I'm okay retiring race as a term, but can we get a replacement term other than species?

The next person that says different species can't interbreed is going to make me reflex post an exhaustive list of every hybrid species example known.

Quote from Comrade_Jenkens >>

The next person that says different species can't interbreed is going to make me reflex post an exhaustive list of every hybrid species example known.

 Yeah, it's frustrating. People aren't bothering to even check the last couple of pages to brief themselves on the position of the discussion. But then, I suppose, if they were willing to take effort to understand what's happening, they'd already know that our ancestors interbred with at least one other species and realise that's something is up.

Quote from Linklite >>

Quote from Comrade_Jenkens >>

The next person that says different species can't interbreed is going to make me reflex post an exhaustive list of every hybrid species example known.

 Yeah, it's frustrating. People aren't bothering to even check the last couple of pages to brief themselves on the position of the discussion. But then, I suppose, if they were willing to take effort to understand what's happening, they'd already know that our ancestors interbred with at least one other species and realise that's something is up.

 I assume they think that modern humans have neanderthal and denisovan DNA by magic or something. Rather than interbreeding.

My favourite hybrids are chicken-peafowl mixes. They're incredibly rare, and yet look so unique. The two species are only distantly related too, not even being the same genus or tribe.

Quote from Comrade_Jenkens >>

The next person that says different species can't interbreed is going to make me reflex post an exhaustive list of every hybrid species example known.

It's a pointless argument to begin with, because again -- in a world of magic, producing children does not have to involve "breeding" at all

If you want your character's parents to be a male dragonborn and a warforged without a gender, you can. If you want your character to have three moms -- a coven made up of a gnome, an eladrin and a firbolg -- go for it

Then why, in this kind of world, can't we know them as races?  What's the difference, then??!!!

Quote from Pallutus >>

Then why, in this kind of world, can't we know them as races?  What's the difference, then??!!!

 You certainly can. Wizards is electing not to make it the default. Not because of scientific accuracy concerns but because their cultural consultants have advised them it's a good idea. Welcome to the loop.

Quote from Pallutus >>

Then why, in this kind of world, can't we know them as races?  What's the difference, then??!!!

 
Objection, asked and answered.  You have already been told multiple times why race was removed - D&D has been trying to move away from the problematic history of race within D&D, specifically the fact they had a founder who had a bad habit of doing things like preaching biological determinism (effectively rebranded eugenics) and quoting military commanders orders for genocide. 

That is the difference - language and the implications thereof matter, historical use matters, and “species” gives Wizards a new word not as charged by the many transgressions of TSR and less-common, but still existent, transgressions of Wizards (see Strahd; Spelljammer). 

What happened with Strahd?

Quote from Linklite >>

What happened with Strahd?

 
They ultimately ended up releasing a whole new edition due to its original version heavily relying on harmful Romani stereotypes. 

Quote from Linklite >>

What happened with Strahd?

 Nothing to Strahd himself, but the Vistani were recognized as problematic.

Quote from Pallutus >>

Then why, in this kind of world, can't we know them as races?  What's the difference, then??!!!

 Species just means a type. Different species of something are different types of it. A species of life is a type of life. That's the root of the word. In real life, this is the difference between two races:

https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/close-shot-happy-international-lesbian-couple-1048822133

The difference between those two is considered too small to be considered different species, so they're called different ethnicities; in dated terms, you'd say they're different races.

This is the difference between species in real life:

https://www.uh.edu/engines/epi2637.htm

Those are considered different enough to call different species. They're still reasonably similar (compared to say, the difference between a human and a fish), but still different species. By the way, other than their sex, they could interbreed and produce fertile children. That's why we have Neanderthal DNA. Your great x5000 grandmother had relations with one and produced your great x4999 grandparent.

Now, these are three different, ah, "races" according to D&D:

https://www.pinterest.com/pin/dds-new-playtest-is-spelljammer-space-opera-flavoured-in-2022--304626362306123177/

Now, tell me with a straight face that the difference between those three are on the same level as in the first picture and much less than that of the Human/Neanderthal. If you can't, then that's why they're different species.

Look, if you want to call them races, go ahead. No one cares. Literally. Unless someone at your table is upset by it for some reason - but then, you should be accommodating regardless of what WotC says. But otherwise, you're golden. WotC has decided they don't want to continue using "race" in this context, for several reasons, and so they have stopped. Beyond a few words in a book that isn't even written yet...nothing has changed.

