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

[Enevhar Aldarion]

Of all the choices here, if 1D&D is either getting rid of the half-races or making them very rare, then species works best. After all, in the real world, lions and tigers are different species and can interbreed, and the same with horses and donkeys. So humans and elves or humans and orcs can be different species and still interbreed, if that is kept in the game.

As for the other popular poll choices of Heritage or Lineage or Ancestry, I don't like those because they feel like we are talking about my character's great-great-great-grandparents and not about the character and who their parents are. Save those types of words for Backgrounds and specific Feats and the character's back-story, not for the general mechanics that are used in regular character creation.

 

[Yaarel]

Yes, and I would go so far as to say that among the High Elves, the Elves of Nargothrond are a people and the Elves of Gondolin are a people, and yet you can also speak of the Elven People and still be correct.

Sure, but you could also say that humans are one people.

I'm using a singular definition of people meaning "a plurality of persons considered as a whole". Folk, on the other hand, is never singular in English. It always refers to multiple people or people in general.

Maybe technically no. It is not correct to say: "The Elven People".

There are two main meanings for the word "people".
• Persons, the word people serves as a nonstandard plural for "person": one person, many people.
• A people, plural peoples, means a self-governing citizenry. "We the people, in order to form a more perfect union, ..."

Elves are people. And Humans and Elves together are people. Persons.

But Elves are not "a people": they are many peoples.

 

[Hriston]

Maybe technically no. It is not correct to say: "The Elven People".

There are two main meanings for the word "people".
• Persons, the word people serves as a nonstandard plural for "person": one person, many people.
• A people, plural peoples, means a self-governing citizenry. "We the people, in order to form a more perfect union, ..."

Elves are people. And Humans and Elves together are people. Persons.

But Elves are not "a people": they are many peoples.

Do you think the "Long List of the Ents", as recited by Treebeard, is incorrect when it names "the elf-children" as the eldest of "the free peoples"?

Or more to the point, do you think J. R. R. Tolkien, Merton Professor of English Language and Literature from 1945 to 1959, was using incorrect English when he wrote it?

Your gloss of the singular meaning of people is very narrow. It has a much wider application consistent with the definition I gave in my previous post, or with this one out of three definitions from a standard dictionary:

the men, women, and children of a particular nation, community, or ethnic group.​

"the native peoples of Canada"​

There is no requirement that the group be composed of citizens of any particular political community or place, and although the right of peoples to self determination is asserted by the UN Charter, it is not by virtue of self-government that a people is defined but rather by a common culture, history, etc.

 

[Kinematics]

5e has the term Humanoid.

The helpful definition for this term is to describe characters that are comparable to the human species (Homo sapiens) in both mind (freewill, learning and cultures) and body (two hands, two legs, or close enough).

I'd considered that, but it's a technical term which excludes numerous playable races. Fey (eg: eladrin, centaurs) are not humanoids, nor are goblinoids and monstrosities (eg: minotaurs), etc, which is why I listed them as examples in the earlier post I made.

If not for that, it would have been a reasonable choice (as long as you can stretch "humanoid" to include something like a centaur).

 

[Yaarel]

Do you think the "Long List of the Ents", as recited by Treebeard, is incorrect when it names "the elf-children" as the eldest of "the free peoples"?

Or more to the point, do you think J. R. R. Tolkien, Merton Professor of English Language and Literature from 1945 to 1959, was using incorrect English when he wrote it?

As I noted earlier, as a product of the pseudoscience of his era, Tolkien describes the Elf (and Dwarf, Hobbit, Ent, etcetera) in the same way that racists describe a "race".

When he refers to the "race" of Elf as if "a people", it is part of his bioessentializing a culture.

Your gloss of the singular meaning of people is very narrow. It has a much wider application consistent with the definition I gave in my previous post, or with this one out of three definitions from a standard dictionary:

the men, women, and children of a particular nation, community, or ethnic group.​

"the native peoples of Canada"​

There is no requirement that the group be composed of citizens of any particular political community or place, and although the right of peoples to self determination is asserted by the UN Charter, it is not by virtue of self-government that a people is defined but rather by a common culture, history, etc.

The nation or ethnic group is an example of the meaning "citizenry". For example, the Indigenous peoples of Canada have self-governing tribal councils and similar autonomous governmental bodies.

