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."
Words, of course, have multiple meanings - some of which are applicable to the proposed use of species. You are cherrypicking the technical scientific meaning of the word, when there are other definitions that make no reference to the production of viable offspring. Which makes sense - species as a word has origins in Roman times, long, long before our modern understanding of genetics and viability.
If you read species to mean “a distinct class, sort, of kind of something specifically mentioned or indicated”; “a group or class of animals or plants (usually constituting a subdivision of genius) having certain common and permanent characteristics which clearly distinguish it from other groups”; “Appearance, outward form”; etc. all of which are proper definitions in the OED (the definitive English dictionary), the term works fine.
The issue is less with the word, and more with you choosing to hold a singular definition as sacrosanct.
I would urge anyone who shares OP's position to do a site search for the word "species." The game already uses it, all over the place. It's demonstrably NOT too scientific for D&D.
It's been there from the start. The DMG uses it in the description of the Philter of Love: "If the creature is of a species and gender you are normally attracted to, [...]" The PHB uses it in the description... of races! "[D]warves, elves, halflings, and countless other fantastic species."
It's there in the expanded materials. Both versions of the Darkling description: "Darklings dwell in secluded caverns and chambers beneath the towns of other species." The old version of Lizardfolk: "You think there are only two species of humanoid: lizardfolk and meat." Van Richten's: "monsters in Ravenloft don’t need to be members of a species or society."
You'll see it even more when you move past humanoids -- plants and even fiends are referred to as species, for example -- and more still when you look at more scientifically-advanced settings like Ravnica and Eberron (where it does, indeed, call Warforged a species). But even without those examples, it's simply false to claim that D&D doesn't use the word "species." It absolutely does, it has since at least 2014, and no one has had anything bad to say about it until now.
It bears repeating: People have had eight years to make these criticisms, and they're only doing it now.
---
Now, if you were in their shoes, what would you say next? Stop here and think about it. You obviously wouldn't just back down, so what would you say? Write it down on paper, or make a note in your notepad app. Then proceed on and see how many replies match your guess. It'll be fun.
Yes, but now you are cherry picking because that is the same definition, just leaving out the part where a member of one species can't procreate with another species. However, it does imply that by stating, "(usually consituting a subdivision of genius)". When you are making separate groupings of "creatures" it must take on that distinction because we are not talking about types of furniture or variations on sporting goods.
Yes, but now you are cherry picking because that is the same definition, just leaving out the part where a member of one species can't procreate with another species.
In D&D an owl can procreate with a bear, so you really can't rely on reproductive isolation as a measure of speciation.
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)
But in 1DD, all “species” can interbreed….
1DD says nothing about "breeding", only that a character's parents can be any combination the player wants. In fact, the section in question goes out of its way to avoid using that word, talking about "magical workings" and "wondrous pairings" instead
CHILDREN OF DIFFERENT HUMANOID KINDS
Thanks to the magical workings of the multiverse, Humanoids of different kinds sometimes have children together. For example, folk who have a human parent and an orc or an elf parent are particularly common. Many other combinations are possible.
If you’d like to play the child of such a wondrous pairing, choose two Race options that are Humanoid to represent your parents. Then determine which of those Race options provides your game traits: Size, Speed, and special traits. You can then mix and match visual characteristics—color, ear shape, and the like—of the two options. For example, if your character has a halfling and a gnome parent, you might choose Halfling for your game traits and then decide that your character has the pointed ears that are characteristic of a gnome.
