When I ever read/hear words like “progression”, “inclusivity”, and/or “Modernization” I worry about the future of the product that I have heavily invested in. As normal companies throwing around terminology like that always leads the product to the ground with no chance of recovery, I have seen it too many times.
I will be quite honest, if WotC wanted to “Help” the community, why wasn’t this subject brought up to the community. Why was there a Thread titled “WotC would like everyone’s input about if the word Race should be still used in D&D or be replaced with a new Word, Polls inside the Thread.”
now I will tell you that I have heard people use the word “species” before in bad taste, so for me if Race was changed to Species, then I would take a bit offense to it has its been used in vile and degrading situations more so then race.
The poll or discussion shouldn't make much of a difference, though. When you make any decisions to protect minorities or marginalized/discriminated groups, you can't really ask the privileged dominant groups if things need to change and expect much willingness. So if the poll came back at 10% in favor or 25% in favor or 40% in favor, it wouldn't matter.
Why? Because it's a qualitative problem, not a quantitative one. Quantity might give a clue about how many feel the need, while quality describes how severe the need is. Even a marginal quantity of severe needs / suffering should be addressed if possible. And as a company, wotc has all the tools to protect those people. So a quantitative poll would probably only do harm, because people would just look at the numbers.
I think that the term “race” should go, not because it is offensive; I strongly believe that offensive language is not about the words themselves, but the intent behind them. There will be jerks who will abuse any word you can think of and use it as an insult… but I digress.
I am not happy about the term “species” either, as it is somewhat misleading. I have really hard time viewing half-elves, half-orcs, tieflings, or automatons as separate species.
I am not sure if there is a perfect word, maybe we should invent some. Or by using an old word in different context it can gain a meaning more suitable for role-playing games.
From all the suggestions in this thread, I really liked the origin the most, though that word can mean a lot more than just a “race”.
Why is it, anyway, that we are allowing racists to just claim the word 'race' and prevent any good use of it? Why not take it back from them? Why not make a stand and say, "This is what we will use to refer to all sapient species, human or not. Human is a race, one race. Elf is another. Minotaur is another."
I still feel that the word 'species' is more divisive than 'race'. To me, as a European so not as immersed in US race politics, species refers to cats and dogs and horses etc., while race is a convenient descriptor for which part of the world your human ancestors came from, be it Asia, Africa, Europe, or Mars.
Think of it this way in game terms. A minotaur and centaur meet, enjoy each other's company, and start a relationship. If they're races then such a relationship is interracial; if they're species then it's an interspecies relationship. Which of those two terms made your eye twitch a little because of the implied associations?
My vote goes to Lineage as my first pick with Species being a not preferred and bland but ultimately ok 2nd choice. 2nd because I haven't spent time considering other terms so Species is by default second.
1. "Lineage" can work for everything (It might be a slight stretch that lineage can apply to constructs and other creatures like that but I can see it working in a more Sci-fi setting for robots so I'd say it can work for a fantasy setting) and it just sounds COOLER and more fantasy than species. Rule of cool right? Super important and valid rule, but honestly hearing that phrase all the time gets annoying after awhile that I cringe a little even typing it.
2. "Species" just sounds too scientific to me and it seems an odd choice on DnD's part as, as far as I can tell, DnD supports recent changes in our modern culture like proper pronouns, which validity aside are not scientific. I think DnD should pick to consistently be more scientific or less in their terminology to match their views, within reason obviously. I'm not advocating for crazy large changes that affect the entire dynamic of the game. The scientifically correct "Species" just gives a sense of disjointedness to me for DnD. "Lineage" FEELS way better to me in the context of fantasy gaming and evokes a bit more of that fantasy/medieval setting feeling.
That said, "Species" IS a valid option by definition so I can begrudgingly accept it despite it lacking the flair and panache of "Lineage".
