The word species feels strangely out of place in fantasy.
I've never read a fantasy novel where any character who wasn't some high browed professor who's clinical language was supposed to be looked down on, refer to elves or dwarves or gnomes as 'species'
There are plenty of other options for a replacement word.
I'd say Folk or Kind is a pretty good one. Folk Used quite often in Tolkiens stuff, sometimes used in other big fantasy media like ASOIAF and The Witcher. Brings to mind Halflings.
The most often I see in fantasy books is terms like Lineage, Blood or Kind. (I imagine blood is out for the same reason race is) Ancestry, Heritage can work too, I see ancestry a lot in fantasy revolving around elves.
I do think phenotype might be more accurate scientifically, but I think the feel of the word is definitely more important than it's sciency-ness. As fantasy peoples rarely obey the internal logic of their own worlds, let alone across the DND multiverse.
They won't use Ancestry due to it being used in Pathfinder and it would make non-players think D&D is copying Pathfinder and choose Pathfinder instead (which would be hilariously ironic).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond. Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ thisFAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
We can keep chasing our tails over terms, until someday - propably in a future so distant none of us will live to see it - we're all out of words .. or, in some even more distant future, we realise the problem really isn't the term, but the intention.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
I don't remember the last time I used the word 'race' in character in D&D, and wow, am I super glad about that. We probably shouldn't, ever, and the same goes for "species" or any other placeholder noun. It's a rules word.
When was the last time one of your characters said "what level are you in your class" or "I have proficiency in that skill?"
The word species feels strangely out of place in fantasy.
I've never read a fantasy novel where any character who wasn't some high browed professor who's clinical language was supposed to be looked down on, refer to elves or dwarves or gnomes as 'species'
There are plenty of other options for a replacement word.
Weird how people keep saying this, as the word dates back to the 1500s. Which is around the same time rapiers first appeared.
So if species is too modern or sci-fi for DnD, rapiers don't fit in either.
I don't remember the last time I used the word 'race' in character in D&D, and wow, am I super glad about that. We probably shouldn't, ever, and the same goes for "species" or any other placeholder noun. It's a rules word.
When was the last time one of your characters said "what level are you in your class" or "I have proficiency in that skill?"
I guess we should get rid of the term "level" then. If so, then how do I communicate the idea of what we currently express as "I'm doing an 11th level one-shot?"
We need a term in order communicate ideas efficiently between players. It's valid to discuss what term we should use, but not having it at all, while the relevant concept exists in the game, is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Besides, race/species/whatever could easily come up in the game. "Someone robbed me!" "Could you describe them? What ______ were they?" "They were a red Dragonborn".
The word species feels strangely out of place in fantasy.
I've never read a fantasy novel where any character who wasn't some high browed professor who's clinical language was supposed to be looked down on, refer to elves or dwarves or gnomes as 'species'
There are plenty of other options for a replacement word.
Weird how people keep saying this, as the word dates back to the 1500s. Which is around the same time rapiers first appeared.
So if species is too modern or sci-fi for DnD, rapiers don't fit in either.
I'm not sure anyone is complaining about the date the term was invented. Their objection is the tone, which doesn't necessarily relate to what date the term was first used (especially since the meaning has significantly narrowed since). They find it jarring.
Even as someone who has argued for the need for a change, I've always had to admit that a suitable replacement is hard to find and that species has a much more scientific tone than archaic/fantastical. While some suggestions have been better than others, and better than race in particular, none have really sat right with me.
Species is a step forward in this, but I don't feel it's perfect either. It's still inaccurate and it is immersion breaking for many, it's just better because it doesn't have the baggage and even greater inaccuracy that race has.
There are a lot of problems that revolve around this, partly people don't understand what the terms mean and how they work, partly English evolved with the concept that only humans have human level intelligence. We just don't have words to group these kind of entities together and categorise them. We're having to bastardise other words to do so, which inherently brings inaccuracies and problems.
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 don't think "species" needs to be a perfect fit to be a valid replacement. It just needs to be better than "race". Which I think it is. It doesn't have the baggage that comes along with the term "race". It's definitely not a perfect term and certainly evokes a different theme than "race", but perfect is the enemy of good.