Finally, determine the average of the two options’ Life Span traits to figure out how long your character might live. For example, a child of a halfling and a gnome has an average life span of 288 years.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I'm not sure that it should or shouldn't, but I would suppose that is up to the owners of the game and they can, ultimately, do what they want with it, to include discontinuing it. That would be sad, however. The reason I used the name change is because that was explicitly stated in a previous post. The writer of that post said that we should change the name of a person playing at that table if someone had a bad experience with someone of the same name, though a totally different person. I reject that idea based on my previously stated reasons. I do agree that using certain words can be harmful, but the use of that word in its context and not as a slur should separate it out from such scrutiny. If I were to say, for instance, "the rate of data has been ******** (which in English for this use, means to be made slower) by setting the bandwidth to a lower rate, thus constricting the flow.", I would not expect a person with a family member who is mentally handicapped at that level to take offense to the use of that word anymore than I would expect a female reading it to feel uncomfortable that I used the word "flow" or a person who has slow internet to be upset that I wrote that statement. My lineage has been enslaved by every empire throughout history, yet the word "slave" in general discussion of the matter or to explain the concept doesn't affect me. Calling me that as a slur may evoke an emotional response, however. See the difference. The word itself isn't the problem, it's the use of it. You don't just eradicate a word since it could be used in a derogatory manner. As a recent example, the Hadozee backstory at the hands of the evil wizard was interesting, albeit a bit Dr. Mengele and a bit Euro-slave trade in tone. I have read it many times and found it cool that they rebelled successfully and destroyed the evil responsible. A current series called Sandman has a similar start. It's interesting and meant to point out the evil in it, not that it's OK to do it. If I were playing in a campaign where that was happening at that time, my character would fight the evil and try to help free them. Is this not a great story line or campaign arc? Yes, somethings similar to that have happened in our history. I would challenge anyone to find a story that has nothing to do with humanity-no correlations. We have to use things from human experience because we don't know anything else. Portrayal of the material is the key. Are you trying to say those evil acts are cool and we should still do them or are we trying to highlight evil that exists and must be stood up to? This is just the way I look at things. I get that some people can't understand the difference and/or don't have the interest in taking part in such endeavors (fantasy or not), but when it comes to D&D as the way it was, you can simply choose not to play that setting or even the game. I know, we want to include as close to everyone as possible because that's more inclusive and ultimately, more money. On the flip side, I will make my choice to include what I want and how I want it. I'm a DM after all. I can create. Also, I still own all of the original books back to Basic, so I can go back and run any version I wish to, but the open creativity of 5e attracted me as it was oriented around rulings, not rules and letting the DMs run their games. It wasn't trying to be everything to everyone, but just enough for anyone. ( I think they are trying to do that now, but somehow off the mark)
Yes, but now you are cherry picking because that is the same definition, just leaving out the part where a member of one species can't procreate with another species. However, it does imply that by stating, "(usually consituting a subdivision of genius)". When you are making separate groupings of "creatures" it must take on that distinction because we are not talking about types of furniture or variations on sporting goods.
It takes a fair bit of gall to say in one post that words “by definition, have meaning!” and then follow that up by (a) referring to the definition from the single most authoritative dictionary as “cherrypicking”; (b) choosing to zero in on one listed definition while ignoring the definitions that more clearly contradict your (incorrect) view that your definition of species should always control; (c) ignoring how parentheticals work grammatically, and (d) undermine your own “words have specific meanings” argument by asking your reader to look beyond the specific meaning of the words and examine what the words “imply.”
You will have to pardon me if I find the Oxford English Dictionary more compelling than an internally inconsistent argument by someone on the interwebs.
You don't even look at the fantastical. Unless one holds that a lion and a tigeress are the same species (and yes, their product, a liger, is fertile, before someone tries being cute and changing the definition). Or that ring species are a fable. Or that we got neanderthal DNA from...magic or something.
It is possible for members of two different species to interbreed. It's also possible for members of the same species to be unable to produce children.
Biology no where near as simple as people pretend it is. What is a species is is not simple either. Also, even if tjat was the definition of species, if something like a dragonborn were to exist and could interbreed, you bet they would change the definition of a species. There's no way they would classify humans and dragonborn could be classified as the same group.
Edit: Sorry Pantagruel, I meant to hit quote, not reply.
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.
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?!
Where did you get this idea from? The only 'name change' I saw was with respect to the name of a BBEG (or, presumably, other NPC in the game), not changing the name of a player.
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 said you had to change your personal name, or did you twist what I said in order to take offence?
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.
.....Biology no where near as simple as people pretend it is. What is a species is is not simple either......
