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).
2. The issue of listener-driven for all is that people are offended by different things and it is impossible to come up with something that may not offend someone(s). After awhile you have to accept people just get offended by things not meaning to be offended and realize you can never please everyone.
That said, i've moved passed race awhile ago as it didn't seem fitting for various species changes. Races were more like sub-classes of elves or halflings instead of elves/halflings themselves.
We could force the change the term Class to be around species/races and have the current classes be something else. That might be more accurate... confusing but confusion has never stopped us.. we're fantasy game players.
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.
Well, the obvious answer to that is that the people telling you that you're wrong ... are wrong. The term 'queer', as far as I can tell, is an example of a slur being claimed as a point of pride by the people it originally targeted, which is an occasionally used method of disarming a slur, but that doesn't mean it wasn't originally a slur, or that it's appropriate to use on someone who does not choose to style themselves in that way.
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.
Well, the obvious answer to that is that the people telling you that you're wrong ... are wrong. The term 'queer', as far as I can tell, is an example of a slur being claimed as a point of pride by the people it originally targeted, which is an occasionally used method of disarming a slur, but that doesn't mean it wasn't originally a slur, or that it's appropriate to use on someone who does not choose to style themselves in that way.
I quite agree with you. (Tell that the rest of the LGBT+ community, because they don’t wanna listen to me when I say it.)
My point is, there’s nothing simple about these situations, and there’s no way to get everyone on the same page. There are 8,000,000,000 people on the planet. That means there are 8,000,000,000 ideas about everything. It’s impossibe.
2. The issue of listener-driven for all is that people are offended by different things and it is impossible to come up with something that may not offend someone(s). After awhile you have to accept people just get offended by things not meaning to be offended and realize you can never please everyone.
There is a fundamental difference between "not pleasing everyone" and "not caring whether you offend people". It may not be possible to eliminate offense, but it's certainly possible to limit it.
[...] 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.
Well, the obvious answer to that is that the people telling you that you're wrong ... are wrong.
Yeah, people can just say whatever they want on the internet.
How do we feel about "zorp"?
Humans are the most common zorp in the worlds of D&D, but they live and work alongside dwarves, elves, halflings, and countless other fantastic zorps. Your character belongs to one of these zorps.
(Fun fact: The original text for that PHB quote uses "people" and "species.")
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.
“We don’t serve your kind here.”
I do not know, it can be as problematic as any other word. I like it for its ambiguity, though. Kind can encompass hybrids, races, species.
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"
It's not. It was a classification system that became popular for sociological reasons, and modern science considers it a social construct. Tell me that the difference between a Centaur and a Plasmoid could ever be even remotely considered a social construct outside of the fevered imaginations of someone high on mushrooms, and...well, I would say that the discussion could continue, but I'm sure what the concerns that would arise from that statement would be.
I could go further into why claiming all D&D "races" are the same species is grossly incorrect (if you really want to know more, let me know, I'm happy to expound if someone wants to understand more), and when you accept that they aren't, the use of the term "race" in the way it is used in 5e and in prior editions becomes nonsensical. It's like insisting that your car is called a bike...because you prefer the word "bike".
If you want an example of why it might be good to change from the specific word "race", check out post #104 in this thread. It is a single experience, but not an uncommon one and is one of the tamer 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 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.
Which is dumb (for clarity, their claim, not yours).
This isn't directed at you really, I'm now just expounding on my thoughts on the issue that you've touched upon and others have discussed...and complained about.
It's impossible to please everyone, sure. There will always be someone that objects to something. Sometimes, you just have to move forward anyway. Perhaps some are offended by the concept of magic. Oh well? Let them play something else.
However, let's say you have a BBEG called Michael. Then you have a woman who comes to the table to play, but was recently mistreated (let's not get into specifics) by a man called Michael and has emotional reactions to the name. Who here wouldn't be willing to change the name to George or some other name that doesn't cause that reaction? It's not the place of the DM to rehabilitate her, she just wants to play D&D. If anyone wouldn't consider that change, then I wouldn't want to play at that table, and I think it should be clear why I wouldn't want to play with someone like that.
What I'm saying is that you have to consider both sides. Asking that we fundamentally alter the game by removing such a large aspect of the game as removing magic from it is too steep an ask. Asking that a published adventure avoid a name because of a singular experience is also too steep, almost every name will have been associated with misdeeds. Asking that an inaccurate term that has global associations with evil and causes (even if inadvertently) the game to support those very concepts (that certain races are better at certain things than others) is not that steep of an ask, in my opinion. A significant gain in return for...not much downside shouldn't be too much to ask.
