Indeed. Your Yuan-ti concern is right. By moving from "all <race> are evil" (which is to be avoided nowadays because it approximates racist slogans in réal life) to "all Yuan-Ti from city X are evil" or "all Yuan-Ti member of this particular church X are evil", which are respectively approximating xenophobic slogans and religious warriors slogans in real life used to justify war crimes, I don't think we're moving toward a solution, just moving from a problematic trope to another.
D&D (2024) What new jargon do you want to replace "Race"?
- Thread starter Yaarel
- Start date
Indeed. Your Yuan-ti concern is right. By moving from "all <race> are evil" (which is to be avoided nowadays because it approximates racist slogans in réal life) to "all Yuan-Ti from city X are evil" or "all Yuan-Ti member of this particular church X are evil", which are respectively approximating xenophobic slogans and religious warriors slogans in real life used to justify war crimes, I don't think we're moving toward a solution, just moving from a problematic trope to another.
Scribe
Legend
The solution is up to the table, thats the thing.
MotM gives us a template that is workable for the majority of the population I would imagine.
Positive. Heroic. Generic. Easy stuff.
If a particular group of players says 'man forget that, goblins are just going to be a whirlwind of destruction'...fine. Who cares, thats what they are for their game, and it doesnt make a difference to anyone else.
Wizards wont be selling that, but at this stage? Just dont buy it if you dont like their approach.
As the MtG side is telling people openly and loudly 'engage with the product you like'.
Indeed there is some bad writing there and I also would change it. My group balks at needless killing of one, I don't think they'd enjoy being put in a no-win choice of this scale. But I'm struggling to understand how the genocidal event could get past sensitivity readers (hello, GENOCIDE) except if the Xaryxians are played from the get go as irredeemably evil like the WH40,000 orks.
And then the bad writing is limited to not saying this to the GM from the beginning of the campaign so he can portray them as such.
glass
(he, him)
Oh wow. I had not heard about that one, so I just DDGed up an article on it (or rather on its removal/banning along with half a dozen others). The article itself was fine, but the comments....
Ilithids are an interesting case. If the had to eat the brains of sapient beings to survive, then you could make an argument that their doing so was not evil. OTOH, if they are trying to eat your brain, then using lethal force to prevent that is pretty well justified, regardless of their alignment. Of course, in several versions of D&D* they do not need to eat sapient brains; they can survive just fine on non-sapient brains and/or weird moss. They eat sapients because the like the taste, which I think we can agree is pretty evil. Any ilithids out there who do not do so would not be evil, and would be less likely to come into contact with the PCs.
Of course, that is all watsonian, so none of it would matter if depictions of them leaned into real-life racist tropes. But they are different enough from both actual real people and racist depiction thereof that "they're a totally different species" becomes actually meaningful rather than an excuse or a fig leaf.
The question then becomes "how different is different enough?" For me, orcs and drow are on one side of the line and ilithids and daemons are on the other, and I do not consider that "hypocritical".
(* Not sure what if anything 5e has said on the matter.)
Last edited:
Yaarel
🇮🇱 🇺🇦 He-Mage
I am comfortable with an organization having an Evil alignment.
The organization can officially articulate goals that are by definition Evil. The stated goals are often easy to identify as NE, LE, or CE. So the ideology itself is strictly Evil.
But when it comes to the members in the organization, the situation gets complex. There can be kids who grew up in the organization but has adults are increasingly uncomfortable with it. Some new members are only recently realizing how Evil the organization actually is. Some have few other options for survival. The Evil organization might kill "traitors". Some might feel torn between abandoning loved ones and leaving the organization. Some might genuinely seek to reform the organization from within. And so on.
Members of an Evil organization, should normally be "typically" Evil, because there may be dissent from within.
In the case of the Yuan-Ti, it is possible for absolute Evil, because the cults magical rituals cause a metamorphosis. This metamorphosis might kill the Humanoid free will, to become a truly Evil creature that is incapable of learning or changing. Especially, where the Yuan-Ti cults strive to become gods, their rituals might unite with the evilness of one of the Evil alignment outer planes.
But members who have not undergone the "apotheosis" would still be "typically" Evil.
