Are you calling D&D the Ship of Theseus? I mean, fair point, and they'll do anything to thrive, and more to survive... but until desperate times call for desperate measures, being able to call yourself an Elf or a Dwarf is something people want. And being a nerd game with numbers, people are going to want ways to get or change numbers from any noun, adjective, or verb they write on their character sheet.
But remember when I said they'd do anything to thrive? That's what they're currently trying to do. Not make the libs happy, but to get more capital in their pockets.
I just wish they chose a word with different connotstions (which is exactly how they came to a word that isn't race)... in Fantasy, it just feels too close to Eugenics...
I need to read the PDF, but species means you can interbreed. If Elves and Humans are different species, then half-elves are either all sterile, or won't exist.
Nope. Ring species exist. And different species can definitely produce fertile offspring, like coyotes and wolves do, or homo sapiens did with neanderthals and Denisovans.
Besides that, LINEAGE is such a better word. Heck, they could steal from another WotC property and just call it "creature type".
Again, lineage implies that you had ancestors. Multiple D&D races don't have anything of the sort. And, "creature type" is already taken in 5e.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
I mean, if people are going to pick holes in the language, then might I suggest this:
"What are you?"
Done. What are you? a dragonborn. What are you? A Warforged.What are you? A human. Job's a good one - it's literally only used in Character Creation, and still works with the typical "dragonborn only" wording we have for feats and such.
I'm in the simple camp that it doesn't need an overarching name or title. It just needs t obe an option for making the character.
But remember when I said they'd do anything to thrive? That's what they're currently trying to do. Not make the libs happy, but to get more capital in their pockets.
I need to read the PDF, but species means you can interbreed. If Elves and Humans are different species, then half-elves are either all sterile, or won't exist.
Nope. Ring species exist. And different species can definitely produce fertile offspring, like coyotes and wolves do, or homo sapiens did with neanderthals and Denisovans.
Besides that, LINEAGE is such a better word. Heck, they could steal from another WotC property and just call it "creature type".
Again, lineage implies that you had ancestors. Multiple D&D races don't have anything of the sort. And, "creature type" is already taken in 5e.
Okay, how about descent, origin, kin, or folk? I'm leaning towards kin.
Race doesn't work for Warforged or Autognomes, either.
The reason “species” is not overly common in fantasy writing stems from Tolkien, who used an archaic, non-scientific definition of race when referring to the different species of his world. As a significant part of our fantasy literature built on Tolkien, his language largely became dominant.
But there was no reason he could not have used the word species - it is hardly like species is a newfangled, modern word. In English, the word dates back to at least the 1500s, with citations showing its specific to the classification of different animals dating to the very first years of the 1600s. That actually puts it contemporaneous with the first citations of the archaic definition of race utilised by Tolkien. And, if we go back a bit deeper into the etymology, though the word entered English citations in the 16th century, the root comes from Latin, meaning things of like kind (the etymologically related word “specify” appears in English as early as the 1300s).
Overall, species feels a bit weird because we are used to Tolkien’s word choice and because we continue to use the word scientifically. However, the word species to identify “things that are like in kind” predates its scientific usage, and makes for a perfectly fine word in the pseudo-archaic language of the fantasy genera. Plus, using this slightly older definition allows us to easily ignore all the folk decrying species’ new D&D use not accurately encapsulating the fact that some of the different character options are not independent species by the scientific understanding of the word.
I mean, if people are going to pick holes in the language, then might I suggest this:
"What are you?"
Done. What are you? a dragonborn. What are you? A Warforged.What are you? A human. Job's a good one - it's literally only used in Character Creation, and still works with the typical "dragonborn only" wording we have for feats and such.
I'm in the simple camp that it doesn't need an overarching name or title. It just needs t obe an option for making the character.
What are you? A Barbarian. Okay, but what are you? Level 6. Sure, but what are you? A hermit. Gah, what are you? A man. Grrrr. What ARE you? A player of D&D who is getting frustrated because his DM keeps asking questions without specifying what they're asking for.
It's not needed for long, but it is needed.
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.
They won't use Ancestry due to it being used in Pathfinder and it would make non-players think D&D is copying Pathfinder and choose Pathfinder instead (which would be hilariously ironic).
It's misleading it makes one assume that they are all related. A goblin is not related to a goliath and you dang well aren't going to have a lizard man mate with a human woman, they are different classes from phylum etc and you simply can't breed them.
Demihuman from Gygax makes the most sense. It lets you know they are humanoid and non-human. Or they can list them as Humanoids if people don't want to go with Species. What WotC is rightfully doing is taking the wind out of a lot of peoples sails to hammer WotC with charges of racism for fantasy species. If someone wants to go after them, then use the less charged specism charge. I'd rather the designers put their mental power into putting out a good game rather than meeting the demands of their Twitter editors. I'm here to play D&D and not Twitter Approved D&D content.