I think species is fine for an immediate answer, and given WotC's recent push changes to insensitive content I'm confident they'd be willing to look at even more neutral terms such as lineage, ancestry or my favourite mentioned on this thread, 'folk' (thanks Rognir!) in the future.
Zero is the most important number in D&D: Session Zero sets the boundaries and the tone; Rule Zero dictates the Dungeon Master (DM) is the final arbiter; and Zero D&D is better than Bad D&D.
"Let us speak plainly now, and in earnest, for words mean little without the weight of conviction."
They're realising hexagonal wheels work better than square ones.
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.
I need to read the PDF, but species means you can interbreed. If Elves and Humans are different species, then half-elves are either all sterile, or won't exist.
Besides that, LINEAGE is such a better word. Heck, they could steal from another WotC property and just call it "creature type".
Just a thought (and I dont really have an issue with the terminology myself) but how about the following as a rough example of an alternative for a revised/new PHB:
***
Chapter Heading: Playable Creatures.
Description: The following chapter details the various creatures options you can use to make a character for D&D, however as each game of D&D is different, please work with your DM and confirm if the option you would like to play is supported by the game the DM is planning on running. Although we are using the term "playable creatures" other terms such as race, lineage, ancestry, type and species may also be used to describe these options and you should feel frree to use whatever term is confortable for your group.
The options below represent those creatures that have taken up adventuring for one reason or another and may differ from those listed in the Monster Manual or other publication in terms of temprement, ability and general outlook on life.
***
There you go, what would you folks think of that?
EDIT: and then you go into the Monster Manual stide of things with a similar disclaimer about these being the non-playable/monster creatures that may be used within a game of D&D.
Go with origin, upbringing, culture, or some such and do away with bonuses that are actually tied to genetics/construction.
Can you actually do away with bonuses tied to physiology when you have peoples that have wings and can fly and those that can breath fire? While I totally agree some things should not be tied to physiology, such as ability scores, proficiencies, or language, I don't see it possible separate physiological traits from physiology.
The word species feels strangely out of place in fantasy.
I've never read a fantasy novel where any character who wasn't some high browed professor who's clinical language was supposed to be looked down on, refer to elves or dwarves or gnomes as 'species'
There are plenty of other options for a replacement word.
Name some? I mean, phenotype is probably more accurate than species, but hardly makes it less high browed.
I'd say Folk or Kind is a pretty good one. Folk Used quite often in Tolkiens stuff, sometimes used in other big fantasy media like ASOIAF and The Witcher. Brings to mind Halflings.
The most often I see in fantasy books is terms like Lineage, Blood or Kind. (I imagine blood is out for the same reason race is) Ancestry, Heritage can work too, I see ancestry a lot in fantasy revolving around elves.
I do think phenotype might be more accurate scientifically, but I think the feel of the word is definitely more important than it's sciency-ness. As fantasy peoples rarely obey the internal logic of their own worlds, let alone across the DND multiverse.
They won't use Ancestry due to it being used in Pathfinder and it would make non-players think D&D is copying Pathfinder and choose Pathfinder instead (which would be hilariously ironic).
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond.
Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ this FAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
I didn't know Pathfinder was using ancestry, and if that is the reason then its very dumb of them
We can keep chasing our tails over terms, until someday - propably in a future so distant none of us will live to see it - we're all out of words .. or, in some even more distant future, we realise the problem really isn't the term, but the intention.
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
I don't remember the last time I used the word 'race' in character in D&D, and wow, am I super glad about that. We probably shouldn't, ever, and the same goes for "species" or any other placeholder noun. It's a rules word.
When was the last time one of your characters said "what level are you in your class" or "I have proficiency in that skill?"
J
Great Wyrm Moonstone Dungeon Master
The time of the ORC has come. No OGL without irrevocability; no OGL with 'authorized version' language. #openDND
Practice, practice, practice • Respect the rules; don't memorize them • Be merciless, not cruel • Don't let the dice run the game for you
Weird how people keep saying this, as the word dates back to the 1500s. Which is around the same time rapiers first appeared.