Yaarel
🇮🇱 🇺🇦 He-Mage
@glass
Your use of the words "Watsonian" versus "Doyleist", intrigued me.
I explored their meanings, and they and related terms are useful for the D&D community.
I am mentioning my findings here. Heh, as a community service.
The terms relate to Sherlock Holmes novels. The reallife author is Doyle. But the fictional author within the stories is Watson. Hence:
Watsonian = intradiegetic = in-setting explanation
Doyleist = extradiegetic = in-reallife explanation
The words intradiegetic (in-setting explanation) and extradiegetic (in-reallife explanation) are neologisms that derive from the English term diegetic.
The pronunciation of diegetic is [daɪ.ə.'dʒɛ.tɪk], like die-eh-JET-ic.
Whence intra-diegetic and extra-diegetic pronounce similarly.
The term diegetic happens especially in film studies. It comes from the Greek term diegetikos (διηγητικός), which means the adjective "narrative", relating to narration, from diegesis (διήγησις), which means the noun "narration", or a narrative.
The pronunciation of diegesis is [daɪ.ə.'dʒi.sɪs], like die-eh-JEE-sis.
The film usage is "mimesis" (μίμησις) versus "diegesis". Mimemis [mɪ.ˈmi.sɪs], mim-EE-sis, is when the viewer watches it happen in the film. Diegesis is when there is someone in the film narrating what happened. Basically, "show" versus "tell".
So, "intradiegetic" is a fancy way of saying "in-setting" (or in-world, or in-universe, referring to the fictional setting). But intradiegetic emphasizes the narrative explanation of how something happens.
By contrast, "extradiegetic" is a fancy way of saying "in-reallife", but emphasizes the explanation for why it is that way.
For example, in D&D, the intradiegesis for spell slots might be that magical energy comes in quantifiable packets of energy, and that this is a curious property of the multiverse Weave, whose insights can reveal a deeper understanding of magic. But the extradiegesis for spell slots is they are a transmission from earlier 1e, when they served as a way to translate fiction by Vance about magic into rules for a game.
Your use of the words "Watsonian" versus "Doyleist", intrigued me.
I explored their meanings, and they and related terms are useful for the D&D community.
I am mentioning my findings here. Heh, as a community service.
The terms relate to Sherlock Holmes novels. The reallife author is Doyle. But the fictional author within the stories is Watson. Hence:
Watsonian = intradiegetic = in-setting explanation
Doyleist = extradiegetic = in-reallife explanation
The words intradiegetic (in-setting explanation) and extradiegetic (in-reallife explanation) are neologisms that derive from the English term diegetic.
The pronunciation of diegetic is [daɪ.ə.'dʒɛ.tɪk], like die-eh-JET-ic.
Whence intra-diegetic and extra-diegetic pronounce similarly.
The term diegetic happens especially in film studies. It comes from the Greek term diegetikos (διηγητικός), which means the adjective "narrative", relating to narration, from diegesis (διήγησις), which means the noun "narration", or a narrative.
The pronunciation of diegesis is [daɪ.ə.'dʒi.sɪs], like die-eh-JEE-sis.
The film usage is "mimesis" (μίμησις) versus "diegesis". Mimemis [mɪ.ˈmi.sɪs], mim-EE-sis, is when the viewer watches it happen in the film. Diegesis is when there is someone in the film narrating what happened. Basically, "show" versus "tell".
So, "intradiegetic" is a fancy way of saying "in-setting" (or in-world, or in-universe, referring to the fictional setting). But intradiegetic emphasizes the narrative explanation of how something happens.
By contrast, "extradiegetic" is a fancy way of saying "in-reallife", but emphasizes the explanation for why it is that way.
For example, in D&D, the intradiegesis for spell slots might be that magical energy comes in quantifiable packets of energy, and that this is a curious property of the multiverse Weave, whose insights can reveal a deeper understanding of magic. But the extradiegesis for spell slots is they are a transmission from earlier 1e, when they served as a way to translate fiction by Vance about magic into rules for a game.
