I'm afraid if the issue is "race is offensive to me!" then well... that problem isn't going to go away by changing the word; because quite simply it has to convey the same concept regardless. The phrase "offence is taken and not given" exists for a reason: because this particular Ouroboros circle once started never stops. To take but one example: the word "fat", when describing someone has been deemed to be insulting to the point of offensive... despite it being a descriptor. Thus teh word went form "fat" to "overweight", which then became "obese", which then became "plus-size", which then became "person of size"... and will presumably in future change again... to "gravitationally oppressed" maybe. The word changed but the "offence" stayed regardless because at the end of the day; the word had to convey the same information, the same concept. Ultimately the exercise strikes me as rather pointless when we have a perfectly concise word already that quite frankly a vanishing minority of people get unreasonably worked up over.
Words do matter and different people have different reactions to them.
I'm a 50 something white guy, my niece asked if I would DM a game for her and some friends (an ethnic and gender diverse group) who had never played DnD before and for them 'race' is problematic. I changed to using Ancestry - removing my use of the problematic term fixed the problem. If I followed the idea of - "offence is taken and not given" - after I was informed 'race' was a problematic term for anyone at my table, my continued use of it would of been "giving offence".
It's simply an example of the term being problematic for me and my table. It's all part of the Veils and Lines concept.
I'm not here to argue, just to point out that it was a problematic term at my table and there was an easy fix for it. Over the decades my table has become more diverse with players coming from many different backgrounds, ethnicities, genders, etc... and I've had to learn how to increase my sensitivities to the views, feeling and experience of other people.
If the term 'race' stays I'll still be playing the game, as I have for years - by removing/changing things that I've learned are problematic for my tables. I simply believe that there are better more concise terms that can be used in our current day and age.
I'm afraid if the issue is "race is offensive to me!" then well... that problem isn't going to go away by changing the word; because quite simply it has to convey the same concept regardless. The phrase "offence is taken and not given" exists for a reason: because this particular Ouroboros circle once started never stops. To take but one example: the word "fat", when describing someone has been deemed to be insulting to the point of offensive... despite it being a descriptor. Thus the word went from "fat" to "overweight", which then became "obese", which then became "plus-size", which then became "person of size"... and will presumably in future change again... to "gravitationally oppressed" maybe. The word changed but the "offence" stayed regardless because at the end of the day; the word had to convey the same information, the same concept. Ultimately the exercise strikes me as rather pointless when we have a perfectly concise word already that quite frankly a vanishing minority of people get unreasonably worked up over.
And before someone jumps up me backside about "not getting it"; I happen to BE one of these "BIPOC" people I keep hearing so much about and all this language policing and sensitivity reading is supposedly partially done on my behalf... and frankly I'd rather WotC put some content in their books for a change instead.
The intent behind the words matter and that can be very tough to ascertain in text. So if in stead of cussing I say "food", my intent is cussing but people probably would not know it or take offence. I also think we have to be careful in not being over reactive in going either direction, ie ban everything or ban nothing.
The phrase "offence is taken and not given" exists for a reason: because this particular Ouroboros circle once started never stops.
Or because it's a quick an easy way to throw up a shield and deflect away from any stupid or gross things the person invoking that phrase might have said. That's usually how I see it employed at least.
The phrase "offence is taken and not given" exists for a reason: because this particular Ouroboros circle once started never stops.
Or because it's a quick an easy way to throw up a shield and deflect away from any stupid or gross things the person invoking that phrase might have said. That's usually how I see it employed at least.
The phrase exists because what one does and does not find offensive is inherently subjective and different to every person; entirely contingent upon our own moral perspective. There are some things that most of us agree are offensive or in bad taste; but there are people for whom those things are also hilarious; which is also why comedy is equally subjective. Thus what YOU personally find offensive is entirely dependant upon your own subjective experience and moral code; which is why we say "offence is TAKEN"; it is not the words themselves that are inherently offensive; you have deemed them so. The words themselves are merely ink on a page, pixels on a screen, or vibrations in the air.
To continue the parallel with humour instead of offence: genuine laughter is an involuntary response to what is often a transgressive statement; it is funny because it is unexpected, and you will laugh whether you think it is in "good taste" or not. Which is why we all laughed at George Carlin saying the words one cannot say on television; even if we pretended not to when Grandma was watching. This is also why a certain breed of "comedian" gets applause and not laughter; because applause is a performative act: used to show allegiance or appreciation; not an involuntary one.