Sitting here reading this thread SCREAMING this in my head lol. I'm a biology teacher and when I teach speciation and taxonomy I have to stress HARD that the definitions, classifications, and vocab are constantly changing because we're trying to prescribe an order to what doesn't particularly have to have one.
Something I've noticed a lot in this particular thread (among other places) is that people love to quote biology when it proves their point, but their only experience with biology is from high school (or some gen ed undergrad class)
Long story short: Species works just fine. Don't get so hung up on ol' Merriam Webster when it comes to science.
As a person who doesn't see the word race as a negative term, this is a bit silly, but I hope whatever it gets replaced by makes the more sensitive members in the community who joined during 5E more comfortable. I will myself still say race until the new term starts rolling off the tongue a bit more.
It bears repeating: People have had eight years to make these criticisms, and they're only doing it now.
I feel like allowing a phrase in some conditions, some of which are intended to feel sciency or otheworldly, is a bit different to having it be the standard term on character creation
Like I wouldn't want Class to be replaced with Employment for the same reason (the feel the word evokes). But I'm not going to say that every instance of the word employment should be hereby expunged from the D&D lexicon in all instances now and forever.
I would urge anyone who shares OP's position to do a site search for the word "species." The game already uses it, all over the place. It's demonstrably NOT too scientific for D&D.
It's been there from the start. The DMG uses it in the description of the Philter of Love: "If the creature is of a species and gender you are normally attracted to, [...]" The PHB uses it in the description... of races! "[D]warves, elves, halflings, and countless other fantastic species."
It's there in the expanded materials. Both versions of the Darkling description: "Darklings dwell in secluded caverns and chambers beneath the towns of other species." The old version of Lizardfolk: "You think there are only two species of humanoid: lizardfolk and meat." Van Richten's: "monsters in Ravenloft don’t need to be members of a species or society."
You'll see it even more when you move past humanoids -- plants and even fiends are referred to as species, for example -- and more still when you look at more scientifically-advanced settings like Ravnica and Eberron (where it does, indeed, call Warforged a species). But even without those examples, it's simply false to claim that D&D doesn't use the word "species." It absolutely does, it has since at least 2014, and no one has had anything bad to say about it until now.
TBH I hadn't noticed that at all. Well researched! (I don't know how to do a site search and wouldn't have remembered it was a thing but for your post, so thanks!)
So, yeah, I'll accept "species" even though I'd still personally prefer "kindred". But the margin between the two is way smaller than it was.
My lineage has been enslaved by every empire throughout history, yet the word "slave" in general discussion of the matter or to explain the concept doesn't affect me. Calling me that as a slur may evoke an emotional response, however. See the difference. The word itself isn't the problem, it's the use of it. You don't just eradicate a word since it could be used in a derogatory manner. As a recent example, the Hadozee backstory at the hands of the evil wizard was interesting, albeit a bit Dr. Mengele and a bit Euro-slave trade in tone. I have read it many times and found it cool that they rebelled successfully and destroyed the evil responsible. A current series called Sandman has a similar start. It's interesting and meant to point out the evil in it, not that it's OK to do it. If I were playing in a campaign where that was happening at that time, my character would fight the evil and try to help free them. Is this not a great story line or campaign arc? Yes, somethings similar to that have happened in our history. I would challenge anyone to find a story that has nothing to do with humanity-no correlations. We have to use things from human experience because we don't know anything else. Portrayal of the material is the key. Are you trying to say those evil acts are cool and we should still do them or are we trying to highlight evil that exists and must be stood up to? This is just the way I look at things. I get that some people can't understand the difference and/or don't have the interest in taking part in such endeavors (fantasy or not), but when it comes to D&D as the way it was, you can simply choose not to play that setting or even the game.
