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

What new jargon do you want to replace "Race"?

  • Species

    Votes: 59 33.1%
  • Type

    Votes: 10 5.6%
  • Form

    Votes: 3 1.7%
  • Lifeform

    Votes: 2 1.1%
  • Biology

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Taxonomy

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Taxon

    Votes: 2 1.1%
  • Genus

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Geneology

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Family

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Parentage

    Votes: 3 1.7%
  • Ancestry

    Votes: 99 55.6%
  • Bloodline

    Votes: 13 7.3%
  • Line

    Votes: 1 0.6%
  • Lineage

    Votes: 49 27.5%
  • Pedigree

    Votes: 1 0.6%
  • Folk

    Votes: 34 19.1%
  • Kindred

    Votes: 18 10.1%
  • Kind

    Votes: 16 9.0%
  • Kin

    Votes: 36 20.2%
  • Kinfolk

    Votes: 9 5.1%
  • Filiation

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Extraction

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Descent

    Votes: 5 2.8%
  • Origin

    Votes: 36 20.2%
  • Heredity

    Votes: 3 1.7%
  • Heritage

    Votes: 47 26.4%
  • People

    Votes: 11 6.2%
  • Nature

    Votes: 1 0.6%
  • Birth

    Votes: 0 0.0%

Vaalingrade

Legend
Magic.

Besides warm-blooded birds-dinosaurs evolved from reptiles. Something similar can happen again from snakes.
Once we say magic, we get to ignore everything else.

Plus, there's nothing reptilelike about them except the scales. Might as well call them pangolins.

The medieval idea of them being snakes can just be chalked up as coming from a time before they invented observation or properly classifying animals: see whales and dolphins being fish.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Yaarel

He Mage
Once we say magic, we get to ignore everything else.

Plus, there's nothing reptilelike about them except the scales. Might as well call them pangolins.

The medieval idea of them being snakes can just be chalked up as coming from a time before they invented observation or properly classifying animals: see whales and dolphins being fish.
Many dragons, especially the earlier illustrations, are clearly snakelike. Those with venom relate to the adder and possibly stories about spitting corbras and similar.

Besides, they are plainly called "snakes".

The Welsh/British dragon gradually became less snakelike, and more lizard like with a bulkier wolflike body while and the serpentine aspect mainly appears a tail and sometimes a long neck. But this is a later development from the snake.

Here are examples from the 1200s. These "snakes" have birdlike wings and feet.

5c2810a4a2535c2fc9af5891565493e8.jpg
 
Last edited:


Yaarel

He Mage
Here is a reasonably clear image of a dragon from a runestone in Sweden (u177x). It is clearly snakelike. It depicts a mother dragon and her young. It is helpfully colorized. Mother is red. The young are shades of green and purple.

u177x_fot.jpg


The runic artwork is stylized. The head of red mother is near the center. She bites her own tail. If you look closely, you can see her large white eye, her fang touching her lower jaw, and behind her eye is her horn that her neck partially hides. Her neck sweeps up and around down to her shoulder. Her arm is eaglelike with the talon functioning as a hand, but here the stylization makes the hand seem more like stiff fingers and a thumb pinching − a bit like a handpuppet. The rest of her is snake, whose red serpentine body sweeps from the shoulders around the runestone then backup thru the center where she bites it.

Look at the newborn snake, yellowish green at the farthest left. It lacks limbs and horns, and resembles a normal snake. It is a stylization of an adder, a venomous snake common in Nordic lands.

Going clockwise, the green snake is an adolescent who bites the mothers tail. Maturing, it has already shed its skin to reveal newly developed forelimbs, like the larger adult mother.

The rest of the young look like normal limbless snakes, like the yellowish green one.

Below is the only runestone (u887) that depicts a winged dragon that I am aware of. This flying dragon is colorized green. The red dragon looks like the red mother in the previous runestone. But note, both the green and red dragons here have tails that end in a prehensile handlike split tail.

detaljer-u887.jpg


Other runestones can be more ornate with many dragons slithering and weaving around each other, and bewildering to look at, or stylized beyond recognizable depiction. But generally, the dragons are either adults with horns and arms, or young that look like normal snakes, or somewhere in between.