If we're going to speak about rhetorical shields then very well: as an indigenous person, I'm frankly sick of being USED as one by people who just want to police others.
going to apply ancestry/species instead of race because some sensibilities changed, will just cause the same thing going on 30 years later. Then people will talk how insensible it is to differentiate dwarves and elves via ancestriest/specieist terms or how fantasy ancestrism/speciesm is a reflection of real world racisms.
But the thing is, race is a term to differentiate creatures of similar features, it is needed for that.
Or else we can throw out the baby with the bathwater.
Imagine being a DM and you have to describe a certain character but can't use the terms race or any word that would donate the race of it like dwarf.
DM: The character is shorter then the average
Player: A Halfling?
DM: No, they are also good with tools.
Player: So a gnome. By the way this is racist to imply all gnomes are good with tools.
DM: No, and that's not what i meant. The character is also rather good with weapons, and likes to drink?
Player: So a dwarf? And same thing, this is quite racist to say all dwarfs are small drinking weapon and tools creatures.
DM: ....
This example is exaggerated, but this is where we head down with applying to sensibilities too much. We need terms to differentiate. Be it people, creatures, objects, or we end in a world where everything is offensive and everything is forbidden to say.
I would rather try to challenge people why they think words are offensive to them, and why they need to feel offended, when they just could get it that the word is a descriptive term so we can communicate at all.
Edit: Note i'm not a native english speaker so my view might be different. Like i can not wrap my head around using ancestry instead of race, the word just sounds wrong to me. I looked up some thesaurus to get alternatives but most are bad. the best word seems to be folks or peoples, but they sound somewhat strange to me considering what i know about english.
But the thing is, race is a term to differentiate creatures of similar features, it is needed for that.
Race is a term to differentiate people along social, cultural, and ethnic lines, which is why it's not a great term to use in D&D. Being a dragon, elf, githyanki, or human is not a matter of political, cultural, and geographical distinction. It's not a social construct. D&D wants to refer to creatures with significantly distinct biological characteristics, and this just isn't the right term to use.
The fact that race essentialism has historically been used as a way to imagine a scientific justification for oppression is also not a good look, and a weird thing to want to reference in your game, but that's not even really the main issue.
Notice that it doesn't even reference humans there.
Even then, in that article it says that race is either synonymous with subspecies or is even further down. The various "races" in D&D lore are not all part of the same species, and are therefore not subspecies or further down the scale - races, speaking from the point of view of modern English, is not technically correct.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Even then, in that article it says that race is either synonymous with subspecies or is even further down. The various "races" in D&D lore are not all part of the same species, and are therefore not subspecies or further down the scale - races, speaking from the point of view of modern English, is not technically correct.
There's no evidence that D&D follows the rules of modern biology, but given the similarities and the canon existence of a lot of mixes, most of the "races" in D&D lore should probably be considered the same species.
The problem isn't with the term race in fantasy or sci-fi, its with the term race in real life. The concept needs to cease to exist as humans apply it to themselves. IRL I'm fond of the statement "There is only one race: the human race". All other uses of the term are lies as there is no real biological distinctions between humans, all of whom share the same ancestry.
I'd rather the term actually come to mean different sapient creatures of unrelated origins i.e. Martians and Kryptonians are Alien Races - even though Kryptonians look entirely human. Elves and Dwarves being different 'races' works for me if 'race' is understood to mean, createures from different worlds or dimensions, or otherwise have completely different divine origins from one another etc. rather than as a term that means difference within a species, differences which don't have any real value anyway. Describing differences between elves and dwarves or vulcans and klingons do have value beyond a name for cultural differences, but rather genuinely biological differences - but ones that do not hail from common evolutionary ancestry.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thank you for your time and please have a very pleasant day.
Even then, in that article it says that race is either synonymous with subspecies or is even further down. The various "races" in D&D lore are not all part of the same species, and are therefore not subspecies or further down the scale - races, speaking from the point of view of modern English, is not technically correct.
There's no evidence that D&D follows the rules of modern biology, but given the similarities and the canon existence of a lot of mixes, most of the "races" in D&D lore should probably be considered the same species.
There is evidence that it specifically doesn't follow the rules of modern biology. At least not natural biology. An example of such evidence is Owlbears.
Magic is the mcguffin of choice to explain many things in D&D and even the playtest material justify it by saying the "magic of the multiverse"
I however find this to be lazy writing and an excuse to justify what in my day was called "Twinking" which meant trying to stack multiple benefits to create a character that these days are known as mary-sue/gary-stew meaning having all the superpowers and none of the flaws without having to work for any of it. I prefer when certain structural restriction are actually in place to make characters fit into specific niches/roles.
