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

[Hriston]

The above quote is the part that coheres with reallife racism. The "revisionism" is to intentionally prevent racism.

I'm not sure if you meant to say what the words you wrote seem to mean, but I have to say I disagree. To prevent the inclusion of racism, we first have to see the game for what it is. Thinking it has always been the way we thought it was or thought it should have been is not helpful. That's what I mean by revisionism which, in this case, is a form of denial.

When biological traits and cultural traits are confused together, then the perception is that cultural traits are inherently biological. (Some forumers refer to this as making culture bioessential.) When this happens, value systems such as patriotism become actual racism. The perception is, the other cultures are less human, and to mix with them makes ones own biology less pure. All of this worldview is hatespeech translated into a pseudoscience.

Tolkien is riddled with this kind of racist way of thinking. As are some parts of D&D traditions. − Because of the failure to distinguish what is inherent with what is learned.

Modern genetics has shown that the what separates one humans appearance and an other humans appearance is genetically trivial. We all come from the same ancestors − recently. (Our ancestral Homo sapiens probably resemble Ethiopians today.)

The important distinctions are cultural − and there are many styles of being human.

Okay, so to take an extreme example, because Dwarf is perceived as a biological category (dwarves after all being somewhat physically different from other groups), then Dwarven Combat Training creates the impression that dwarves are biologically determined to use certain weapons. I can see how that's a bad look, but I'm not sure it's worse than something that's explicitly a cultural inclination.

There seems to be confusion between different meanings of the English word "people".

1. "people" (plural) = persons, the nonstandard plural of "person": one person, two people.
2. "the people" (plural) = the citizens of a government.
3. "a people" (singular) = an autonomous ethnicity: one people, two peoples.

(Note, the citizens of the US are both plural "the people" in contrast to the government, and singular "a people" as a melting-pot ethnicity.)



The quote from Wikipedia is definition 1: "any plurality of persons considered as a whole". It even says, the plural of person.
Examples of taking a group of persons "as a whole":

The joke: "There are two kinds of people. Those who divide the world into two kinds of people. And those who dont."
= two kinds of "persons"
≠ two kinds of "peoples"

"I'll have my people call your people."
= my persons and your persons
≠ my ethnicity and your ethnicity

​

D&D people versus Pathfinder people.
= persons who prefer D&D versus persons who prefer Pathfinder
≠ an ethnicity of D&D versus an ethnicity of Pathfinder

For the English word "people": definition 1 ("persons") is common and normal. But definition 3 ("an ethnicity") is rare, and seems to be causing confusion.




Even definition 2 ("the citizens" versus the government) is uncommon − and often misleading since it is unlikely every citizen participates in the generalization. For example, to say, During the French Revolution the people overthrew the aristocracy, wrongly implies that every French nonaristocrat stopped supporting the aristocracy.



All in all, the term "a people" seems to confuse, and worse, seems able to cohere with a racist worldview.

There's no confusion on my end. Just look at a dictionary:

peo·ple​

/ˈpēp(ə)l/​

noun​

plural noun: people; noun: people; plural noun: peoples; noun: one's people; plural noun: one's peoples​

1. human beings in general or considered collectively.​

"the earthquake killed 30,000 people"​

• the citizens of a country, especially when considered in relation to those who govern them.
  noun: the people
  "his economic reforms no longer have the support of the people"
• those without special rank or position in society; the populace.
  noun: the people
  "he is very much a man of the people"
• US
  the state prosecution in a trial.
  "pretrial statements made by the People's witnesses"

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

"the native peoples of Canada"​

3. the supporters or employees of a person in a position of power or authority.​

"I've had my people watching the house for some time now"​

Your first two meanings fall under definition 1. Your third is definition 2, which is also the definition that covers the Wikipedia quote due to its use of the indefinite article a, as in "a people". Try substituting "a people" (or "peoples" where a plural form is needed) into any of the example sentences beside the one for definition 2 without changing the meaning. It can't be done.

 

[Scott Christian]

I think it's notable that out of all those quotes, only the one about dwarven blood (said in an unreliable narrator voice) says anything about biology.