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.
2. The issue of listener-driven for all is that people are offended by different things and it is impossible to come up with something that may not offend someone(s). After awhile you have to accept people just get offended by things not meaning to be offended and realize you can never please everyone.
There is a fundamental difference between "not pleasing everyone" and "not caring whether you offend people". It may not be possible to eliminate offense, but it's certainly possible to limit it.
What I find ironic is that the reason why they want to rollback the change boils down to...them being offended that the language in a future manual is being changed from an outdated one (or at least, will be). It's become a question of which offence is more valid.
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.
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 would say they did not, and given SerLoxy was making the argument that we'll get used to the word over time... I'd say other people are not used to the word in a fantasy context either.
The origins of the word don't really make a difference- WotC are writing with a modern lexicon, modern words do have connotations and meanings (Thats why they're removing race after all). Species doesn't tend to be used in fantasy books primarily because of those reasons.
To be clear I'm not arguing it's ahistoric. History I think is mostly meaningless for fantasy outside of aesthetics. Nor am I arguing to keep race as a term. I'm just arguing species as far as the fantasy genre is concerned is very rarely used in actual fantasy literature.
Quote from ChoirOfFire>>e obvious answer to that is that the people telling you that you're wrong ... are wrong. Yeah, people can just say whatever they want on the internet.
While I will agree that 'race' is definitely a misnomer in this instance (race implies minor differences within a species, thus being able to interbreed) and species is much more accurate, the intent WotC has here is not to use a correct word. Their intent is to not hurt someone's feelings because the word race suggests the differences between those within a species which allow/cause them to be grouped. In real life, such groups have been the cause of strife and drama, mistreatment, evil acts and such. So the current owners of the game want to avoid this as it may strike a negative feeling in some people (me being Jewish, I could be one such person. Just to be clear, I'm not offended). Of course, looking at the previous sentence, the existence of strife, drama, mistreatment and evil acts is really the 'meat' (not to offend vegetarians) of drama and story telling. So, it just may be that getting rid of the concept that drives the action of a good story will lead to a Blah game (not so interesting to play). Who will the paladin defeat or defend?? No slavers (hope that word doesn't bother anyone, but I need an English word to use to convey my meaning and I'm not trying to re-invent the language) to root out and destroy, no oppressed group to save, no evil monsters to defeat and steal their things from leads to a game of, "hey, wanna hang out at the tavern and drink tonight?" So, if we are changing the word from "race" to "species", it would make sense, but only if we actually treat them like species. That means no more half-orcs, half-elves or other "halfs". Species cannot interbreed! Otherwise, we're just going to have a species that is being oppressed, species-ism and species that are evil vs those that are not evil by default. So we just change the word and it makes the concept OK? I find that type of thinking misguided and shallow. As far as the game D&D, it's a wonderful construct for using issues that we know of from real life to be portrayed in fantasy/fiction that allows people to interact with in a fun way to fight the evil, save those in peril, free the oppressed and loot treasures and experience dramatic moments that build epic memories. OR, we could just go hang out at the local bar and play pool/go sit in the tavern. Some have mentioned that they don't find themselves using the term "race" and some people say they prefer not to have alignment and many other "house rules" exist. I think that's great! It's creative and useful to each specific group of players that do it "their way". I don't think the game should be trying to morph to try to be "perfect" (a term I saw in another post in this thread). Of course, I've been in it (D&D) since early 1980, continually, so what do I know. Though I'm certain any author or story teller will insist that a good story have tension, drama, conflict, etc... and that lacking the tools that are necessary to generate these facets, the stories told will be...dull.
I'm making sure I own the hard covers so I don't have to worry about being forced to incorporate the changes. If I want to make changes, I'll do it for my game group and not force it on others who may not want that.
Are you saying I should change my name if someone doing some activity with me had a bad experience with someone of the same name?! That's ludicrous. Yes, I would feel for that person/woman. However, it wasn't me, so I should be allowed to keep my name! I get that she wants to play and that people, all of us, certainly have things that have happened to us, but she will have to go to get therapy or something. I can't fix what happened to someone and if you are willing to diminish me because of what someone else went through, I wouldn't want to sit at that table. I count as a person too, even though what happened to me may be different than what happened to her. Then nobody at the table has their own name, nor can we talk about anything we did in life or get to know each other because that might trigger someone in the group, too. WRONG ANSWER!
