D&D General Words which replaced "race" in fantasy games

[jayoungr]

If any of us were living in a fantasy setting, would we actually say that we are members of the human species? Or we would simply say, we are human and leave it at that?

To be honest, if we were living in a fantasy setting, we might well use the word "race" because it wouldn't have the same political connotations as it does today. (See my earlier post about how the meaning of the word used to be a lot more flexible than it has become in current usage.)

 

[Burnside]

If any of us were living in a fantasy setting, would we actually say that we are members of the human species? Or we would simply say, we are human and leave it at that?

I also wouldn’t say “I am Burnside the Fighter, and my Sub-Class is Battle Master” in the context of a fantasy setting, but nobody seems upset about that. Obviously, some terms are utilitarian and logical to have in rulebooks even if they’re not used “in-game.” Species falls into that category for you if people don’t say Species in-game.

 

[Marandahir]

Right, but clearly in my usage of the word inclusive, that doesn't matter to me. The technicality of it is what I'm concerned with.

It's exactly the same as people who cling to a "racial" theory of humans - they're just wrong regardless of their feelings.

A problem here is that by trying to apply an objectivist perspective to social sciences, we fail to incorporate our own biases because we think we're outside observers of the system rather than a variable dependent on the same system that we are trying to observe.

The technicality of inclusivity is DEPENDENT on the subjectivity of inclusivity.

 

[Argyle King]

A problem here is that by trying to apply an objectivist perspective to social sciences, we fail to incorporate our own biases because we think we're outside observers of the system rather than a variable dependent on the same system that we are trying to observe.

The technicality of inclusivity is DEPENDENT on the subjectivity of inclusivity.

What do you believe should happen when the subjective experience of one marginalized group conflicts with the subject experience of another marginalized group?

 

[FrogReaver]

Strategic then?

There’s always a reason something is strategic.

Typically, I assume all decisions a corporation makes are to maximize profit, and for no other reason.

I think that’s naive. People in power in these corporations have their own personal agendas and biases.

But side note: I do feel like people are like, massively "on guard" against what they call reactionary thinkers, to the point that they themselves are becoming reactionary. Like it FEELS to me like both you and frog are anxious to try and frame what I'm saying as bigoted.

Strangely I’m probably much closer to your position than I am to @Charlaquin. But you asked a question about why that gets called inclusive and I’ve been trying to answer you and your various objections to it. I think your objections should be discussed and not dismissed out of hand. Nor do I think raising them makes you a bigot.

But we are limited here, because pushback against what this site defines as inclusive is often deemed as anti-inclusive which is against the rules. So I try my best to explain what inclusivity means here without challenging that definition.

I do have some issues with some of your logic which I’ve pointed out. I have some issues with the other sides logic as well but I won’t be discussing that, see above.

 

[Charlaquin]

What do you believe should happen when the subjective experience of one marginalized group conflicts with the subject experience of another marginalized group?

Depends on the specifics of the groups’ experiences and the discrepancy between them. Why is this difference of experiences something that anything needs to be done about? Likely, the answer to that question will help in forming a decision about what should be done (if anything).

 

[Charlaquin]

Duplicate post

 

[FrogReaver]

"Feel included" here is the problem for me. I'm interested in if people are included, not their subjective experience.

Awesome. I’m interested in that as well. But there’s no objective test to determine inclusivity.

In my example, we have a hard/clear change where more types are allowed into the set, it wouldn't matter how the types feel it's just a fact about the set that certain ones are included within it.

Why should the ‘objective test for inclusivity’ depend solely on whether the group is officially allowed (it seems an important step but far from the last) - especially when we know groups can be officially allowed but unofficially disallowed.

 

[Raiztt]

Awesome. I’m interested in that as well. But there’s no objective test to determine inclusivity.

Why should the ‘objective test for inclusivity’ depend solely on whether the group is officially allowed (it seems an important step but far from the last) - especially when we know groups can be officially allowed but unofficially disallowed.

I operate off of what is known, not what can be conjectured.

Also I literally gave you an objective example.

 

[Raiztt]

But we are limited here, because pushback against what this site defines as inclusive is often deemed as anti-inclusive which is against the rules. So I try my best to explain what inclusivity means here without challenging that definition.

I do not care at all for enworlds opaque rules about what is and is not allowed - jannies are free to bap me if I cross whatever they decide the line is today.

I do have some issues with some of your logic which I’ve pointed out. I have some issues with the other sides logic as well but I won’t be discussing that, see above.

The only time i've employed hard logic in my definition was basically to say that 2 > 1 so, not sure what you're taking issue with.