I see your point, and as a fellow jew imma tell you, **** no that isnt cool, and if someone put that dr.mengele shit at a table i was at, id walk away and never play with that person again
I'm not sure that it should or shouldn't, but I would suppose that is up to the owners of the game and they can, ultimately, do what they want with it, to include discontinuing it. That would be sad, however. The reason I used the name change is because that was explicitly stated in a previous post. The writer of that post said that we should change the name of a person playing at that table if someone had a bad experience with someone of the same name, though a totally different person. I reject that idea based on my previously stated reasons. I do agree that using certain words can be harmful, but the use of that word in its context and not as a slur should separate it out from such scrutiny. If I were to say, for instance, "the rate of data has been ******** (which in English for this use, means to be made slower) by setting the bandwidth to a lower rate, thus constricting the flow.", I would not expect a person with a family member who is mentally handicapped at that level to take offense to the use of that word anymore than I would expect a female reading it to feel uncomfortable that I used the word "flow" or a person who has slow internet to be upset that I wrote that statement. My lineage has been enslaved by every empire throughout history, yet the word "slave" in general discussion of the matter or to explain the concept doesn't affect me. Calling me that as a slur may evoke an emotional response, however. See the difference. The word itself isn't the problem, it's the use of it. You don't just eradicate a word since it could be used in a derogatory manner. As a recent example, the Hadozee backstory at the hands of the evil wizard was interesting, albeit a bit Dr. Mengele and a bit Euro-slave trade in tone. I have read it many times and found it cool that they rebelled successfully and destroyed the evil responsible. A current series called Sandman has a similar start. It's interesting and meant to point out the evil in it, not that it's OK to do it. If I were playing in a campaign where that was happening at that time, my character would fight the evil and try to help free them. Is this not a great story line or campaign arc? Yes, somethings similar to that have happened in our history. I would challenge anyone to find a story that has nothing to do with humanity-no correlations. We have to use things from human experience because we don't know anything else. Portrayal of the material is the key. Are you trying to say those evil acts are cool and we should still do them or are we trying to highlight evil that exists and must be stood up to? This is just the way I look at things. I get that some people can't understand the difference and/or don't have the interest in taking part in such endeavors (fantasy or not), but when it comes to D&D as the way it was, you can simply choose not to play that setting or even the game. I know, we want to include as close to everyone as possible because that's more inclusive and ultimately, more money. On the flip side, I will make my choice to include what I want and how I want it. I'm a DM after all. I can create. Also, I still own all of the original books back to Basic, so I can go back and run any version I wish to, but the open creativity of 5e attracted me as it was oriented around rulings, not rules and letting the DMs run their games. It wasn't trying to be everything to everyone, but just enough for anyone. ( I think they are trying to do that now, but somehow off the mark)
Overall, I tend to agree. My ancestry is a mix of onery people from the edge of civilization and peoples who have been blamed and murdered by the same civilizations, my Grand Parents after losing their entire generation to the rise of extreme Right-Wing governments fled to the lands of Red Headed stubborn peoples and left behind their ancestral religion.
But the problem here is, the origin of the terms and the intended use when they were used for the first time. Race in D&D was originally created because the main guy in charge at the time was a bit of a racist, and his offspring supports the beliefs of those who murdered my grandparent's generation. Sure, in the 40 years since the origin of D&D the owners and creators who came on board who created new and exciting material tried very hard to distance themselves from the problematic original person, his root designs still held sway in the core game.
The use of Race being one of them. Since WotC took over they have done a good job removing a lot of the problematic and racist material inherent to D&D, and sure they could keep the word Race as they have done a great job flushing out the racism, but due to the original intent of the word, and the racism of the original creator and his family WotC want to remove the stain of that word.
I'm personally not a fan of Species, as my background is in neuroscience, and species means something to me, something modern and specific, and something that many of the player characters ancestries can do makes them all technically the same species, Human. Elves, Dwarves, Halflings, Orcs, Tieflings, Kalastar, and many others can all have children with humans, and those children can have children. Which means all these peoples are in fact members of the same species, although they might be sub-species, and in a few cases just someone with a magical curse or a second soul attached to them. Due to this I'm more inclined to ancestry, or lineage. As Tieflings are a lineage, Elves & Dwarves are humans with an origin from a different god, Kalastar are humans with a second soul, and Dragonborn are a bit of a contradiction as they could be just humans who were changed by dragons, or humans changed by wizards. (Dragonborn have several origin stories and are a bit inconsistent, same with Orcs.)