Last edited:
glass
(he, him)
I could be wrong, but I am pretty sure spell slots predate 1e and go all the way back to OD&D (the concept if not the exact terminology). Otherwise, good breakdown. EDIT: Although now I think about it, I am not sure when "slots" became official terminology. I started with 2e, and I am pretty sure that I called them "slots" back then, but the rules do not appear to (at least not in a cursory glance at my PHB).
Last edited:
Yaarel
🇮🇱 🇺🇦 He-Mage
My commentary on the popular terms to replace race:
Seven candidates rate 20% approval or higher:
54.8% Ancestry
32.9% Species
29.0% Lineage
25.8% Heritage
22.6% Kin
20.6% Origin
20.0% Folk
All seven terms have official 5e usage already. But there is support to reuse them as a technical term to replace Race. Each has a different meaning, but perhaps, can work in its own way.
Ancestry occurs in 5e technical jargon, such as Fey Ancestry and Draconic Ancestry, in the core book, Players Handbook. It vaguely characterizes traits that derive from distant ancestors, such as the elves who inhabit the Fey plane before entering the Material plane, or such as the diverse species of Dragon that continue to determine the expression of Dragonborn traits. Ancestry is also the official term for Pathfinder to replace Race, but support extends to other D&D players as well. In the past, the top two contenders to replace Race have been Ancestry and Species, but Ancestry seems to benefit from a recent upsurge in approval. Its ability to achieve a majority, even if a narrow one, is remarkable. Ancestry is a term that can double either for an entire species (compare descendants of Adam, descendants of Búri, descendants of Dvalinn, descendants of Ýmir, etcetera) or for an inheritable trait within a species (compare Draconic Ancestry). By focusing on heredity only, the term Ancestry seems able to escape the cultural assumptions that come with the personal identity of a "race". Ancestry also has the benefit of emphasizing multiple ancestors, each with ones own inheritable traits.
While the term Species is novel, most D&D players mean "species" when they say Race. For example, the D&D Human Race is understood to mean the species Homo sapiens. So when Race becomes unavailable, its meaning Species still persists. The main objection to the term Species is its modern scientific connotation, sometimes in conflict with a pseudomedieval setting. Even so, players acknowledge its renaissance usage, even its medieval and ancient roots. A notable objection to Species calls attention to how the proposed D&D Species normally admix to produce offspring, thus complicating or invalidating the use of the scientific term "species". Despite objections, there seems a feeling that players can probably "get used to it" as a gaming jargon to communicate a general concept.
Lineage is an official 5e term that replaces Race. It appears in the supplemental book Tashas Cauldron of Everything in the context of the Custom Lineage. Its current usage awkwardly means any new Race that isnt one of the official Races. A future product can easily reuse the technical jargon Lineage instead of Race. Lineage has the benefit of including the transmission of traits without biological inheritance, such as a parent Warforged constructing an offspring Warforged, or a parent Vampire siring an offspring Vampire. Even if a character descends from multiple Lineages, the singular Lineage only calls attention to one of them. This exclusion might make sense in the context of character creation rules where a character who descends from multiple Lineages only chooses one of them to determine the gaming mechanics of the character.
I am jumping ahead to mention Kin. Kin too is an official technical term that replaces Race. Albeit, it is undefined, mentioned in passing, and obscure. In Tashas, the Custom Lineage mentions that fellow members of the Lineage are called a Kin. In reallife, "kin" means ones extended family. In some contexts, it includes a wider kinship system that extends to an entire tribal nation or even multiple tribes, all understood as ones legal next-of-kin. Kin means family while including family relations by marriage, adoption, and other nonbiological family members. D&D can use the term Kin to technically mean inherited traits without implying a culture, but its assumption of cultural characteristics requires caution for the same reason that the term Race requires caution. Even so, the term Kin enjoys connotations of being both endearing and archaic, with tight-knit bonds, and medieval usage. Kin can also function secondarily to mean the members of a "kind", such as the "kin of Elves", which can serve toward a D&D approximation for Species.
The next terms, Heritage, Origin, and Folk mainly refer to the culture of an ethnicity but might also include biologically inherited characteristics as well. To emphasize a culture is a culture, can help avoid the problematic where Race tends to bioessentialize cultural stereotypes.
