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

[Bedrockgames]

What’s allowed by the Ancestry 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.

For some reason I have been under the impression you get bonuses based on this (like you essentially get to mix and match the potential bonuses that would have existed across different Racial groups in D&D). So they are not giving any mechanical bonus for this?

 

[Bedrockgames]

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 don't want to get into it, but I don't think I am. I will say though we can probably at least agree there is a valid reason for the taboo around it, and a valid reason for a big 'proceed with caution' on this particular issue in science (because it has been used to justify mass killings, sterilization and genocide: as well as unequal treatment under law).

 

[Charlaquin]

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.

See, I think that’s exactly what would make it a good term (though use of the term by hate groups does put a damper on that). It just means person. This is likewise why people is currently my first choice.

 

[Charlaquin]

For some reason I have been under the impression you get bonuses based on this (like you essentially get to mix and match the potential bonuses that would have existed across different Racial groups in D&D). So they are not giving any mechanical bonus for this?

Nope. You only get one set of “species” features, and they come directly from one of your character‘s parents. Theoretically, you could have one parent who was half-thri-keen half-centaur (and picked the centaur stats) and the other who was half-minotaur half-triton, (and picked the triton stats) and you could either have centaur stats or triton stats, with no effect from any of the other influences. You could look pretty bizarre if you wanted to though.

 

[Frozen_Heart]

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

Trouble is, basically every single possible term for this has been used by racist groups at some point.

My suggestion for replacing the term with 'player entity' was a joke at first. But watching the conversation, I legitimately think it might be for the best. As far as I know, there is no issues which can come from that term apart from it being boring game language.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Nope. You only get one set of “species” features, and they come directly from one of your character‘s parents. Theoretically, you could have one parent who was half-thri-keen half-centaur (and picked the centaur stats) and the other who was half-minotaur half-triton, (and picked the triton stats) and you could either have centaur stats or triton stats, with no effect from any of the other influences. You could look pretty bizarre if you wanted to though.

But you get stats related to that correct?

 

[Celebrim]

Like I said, I don't want to get into it, but I don't think I am. I will say though we can probably at least agree there is a valid reason for the taboo around it, and a valid reason for a big 'proceed with caution' on this particular issue in science (because it has been used to justify mass killings, sterilization and genocide: as well as unequal treatment under law).

Absolutely. I get why people are wary and justifiably so.

 

[Xamnam]

Trouble is, basically every single possible term for this has been used by racist groups at some point.

My suggestion for replacing the term with 'player entity' was a joke at first. But watching the conversation, I legitimately think it might be for the best. As far as I know, there is no issues which can come from that term apart from it being boring game language.

people chanting Schmorp gather quietly in the background

 

[Greg Benage]

Trouble is, basically every single possible term for this has been used by racist groups at some point.

Yep, tread carefully, but still, "no Nazi propaganda" seems like a solid rule of thumb.

 

[Xamnam]

See, I think that’s exactly what would make it a good term (though use of the term by hate groups does put a damper on that). It just means person. This is likewise why people is currently my first choice.

Exactly my thought on reading that as well. And, while not ignoring the past of it, I do think it is telling that use of folk in this sense has not raised a issue in the playerbase in the way that the term race has so far.