So yeah, using the word "Race" isn't cool, "Species" feels off due to setting and the fact that Half-Elves and Half-Orcs are a thing.
I would urge anyone who shares OP's position to do a site search for the word "species." The game already uses it, all over the place. It's demonstrably NOT too scientific for D&D.
....
It bears repeating: People have had eight years to make these criticisms, and they're only doing it now.
---
Now, if you were in their shoes, what would you say next? Stop here and think about it. You obviously wouldn't just back down, so what would you say? Write it down on paper, or make a note in your notepad app. Then proceed on and see how many replies match your guess. It'll be fun.
Just to be clear, I am happy that Race is going away, but I do think another word other than Species should be used for the Primary Player Character option.
Now yes, they have snuck Species in a lot of places where the word Race use to be in past editions, and it has been noticed at least by me. And no, I would not complain about that, as I agree with their intent.
But for the big Headline player option to replace the use of Gygax's "Race", I think as long as Half-Elf, Half-Orc, Kalastar, Tiefling, and a few others exist in the game as player options than species is the wrong term.
Half's prove Elves and Orcs are just unusual looking Humans. Also, dwarves and dragonborn can have children with Humans, so they are also human by the same definitions. Kalastar are humans with a second soul attached to them, Tieflings are humans with a cursed ancestry and their children can either be fully human or the looks like a demon/devil type human.
And before someone brings up the sorcerous origin dragonblood, dragons can shapeshift into human and live full lives as a human, in the lore there are several types of dragons who live their lives as humans, and have human children, ie Narnra the daughter of Elminster, her mother Maerjanthra Shalace was a song dragon that lives in Waterdeep. (Good book to read BTW oh and it's available on Audible... yeah sorry ADHD ... )
Basically, Love the removal of Race, not a fan of species as the headline word, because technically most the options are still just Homo Sapien's.
Basically, Love the removal of Race, not a fan of species as the headline word, because technically most the options are still just Homo Sapien's.
As has now been pointed out a dozen times on this thread, this is utilising one specific definition of species; there are several other—far older—definitions. “Species” would have been a perfectly acceptable term in the time period D&D is based on.
And, sure, there will be biologists who will say “I do not like this because my definition I use regularly is not fully applicable here and I am choosing to ignore the existence of other definitions and the fact that maybe in a magical world magic can result in viable cross-species offspring.” But that is some thing sociologists have been saying about the term “race” within D&D for years and they looked just as silly advocating for their in-field interpretation while ignoring basic linguistics.
Basically, Love the removal of Race, not a fan of species as the headline word, because technically most the options are still just Homo Sapien's.
As has now been pointed out a dozen times on this thread, this is utilising one specific definition of species; there are several other—far older—definitions. “Species” would have been a perfectly acceptable term in the time period D&D is based on.
And, sure, there will be biologists who will say “I do not like this because my definition I use regularly is not fully applicable here and I am choosing to ignore the existence of other definitions and the fact that maybe in a magical world magic can result in viable cross-species offspring.” But that is some thing sociologists have been saying about the term “race” within D&D for years and they looked just as silly advocating for their in-field interpretation while ignoring basic linguistics.
Ok, since this is actually an issue. The official definitions of the word species do include the use of sorting various people as species. 7 hell's my own ancestry has been referred to as "the Jewish Species" on more than one occasion, and always to diminish and belittle my ancestry, and to make my people less than human so they can murder my people guilt free. If that is the definition they pick, and if that is the motivation of the word species, I will go right to several advocacy groups and let them know as that specific meaning is far worse than Race. I've been giving the benefit of doubt that they are using the main definition and treating various groups as separate species based on the scientific use of the word. Which is the common use, and not at all offensive.
Words, of course, have multiple meanings - some of which are applicable to the proposed use of species. You are cherrypicking the technical scientific meaning of the word, when there are other definitions that make no reference to the production of viable offspring. Which makes sense - species as a word has origins in Roman times, long, long before our modern understanding of genetics and viability.
