in somewhere like France where the idea is in transition.

No, "nation" is right out.

Yeah, I think nation might actually be even worse to use here than race.

And I have to have a chuckle at the naivety of people who think "folk" is historically less problematic than "race". So much innocence there I won't even discuss why "folk" is bad.

I think you are much more concerned with the historical use of these terms than the average player will be. I think most folks mostly care about how these words are currently used.

 

[Celebrim]

I think you are much more concerned with the historical use of these terms than the average player will be.

I'm much more historically literate than the average player. But you know which group of modern people are more historically literate in this one narrow area than most people?

 

[Bedrockgames]

I think you are much more concerned with the historical use of these terms than the average player will be. I think most folks mostly care about how these words are currently used.

This usage of folk has very current use among racists. I'm not saying we should never use the word folk, but I mean the the Volkisch movement was a thing, and there are racists today who talk about Folkish religious practices where they tie religion to ethnic bloodlines. Obviously it has other real world meanings and we can distinguish between them, but I would say if you are concerned about the ambiguity of race, surely folk has just as much, probably more, issues, because it doesn't have that broader meaning that encompasses all humanity.

 

[Greg Benage]

I think you are much more concerned with the historical use of these terms than the average player will be. I think most folks mostly care about how these words are currently used.

I thought the problem with race was the historical use of the term. In any case, where "folk" is concerned, it's not exactly an obscure reference, and the connotations, I would say, are extraordinarily bad.

I'll admit the sicko side of me would like to see the firestorm that ensued if Wizards eliminated the term Race...and replaced it with Folk.

 

[Charlaquin]

No I would be less comfortable with people because, again that is even more so, getting us into differences between human groups (not just between elves, dwarves, and halflings), that really do harken back to blood and soil. Especially because you are using peoples mixing to explain the different modifiers players are taking (i.e. I am big and strong because we have orc ancestry mixed in: this is a lot like how modern scientific racialists try to say our policies should be impacted by ethnic difference because some people have more neanderthal DNA than others). It is just an updated form of the old racialist science, where groups say we are better than this group because of our ancestry. Or just look at New England racism, that is all about ancestry, and what people you were perceived to belong to (they just were more concerned about differences among European groups than say southern racists).

Ok, I see what you mean. I don’t see the term people as necessarily conveying “blood and soil concepts,” but I can definitely empathize with where that concern is coming from.

If you are allowing people to justify modifiers based on the mixing of their species (just to stick to the term they are using) then surely that allows for players to explain their choice by being a type of human with ancestry that is orc or dwarfish. Right, because you aren't just picking options of various half races, you are blending them to taste? Unless I am mistaken about this. Maybe I misunderstand what they are allowing as an options or what they've said, but this appears to be what people are saying is the case in this thread.

What’s allowed by the Origin playtest packet is that your character’s parents can each be of whatever “species” () you want. If your character’s parents are the same “species,” you get all the mechanical features of that “species” and your character looks like a member of that “species.” If your character’s parents are of different “species,” you choose one of those “species” and get all of the mechanical features of that species, and none of the mechanical features of the other. You can mix and match cosmetic features of both “species” to create your character’s appearance, but they have no mechanical effect. Note also that “species” do not grant ability score increases at all, those now come from background.

 

[Yaarel]

The term "folk" now means a one-syllable synonym for "person", and emphasizing gender neutral.

For example, Merfolk (not Mermaid), Lizardfolk (not Lizardman), and plural "folks" (sometimes "folx") in the sense of several persons.

In the context of D&D, the term "folk" seems nonuseful to replace race.

 

[Charlaquin]

This usage of folk has very current use among racists. I'm not saying we should never use the word folk, but I mean the the Volkisch movement was a thing, and there are racists today who talk about Folkish religious practices where they tie religion to ethnic bloodlines. Obviously it has other real world meanings and we can distinguish between them, but I would say if you are concerned about the ambiguity of race, surely folk has just as much, probably more, issues, because it doesn't have that broader meaning that encompasses all humanity.

I thought the problem with race was the historical use of the term. In any case, where "folk" is concerned, it's not exactly an obscure reference, and the connotations, I would say, are extraordinarily bad.

Yeah, to be clear I wasn’t advocating for using folk, just saying I think it’s modern rather than historical usage people are mostly worried about.

 

[Greg Benage]

I would simply avoid any concept used in Nazi propaganda posters.