Here is an image of a dragon from a stav church in Norway, dating to the 1100s. It depicts Fafnir, the dwarf who shapeshifted into a dragon. The human Sigurðr seeks to kill him. The dragon has the typical snakelike body. The head of the dragon is clearly lionlike. What looks like the tongue of the dragon is probably a stream of venom.

6989069675_749508e677_o.jpg


The neck sweeps upward from the head and off the top edge of the image. But just before it is out of view, see the arm, forearm, and handlike eagle talon.

This the dreki, the Norse dragon. I normally refer to it in English as the Drekar, using the Norse plural form to serve in English as both singular and plural. So, one Drekar and many Drekar. (I dont think English speakers should need to know the grammatical forms of other languages.) Likewise, one Alfar and many Alfar. One Aesir and many Aesir.
 
Last edited:

So because you see things that way (and I don’t know your ethnicity) what is the implication when other people see it differently, and say it makes them feel unwelcome in the hobby, or worse? Do you not believe them? Think they are overreacting? Ignore them?

I think the question in each case is whether the persons reaction and interpretation is reasonable. I think most cases with stuff like orcs, they haven't been meant as stand-ins, and seeing them as such is a fairly recent phenomenon that has a lot of traction online, because of how online discourse works, but not outside the online sphere.
 

For me a problem with D&D Evil "races" is the way D&D traditions use reallife ethnic features, like "tribe", "chieftain", "shaman", dark skin complexion, or "yellow" or "red" skin complexion, to describe "Evil" "primitive" races, thereby caricaturizing and demonizing the reallife ethnic groups. To refer to these "races" as nonhumans worsens the insult.

Fair enough that debate has been driven into the ground, and there have been lengthy threads on it where we have all had opportunity to express our views.

Anyway, that ship has sailed. The term race is gone. I want to avoid debates about race. There are other threads that one can necromance if one wants to revisit the debates about the term race.

That said, the problems that occur with the term "race" might also occur with other terms that appear in the poll in the original post. It is ok to mention these concerns in the context of the poll options to replace race.

A couple of things. My concern is a lot less to do with the terminology and more to do with what demihumans actually are. I think since they have historically not been ethnicities but types of humanoids different from humans, turning them into ancestries, folk peoples, etc, is going to lead to far worse problems than say going with a term like type or species (for the reasons I gave earlier in the thread). But also, I think the concept of race in D&D, whether it is literally called race or some other term, is crucial to what makes the game work. So the direction it sounds like they are going in (where you pick a trait inherited from your parents (which could be any number of things I assume) misses the simplicity of selecting a Race and getting a standard allotment of modifiers and abilities. For me that is just part of what makes D&D, D&D. There are plenty of other games that take a different approach to this part of character creation, and when I want that, I play those. But I do think switching to more narrow terms for race is going to lead to unforeseen issues for sure, if people are concerned about this somehow connecting to real world racism.
 

Hriston

Dungeon Master of Middle-earth
Dragons are totally snakes. The reason modern snakes don’t have legs or wings is they’re descended from the Eden snake who was cursed to crawl on their belly.
 
Last edited:


To refuse to do that, to kick up a fuss and cry and scream and make angry forum posts, or even to simply try to undermine the effort by saying things like “orcs aren’t black people”, is pathetic.

Just to be clear I don't think one should make angry forum posts over these kinds of disagreements. You can disagree with a person's analysis without attacking them and without getting angry. Also if someone feels a certain way about something, in an emotional way, you can be sensitive to that and still disagree. But I do think it is very important to give our honest opinions about these things. I think because the whole debate hinges on whether orcs are stand-ins for black people or other racial groups, saying you don't think they are so (at least generally, obviously there may be cases where a writer is specifically injecting bad stereotypes into the game) isn't about being dismissive of that person but about being honest about what you really think. If you agree with them, by all means, say so. But if you disagree, I find it a bit patronizing to lie to people about what you think on the matter. And if you think deferring to their opinion on the matter because of their personal experience is sufficient, fair enough.
 


Remove ads

Top