Their intent is to not hurt someone's feelings because the word race suggests the differences between those within a species which allow/cause them to be grouped.
What your meandering wall of text ignores is how race has been used historically in the game - specifically to reflect the real world stereotypes of Gary Gygax and some of the other early founders. It is not just about avoiding hurting folks’ feelings, it is about removing the traces of the game’s very well documented racist origins
If you look at early orcs, for example, you’ll see a very strong motif of “primitive, tribal based cultures are savages who are always evil and should be eradicated.”
“But wait,” says the common response, “Gygax just based his orcs on the evil orcs of Tolkien, are you saying that’s a problem?”
Tolkien’s orcs and Gygax’s are very different from one another, even if Gygax took inspiration from Tolkien. Tolkien’s represent not tribal society, but the corruption of the Great War. They are not a tribal society that is brutal by virtue of their less modernised nature - they are the corrupted good turned into disposable tools of war, just like Tolkien himself experienced as young men were transformed into soldiers and churned through the trenches.
Gygax’s are “evil” because they are from tribal societies. There is no corrupting influence; no greater symbolism - just his personal views that tribalism was inferior and should be wiped out. He even went so far as, when someone asked him if a good paladin would still be good for slaughtering innocent orc babies, to quote an imperialist ordering the genocide and killing of innocents to justify his position.
If this was a game based on Tolkien - a man who lambasted the Nazi treatment of Jews and his homeland of South Africa for apartheid - and founded by good people, Race might be fine given its intent.
But when the term within the game itself is charged with decades of history by some authors who were problematic even by the 70s and 80s standards? Maybe we don’t need that in-game history to continue.
While I will agree that 'race' is definitely a misnomer in this instance (race implies minor differences within a species, thus being able to interbreed)
Are you saying I should change my name if someone doing some activity with me had a bad experience with someone of the same name?! That's ludicrous. Yes, I would feel for that person/woman. However, it wasn't me, so I should be allowed to keep my name! I get that she wants to play and that people, all of us, certainly have things that have happened to us, but she will have to go to get therapy or something. I can't fix what happened to someone and if you are willing to diminish me because of what someone else went through, I wouldn't want to sit at that table. I count as a person too, even though what happened to me may be different than what happened to her. Then nobody at the table has their own name, nor can we talk about anything we did in life or get to know each other because that might trigger someone in the group, too. WRONG ANSWER!
no one is talking about the name of a singular person here, were talking about the usage of a certain word for an overarching term, that have actively been hurt by its continued use, in your other post you talk about how the game will be boring if we remove tension or drama and that the game shouldnt try to evolve to be perfect
except the game isnt, its trying to be tolerant and not cause more harm to people, its not taking out tension in the game either, as an author myself, I can rightly tell you its just doing what it should be for a game of this size
Then they aren't species, by definition. Words, by definition, have meaning! Speicies: "a group of living organisms consisting of similar individuals capable of exchanging genes or interbreeding. The species is the principal natural taxonomic unit, ranking below a genus and denoted by a Latin binomial, e.g. Homo sapiens."
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Pallutus
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
2. The issue of listener-driven for all is that people are offended by different things and it is impossible to come up with something that may not offend someone(s). After awhile you have to accept people just get offended by things not meaning to be offended and realize you can never please everyone.
That said, i've moved passed race awhile ago as it didn't seem fitting for various species changes. Races were more like sub-classes of elves or halflings instead of elves/halflings themselves.
We could force the change the term Class to be around species/races and have the current classes be something else. That might be more accurate... confusing but confusion has never stopped us.. we're fantasy game players.
Well, the obvious answer to that is that the people telling you that you're wrong ... are wrong. The term 'queer', as far as I can tell, is an example of a slur being claimed as a point of pride by the people it originally targeted, which is an occasionally used method of disarming a slur, but that doesn't mean it wasn't originally a slur, or that it's appropriate to use on someone who does not choose to style themselves in that way.
I quite agree with you. (Tell that the rest of the LGBT+ community, because they don’t wanna listen to me when I say it.)
My point is, there’s nothing simple about these situations, and there’s no way to get everyone on the same page. There are 8,000,000,000 people on the planet. That means there are 8,000,000,000 ideas about everything. It’s impossibe.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
There is a fundamental difference between "not pleasing everyone" and "not caring whether you offend people". It may not be possible to eliminate offense, but it's certainly possible to limit it.