I am having a hard time believing you actually mean this. If you do, then I guess that is your interpretation. And, as I said, I am fine with however they do it. But to read the PHB section on races, and see all the words that imply biology, and then say they don't, seems disingenuous. And again, I am fine if they want to go back and say they didn't mean it that way. That is okay. But when they wrote the word natural over and over, and inborn, and inherent, there is a motif there that any reader can extrapolate.

 

[Hriston]

It feels like the point folks are trying to make is that the playtest material for One, the more recent products that have redone races, and the way WotC has been phrasing things is that it looks like Race is heading towards being predominantly about biological things and not cultural things - and may end up pretty much only being about them. What was done in past editions doesn't seem relevant to where One is going in this regard.

What was done in the past is certainly relevant to judging statements about what was done in the past though!

The statement wasn't made about the One D&D playtest or where D&D is headed in the future. It was about how "Race" is "used in D&D" which is a multi-edition series of games published from 1974 up to the present. I don't think it's accurate to say race in that context is about representing a character's biology. It's about a much broader depiction of the character as a type of fantasy person.

 

[Cadence]

The statement wasn't made about the One D&D playtest or where D&D is headed in the future. It was about how "Race" is "used in D&D" which is a multi-edition series of games published from 1974 up to the present. I don't think it's accurate to say race in that context is about representing a character's biology. It's about a much broader depiction of the character as a type of fantasy person.

Hence my last sentence "What was done in the past is certainly relevant to judging statements about what was done in the past though!"

Going forward it feels like they're mostly (if not entirely) aiming for biology, and so it felt to me that's the context the poll might be most usefully answered in.

 

[Hriston]

That shows a fundamental misunderstanding of both the term and the argument being made.

Is it the same thing as biological determinism? Because that relies on a physiological component on which to blame a person's behavior. So if we're going to say that elves in the works of J. R. R. Tolkien are bioessentialist, then we have to imagine there's something distinct about their physiology that makes them different from humans, but from what I can recall, those kinds of details aren't provided. Is it just that people are just assuming because they're elves they have a different set of biological characteristics? I'd be happy if someone wanted to break down the argument for me.

 

[Hriston]

I am having a hard time believing you actually mean this. If you do, then I guess that is your interpretation. And, as I said, I am fine with however they do it. But to read the PHB section on races, and see all the words that imply biology, and then say they don't, seems disingenuous. And again, I am fine if they want to go back and say they didn't mean it that way. That is okay. But when they wrote the word natural over and over, and inborn, and inherent, there is a motif there that any reader can extrapolate.

I was only responding to the quotes you provided which I've copied below, and I think we're in agreement that there's a mixture of biological and cultural attributes in D&D races and it's often not clear which is which. I didn't say that implications couldn't be made about whether a given trait is biological or not, only that it isn't outright stated to be so except in that one case. Something can be natural, inherent, or even inborn for your character without having to do with your biology, especially in a world of magic. Traits derived from your ancestors may have been passed down culturally, etc.

"As a forest gnome, you have a natural knack for illusion and inherent quickness and stealth."
"As a rock gnome, you have a natural inventiveness and hardiness..."
"Your half-orc character has certain traits deriving from your orc ancestry."
"As a stout halfling, you're hardier than average and have some resistance to poison. Some say that stouts have dwarven blood."
"Your elf character has a variety of natural abilities, the results of thousands of years of elven refinement."
"Your dwarf character has an assortment of inborn abilities, the part and parcel of dwarven nature."

 

[Yaarel]

The dictionary that I like best for American English is the American Heritage Dictionary. When I was in college I compared a bunch of dictionaries because I needed one that supplied excellent etymologies. Since then, this dictionary has be continued to prove itself both precise and accurate while remaining succinct. I love this online website TheFreeDictionary.com because it cites the American Heritage Dictionary for American dialects and the Collins English Dictionary for British dialects, and sometimes adds other dictionaries if necessary to help catch a specific nuance or technical jargon.