Species is definitely a way to short circuit that attack vector. Demihumans would be my preference going back to the origins of the game over Humanoid which sounds more sci fi than fantasy.
I have been going back and forth on this topic, and I see valid points to not using "race" and I also see valid points on no using "species."
I have taken the time to step back and not look at the words, but the problem. D&D is a fantasy world, one of which we as humans do not live in, we try to use our own language and the majority of these posts are in English, and that got me thinking.
Why doesn't D&D come up with a new word that has no relations to the words/definitions that we already have or have a history on, remove the English definition and connotations, and plainly just make something up? This would allow D&D to define exactly what is meant and what it entails.
The reason “species” is not overly common in fantasy writing stems from Tolkien, who used an archaic, non-scientific definition of race when referring to the different species of his world. As a significant part of our fantasy literature built on Tolkien, his language largely became dominant.
Definitely true, but putting aside the why's of how things have been set up currently to me at least species feels very clinical and scientific. That might change with the use of it in the system of course, but it just feels bleh and scientific to me, and maybe even a little bit disparaging? Like something an evil scientist would say to make a creature feel insignificant.
I'd prefer Folk, Lineage or Ancestry cause to me at least they evoke the idea of the history and culture of a people. Rather than focusing on their biological traits. Halflings might be short little hair footed people, but the first thing I should think about them is cozy farmland and the occasional brave little fellow who carries his friend up a mountain.
With species I think like "Ah yes, the lizardfolk while similar in many ways to dragonborn actually filled the niche of swamp sentient over generations in an evolutionary arms race with the Grung." and I kind of don't like that
They won't use Ancestry due to it being used in Pathfinder and it would make non-players think D&D is copying Pathfinder and choose Pathfinder instead (which would be hilariously ironic).
It's misleading it makes one assume that they are all related. A goblin is not related to a goliath and you dang well aren't going to have a lizard man mate with a human woman, they are different classes from phylum etc and you simply can't breed them.
Demihuman from Gygax makes the most sense. It lets you know they are humanoid and non-human. Or they can list them as Humanoids if people don't want to go with Species. What WotC is rightfully doing is taking the wind out of a lot of peoples sails to hammer WotC with charges of racism for fantasy species. If someone wants to go after them, then use the less charged specism charge. I'd rather the designers put their mental power into putting out a good game rather than meeting the demands of their Twitter editors. I'm here to play D&D and not Twitter Approved D&D content.
Species is definitely a way to short circuit that attack vector. Demihumans would be my preference going back to the origins of the game over Humanoid which sounds more sci fi than fantasy.
I don't think Demihuman would fit, as the different peoples (elves, dwarves, warforged) aren't related to humans. It would be a nice callback to the Gygax era, though.
Humanoid could work, if it wasn't already a creature type in 5e. I think that Species works fine, even if it's a little weird to get used to.
If I were to choose, I would go with either Folk or Kin.
Why doesn't D&D come up with a new word that has no relations to the words/definitions that we already have or have a history on, remove the English definition and connotations, and plainly just make something up? This would allow D&D to define exactly what is meant and what it entails.
Just trying to think outside the box.
D&D wants to be as accessible as possible - which means using words new players can easily recognise and intuitively grasp. A made up word is something they have to learn, internalise, and remember to use in their D&D parlance - an existing word is something they already know and can easily adapt to the D&D usage. This is particularly important at character creation - what type of critter one plays as is among the first things new players look at, and you do not want their first impression of the game to be “oh dear, is this full of made up words I will have to learn? That sounds difficult and not for me.”
I have been going back and forth on this topic, and I see valid points to not using "race" and I also see valid points on no using "species."
I have taken the time to step back and not look at the words, but the problem. D&D is a fantasy world, one of which we as humans do not live in, we try to use our own language and the majority of these posts are in English, and that got me thinking.
Why doesn't D&D come up with a new word that has no relations to the words/definitions that we already have or have a history on, remove the English definition and connotations, and plainly just make something up? This would allow D&D to define exactly what is meant and what it entails.
Just trying to think outside the box.
Maybe. I've thought about it, but the can't help but think that the "thou shalt use race" crowd will get more upset. Also, I think the objection to "species" isn't so much that it's inaccurate (let's be honest, while it's not accurate, it's significantly more so than "race"), so much as it's new and novel (to the game), which is being resisted. I'm not dismissing the point of view, I can understand it, but I'm not sure inventing a whole new word will resolve those concerns.