If you read species to mean “a distinct class, sort, of kind of something specifically mentioned or indicated”; “a group or class of animals or plants (usually constituting a subdivision of genius) having certain common and permanent characteristics which clearly distinguish it from other groups”; “Appearance, outward form”; etc. all of which are proper definitions in the OED (the definitive English dictionary), the term works fine.
The issue is less with the word, and more with you choosing to hold a singular definition as sacrosanct.
I would urge anyone who shares OP's position to do a site search for the word "species." The game already uses it, all over the place. It's demonstrably NOT too scientific for D&D.
It's been there from the start. The DMG uses it in the description of the Philter of Love: "If the creature is of a species and gender you are normally attracted to, [...]" The PHB uses it in the description... of races! "[D]warves, elves, halflings, and countless other fantastic species."
It's there in the expanded materials. Both versions of the Darkling description: "Darklings dwell in secluded caverns and chambers beneath the towns of other species." The old version of Lizardfolk: "You think there are only two species of humanoid: lizardfolk and meat." Van Richten's: "monsters in Ravenloft don’t need to be members of a species or society."
You'll see it even more when you move past humanoids -- plants and even fiends are referred to as species, for example -- and more still when you look at more scientifically-advanced settings like Ravnica and Eberron (where it does, indeed, call Warforged a species). But even without those examples, it's simply false to claim that D&D doesn't use the word "species." It absolutely does, it has since at least 2014, and no one has had anything bad to say about it until now.
It bears repeating: People have had eight years to make these criticisms, and they're only doing it now.
---
Now, if you were in their shoes, what would you say next? Stop here and think about it. You obviously wouldn't just back down, so what would you say? Write it down on paper, or make a note in your notepad app. Then proceed on and see how many replies match your guess. It'll be fun.
Yes, but now you are cherry picking because that is the same definition, just leaving out the part where a member of one species can't procreate with another species. However, it does imply that by stating, "(usually consituting a subdivision of genius)". When you are making separate groupings of "creatures" it must take on that distinction because we are not talking about types of furniture or variations on sporting goods.
Pallutus
In D&D an owl can procreate with a bear, so you really can't rely on reproductive isolation as a measure of speciation.
1DD says nothing about "breeding", only that a character's parents can be any combination the player wants. In fact, the section in question goes out of its way to avoid using that word, talking about "magical workings" and "wondrous pairings" instead
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I'm not sure that it should or shouldn't, but I would suppose that is up to the owners of the game and they can, ultimately, do what they want with it, to include discontinuing it. That would be sad, however. The reason I used the name change is because that was explicitly stated in a previous post. The writer of that post said that we should change the name of a person playing at that table if someone had a bad experience with someone of the same name, though a totally different person. I reject that idea based on my previously stated reasons.
I do agree that using certain words can be harmful, but the use of that word in its context and not as a slur should separate it out from such scrutiny. If I were to say, for instance, "the rate of data has been ******** (which in English for this use, means to be made slower) by setting the bandwidth to a lower rate, thus constricting the flow.", I would not expect a person with a family member who is mentally handicapped at that level to take offense to the use of that word anymore than I would expect a female reading it to feel uncomfortable that I used the word "flow" or a person who has slow internet to be upset that I wrote that statement. My lineage has been enslaved by every empire throughout history, yet the word "slave" in general discussion of the matter or to explain the concept doesn't affect me. Calling me that as a slur may evoke an emotional response, however. See the difference. The word itself isn't the problem, it's the use of it. You don't just eradicate a word since it could be used in a derogatory manner.
As a recent example, the Hadozee backstory at the hands of the evil wizard was interesting, albeit a bit Dr. Mengele and a bit Euro-slave trade in tone. I have read it many times and found it cool that they rebelled successfully and destroyed the evil responsible. A current series called Sandman has a similar start. It's interesting and meant to point out the evil in it, not that it's OK to do it. If I were playing in a campaign where that was happening at that time, my character would fight the evil and try to help free them. Is this not a great story line or campaign arc? Yes, somethings similar to that have happened in our history. I would challenge anyone to find a story that has nothing to do with humanity-no correlations. We have to use things from human experience because we don't know anything else. Portrayal of the material is the key. Are you trying to say those evil acts are cool and we should still do them or are we trying to highlight evil that exists and must be stood up to?