When people refers to populating an area generally, it has the sense of supplying many "persons" (of any gender or age or ethnicity).

 

[Yaarel]

I'd considered that, but it's a technical term which excludes numerous playable races. Fey (eg: eladrin, centaurs) are not humanoids, nor are goblinoids and monstrosities (eg: minotaurs), etc, which is why I listed them as examples in the earlier post I made.

If not for that, it would have been a reasonable choice (as long as you can stretch "humanoid" to include something like a centaur).

Yeah. And I considered that.

There are playable species that lack the Humanoid description. For example, Yuan-Ti is a Monstrosity.

One solution is, a species can have more than one description. For example, it seems obvious that Eladrin is a "Fey Humanoid".

This is especially easy if, like 4e, One D&D distinguishes between Planar Origin and Creature Type. So the Eladrin is the Humanoid Type of Fey Origin. Likewise, a Centaur is a Fey Humanoid. (Reallife British folklore was comfortable interpreting Greek concepts as if "fairy".)



I am finding the term Monstrosity to be nonuseful and in some contexts problematic. Nonuseful: why is an Owlbear a Monstrosity rather than a Beast? If it looks like a beast and walks like a beast, and behaves like a beast, then it is a Beast. Problematic: sometimes Monstrosity comes across as if an always "Evil race", an overall impression that Yuan-Ti gives off, even if technically imprecise.

Regarding Goblinoids, their statblock can say Fey. The flavor can mention belonging to a family of goblinoid species.

Similarly Devil, Demon, or Yugoloth. These need to say Fiend. But the flavor can mention belonging to a family of devils, etcetera.



If a playable species intentionally rejects the Humanoid descriptor, it is a signal, that the player should not play it normally, as if a human. Rather it should be more like figure in a dream. It has presence and behavior, but there is no person nor freewill. Compare the Fiend Gnoll.

 

[Hriston]

As I noted earlier, as a product of the pseudoscience of his era, Tolkien describes the Elf (and Dwarf, Hobbit, Ent, etcetera) in the same way that racists describe a "race".

Can you give an example of this?

When he refers to the "race" of Elf as if "a people", it is part of his bioessentializing a culture.

I don't recall him saying anything about the biology of elves, so I can't imagine how bioessentialism is part of their depiction in his work.

The nation or ethnic group is an example of the meaning "citizenry".

Well, now you're using a rather expansive definition of citizenry to compensate for your narrowing of the meaning of people. The point is that any community or ethnic group can be referred to as a people. Elves as a group share certain commonalities that make up the elven identity. Therefore, they are a people.

For example, the Indigenous peoples of Canada have self-governing tribal councils and similar autonomous governmental bodies.

Okay, but that's not what makes them peoples. It's their common culture, history, etc. that define them as peoples. For example, a community living under the rule of a foreign power is nevertheless a people.

When people refers to populating an area generally, it has the sense of supplying many "persons" (of any gender or age or ethnicity).

Um, yeah, that's the verbal usage of people. How is that relevant?

 

[Yaarel]

Well, now you're using a rather expansive definition of citizenry to compensate for your narrowing of the meaning of people. The point is that any community or ethnic group can be referred to as a people. Elves as a group share certain commonalities that make up the elven identity. Therefore, they are a people.

An ethnicity can be called "a people": sharing culture, language, religion, but especially autonomous self-government.
Elves arent an ethnicity.
Elves are many ethnicities.
Elves are many peoples.

Not any community is "a people". The D&D community isnt "a people". But we are a community.

 

[Hriston]

An ethnicity can be called "a people": sharing culture, language, religion,

Agreed

but especially autonomous self-government.

No, this is a false criteria. Peoples have the right to self-determination, but this right may not be realized which doesn't make them non-peoples.

Elves arent an ethnicity.
Elves are many ethnicities.
Elves are many peoples.

Do elves in your view share a common cultural background or ancestry that distinguishes them from non-elves? If not, then why do we have the common term elf? Your premise here seems to be that an ethnicity can't comprise many ethnicities, and that a people can't comprise many peoples. I don't subscribe to that belief.

Not any community is "a people". The D&D community isnt "a people". But we are a community.

We are both a community and a people. "A people" to quote Wikipedia "is any plurality of persons considered as a whole."

ETA: It can also be said that members of the D&D community are a species of RPGer.

 

[Hriston]

I think perhaps the term identity should be added to the list.