Lineage, Origin, Peerage, Kin(dred)...

Or just go with Ancestry even though PF beat them to it, who cares.

I agree that Species is a bit immersion-breaking, but I completely agree with WotC directionally.

See the oppression inherent in the system!! :)

Just replace race/species/ancestry with 'player entity'

Apart from being boring game language, there isn't any way that term can be traced back to unsavoury language used by eugenicists. 

This entire discussion - the larger discussion, not just the narrow 'we don't say race anymore' discussion - is clenched up so tight, like the exit of a digestive tract, that it's effectively impossible to present any sort of rational argument. Oh, sure, you can argue, but no one is going to listen.

Here's what: It cannot ever be about the word. It must always be about the intention.

So if someone says 'well, the human race began it's long journey in Afrika' - then maybe you shouldn't be offended by that, even though the horrible R word is in there.

On the other hand, if someone tells you 'well, the orcish race was made for war and nothing else' - then that person is propably deliberately trying to be hurtful, or possibly just completely ignorant of the rich and varied culture and history of the orcish race. Then, maybe, be offended. 

But the intention is what matters. Maybe, seriously, if no one is trying to offend you - don't be offended.

Quote from Acromos >>

Here's what: It cannot ever be about the word. It must always be about the intention.

 I remember going to Italy, and with a friend we'd talk to people about a variety of things. One of the common questions we'd ask people was "What is the purpose of your life?" Which is interesting because the word for purpose, scopo, is a single letter from broom, scopa. The way Italian grammar works is that if you confused the gender of a word, you'd get those words switched (so, if you wanted to say broom but thought it was masculine, you'd likely end up saying scopo by accident). Another relevant fact: scopa has two meanings. The other is functionally the equivalent of the "F word". My friend was otherwise excellent at Italian, but continually confused genders. You can imagine the faces we got, which was only compounded by the fact that my friend refused to believe he was doing it. At least, until we spoke to one young lad who got really confused, and decided to act it out on the street to clarify what he thought friend had asked. There were a lot of old ladies who didn't give us that chance to clarify what we were asking.

Words have meaning, and they have power. When a word is being used wrong and is actually causing actual quotes like "yes, but that race sucks, you want to be race X instead, it is so much better", then maybe we should be careful in our language and use the correct terms. Using words and phrases conditions us. 

I also strongly suggest you actually read the thread. There is one side that is getting upset and offended over the use of a word, and it's not the side that thinks that using the word "species" is a positive step forward.

Quote from Acromos >>

But the intention is what matters. Maybe, seriously, if no one is trying to offend you - don't be offended. 

That's... Not how it works. If I say something rude and hurtful, it isn't suddenly polite because I didn't mean to hurt anyone. The argument that intentions speak louder than actions is nonsensical. So is the argument that a word cannot be offensive if the person throwing it around does not intend offense.

Quote from Acromos >>

Quote from Linklite >>

I also strongly suggest you actually read the thread. There is one side that is getting upset and offended over the use of a word, and it's not the side that thinks that using the word "species" is a positive step forward.

 Thanks, but no thanks.

 Ok, well, if you're not interested in getting informed on what the different parties are actually saying before pronouncing judgement, then there is nothing to discuss on the subject. 

Quote from Acromos >>

Quote from Linklite>>

I also strongly suggest you actually read the thread. There is one side that is getting upset and offended over the use of a word, and it's not the side that thinks that using the word "species" is a positive step forward.

 Thanks, but no thanks.

Both sides are wrong. And I'm 100% serious. We cannot keep discussing the words, when it's really the intentions that matter.

The great irony here—had you bothered to spend just a fraction of the time you spent on your long, dismissive, posts reading the thread, you would see that intentions have been discussed.  On one side of the debate there is Wizards, which recognises a large part of its game was steeped in the racist intent of Gygax and other early founders. It was, for example, discussed that intention is solely what divides Tolkien’s (who stood up against the Nazi persecution of Jews and against apartheid in his homeland) use of race from that of TSR (where the modules are infested with the harmful stereotypes of the founders who were—and some who still are—fairly outspoken in their racism).

Now, I am sure your response will be that historical intent cannot taint future intent - a response you would surely be given to try and save face, as your decision to not read and skip right to attempting to feel smugly superior to both sides backfired and made you look a bit the fool. 