D&D races are definitely not the same species as one another howerver. Some of them don't even originate from the same plane of existence let alone the same planet, so definitely not the same ancient dire ape.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thank you for your time and please have a very pleasant day.
The phrase "offence is taken and not given" exists for a reason: because this particular Ouroboros circle once started never stops.
Or because it's a quick an easy way to throw up a shield and deflect away from any stupid or gross things the person invoking that phrase might have said. That's usually how I see it employed at least.
The phrase exists because what one does and does not find offensive is inherently subjective and different to every person; entirely contingent upon our own moral perspective. There are some things that most of us agree are offensive or in bad taste; but there are people for whom those things are also hilarious; which is also why comedy is equally subjective. Thus what YOU personally find offensive is entirely dependant upon your own subjective experience and moral code; which is why we say "offence is TAKEN"; it is not the words themselves that are inherently offensive; you have deemed them so. The words themselves are merely ink on a page, pixels on a screen, or vibrations in the air.
As Shawn stated above your post, once you are aware that something is offensive to a particular crowd - in this case, your D&D group - continuing to use it is absolutely giving offence.
going to apply ancestry/species instead of race because some sensibilities changed, will just cause the same thing going on 30 years later. Then people will talk how insensible it is to differentiate dwarves and elves via ancestriest/specieist terms or how fantasy ancestrism/speciesm is a reflection of real world racisms.
Are you arguing that making a change to a single term is not worth it because you might have to make a similarly miniscule change again 30 years later? That does not sound like a lot of work to me.
Imagine being a DM and you have to describe a certain character but can't use the terms race or any word that would donate the race of it like dwarf.
This is a strawman. Pretty much everyone in the thread is fine with similar terms like lineage, heritage, ancestry, whatever.
If it doesn't bother anyone at your table, keep saying race. If it does, substitute another term. It's not hard. It's not some outrageous imposition on you. It's just basic human consideration of others.
Even then, in that article it says that race is either synonymous with subspecies or is even further down. The various "races" in D&D lore are not all part of the same species, and are therefore not subspecies or further down the scale - races, speaking from the point of view of modern English, is not technically correct.
There's no evidence that D&D follows the rules of modern biology, but given the similarities and the canon existence of a lot of mixes, most of the "races" in D&D lore should probably be considered the same species.
Some, certainly. Halflings and Humans could easily be variants of the same species. However, even PHB races are conclusively not of the same species - Dragonborn and Elves are certainly different to Humans.
The fundamental problem is that "race" is being used as a subset of the grouping that contains "every creature that is intelligent enough to lead a civilised life, if it so chose", and that's not even close to what species or race means.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
...vulcans and klingons do have value beyond a name for cultural differences, but rather genuinely biological differences - but ones that do not hail from common evolutionary ancestry.
I'm going to be that guy and say that Vulcans and Klingons do have common evolutionary ancestry ;)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Simply, where gods actually exist evolution is a lie (IT IS REAL ON EARTH, NOT A CONSPIRORIST). If the gods aren't tweaking genes, or straight up creating new species, I'd be surprised. At least in my mind, it means an overarching Sentient 'Species', whereas at least Humanlike creatures could be considered races of the Sapient Species. Also, there are terms like 'The Human Race', which considering that other Sapients used to exist, like Neanderthals, could be used as a synonym for Race.
Or it could just be that it is just used as a synonym of Species and Merriam-Webster hasn't caught up yet.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Helper of Create a World thread/Sedge is Chaotic Neutral/ Mega Yahtzee High: 34, Low: 14/I speak English, je me parle le Francais, agus Labhraim beagan Gaeilge
Some, certainly. Halflings and Humans could easily be variants of the same species. However, even PHB races are conclusively not of the same species - Dragonborn and Elves are certainly different to Humans.
Elves are undoubtedly the same species as human -- they produce stable crossbreeds.
The phrase "offence is taken and not given" exists for a reason: because this particular Ouroboros circle once started never stops.
Or because it's a quick an easy way to throw up a shield and deflect away from any stupid or gross things the person invoking that phrase might have said. That's usually how I see it employed at least.
The phrase exists because what one does and does not find offensive is inherently subjective and different to every person; entirely contingent upon our own moral perspective. There are some things that most of us agree are offensive or in bad taste; but there are people for whom those things are also hilarious; which is also why comedy is equally subjective. Thus what YOU personally find offensive is entirely dependant upon your own subjective experience and moral code; which is why we say "offence is TAKEN"; it is not the words themselves that are inherently offensive; you have deemed them so. The words themselves are merely ink on a page, pixels on a screen, or vibrations in the air.