My other initial point against species was that when I googled the definitions for "Race" and "Species", I didn't think "Species" worked because part of the definition was a bit about "...capable of exchanging genes or interbreeding" and my thought was does that mean we can't have an elf dad and a human mom anymore?! But then I remembered interspecies breeding is a thing and it still accounts for how some "Species" can interbreed but others can't. But wait does that mean that under "Race", everything was technically fair game as a pairing?! Also, oh lord what if "Race" was changed to "Breed". Can you imagine asking each other, "What Breed are you?" lol.
My vote goes to Lineage as my first pick with Species being a not preferred and bland but ultimately ok 2nd choice. 2nd because I haven't spent time considering other terms so Species is by default second.
It is probably worth noting that “Lineage” is all but certainly disqualified from consideration due to its already being an established D&D term. Presently, Lineage means “a special type of race choice where you are a transformed version of one of the other races - specifically a Reborn, Damphir, of Hexblood.” Because of the unique way these options work, they should be delineated with a unique term to quickly signal to players that they are slightly different than the other options.
That will create unnecessary confusion to folks who own physical copies of Ravenloft as well as folks who are used to the current terminology. Asking players to replace A with B is a pretty easy substation - asking players to replace A with the existing C and the existing C with a new D is a bit more prone to user error.
On one point this was never an issue back when we played Skyrim, World of Warcraft and many other cRPG fantasy games, but somehow when 5e became a thing there's a need to fix this?
With every problem that comes up, there has been a time when it wasn't considered a problem. Just because it wasn't a) raised in the past or b) raised by someone else, that doesn't mean it's not worth addressing. Especially when it's a simple word change that has next to no negatives riding with it.
By the way, Skyrim got rid of gender differences in terms of stat bonuses, which used to be a thing in The Elder Scrolls series. It's not like Elder Scrolls et al are ignorant of this kind of thing, there are just different focuses, different approaches and different priorities.
Yes, that is true. For example: Slavery used to be normal in some places. I'm not comparing what WOtC is doing with slavery, but slavery is considered barbaric and despicable by everyone now.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm Hecate! I've got a lotta titles, and there's no way this sig space would hold them all lol
remember that my PMs are always open to anyone who needs someone to talk to, vent to, or just shout at, and i'll always respond relatively quickly
Everyone should also remember that all new words feel weird at first. A few years from now, "species" will feel completely natural and this conversation will be forgotten.
This same problem has been present before, when other words were replaced. You know what words I mean. Slurs for mentally disabled people, mentally ill people, sexual minorities, people of color, seniors etc. Those were all dropped and people were whining back then like they are now. But as years pass, those old words become the weird ones and the new ones feel natural. Until language changes again like it always does.
Everyone should also remember that all new words feel weird at first. A few years from now, "species" will feel completely natural and this conversation will be forgotten.
This same problem has been present before, when other words were replaced. You know what words I mean. Slurs for mentally disabled people, mentally ill people, sexual minorities, people of color, seniors etc. Those were all dropped and people were whining back then like they are now. But as years pass, those old words become the weird ones and the new ones feel natural. Until language changes again like it always does.
It's just a word. We'll all get used to it.
Now prefacing this by saying this entire thread I've started is all pedantic nerd-ery- And none of it is very important
But I feel like this is kinda like saying "WotC dominate the tabletop market and so dont have to try when it comes to language, as we'll all adapt to them."
From a creative writing perspective concepts and terms should be crafted to evoke feelings in the audience. So in a tabletop game the design terms on the character sheet should evoke a feel about the world and character-
Yes we'll all get used to it, but is it so much to ask that WotC put a little effort into presentation?
Everyone should also remember that all new words feel weird at first. A few years from now, "species" will feel completely natural and this conversation will be forgotten.
This same problem has been present before, when other words were replaced. You know what words I mean. Slurs for mentally disabled people, mentally ill people, sexual minorities, people of color, seniors etc. Those were all dropped and people were whining back then like they are now. But as years pass, those old words become the weird ones and the new ones feel natural. Until language changes again like it always does.