Here in brief:
1. a plural of person
2a. a body of persons in the same country under one government
2b. citizens
3. (pl. peoples) a body of persons sharing a culture
4. persons with regard to their group: city people, farming people [= city persons, farming persons]

Honestly the Collins English Dictionary does better here laying out this particular entry. But both dictionaries are clear.

Anyway none of these definitions means "a race". Either it means anyone anywhere indefinitely, or it means a specific culture or state. Elves are many cultures and many governments. Elves are many peoples and many citizenries.

There's no confusion on my end. Just look at a dictionary:

peo·ple​

/ˈpēp(ə)l/​

noun​

plural noun: people; noun: people; plural noun: peoples; noun: one's people; plural noun: one's peoples​

1. human beings in general or considered collectively.​

"the earthquake killed 30,000 people"​

• the citizens of a country, especially when considered in relation to those who govern them.
  noun: the people
  "his economic reforms no longer have the support of the people"
• those without special rank or position in society; the populace.
  noun: the people
  "he is very much a man of the people"
• US
  the state prosecution in a trial.
  "pretrial statements made by the People's witnesses"

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

"the native peoples of Canada"​

3. the supporters or employees of a person in a position of power or authority.​

"I've had my people watching the house for some time now"​

Your first two meanings fall under definition 1. Your third is definition 2, which is also the definition that covers the Wikipedia quote due to its use of the indefinite article a, as in "a people". Try substituting "a people" (or "peoples" where a plural form is needed) into any of the example sentences beside the one for definition 2 without changing the meaning. It can't be done.

Which dictionary are you citing? It is a less good dictionary. It fails to make clear the first, main, and most frequent meaning which is: a nonstandard plural for the noun "person". Altho the plural "persons" happens in official and formal writing, it is uncommon in spoken usage. Instead, English speakers mostly use the term "people" when referring to more than one "person": one person, two people. Moreover, the dictionary entry fails to make clear that definition 2. is a singular countable noun: one people, two peoples.

Definition 1 first says:
"the earthquake killed 30,000 people"
This means exactly the same thing as:
"the earthquake killed 30,000 persons"

But then the subdefinitions switch to a different meaning, which is "citizens", leaving the main meaning "persons" unclear.

I wouldnt use the dicitionary that you cite, whichever one it is.

 

[Hriston]

Hence my last sentence "What was done in the past is certainly relevant to judging statements about what was done in the past though!"

Going forward it feels like they're mostly (if not entirely) aiming for biology, and so it felt to me that's the context the poll might be most usefully answered in.

Where they're aiming remains to be seen. The poll is about replacing the term, not about predicting how PC races will be handled in future publications.

 

[Yaarel]

This is why I a pushing for species. It is kind of dry, sterile, and boring, but in the end I think that is a good thing. I think it is best to use a strictly out of game term, that is in no way connected to the in-game fiction.

The entire concept of "Fantasy Races" is at its core a potential minefield of issues. The very idea of using different "types" of "people" to examine different aspects of human nature and the human psyche, may be a useful literary device, and can create some excellent stories, it is dangerously interconnected with real world issues of racism, stereotyping, and eugenics.

It doesn't help that Tolkien, who is basically the creator of the modern fantasy genre, and a massive influence on everything that came after, was not just a man of his times, he was a man stuck centuries if not millennia in the past. His work is obsessed with sacred bloodlines, racial purity, and bio-essentialism. Lets not forget this is the man who described orcs as, "Squat, broad, flat-nosed, sallow-skinned, with wide mouths and slant eyes: in fact degraded and repulsive versions of the (to Europeans) least lovely Mongol-types."

I love Tolkien's work. The sheer depth and breadth of his worldbuilding is unparalleled. Truthfully most other fantasy comes across as cheap knock offs of his work. However the more I really look at his work, and force my self to look past my instinctive fanboy love, I am forced to admit that the man had his issues.

I appreciate your post.

I dont need my heroes to be perfect. I can admire someone because of the good things they accomplished and still cautiously critique any less good things.

 

[Cadence]

Where they're aiming remains to be seen. The poll is about replacing the term, not about predicting how PC races will be handled in future publications.

It feels odd to me to pick the term that will be used for PC "races" in the future without considering how those PC races will be handled. But ok.