So if species is too modern or sci-fi for DnD, rapiers don't fit in either.
I guess we should get rid of the term "level" then. If so, then how do I communicate the idea of what we currently express as "I'm doing an 11th level one-shot?"
We need a term in order communicate ideas efficiently between players. It's valid to discuss what term we should use, but not having it at all, while the relevant concept exists in the game, is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Besides, race/species/whatever could easily come up in the game. "Someone robbed me!" "Could you describe them? What ______ were they?" "They were a red Dragonborn".
I'm not sure anyone is complaining about the date the term was invented. Their objection is the tone, which doesn't necessarily relate to what date the term was first used (especially since the meaning has significantly narrowed since). They find it jarring.
Even as someone who has argued for the need for a change, I've always had to admit that a suitable replacement is hard to find and that species has a much more scientific tone than archaic/fantastical. While some suggestions have been better than others, and better than race in particular, none have really sat right with me.
Species is a step forward in this, but I don't feel it's perfect either. It's still inaccurate and it is immersion breaking for many, it's just better because it doesn't have the baggage and even greater inaccuracy that race has.
There are a lot of problems that revolve around this, partly people don't understand what the terms mean and how they work, partly English evolved with the concept that only humans have human level intelligence. We just don't have words to group these kind of entities together and categorise them. We're having to bastardise other words to do so, which inherently brings inaccuracies and problems.
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 don't think "species" needs to be a perfect fit to be a valid replacement. It just needs to be better than "race". Which I think it is. It doesn't have the baggage that comes along with the term "race". It's definitely not a perfect term and certainly evokes a different theme than "race", but perfect is the enemy of good.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I think species is fine for an immediate answer, and given WotC's recent push changes to insensitive content I'm confident they'd be willing to look at even more neutral terms such as lineage, ancestry or my favourite mentioned on this thread, 'folk' (thanks Rognir!) in the future.
Zero is the most important number in D&D: Session Zero sets the boundaries and the tone; Rule Zero dictates the Dungeon Master (DM) is the final arbiter; and Zero D&D is better than Bad D&D.
"Let us speak plainly now, and in earnest, for words mean little without the weight of conviction."
- The Assemblage of Houses, World of Warcraft
Lineage.
[REDACTED]
Why are they trying to reinvent the wheel?
"You are a beginner once, but a student for life." - Firearm Instruction Adage.
They're realising hexagonal wheels work better than square ones.
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.
The term species is still not inclusive for warforged and autognomes. Robot isn't a species. [REDACTED]
Go with origin, upbringing, culture, or some such and do away with bonuses that are actually tied to genetics/construction.
I need to read the PDF, but species means you can interbreed. If Elves and Humans are different species, then half-elves are either all sterile, or won't exist.
Besides that, LINEAGE is such a better word. Heck, they could steal from another WotC property and just call it "creature type".
Just a thought (and I dont really have an issue with the terminology myself) but how about the following as a rough example of an alternative for a revised/new PHB:
***
Chapter Heading: Playable Creatures.
Description: The following chapter details the various creatures options you can use to make a character for D&D, however as each game of D&D is different, please work with your DM and confirm if the option you would like to play is supported by the game the DM is planning on running. Although we are using the term "playable creatures" other terms such as race, lineage, ancestry, type and species may also be used to describe these options and you should feel frree to use whatever term is confortable for your group.
The options below represent those creatures that have taken up adventuring for one reason or another and may differ from those listed in the Monster Manual or other publication in terms of temprement, ability and general outlook on life.
***
There you go, what would you folks think of that?
EDIT: and then you go into the Monster Manual stide of things with a similar disclaimer about these being the non-playable/monster creatures that may be used within a game of D&D.
Can you actually do away with bonuses tied to physiology when you have peoples that have wings and can fly and those that can breath fire? While I totally agree some things should not be tied to physiology, such as ability scores, proficiencies, or language, I don't see it possible separate physiological traits from physiology.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here