Yeah, people can just say whatever they want on the internet.
How do we feel about "zorp"?
(Fun fact: The original text for that PHB quote uses "people" and "species.")
“We don’t serve your kind here.”
I do not know, it can be as problematic as any other word. I like it for its ambiguity, though. Kind can encompass hybrids, races, species.
It's not. It was a classification system that became popular for sociological reasons, and modern science considers it a social construct. Tell me that the difference between a Centaur and a Plasmoid could ever be even remotely considered a social construct outside of the fevered imaginations of someone high on mushrooms, and...well, I would say that the discussion could continue, but I'm sure what the concerns that would arise from that statement would be.
I could go further into why claiming all D&D "races" are the same species is grossly incorrect (if you really want to know more, let me know, I'm happy to expound if someone wants to understand more), and when you accept that they aren't, the use of the term "race" in the way it is used in 5e and in prior editions becomes nonsensical. It's like insisting that your car is called a bike...because you prefer the word "bike".
If you want an example of why it might be good to change from the specific word "race", check out post #104 in this thread. It is a single experience, but not an uncommon one and is one of the tamer 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.
Which is dumb (for clarity, their claim, not yours).
This isn't directed at you really, I'm now just expounding on my thoughts on the issue that you've touched upon and others have discussed...and complained about.
It's impossible to please everyone, sure. There will always be someone that objects to something. Sometimes, you just have to move forward anyway. Perhaps some are offended by the concept of magic. Oh well? Let them play something else.
However, let's say you have a BBEG called Michael. Then you have a woman who comes to the table to play, but was recently mistreated (let's not get into specifics) by a man called Michael and has emotional reactions to the name. Who here wouldn't be willing to change the name to George or some other name that doesn't cause that reaction? It's not the place of the DM to rehabilitate her, she just wants to play D&D. If anyone wouldn't consider that change, then I wouldn't want to play at that table, and I think it should be clear why I wouldn't want to play with someone like that.
What I'm saying is that you have to consider both sides. Asking that we fundamentally alter the game by removing such a large aspect of the game as removing magic from it is too steep an ask. Asking that a published adventure avoid a name because of a singular experience is also too steep, almost every name will have been associated with misdeeds. Asking that an inaccurate term that has global associations with evil and causes (even if inadvertently) the game to support those very concepts (that certain races are better at certain things than others) is not that steep of an ask, in my opinion. A significant gain in return for...not much downside shouldn't be too much to ask.
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.
What I find ironic is that the reason why they want to rollback the change boils down to...them being offended that the language in a future manual is being changed from an outdated one (or at least, will be). It's become a question of which offence is more valid.
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 just excited to see all the errors this change generates on this website as you know they will inevitably do a search and replace for content.
"Characters can participate in the [species] as snail jockeys, but it costs 1 ticket punch to enter."
"If at least half the characters participate in a snail [species], the carnival’s mood rises by 1 step..."
I would say they did not, and given SerLoxy was making the argument that we'll get used to the word over time... I'd say other people are not used to the word in a fantasy context either.
The origins of the word don't really make a difference- WotC are writing with a modern lexicon, modern words do have connotations and meanings (Thats why they're removing race after all). Species doesn't tend to be used in fantasy books primarily because of those reasons.
To be clear I'm not arguing it's ahistoric. History I think is mostly meaningless for fantasy outside of aesthetics. Nor am I arguing to keep race as a term. I'm just arguing species as far as the fantasy genre is concerned is very rarely used in actual fantasy literature.
Not gonna lie kinda like it
I'm gonna keep using race, thank you very much.
While I will agree that 'race' is definitely a misnomer in this instance (race implies minor differences within a species, thus being able to interbreed) and species is much more accurate, the intent WotC has here is not to use a correct word. Their intent is to not hurt someone's feelings because the word race suggests the differences between those within a species which allow/cause them to be grouped. In real life, such groups have been the cause of strife and drama, mistreatment, evil acts and such. So the current owners of the game want to avoid this as it may strike a negative feeling in some people (me being Jewish, I could be one such person. Just to be clear, I'm not offended). Of course, looking at the previous sentence, the existence of strife, drama, mistreatment and evil acts is really the 'meat' (not to offend vegetarians) of drama and story telling. So, it just may be that getting rid of the concept that drives the action of a good story will lead to a Blah game (not so interesting to play). Who will the paladin defeat or defend?? No slavers (hope that word doesn't bother anyone, but I need an English word to use to convey my meaning and I'm not trying to re-invent the language) to root out and destroy, no oppressed group to save, no evil monsters to defeat and steal their things from leads to a game of, "hey, wanna hang out at the tavern and drink tonight?"