Heritage is official 5e jargon. In the supplemental book Fizbans Treasury of Dragons, it describes different Species of Dragonborn, each transmitting traits from a different Species of Dragon: Chromatic Dragonborn, Gem Dragonborn, or Metallic Dragonborn. The taxonomy of Dragon is complex, including magical engineering, and Heritage vaguely alludes to such complexity. Heritage is an official term for the indy 5e publisher, Level Up Advanced 5th Edition, here at ENWorld. It alludes to both nature and nurture, but separately. In the character creation process, the Heritage "Traits" represent the heredity. Meanwhile, the Heritage associates a number of possible "Cultures" that relate to it. For example, a Dwarf might grow up in the High Elf Culture, thus be part of the elven Heritage even when lacking the biological elven Traits. The inclusion of diverse Cultures helps avoid the reductionism of bioessentializing cultural stereotypes. In reallife, I use the term "heritage" often enough, such as when referring to Norse heritage, Jewish heritage, African American heritage, and so on. It connotes an ethnic identity that derives from a biological progeny but emphasizes the transmission of its cultural identity to the future offspring, and includes outsiders who marry into it or otherwise join its cultural identity to become insiders of it. Heritage is cultural and requires effort, and if taken for granted can diminish and vanish among future generations.
Origin is an official 5e term, such as Sorcerous Origin in the Players Handbook. It identifies an inheritable trait. The trait can be a Bloodline that partially transmits some other species, or alternatively originates in some novel event, such as a pact with a Dragon or a Fey, or some other exposure to a magical energy. But from then on, the characteristic can transmit to future offspring. In the One D&D playtest UAs, Origin is a jargon that means the decision points during the character creation process, until the choice of Class. Character Origin includes: the assignment of Abilities, the selection of Species, and the cultural Background and Feat. These are the preludes to ones decision to become a member of a Class. The term origin can reuse more narrowly to replace Race. In reallife, "origins" (often plural) refers to the persistent influences from ones parentage or ethnicity. Altho narrower than "race", similar generalizations might make this sense of "origins" problematic. One D&D uses Origin for separate choices of Abilities, Species and cultural Background, to help avoid unfortunate generalization.
Folk exists in D&D 5e in terms such as Merfolk and Lizardfolk. In these contexts, the one-syllable term Folk replaces "maid" and "man", and means a "person". Folk is gender-neutral to include any person regardless of male, female, both, or neither, as well as of any age. The term connotes endearment and quaintness, such as in the expression, "How are you folks doing?" Alternatively, it can refer to a Kin, the members of ones family. Also in the widest sense, Folk can mean the citizenry, especially in the context of the citizens of a self-governing nation. This widest meaning relates terms like "folk music" referring to the expression of a traditional ethnic culture. It emphasizes the people of a culture, as opposed to a state governmental decree. It applies in "folk lore" to concepts such as the "fairy folk". Sadly the term "folk" has currency in reallife racist discourse, misconstrued to mean racial purity and supremacism. Perhaps for One D&D, the term Folk in the sense of any person might be most useful.
In sum, each of these popular terms to replace Race already enjoys official usage in D&D 5e. The preference for these terms suggests a conservative impulse − at least here at ENWorld − to maintain a jargon that is already familiar within the D&D traditions.
Seven candidates rate 20% approval or higher:
54.8% Ancestry
32.9% Species
29.0% Lineage
25.8% Heritage
22.6% Kin
20.6% Origin
20.0% Folk
All seven terms have official 5e usage already. But there is support to reuse them as a technical term to replace Race. Each has a different meaning, but perhaps, can work in its own way.
Ancestry occurs in 5e technical jargon, such as Fey Ancestry and Draconic Ancestry, in the core book, Players Handbook. It vaguely characterizes traits that derive from distant ancestors, such as the elves who inhabit the Fey plane before entering the Material plane, or such as the diverse species of Dragon that continue to determine the expression of Dragonborn traits. Ancestry is also the official term for Pathfinder to replace Race, but support extends to other D&D players as well. In the past, the top two contenders to replace Race have been Ancestry and Species, but Ancestry seems to benefit from a recent upsurge in approval. Its ability to achieve a majority, even if a narrow one, is remarkable. Ancestry is a term that can double either for an entire species (compare descendants of Adam, descendants of Búri, descendants of Dvalinn, descendants of Ýmir, etcetera) or for an inheritable trait within a species (compare Draconic Ancestry). By focusing on heredity only, the term Ancestry seems able to escape the cultural assumptions that come with the personal identity of a "race". Ancestry also has the benefit of emphasizing multiple ancestors, each with ones own inheritable traits.