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 think Demihuman would fit, as the different peoples (elves, dwarves, warforged) aren't related to humans. It would be a nice callback to the Gygax era, though.
Demihuman also implies that the other species are inferior to humans (demi- meaning half, partial, inferior). Given Gygax’s views on race - and the fact his depiction of many “Demihumans” was tantamount to “I think these stereotypes of real world ethnic cultures are lesser than human” - that is certainly not a word Wizards would want to consider as it is both etymologically problematic and problematic within the game’s history. Given how problematic Gygax was even by 70s standards, it is pretty difficult to have a “nice callback” to his era of D&D.
I don't think Demihuman would fit, as the different peoples (elves, dwarves, warforged) aren't related to humans. It would be a nice callback to the Gygax era, though.
Demihuman also implies that the other species are inferior to humans (demi- meaning half, partial, inferior). Given Gygax’s views on race - and the fact his depiction of many “Demihumans” was tantamount to “I think these stereotypes of real world ethnic cultures are lesser than human” - that is certainly not a word Wizards would want to consider as it is both etymologically problematic and problematic within the game’s history. Given how problematic Gygax was even by 70s standards, it is pretty difficult to have a “nice callback” to his era of D&D.
I agree with your point that people are going to be upset at changing the word. People are already upset at changing the word, why not completely change the word and everyone can be upset together and move on? Sometimes you have to start fresh, and if they are pushing for a one/new D&D, then this is an opportunity for them to define fresh and new.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Don't roll that one!
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Heck, Parentage would be a better word. My parents were Elves, or Elf and Dwarf.
Are you calling D&D the Ship of Theseus? I mean, fair point, and they'll do anything to thrive, and more to survive... but until desperate times call for desperate measures, being able to call yourself an Elf or a Dwarf is something people want. And being a nerd game with numbers, people are going to want ways to get or change numbers from any noun, adjective, or verb they write on their character sheet.
But remember when I said they'd do anything to thrive? That's what they're currently trying to do. Not make the libs happy, but to get more capital in their pockets.
I just wish they chose a word with different connotstions (which is exactly how they came to a word that isn't race)... in Fantasy, it just feels too close to Eugenics...
I'm pretty sure "parentage" isn't any better than species. Some of the "races" don't even have parents. Like Warforged and Autognomes.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Nope. Ring species exist. And different species can definitely produce fertile offspring, like coyotes and wolves do, or homo sapiens did with neanderthals and Denisovans.
Again, lineage implies that you had ancestors. Multiple D&D races don't have anything of the sort. And, "creature type" is already taken in 5e.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I mean, if people are going to pick holes in the language, then might I suggest this:
"What are you?"
Done. What are you? a dragonborn. What are you? A Warforged.What are you? A human. Job's a good one - it's literally only used in Character Creation, and still works with the typical "dragonborn only" wording we have for feats and such.
I'm in the simple camp that it doesn't need an overarching name or title. It just needs t obe an option for making the character.
Make your Artificer work with any other class with 174 Multiclassing Feats for your Artificer Multiclass Character!
DM's Guild Releases on This Thread Or check them all out on DMs Guild!
DrivethruRPG Releases on This Thread - latest release: My Character is a Werewolf: balanced rules for Lycanthropy!
I have started discussing/reviewing 3rd party D&D content on Substack - stay tuned for semi-regular posts!
"the libs" ಠ_ಠ
Again, lineage.
[REDACTED]
Okay, how about descent, origin, kin, or folk? I'm leaning towards kin.
Race doesn't work for Warforged or Autognomes, either.
[REDACTED]
The reason “species” is not overly common in fantasy writing stems from Tolkien, who used an archaic, non-scientific definition of race when referring to the different species of his world. As a significant part of our fantasy literature built on Tolkien, his language largely became dominant.
But there was no reason he could not have used the word species - it is hardly like species is a newfangled, modern word. In English, the word dates back to at least the 1500s, with citations showing its specific to the classification of different animals dating to the very first years of the 1600s. That actually puts it contemporaneous with the first citations of the archaic definition of race utilised by Tolkien. And, if we go back a bit deeper into the etymology, though the word entered English citations in the 16th century, the root comes from Latin, meaning things of like kind (the etymologically related word “specify” appears in English as early as the 1300s).
Overall, species feels a bit weird because we are used to Tolkien’s word choice and because we continue to use the word scientifically. However, the word species to identify “things that are like in kind” predates its scientific usage, and makes for a perfectly fine word in the pseudo-archaic language of the fantasy genera. Plus, using this slightly older definition allows us to easily ignore all the folk decrying species’ new D&D use not accurately encapsulating the fact that some of the different character options are not independent species by the scientific understanding of the word.