It's just a word. We'll all get used to it.
Nor prefacing this by saying this entire thread I've started is all pedantic nerd-ery-
I feel like this is kinda like saying "WotC dominate the tabletop market and so dont have to try when it comes to language, as we'll all adapt to them."
From a creative writing perspective concepts and terms should be crafted to evoke feelings in the audience. So in a tabletop game the design terms on the character sheet should evoke a feel about the world and character-
Yes we'll all get used to it, but is it so much to ask that WotC put a little effort into presentation?
Who is to say they did not? They chose a word which is slightly more accurate in its modern depiction, and which is etymologically older than their existing term. Race, dating to the 1500s, is a word from Modern English; Species has its origins in Latin, making its way through Old French and into Middle English by the 1300s. Spece, speche, espece (two Middle English and an Old French spellings) would have been a perfectly acceptable terms for “appearance, form, likeness” in the era D&D is trying to emulate, making it a flavourfully appropriate choice for the categorisation.
I think lineage would have been fine since we got Custom Lineage, but since Wizards used lineage as a term for a very specific subset of races/species in Ravenloft, it might get a bit confusing. Ancestry, folk, kindred, etc. are all fine by me too.
While species does not sound as fantasy-ish, it sounds more sci-fi to me, and I like that. I want Wizards to realize that 5e can do more than just fantasy, and explore other options more.
For a less setting-flavored term though, I think origin is pretty neutral to me, and it sounds fine in fantasy and sci-fi.
In a sufficiently magic (or sci fi, or...) setting, physiology itself need not be connected to lineage/parentage/blood/whatever.
Why do you assume that they are by default?
Because that's what the book says. You are born an "elf" or whatever, thus are stuck with "elf" traits.
(The One D&D UAs suggest a slightly better solution, wherein you can match the mechanics of one species with the aesthetics of another, but they still imply this is usually a strict result of your parentage.)
The root problem is forcing "peoples" to stay in buckets.
Well, that's just unreasonable. Whatever the reason -- genes, divine fiat, magic, or whatever -- a species is a bucket. Species are defined by a group of common traits. It makes good sense to free these game mechanics from harmful and wrong ideas about hereditary superiority or inferiority, but characters possessing traits that differentiate one "people" from another is something to be celebrated, not quashed. You can't have diversity without diversity.
The problem is not the bucketing (that's a different discussion altogether); it's connecting that bucket to the definition of a "people." It mechanically endorses a stereotype. "All elves are nimble" "all dwarves work with stone" "all orcs are brutal" or whatever. Calling that "diversity" is a red herring.
Its good to keep them biologically separated. I'm not a big fan of munchkins and this is what you will get. A lot of us are playing a game, its got rules and balance is important.
(see reply above)
It's fine to say "you have to pick one and only one of flight, stonecunning, and magical resistance" or whatever (let's assume those are all reasonably balanced against each other or packaged in such a way to be balanced...). That would stop the "munchkins" just as well as the current solutions.
The underlying problem (in the "problematic" sense) is forcing those traits to be tied to your identity as a person. And in a high magic setting (with all the assorted magitech and artifact stuff that comes with), there's no good argument to make them exclusively biological, either. There's no good game reason to say you can't gain darkvision from a feat or gain wings from an epic potion... those things would still be governed by the game, the game's balance, and the DM's judgement.
The underlying problem (in the "problematic" sense) is forcing those traits to be tied to your identity as a person. And in a high magic setting (with all the assorted magitech and artifact stuff that comes with), there's no good argument to make them exclusively biological, either. There's no good game reason to say you can't gain darkvision from a feat or gain wings from an epic potion... those things would still be governed by the game, the game's balance, and the DM's judgement.
In point build systems, this is handled by templates: "If you want to be a stereotypical X, buy these traits. If you prefer to build your own, you can".