While the term Species is novel, most D&D players mean "species" when they say Race. For example, the D&D Human Race is understood to mean the species Homo sapiens. So when Race becomes unavailable, its meaning Species still persists. The main objection to the term Species is its modern scientific connotation, sometimes in conflict with a pseudomedieval setting. Even so, players acknowledge its renaissance usage, even its medieval and ancient roots. A notable objection to Species calls attention to how the proposed D&D Species normally admix to produce offspring, thus complicating or invalidating the use of the scientific term "species". Despite objections, there seems a feeling that players can probably "get used to it" as a gaming jargon to communicate a general concept.
Lineage is an official 5e term that replaces Race. It appears in the supplemental book Tashas Cauldron of Everything in the context of the Custom Lineage. Its current usage awkwardly means any new Race that isnt one of the official Races. A future product can easily reuse the technical jargon Lineage instead of Race. Lineage has the benefit of including the transmission of traits without biological inheritance, such as a parent Warforged constructing an offspring Warforged, or a parent Vampire siring an offspring Vampire. Even if a character descends from multiple Lineages, the singular Lineage only calls attention to one of them. This exclusion might make sense in the context of character creation rules where a character who descends from multiple Lineages only chooses one of them to determine the gaming mechanics of the character.
I am jumping ahead to mention Kin. Kin too is an official technical term that replaces Race. Albeit, it is undefined, mentioned in passing, and obscure. In Tashas, the Custom Lineage mentions that fellow members of the Lineage are called a Kin. In reallife, "kin" means ones extended family. In some contexts, it includes a wider kinship system that extends to an entire tribal nation or even multiple tribes, all understood as ones legal next-of-kin. Kin means family while including family relations by marriage, adoption, and other nonbiological family members. D&D can use the term Kin to technically mean inherited traits without implying a culture, but its assumption of cultural characteristics requires caution for the same reason that the term Race requires caution. Even so, the term Kin enjoys connotations of being both endearing and archaic, with tight-knit bonds, and medieval usage. Kin can also function secondarily to mean the members of a "kind", such as the "kin of Elves", which can serve toward a D&D approximation for Species.
The next terms, Heritage, Origin, and Folk mainly refer to the culture of an ethnicity but might also include biologically inherited characteristics as well. To emphasize a culture is a culture, can help avoid the problematic where Race tends to bioessentialize cultural stereotypes.
Heritage is official 5e jargon. In the supplemental book Fizbans Treasury of Dragons, it describes different Species of Dragonborn, each transmitting traits from a different Species of Dragon: Chromatic Dragonborn, Gem Dragonborn, or Metallic Dragonborn. The taxonomy of Dragon is complex, including magical engineering, and Heritage vaguely alludes to such complexity. Heritage is an official term for the indy 5e publisher, Level Up Advanced 5th Edition, here at ENWorld. It alludes to both nature and nurture, but separately. In the character creation process, the Heritage "Traits" represent the heredity. Meanwhile, the Heritage associates a number of possible "Cultures" that relate to it. For example, a Dwarf might grow up in the High Elf Culture, thus be part of the elven Heritage even when lacking the biological elven Traits. The inclusion of diverse Cultures helps avoid the reductionism of bioessentializing cultural stereotypes. In reallife, I use the term "heritage" often enough, such as when referring to Norse heritage, Jewish heritage, African American heritage, and so on. It connotes an ethnic identity that derives from a biological progeny but emphasizes the transmission of its cultural identity to the future offspring, and includes outsiders who marry into it or otherwise join its cultural identity to become insiders of it. Heritage is cultural and requires effort, and if taken for granted can diminish and vanish among future generations.