I will save you the time - that answer likewise comes off rather poorly, since it ignores how intent works.  Intent is not a black and white issue - it is a gradient issue where one might have different levels of culpability depending on their intentions.  At the top, you have the person acting purposefully - they know their actions will cause a negative consequence and are taking their actions specifically to garner that negative consequence.  From your posts, it looks like you are only considering purposeful intent and ignoring any striation under that.

The other layers look at whether you intended to take an action you knew or should have known would harm others, the names of these levels generally divided in decreasing order of severity into “knowingly”, “reckless”, and “negligent” intent.

TSR likely was acting either purposefully or high up on the “knowingly” side of the spectrum - they either actively wanted to include their racism in the game, or acted so brazenly that, if that was not their specific goal, it was such an obvious outcome that it seemed like their specific goal.

Wizards is not as high up on that spectrum - but they are on the spectrum. They have the specific knowledge that their game’s terminology is rooted in racism; they have the knowledge that countless academics have written on how these origins continue to alienate a part of their player base; they have countless anecdotes from players about how the game’s charged terminology causes them discomfort; they have the abject racism demonstrated by their players on threads like this that show the problems persist. 

Wizards might not be purposefully harming anyone, but they are intentionally promulgating terminology that they know brings harm to their players. That intentional decision to further promote something they are aware harms their players does, in fact, ascribe a degree of culpability.  Wizards understands that - it is why they are trying to excise terms and elements of D&D charged with the game’s historically problematic politics.

Quote from Caerwyn_Glyndwr >>

Quote from Acromos >>

Quote from Linklite>>

I also strongly suggest you actually read the thread. There is one side that is getting upset and offended over the use of a word, and it's not the side that thinks that using the word "species" is a positive step forward.

 Thanks, but no thanks.

Both sides are wrong. And I'm 100% serious. We cannot keep discussing the words, when it's really the intentions that matter.

 

The great irony here—had you bothered to spend just a fraction of the time you spent on your long, dismissive, posts reading the thread, you would see that intentions have been discussed.  On one side of the debate there is Wizards, which recognises a large part of its game was steeped in the racist intent of Gygax and other early founders. It was, for example, discussed that intention is solely what divides Tolkien’s (who stood up against the Nazi persecution of Jews and against apartheid in his homeland) use of race from that of TSR (where the modules are infested with the harmful stereotypes of the founders who were—and some who still are—fairly outspoken in their racism).

Now, I am sure your response will be that historical intent cannot taint future intent - a response you would surely be given to try and save face, as your decision to not read and skip right to attempting to feel smugly superior to both sides backfired and made you look a bit the fool. 

I will save you the time - that answer likewise comes off rather poorly, since it ignores how intent works.  Intent is not a black and white issue - it is a gradient issue where one might have different levels of culpability depending on their intentions.  At the top, you have the person acting purposefully - they know their actions will cause a negative consequence and are taking their actions specifically to garner that negative consequence.  From your posts, it looks like you are only considering purposeful intent and ignoring any striation under that.

The other layers look at whether you intended to take an action you knew or should have known would harm others, the names of these levels generally divided in decreasing order of severity into “knowingly”, “reckless”, and “negligent” intent.

TSR likely was acting either purposefully or high up on the “knowingly” side of the spectrum - they either actively wanted to include their racism in the game, or acted so brazenly that, if that was not their specific goal, it was such an obvious outcome that it seemed like their specific goal.

Wizards is not as high up on that spectrum - but they are on the spectrum. They have the specific knowledge that their game’s terminology is rooted in racism; they have the knowledge that countless academics have written on how these origins continue to alienate a part of their player base; they have countless anecdotes from players about how the game’s charged terminology causes them discomfort; they have the abject racism demonstrated by their players on threads like this that show the problems persist. 

Wizards might not be purposefully harming anyone, but they are intentionally promulgating terminology that they know brings harm to their players. That intentional decision to further promote something they are aware harms their players does, in fact, ascribe a degree of culpability.  Wizards understands that - it is why they are trying to excise terms and elements of D&D charged with the game’s historically problematic politics.

 And that is why we should follow EN-World's lead on this. And adopt 'Schmorp' as the replacement term for race or species.

As a completely made up word is the only possible one which is free from historical baggage.