The underlying problem (in the "problematic" sense) is forcing those traits to be tied to your identity as a person. And in a high magic setting (with all the assorted magitech and artifact stuff that comes with), there's no good argument to make them exclusively biological, either. There's no good game reason to say you can't gain darkvision from a feat or gain wings from an epic potion... those things would still be governed by the game, the game's balance, and the DM's judgement.
In point build systems, this is handled by templates: "If you want to be a stereotypical X, buy these traits. If you prefer to build your own, you can".
Yes, exactly. Sometimes those templates make point-buy a messier or more difficult procedure, but it does work.
One D&D is moving to make Backgrounds work this way, and (in my opinion) should keep iterating to make "species" work this way as well.
Kinda with the OP. I hate species as a name. Heritage or Ancestry or something else I think feels a bit better. Other that that, this is a nothing change as far as I am concerned.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Once again, I recommend the word "Kind". It is much less controversial, and although I don't have anything against the others, I think Kind has a nice ring to it. If you have any problems with that word, I actually would like to hear your opinion.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm Hecate! I've got a lotta titles, and there's no way this sig space would hold them all lol
remember that my PMs are always open to anyone who needs someone to talk to, vent to, or just shout at, and i'll always respond relatively quickly
Once again, I recommend the word "Kind". It is much less controversial, and although I don't have anything against the others, I think Kind has a nice ring to it. If you have any problems with that word, I actually would like to hear your opinion.
Kind is an extremely generic term that I would expect to confuse people.
I don't understand why we're trying to reinvent the wheel here. The word "Race" is a scientific term that only has a negative aspect to it if you allow it. We are the Human race after all. I see there being no issues continuing to call each playable "Group" a "Race"
I don't understand why we're trying to reinvent the wheel here. The word "Race" is a scientific term that only has a negative aspect to it if you allow it.
I don't understand why we're trying to reinvent the wheel here. The word "Race" is a scientific term that only has a negative aspect to it if you allow it.
It's not up to the speaker whether a term has negative aspects, it's up to the listener (or reader, in this case).
Funny how that only seems to be true sometimes. I for one am horribly offended by the term “queer,” as I don’t consider myself “abnormal” or “strange,” but whenever I mention it I’m told that I’m wrong for feeling that way since it isn’t being used in that context.
The poll or discussion shouldn't make much of a difference, though. When you make any decisions to protect minorities or marginalized/discriminated groups, you can't really ask the privileged dominant groups if things need to change and expect much willingness. So if the poll came back at 10% in favor or 25% in favor or 40% in favor, it wouldn't matter.
Why? Because it's a qualitative problem, not a quantitative one. Quantity might give a clue about how many feel the need, while quality describes how severe the need is. Even a marginal quantity of severe needs / suffering should be addressed if possible. And as a company, wotc has all the tools to protect those people. So a quantitative poll would probably only do harm, because people would just look at the numbers.
Finland GMT/UTC +2
I think that the term “race” should go, not because it is offensive; I strongly believe that offensive language is not about the words themselves, but the intent behind them. There will be jerks who will abuse any word you can think of and use it as an insult… but I digress.
I am not happy about the term “species” either, as it is somewhat misleading. I have really hard time viewing half-elves, half-orcs, tieflings, or automatons as separate species.
I am not sure if there is a perfect word, maybe we should invent some. Or by using an old word in different context it can gain a meaning more suitable for role-playing games.
From all the suggestions in this thread, I really liked the origin the most, though that word can mean a lot more than just a “race”.
Why is it, anyway, that we are allowing racists to just claim the word 'race' and prevent any good use of it? Why not take it back from them? Why not make a stand and say, "This is what we will use to refer to all sapient species, human or not. Human is a race, one race. Elf is another. Minotaur is another."
I still feel that the word 'species' is more divisive than 'race'. To me, as a European so not as immersed in US race politics, species refers to cats and dogs and horses etc., while race is a convenient descriptor for which part of the world your human ancestors came from, be it Asia, Africa, Europe, or Mars.