As Shawn stated above your post, once you are aware that something is offensive to a particular crowd - in this case, your D&D group - continuing to use it is absolutely giving offence.
I haven't the spare time or energy to care equally about the subjective offence of every hypothetical person on Earth; and neither does WotC. Changing MY particular behaviour for a particular person at a particular table is one thing; demanding that a company, nay; an entire sub-culture/genre of game change for YOUR sensibilities is another matter entirely.
...vulcans and klingons do have value beyond a name for cultural differences, but rather genuinely biological differences - but ones that do not hail from common evolutionary ancestry.
I'm going to be that guy and say that Vulcans and Klingons do have common evolutionary ancestry ;)
nods, but the split was far enough in the past that genuine biological differences now exist between them.
Some, certainly. Halflings and Humans could easily be variants of the same species. However, even PHB races are conclusively not of the same species - Dragonborn and Elves are certainly different to Humans.
Elves are undoubtedly the same species as human -- they produce stable crossbreeds.
Are you just trolling or what? Elves and Humans produce hybrids in spite of being fundamentally different creatures, not because of not being fundamentally different: & it's the human that allows for the hybridization - with elves and with almost everyone else too for some reason. The only creatures with a wider taste in lovers are Dragons.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thank you for your time and please have a very pleasant day.
Are you just trolling or what? Elves and Humans produce hybrids in spite of being fundamentally different creatures, not because of not being fundamentally different: & it's the human that allows for the hybridization - with elves and with almost everyone else too for some reason. The only creatures with a wider taste in lovers are Dragons.
No, really, it's pretty obvious that elves are just humans with some extra bit of magic (presumably from the feywild) mixed in that vastly extends their lifespan and has other minor effects. Just like tieflings have a bit of fiend mixed in and ardlings/aasimar have a bit of celestial mixed in and genasi have a bit of elemental mixed in.
Elves are undoubtedly the same species as human -- they produce stable crossbreeds.
Are you just trolling or what? Elves and Humans produce hybrids in spite of being fundamentally different creatures, not because of not being fundamentally different: & it's the human that allows for the hybridization - with elves and with almost everyone else too for some reason. The only creatures with a wider taste in lovers are Dragons.
Actually according to biology the definition of a species is just that. Now in D&D lore Elves were made by a different human looking god that the human looking god who made humans. But since Half-Elves are a thing, Elves would count to a biologist as Homo Saipan Eldari or something similar. Of coare Humans in Toril would probably get Homo Saipan Toril. Because they would not be from Earth, even if Toril looks like Earth after a five year old drew on the map.
--- Also we as players accept the story that AO created the reality, and the Gods made the worlds and the peoples on them, what if this isn't true. What if in a past iteration of the D&D universe the gods rebooted our universe into that universe, and all the races are actually Humans that were changed by the Gods, Devil, and Elementals. I mean the Ithilid self created that way officially, and the game devs admitted that this is actually common.
Words do matter and different people have different reactions to them.
I'm a 50 something white guy, my niece asked if I would DM a game for her and some friends (an ethnic and gender diverse group) who had never played DnD before and for them 'race' is problematic. I changed to using Ancestry - removing my use of the problematic term fixed the problem. If I followed the idea of - "offence is taken and not given" - after I was informed 'race' was a problematic term for anyone at my table, my continued use of it would of been "giving offence".
It's simply an example of the term being problematic for me and my table. It's all part of the Veils and Lines concept.
I'm not here to argue, just to point out that it was a problematic term at my table and there was an easy fix for it. Over the decades my table has become more diverse with players coming from many different backgrounds, ethnicities, genders, etc... and I've had to learn how to increase my sensitivities to the views, feeling and experience of other people.
If the term 'race' stays I'll still be playing the game, as I have for years - by removing/changing things that I've learned are problematic for my tables. I simply believe that there are better more concise terms that can be used in our current day and age.
Cheers.
The intent behind the words matter and that can be very tough to ascertain in text. So if in stead of cussing I say "food", my intent is cussing but people probably would not know it or take offence. I also think we have to be careful in not being over reactive in going either direction, ie ban everything or ban nothing.
Or because it's a quick an easy way to throw up a shield and deflect away from any stupid or gross things the person invoking that phrase might have said. That's usually how I see it employed at least.