Origin is an official 5e term, such as Sorcerous Origin in the Players Handbook. It identifies an inheritable trait. The trait can be a Bloodline that partially transmits some other species, or alternatively originates in some novel event, such as a pact with a Dragon or a Fey, or some other exposure to a magical energy. But from then on, the characteristic can transmit to future offspring. In the One D&D playtest UAs, Origin is a jargon that means the decision points during the character creation process, until the choice of Class. Character Origin includes: the assignment of Abilities, the selection of Species, and the cultural Background and Feat. These are the preludes to ones decision to become a member of a Class. The term origin can reuse more narrowly to replace Race. In reallife, "origins" (often plural) refers to the persistent influences from ones parentage or ethnicity. Altho narrower than "race", similar generalizations might make this sense of "origins" problematic. One D&D uses Origin for separate choices of Abilities, Species and cultural Background, to help avoid unfortunate generalization.
Folk exists in D&D 5e in terms such as Merfolk and Lizardfolk. In these contexts, the one-syllable term Folk replaces "maid" and "man", and means a "person". Folk is gender-neutral to include any person regardless of male, female, both, or neither, as well as of any age. The term connotes endearment and quaintness, such as in the expression, "How are you folks doing?" Alternatively, it can refer to a Kin, the members of ones family. Also in the widest sense, Folk can mean the citizenry, especially in the context of the citizens of a self-governing nation. This widest meaning relates terms like "folk music" referring to the expression of a traditional ethnic culture. It emphasizes the people of a culture, as opposed to a state governmental decree. It applies in "folk lore" to concepts such as the "fairy folk". Sadly the term "folk" has currency in reallife racist discourse, misconstrued to mean racial purity and supremacism. Perhaps for One D&D, the term Folk in the sense of any person might be most useful.
In sum, each of these popular terms to replace Race already enjoys official usage in D&D 5e. The preference for these terms suggests a conservative impulse − at least here at ENWorld − to maintain a jargon that is already familiar within the D&D traditions.
Last edited:
Kinematics
Hero
Not necessarily. More likely it's just an alignment between people who happen to be players and people who write books to use terms that make a reasonable amount of sense for conveying certain types of information. Language is language.
Personally, I think 'species' is the worst possible option for the new term. Aside from the scientific issues that have already been elaborated on in the thread, it holds connotations that seem extremely derogatory in the context of how they're trying to use it.
'Species' is used to identify different types of biologically distinct creatures. It is not limited to what we would consider player races, whether humanoid (human, dwarf, elf), goblinoid (goblins, orcs), fey (eladrin, centaurs), certain monstrosities (minotaurs), or whatever other general category they've been placed in. 'Species' would also apply to identifying owlbears, wargs, trench worms, stirges, oozes, pine trees, etc. It does not have the connotative restriction that 'race' has which limits it to sentient/sapient/intelligent/civilized creatures.
As such, designating someone as a member of a 'species' in any context other than an analytical scientific one is quite dehumanizing. A dwarf is linguistically equivalent to a primordial ooze. An orc is on the same level as a species of mold. It avoids people's hangups about real-life racism by trading that in for a vastly more degrading form of racism.
A 'species' of animal is something to be analyzed and checked for threat risk, perhaps elevated as high as being considered a pet, or lowered to the level of something that needs to be exterminated. It distances you from having to think of said creatures as human or people. Even "the human species" is used when considering humans as creatures that exist on the planet, not parents or friends or, well, humans.
As for other terms, unfortunately we don't have a more generalized term in the English language that means the same thing as what 'race' is used for in D&D. 'Human' would probably be the best term if it didn't conflate with the specific species that it also refers to. Perhaps 'mortal'? Or 'mortal race', which may help distance it from real-world use of 'race'.
'Ancestry' and 'lineage' are shorthand for, "What race were your ancestors?" 'Heritage' is shorthand for "What racial traits did you inherit from your parents?" 'Kin' and 'folk' are closer to what Level Up defines as Culture. (Note: I like Level Up's separation of race and culture into Heritage and Culture, but D&D seems to be(?) keeping those components together, so this inconsistency may not be as troublesome there.) Similarly with the other suggested options, in which they're either failing to convey some of the important meaning, or papering over a word that people object to in a different context.
Crimson Longinus
Legend
That is just a bizarre complaint. Humans are a species. People generally are fine with this.