Think of it this way in game terms. A minotaur and centaur meet, enjoy each other's company, and start a relationship. If they're races then such a relationship is interracial; if they're species then it's an interspecies relationship. Which of those two terms made your eye twitch a little because of the implied associations?
My vote goes to Lineage as my first pick with Species being a not preferred and bland but ultimately ok 2nd choice. 2nd because I haven't spent time considering other terms so Species is by default second.
1. "Lineage" can work for everything (It might be a slight stretch that lineage can apply to constructs and other creatures like that but I can see it working in a more Sci-fi setting for robots so I'd say it can work for a fantasy setting) and it just sounds COOLER and more fantasy than species. Rule of cool right? Super important and valid rule, but honestly hearing that phrase all the time gets annoying after awhile that I cringe a little even typing it.
2. "Species" just sounds too scientific to me and it seems an odd choice on DnD's part as, as far as I can tell, DnD supports recent changes in our modern culture like proper pronouns, which validity aside are not scientific. I think DnD should pick to consistently be more scientific or less in their terminology to match their views, within reason obviously. I'm not advocating for crazy large changes that affect the entire dynamic of the game. The scientifically correct "Species" just gives a sense of disjointedness to me for DnD. "Lineage" FEELS way better to me in the context of fantasy gaming and evokes a bit more of that fantasy/medieval setting feeling.
That said, "Species" IS a valid option by definition so I can begrudgingly accept it despite it lacking the flair and panache of "Lineage".
My other initial point against species was that when I googled the definitions for "Race" and "Species", I didn't think "Species" worked because part of the definition was a bit about "...capable of exchanging genes or interbreeding" and my thought was does that mean we can't have an elf dad and a human mom anymore?! But then I remembered interspecies breeding is a thing and it still accounts for how some "Species" can interbreed but others can't. But wait does that mean that under "Race", everything was technically fair game as a pairing?! Also, oh lord what if "Race" was changed to "Breed". Can you imagine asking each other, "What Breed are you?" lol.
It is probably worth noting that “Lineage” is all but certainly disqualified from consideration due to its already being an established D&D term. Presently, Lineage means “a special type of race choice where you are a transformed version of one of the other races - specifically a Reborn, Damphir, of Hexblood.” Because of the unique way these options work, they should be delineated with a unique term to quickly signal to players that they are slightly different than the other options.
That will create unnecessary confusion to folks who own physical copies of Ravenloft as well as folks who are used to the current terminology. Asking players to replace A with B is a pretty easy substation - asking players to replace A with the existing C and the existing C with a new D is a bit more prone to user error.
Yes, that is true. For example: Slavery used to be normal in some places. I'm not comparing what WOtC is doing with slavery, but slavery is considered barbaric and despicable by everyone now.
I'm Hecate! I've got a lotta titles, and there's no way this sig space would hold them all lol
remember that my PMs are always open to anyone who needs someone to talk to, vent to, or just shout at, and i'll always respond relatively quickly
The Younger Twin (by ten minutes)
Extended signature: Here
Everyone should also remember that all new words feel weird at first. A few years from now, "species" will feel completely natural and this conversation will be forgotten.
This same problem has been present before, when other words were replaced. You know what words I mean. Slurs for mentally disabled people, mentally ill people, sexual minorities, people of color, seniors etc. Those were all dropped and people were whining back then like they are now. But as years pass, those old words become the weird ones and the new ones feel natural. Until language changes again like it always does.
It's just a word. We'll all get used to it.
Finland GMT/UTC +2
Now prefacing this by saying this entire thread I've started is all pedantic nerd-ery- And none of it is very important
But I feel like this is kinda like saying "WotC dominate the tabletop market and so dont have to try when it comes to language, as we'll all adapt to them."
From a creative writing perspective concepts and terms should be crafted to evoke feelings in the audience. So in a tabletop game the design terms on the character sheet should evoke a feel about the world and character-
Yes we'll all get used to it, but is it so much to ask that WotC put a little effort into presentation?