The phrase exists because what one does and does not find offensive is inherently subjective and different to every person; entirely contingent upon our own moral perspective. There are some things that most of us agree are offensive or in bad taste; but there are people for whom those things are also hilarious; which is also why comedy is equally subjective. Thus what YOU personally find offensive is entirely dependant upon your own subjective experience and moral code; which is why we say "offence is TAKEN"; it is not the words themselves that are inherently offensive; you have deemed them so. The words themselves are merely ink on a page, pixels on a screen, or vibrations in the air.
To continue the parallel with humour instead of offence: genuine laughter is an involuntary response to what is often a transgressive statement; it is funny because it is unexpected, and you will laugh whether you think it is in "good taste" or not. Which is why we all laughed at George Carlin saying the words one cannot say on television; even if we pretended not to when Grandma was watching. This is also why a certain breed of "comedian" gets applause and not laughter; because applause is a performative act: used to show allegiance or appreciation; not an involuntary one.
If we're going to speak about rhetorical shields then very well: as an indigenous person, I'm frankly sick of being USED as one by people who just want to police others.
I have to agree with CaptainCorvid
going to apply ancestry/species instead of race because some sensibilities changed, will just cause the same thing going on 30 years later. Then people will talk how insensible it is to differentiate dwarves and elves via ancestriest/specieist terms or how fantasy ancestrism/speciesm is a reflection of real world racisms.
But the thing is, race is a term to differentiate creatures of similar features, it is needed for that.
Or else we can throw out the baby with the bathwater.
Imagine being a DM and you have to describe a certain character but can't use the terms race or any word that would donate the race of it like dwarf.
DM: The character is shorter then the average
Player: A Halfling?
DM: No, they are also good with tools.
Player: So a gnome. By the way this is racist to imply all gnomes are good with tools.
DM: No, and that's not what i meant. The character is also rather good with weapons, and likes to drink?
Player: So a dwarf? And same thing, this is quite racist to say all dwarfs are small drinking weapon and tools creatures.
DM: ....
This example is exaggerated, but this is where we head down with applying to sensibilities too much. We need terms to differentiate. Be it people, creatures, objects, or we end in a world where everything is offensive and everything is forbidden to say.
I would rather try to challenge people why they think words are offensive to them, and why they need to feel offended, when they just could get it that the word is a descriptive term so we can communicate at all.
Edit: Note i'm not a native english speaker so my view might be different. Like i can not wrap my head around using ancestry instead of race, the word just sounds wrong to me. I looked up some thesaurus to get alternatives but most are bad. the best word seems to be folks or peoples, but they sound somewhat strange to me considering what i know about english.
Race is a term to differentiate people along social, cultural, and ethnic lines, which is why it's not a great term to use in D&D. Being a dragon, elf, githyanki, or human is not a matter of political, cultural, and geographical distinction. It's not a social construct. D&D wants to refer to creatures with significantly distinct biological characteristics, and this just isn't the right term to use.
The fact that race essentialism has historically been used as a way to imagine a scientific justification for oppression is also not a good look, and a weird thing to want to reference in your game, but that's not even really the main issue.
Except it isn't? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(biology)
Notice that it doesn't even reference humans there.
Even then, in that article it says that race is either synonymous with subspecies or is even further down. The various "races" in D&D lore are not all part of the same species, and are therefore not subspecies or further down the scale - races, speaking from the point of view of modern English, is not technically correct.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
There's no evidence that D&D follows the rules of modern biology, but given the similarities and the canon existence of a lot of mixes, most of the "races" in D&D lore should probably be considered the same species.
The problem isn't with the term race in fantasy or sci-fi, its with the term race in real life. The concept needs to cease to exist as humans apply it to themselves. IRL I'm fond of the statement "There is only one race: the human race". All other uses of the term are lies as there is no real biological distinctions between humans, all of whom share the same ancestry.
I'd rather the term actually come to mean different sapient creatures of unrelated origins i.e. Martians and Kryptonians are Alien Races - even though Kryptonians look entirely human. Elves and Dwarves being different 'races' works for me if 'race' is understood to mean, createures from different worlds or dimensions, or otherwise have completely different divine origins from one another etc. rather than as a term that means difference within a species, differences which don't have any real value anyway. Describing differences between elves and dwarves or vulcans and klingons do have value beyond a name for cultural differences, but rather genuinely biological differences - but ones that do not hail from common evolutionary ancestry.
Thank you for your time and please have a very pleasant day.
There is evidence that it specifically doesn't follow the rules of modern biology. At least not natural biology. An example of such evidence is Owlbears.