This is just the way I look at things. I get that some people can't understand the difference and/or don't have the interest in taking part in such endeavors (fantasy or not), but when it comes to D&D as the way it was, you can simply choose not to play that setting or even the game. I know, we want to include as close to everyone as possible because that's more inclusive and ultimately, more money. On the flip side, I will make my choice to include what I want and how I want it. I'm a DM after all. I can create. Also, I still own all of the original books back to Basic, so I can go back and run any version I wish to, but the open creativity of 5e attracted me as it was oriented around rulings, not rules and letting the DMs run their games. It wasn't trying to be everything to everyone, but just enough for anyone. ( I think they are trying to do that now, but somehow off the mark)
Pallutus
It takes a fair bit of gall to say in one post that words “by definition, have meaning!” and then follow that up by (a) referring to the definition from the single most authoritative dictionary as “cherrypicking”; (b) choosing to zero in on one listed definition while ignoring the definitions that more clearly contradict your (incorrect) view that your definition of species should always control; (c) ignoring how parentheticals work grammatically, and (d) undermine your own “words have specific meanings” argument by asking your reader to look beyond the specific meaning of the words and examine what the words “imply.”
You will have to pardon me if I find the Oxford English Dictionary more compelling than an internally inconsistent argument by someone on the interwebs.
You don't even look at the fantastical. Unless one holds that a lion and a tigeress are the same species (and yes, their product, a liger, is fertile, before someone tries being cute and changing the definition). Or that ring species are a fable. Or that we got neanderthal DNA from...magic or something.
It is possible for members of two different species to interbreed. It's also possible for members of the same species to be unable to produce children.
Biology no where near as simple as people pretend it is. What is a species is is not simple either. Also, even if tjat was the definition of species, if something like a dragonborn were to exist and could interbreed, you bet they would change the definition of a species. There's no way they would classify humans and dragonborn could be classified as the same group.
Edit: Sorry Pantagruel, I meant to hit quote, not reply.
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.
Where did you get this idea from? The only 'name change' I saw was with respect to the name of a BBEG (or, presumably, other NPC in the game), not changing the name of a player.
No one said you had to change your personal name, or did you twist what I said in order to take offence?
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.
Sitting here reading this thread SCREAMING this in my head lol.
I'm a biology teacher and when I teach speciation and taxonomy I have to stress HARD that the definitions, classifications, and vocab are constantly changing because we're trying to prescribe an order to what doesn't particularly have to have one.
Something I've noticed a lot in this particular thread (among other places) is that people love to quote biology when it proves their point, but their only experience with biology is from high school (or some gen ed undergrad class)
Long story short: Species works just fine. Don't get so hung up on ol' Merriam Webster when it comes to science.
As a person who doesn't see the word race as a negative term, this is a bit silly, but I hope whatever it gets replaced by makes the more sensitive members in the community who joined during 5E more comfortable. I will myself still say race until the new term starts rolling off the tongue a bit more.
I feel like allowing a phrase in some conditions, some of which are intended to feel sciency or otheworldly, is a bit different to having it be the standard term on character creation
Like I wouldn't want Class to be replaced with Employment for the same reason (the feel the word evokes). But I'm not going to say that every instance of the word employment should be hereby expunged from the D&D lexicon in all instances now and forever.
TBH I hadn't noticed that at all. Well researched! (I don't know how to do a site search and wouldn't have remembered it was a thing but for your post, so thanks!)
So, yeah, I'll accept "species" even though I'd still personally prefer "kindred". But the margin between the two is way smaller than it was.
I see your point, and as a fellow jew imma tell you, **** no that isnt cool, and if someone put that dr.mengele shit at a table i was at, id walk away and never play with that person again
Overall, I tend to agree. My ancestry is a mix of onery people from the edge of civilization and peoples who have been blamed and murdered by the same civilizations, my Grand Parents after losing their entire generation to the rise of extreme Right-Wing governments fled to the lands of Red Headed stubborn peoples and left behind their ancestral religion.