What are you? A Barbarian. Okay, but what are you? Level 6. Sure, but what are you? A hermit. Gah, what are you? A man. Grrrr. What ARE you? A player of D&D who is getting frustrated because his DM keeps asking questions without specifying what they're asking for.
It's not needed for long, but it is needed.
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.
It's misleading it makes one assume that they are all related. A goblin is not related to a goliath and you dang well aren't going to have a lizard man mate with a human woman, they are different classes from phylum etc and you simply can't breed them.
Demihuman from Gygax makes the most sense. It lets you know they are humanoid and non-human. Or they can list them as Humanoids if people don't want to go with Species. What WotC is rightfully doing is taking the wind out of a lot of peoples sails to hammer WotC with charges of racism for fantasy species. If someone wants to go after them, then use the less charged specism charge. I'd rather the designers put their mental power into putting out a good game rather than meeting the demands of their Twitter editors. I'm here to play D&D and not Twitter Approved D&D content.
Species is definitely a way to short circuit that attack vector. Demihumans would be my preference going back to the origins of the game over Humanoid which sounds more sci fi than fantasy.
I have been going back and forth on this topic, and I see valid points to not using "race" and I also see valid points on no using "species."
I have taken the time to step back and not look at the words, but the problem. D&D is a fantasy world, one of which we as humans do not live in, we try to use our own language and the majority of these posts are in English, and that got me thinking.
Why doesn't D&D come up with a new word that has no relations to the words/definitions that we already have or have a history on, remove the English definition and connotations, and plainly just make something up? This would allow D&D to define exactly what is meant and what it entails.
Just trying to think outside the box.
Don't roll that one!
Definitely true, but putting aside the why's of how things have been set up currently to me at least species feels very clinical and scientific. That might change with the use of it in the system of course, but it just feels bleh and scientific to me, and maybe even a little bit disparaging? Like something an evil scientist would say to make a creature feel insignificant.
I'd prefer Folk, Lineage or Ancestry cause to me at least they evoke the idea of the history and culture of a people. Rather than focusing on their biological traits. Halflings might be short little hair footed people, but the first thing I should think about them is cozy farmland and the occasional brave little fellow who carries his friend up a mountain.
With species I think like "Ah yes, the lizardfolk while similar in many ways to dragonborn actually filled the niche of swamp sentient over generations in an evolutionary arms race with the Grung." and I kind of don't like that
I don't think Demihuman would fit, as the different peoples (elves, dwarves, warforged) aren't related to humans. It would be a nice callback to the Gygax era, though.
Humanoid could work, if it wasn't already a creature type in 5e. I think that Species works fine, even if it's a little weird to get used to.
If I were to choose, I would go with either Folk or Kin.
[REDACTED]
D&D wants to be as accessible as possible - which means using words new players can easily recognise and intuitively grasp. A made up word is something they have to learn, internalise, and remember to use in their D&D parlance - an existing word is something they already know and can easily adapt to the D&D usage. This is particularly important at character creation - what type of critter one plays as is among the first things new players look at, and you do not want their first impression of the game to be “oh dear, is this full of made up words I will have to learn? That sounds difficult and not for me.”
Maybe. I've thought about it, but the can't help but think that the "thou shalt use race" crowd will get more upset. Also, I think the objection to "species" isn't so much that it's inaccurate (let's be honest, while it's not accurate, it's significantly more so than "race"), so much as it's new and novel (to the game), which is being resisted. I'm not dismissing the point of view, I can understand it, but I'm not sure inventing a whole new word will resolve those concerns.
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.
OH! Kin I like a lot!
Extremely positive connotations, and fantasy enough to really sell an image.
You can even add it to things in a lot of cases. Elfkin. Feykin. Fiendkin. Gnomekin
Demihuman also implies that the other species are inferior to humans (demi- meaning half, partial, inferior). Given Gygax’s views on race - and the fact his depiction of many “Demihumans” was tantamount to “I think these stereotypes of real world ethnic cultures are lesser than human” - that is certainly not a word Wizards would want to consider as it is both etymologically problematic and problematic within the game’s history. Given how problematic Gygax was even by 70s standards, it is pretty difficult to have a “nice callback” to his era of D&D.
Yikes
[REDACTED]
I like your use of "...what type of critter one plays as is among the first things new players look at..."
As with any new game or introduction to something new, some learning and education has to take place.
Don't roll that one!
I agree with your point that people are going to be upset at changing the word. People are already upset at changing the word, why not completely change the word and everyone can be upset together and move on? Sometimes you have to start fresh, and if they are pushing for a one/new D&D, then this is an opportunity for them to define fresh and new.
Don't roll that one!