So, if we are changing the word from "race" to "species", it would make sense, but only if we actually treat them like species. That means no more half-orcs, half-elves or other "halfs". Species cannot interbreed! Otherwise, we're just going to have a species that is being oppressed, species-ism and species that are evil vs those that are not evil by default. So we just change the word and it makes the concept OK? I find that type of thinking misguided and shallow. As far as the game D&D, it's a wonderful construct for using issues that we know of from real life to be portrayed in fantasy/fiction that allows people to interact with in a fun way to fight the evil, save those in peril, free the oppressed and loot treasures and experience dramatic moments that build epic memories. OR, we could just go hang out at the local bar and play pool/go sit in the tavern.
Some have mentioned that they don't find themselves using the term "race" and some people say they prefer not to have alignment and many other "house rules" exist. I think that's great! It's creative and useful to each specific group of players that do it "their way". I don't think the game should be trying to morph to try to be "perfect" (a term I saw in another post in this thread). Of course, I've been in it (D&D) since early 1980, continually, so what do I know. Though I'm certain any author or story teller will insist that a good story have tension, drama, conflict, etc... and that lacking the tools that are necessary to generate these facets, the stories told will be...dull.
Pallutus
I'm making sure I own the hard covers so I don't have to worry about being forced to incorporate the changes. If I want to make changes, I'll do it for my game group and not force it on others who may not want that.
Pallutus
Are you saying I should change my name if someone doing some activity with me had a bad experience with someone of the same name?! That's ludicrous. Yes, I would feel for that person/woman. However, it wasn't me, so I should be allowed to keep my name! I get that she wants to play and that people, all of us, certainly have things that have happened to us, but she will have to go to get therapy or something. I can't fix what happened to someone and if you are willing to diminish me because of what someone else went through, I wouldn't want to sit at that table. I count as a person too, even though what happened to me may be different than what happened to her. Then nobody at the table has their own name, nor can we talk about anything we did in life or get to know each other because that might trigger someone in the group, too. WRONG ANSWER!
Pallutus
What your meandering wall of text ignores is how race has been used historically in the game - specifically to reflect the real world stereotypes of Gary Gygax and some of the other early founders. It is not just about avoiding hurting folks’ feelings, it is about removing the traces of the game’s very well documented racist origins
If you look at early orcs, for example, you’ll see a very strong motif of “primitive, tribal based cultures are savages who are always evil and should be eradicated.”
“But wait,” says the common response, “Gygax just based his orcs on the evil orcs of Tolkien, are you saying that’s a problem?”
Tolkien’s orcs and Gygax’s are very different from one another, even if Gygax took inspiration from Tolkien. Tolkien’s represent not tribal society, but the corruption of the Great War. They are not a tribal society that is brutal by virtue of their less modernised nature - they are the corrupted good turned into disposable tools of war, just like Tolkien himself experienced as young men were transformed into soldiers and churned through the trenches.
Gygax’s are “evil” because they are from tribal societies. There is no corrupting influence; no greater symbolism - just his personal views that tribalism was inferior and should be wiped out. He even went so far as, when someone asked him if a good paladin would still be good for slaughtering innocent orc babies, to quote an imperialist ordering the genocide and killing of innocents to justify his position.
If this was a game based on Tolkien - a man who lambasted the Nazi treatment of Jews and his homeland of South Africa for apartheid - and founded by good people, Race might be fine given its intent.
But when the term within the game itself is charged with decades of history by some authors who were problematic even by the 70s and 80s standards? Maybe we don’t need that in-game history to continue.
But in 1DD, all “species” can interbreed….
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
no one is talking about the name of a singular person here, were talking about the usage of a certain word for an overarching term, that have actively been hurt by its continued use, in your other post you talk about how the game will be boring if we remove tension or drama and that the game shouldnt try to evolve to be perfect
except the game isnt, its trying to be tolerant and not cause more harm to people, its not taking out tension in the game either, as an author myself, I can rightly tell you its just doing what it should be for a game of this size
Then they aren't species, by definition. Words, by definition, have meaning! Speicies: "a group of living organisms consisting of similar individuals capable of exchanging genes or interbreeding. The species is the principal natural taxonomic unit, ranking below a genus and denoted by a Latin binomial, e.g. Homo sapiens."
Pallutus