But the problem here is, the origin of the terms and the intended use when they were used for the first time. Race in D&D was originally created because the main guy in charge at the time was a bit of a racist, and his offspring supports the beliefs of those who murdered my grandparent's generation. Sure, in the 40 years since the origin of D&D the owners and creators who came on board who created new and exciting material tried very hard to distance themselves from the problematic original person, his root designs still held sway in the core game.
The use of Race being one of them. Since WotC took over they have done a good job removing a lot of the problematic and racist material inherent to D&D, and sure they could keep the word Race as they have done a great job flushing out the racism, but due to the original intent of the word, and the racism of the original creator and his family WotC want to remove the stain of that word.
I'm personally not a fan of Species, as my background is in neuroscience, and species means something to me, something modern and specific, and something that many of the player characters ancestries can do makes them all technically the same species, Human. Elves, Dwarves, Halflings, Orcs, Tieflings, Kalastar, and many others can all have children with humans, and those children can have children. Which means all these peoples are in fact members of the same species, although they might be sub-species, and in a few cases just someone with a magical curse or a second soul attached to them. Due to this I'm more inclined to ancestry, or lineage. As Tieflings are a lineage, Elves & Dwarves are humans with an origin from a different god, Kalastar are humans with a second soul, and Dragonborn are a bit of a contradiction as they could be just humans who were changed by dragons, or humans changed by wizards. (Dragonborn have several origin stories and are a bit inconsistent, same with Orcs.)
So yeah, using the word "Race" isn't cool, "Species" feels off due to setting and the fact that Half-Elves and Half-Orcs are a thing.
Just to be clear, I am happy that Race is going away, but I do think another word other than Species should be used for the Primary Player Character option.
Now yes, they have snuck Species in a lot of places where the word Race use to be in past editions, and it has been noticed at least by me. And no, I would not complain about that, as I agree with their intent.
But for the big Headline player option to replace the use of Gygax's "Race", I think as long as Half-Elf, Half-Orc, Kalastar, Tiefling, and a few others exist in the game as player options than species is the wrong term.
Half's prove Elves and Orcs are just unusual looking Humans. Also, dwarves and dragonborn can have children with Humans, so they are also human by the same definitions. Kalastar are humans with a second soul attached to them, Tieflings are humans with a cursed ancestry and their children can either be fully human or the looks like a demon/devil type human.
And before someone brings up the sorcerous origin dragonblood, dragons can shapeshift into human and live full lives as a human, in the lore there are several types of dragons who live their lives as humans, and have human children, ie Narnra the daughter of Elminster, her mother Maerjanthra Shalace was a song dragon that lives in Waterdeep. (Good book to read BTW oh and it's available on Audible... yeah sorry ADHD ... )
Basically, Love the removal of Race, not a fan of species as the headline word, because technically most the options are still just Homo Sapien's.
As has now been pointed out a dozen times on this thread, this is utilising one specific definition of species; there are several other—far older—definitions. “Species” would have been a perfectly acceptable term in the time period D&D is based on.
And, sure, there will be biologists who will say “I do not like this because my definition I use regularly is not fully applicable here and I am choosing to ignore the existence of other definitions and the fact that maybe in a magical world magic can result in viable cross-species offspring.” But that is some thing sociologists have been saying about the term “race” within D&D for years and they looked just as silly advocating for their in-field interpretation while ignoring basic linguistics.
Lol, don't even get me started on the wild misuse of "Hologram" in modern usage and sci-fi.
Subject specialists simply need to suck it up sometimes.
Ok, since this is actually an issue. The official definitions of the word species do include the use of sorting various people as species. 7 hell's my own ancestry has been referred to as "the Jewish Species" on more than one occasion, and always to diminish and belittle my ancestry, and to make my people less than human so they can murder my people guilt free. If that is the definition they pick, and if that is the motivation of the word species, I will go right to several advocacy groups and let them know as that specific meaning is far worse than Race. I've been giving the benefit of doubt that they are using the main definition and treating various groups as separate species based on the scientific use of the word. Which is the common use, and not at all offensive.