Magic is the mcguffin of choice to explain many things in D&D and even the playtest material justify it by saying the "magic of the multiverse"
I however find this to be lazy writing and an excuse to justify what in my day was called "Twinking" which meant trying to stack multiple benefits to create a character that these days are known as mary-sue/gary-stew meaning having all the superpowers and none of the flaws without having to work for any of it. I prefer when certain structural restriction are actually in place to make characters fit into specific niches/roles.
D&D races are definitely not the same species as one another howerver. Some of them don't even originate from the same plane of existence let alone the same planet, so definitely not the same ancient dire ape.
Thank you for your time and please have a very pleasant day.
As Shawn stated above your post, once you are aware that something is offensive to a particular crowd - in this case, your D&D group - continuing to use it is absolutely giving offence.
Are you arguing that making a change to a single term is not worth it because you might have to make a similarly miniscule change again 30 years later? That does not sound like a lot of work to me.
This is a strawman. Pretty much everyone in the thread is fine with similar terms like lineage, heritage, ancestry, whatever.
If it doesn't bother anyone at your table, keep saying race. If it does, substitute another term. It's not hard. It's not some outrageous imposition on you. It's just basic human consideration of others.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
Some, certainly. Halflings and Humans could easily be variants of the same species. However, even PHB races are conclusively not of the same species - Dragonborn and Elves are certainly different to Humans.
The fundamental problem is that "race" is being used as a subset of the grouping that contains "every creature that is intelligent enough to lead a civilised life, if it so chose", and that's not even close to what species or race means.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
I'm going to be that guy and say that Vulcans and Klingons do have common evolutionary ancestry ;)
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Simply, where gods actually exist evolution is a lie (IT IS REAL ON EARTH, NOT A CONSPIRORIST). If the gods aren't tweaking genes, or straight up creating new species, I'd be surprised. At least in my mind, it means an overarching Sentient 'Species', whereas at least Humanlike creatures could be considered races of the Sapient Species. Also, there are terms like 'The Human Race', which considering that other Sapients used to exist, like Neanderthals, could be used as a synonym for Race.
Or it could just be that it is just used as a synonym of Species and Merriam-Webster hasn't caught up yet.
Helper of Create a World thread/Sedge is Chaotic Neutral/ Mega Yahtzee High: 34, Low: 14/I speak English, je me parle le Francais, agus Labhraim beagan Gaeilge
Dream of Days Lore Bard 9/Wizard 4 Baulder's Gate: Descent to Avernus (In Person/Over Zoom)
Saleadon Morgul Battle Smith Artificer 11 Tyranny of Dragons (In Person/Over Zoom)
Hurtharn Serpti Ghostslayer Blood Hunter 7 Spelljammer (Over Zoom)
Ex Sig
Elves are undoubtedly the same species as human -- they produce stable crossbreeds.
I haven't the spare time or energy to care equally about the subjective offence of every hypothetical person on Earth; and neither does WotC. Changing MY particular behaviour for a particular person at a particular table is one thing; demanding that a company, nay; an entire sub-culture/genre of game change for YOUR sensibilities is another matter entirely.
nods, but the split was far enough in the past that genuine biological differences now exist between them.
Are you just trolling or what? Elves and Humans produce hybrids in spite of being fundamentally different creatures, not because of not being fundamentally different: & it's the human that allows for the hybridization - with elves and with almost everyone else too for some reason. The only creatures with a wider taste in lovers are Dragons.
Thank you for your time and please have a very pleasant day.
No, really, it's pretty obvious that elves are just humans with some extra bit of magic (presumably from the feywild) mixed in that vastly extends their lifespan and has other minor effects. Just like tieflings have a bit of fiend mixed in and ardlings/aasimar have a bit of celestial mixed in and genasi have a bit of elemental mixed in.
Actually according to biology the definition of a species is just that. Now in D&D lore Elves were made by a different human looking god that the human looking god who made humans. But since Half-Elves are a thing, Elves would count to a biologist as Homo Saipan Eldari or something similar. Of coare Humans in Toril would probably get Homo Saipan Toril. Because they would not be from Earth, even if Toril looks like Earth after a five year old drew on the map.
---
Also we as players accept the story that AO created the reality, and the Gods made the worlds and the peoples on them, what if this isn't true. What if in a past iteration of the D&D universe the gods rebooted our universe into that universe, and all the races are actually Humans that were changed by the Gods, Devil, and Elementals. I mean the Ithilid self created that way officially, and the game devs admitted that this is actually common.