Who is to say they did not? They chose a word which is slightly more accurate in its modern depiction, and which is etymologically older than their existing term. Race, dating to the 1500s, is a word from Modern English; Species has its origins in Latin, making its way through Old French and into Middle English by the 1300s. Spece, speche, espece (two Middle English and an Old French spellings) would have been a perfectly acceptable terms for “appearance, form, likeness” in the era D&D is trying to emulate, making it a flavourfully appropriate choice for the categorisation.
I think lineage would have been fine since we got Custom Lineage, but since Wizards used lineage as a term for a very specific subset of races/species in Ravenloft, it might get a bit confusing. Ancestry, folk, kindred, etc. are all fine by me too.
While species does not sound as fantasy-ish, it sounds more sci-fi to me, and I like that. I want Wizards to realize that 5e can do more than just fantasy, and explore other options more.
For a less setting-flavored term though, I think origin is pretty neutral to me, and it sounds fine in fantasy and sci-fi.
Check Licenses and Resync Entitlements: < https://www.dndbeyond.com/account/licenses >
Running the Game by Matt Colville; Introduction: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-YZvLUXcR8 >
D&D with High School Students by Bill Allen; Season 1 Episode 1: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52NJTUDokyk&t >
Because that's what the book says. You are born an "elf" or whatever, thus are stuck with "elf" traits.
(The One D&D UAs suggest a slightly better solution, wherein you can match the mechanics of one species with the aesthetics of another, but they still imply this is usually a strict result of your parentage.)
The problem is not the bucketing (that's a different discussion altogether); it's connecting that bucket to the definition of a "people." It mechanically endorses a stereotype. "All elves are nimble" "all dwarves work with stone" "all orcs are brutal" or whatever. Calling that "diversity" is a red herring.
(see reply above)
It's fine to say "you have to pick one and only one of flight, stonecunning, and magical resistance" or whatever (let's assume those are all reasonably balanced against each other or packaged in such a way to be balanced...). That would stop the "munchkins" just as well as the current solutions.
The underlying problem (in the "problematic" sense) is forcing those traits to be tied to your identity as a person. And in a high magic setting (with all the assorted magitech and artifact stuff that comes with), there's no good argument to make them exclusively biological, either. There's no good game reason to say you can't gain darkvision from a feat or gain wings from an epic potion... those things would still be governed by the game, the game's balance, and the DM's judgement.
In point build systems, this is handled by templates: "If you want to be a stereotypical X, buy these traits. If you prefer to build your own, you can".
Yes, exactly. Sometimes those templates make point-buy a messier or more difficult procedure, but it does work.
One D&D is moving to make Backgrounds work this way, and (in my opinion) should keep iterating to make "species" work this way as well.
Kinda with the OP. I hate species as a name. Heritage or Ancestry or something else I think feels a bit better. Other that that, this is a nothing change as far as I am concerned.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
Once again, I recommend the word "Kind". It is much less controversial, and although I don't have anything against the others, I think Kind has a nice ring to it. If you have any problems with that word, I actually would like to hear your opinion.
I'm Hecate! I've got a lotta titles, and there's no way this sig space would hold them all lol
remember that my PMs are always open to anyone who needs someone to talk to, vent to, or just shout at, and i'll always respond relatively quickly
The Younger Twin (by ten minutes)
Extended signature: Here
Kind is an extremely generic term that I would expect to confuse people.
Especially non-native English speakers. "What kind of person are you?" "Yes, I'm kind. I'm a kind person."
I don't understand why we're trying to reinvent the wheel here. The word "Race" is a scientific term that only has a negative aspect to it if you allow it. We are the Human race after all. I see there being no issues continuing to call each playable "Group" a "Race"
Funny how that only seems to be true sometimes. I for one am horribly offended by the term “queer,” as I don’t consider myself “abnormal” or “strange,” but whenever I mention it I’m told that I’m wrong for feeling that way since it isn’t being used in that context.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting