I wound up putting subtype at the top, because it's reasonably clear what it means, has history in D&D already (monster entries in 3.5e had type and subtype -- and subtype for humanoids tended to be the same as their race), and doesn't have any extraneous meanings.
I picked Type (Subtype) for my top choice. As long as we're trying for something more detached and technical, we might as well go all the way. It is nakedly a rules only term, not meant to be used diegetically and I am more than fine with that. It avoids all sorts of associations and leaves the choice for a diegetic term up to the DM and world building.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Canto alla vita alla sua bellezza ad ogni sua ferita ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
See for me "Kind" works best of the presented options. Mostly because I can say things like "They are elven kind-" "The many kinds of the coast-" "They are of your kind-"
With species I feel like the first thing that comes to mind is explicitly non-sentient things "The species that live here-" feels like Im talking about plants and animals, I have to add "The sentient species-" to tell the players and sell the scene of what I mean.
Race had a similar issue, where I was hesitant to use it in actual narrative because of it's real life connotations, and I sort of worry the same is true here for species. (Though obviously with species the connotations link to science, and although historically quite messy not as badly with social issues)
Not that it cant change mind you. I can see myself adapting. I'd just personally rather Folk or Kind so I can use the words in narrative without feeling like a villainous scientist talking about how inferior the halfling species is biologically.
See for me "Kind" works best of the presented options. Mostly because I can say things like "They are elven kind-" "The many kinds of the coast-" "They are of your kind-"
With species I feel like the first thing that comes to mind is explicitly non-sentient things "The species that live here-" feels like Im talking about plants and animals, I have to add "The sentient species-" to tell the players and sell the scene of what I mean.
Race had a similar issue, where I was hesitant to use it in actual narrative because of it's real life connotations, and I sort of worry the same is true here for species. (Though obviously with species the connotations link to science, and although historically quite messy not as badly with social issues)
Not that it cant change mind you. I can see myself adapting. I'd just personally rather Folk or Kind so I can use the words in narrative without feeling like a villainous scientist talking about how inferior the halfling species is biologically.
Adding sentient to species does make it come across in use a lot better to my ear. It might be a bit cumbersome but is a good suggestion for implementing the word into game play.
"Sapient" is the word you're looking for. Most animals that people think about regularly (primarily mammals) should be considered "Sentient".
And the first problem there is that most animal species are capable of learning and are therefore also, arguably sapient. The second problem is that racists try to claim that distinction, too, of various sub-groups of humanity.
In modern usage, "Sapience" is used to denote a more vague "human-like" tier of intelligence. Obviously, any language used to separate creatures by capacity can and will be twisted to divide in-groups and out-groups. Either way, slapping on more adjectives is inelegant.
Perhaps what we really need is to skip clinical terms and find language that is overtly representative of achievement, such as "civilization", "culture", "adaptation", etc... perhaps replace racial traits with regional traits, like how Tasha's Custom Lineages allows common races to have a completely different suite of abilities. (Obviously this doesn't solve referring to race in general, but separates it from the mechanical consequences.)
Or maybe we can take a more poetic approach. For example, refer to "races" as "divine seeds" and use the gods of the races as representatives of the species.
[With 18 pages, I'm just going to assume this post has some overlap with something already discussed.]
I've been using D&D for educational purposes in the school where I work, and in my ministry, for several years now. Using the term 'race' became an issue in 2014 and 2011 respectively, so I switched over to using 'form'. There haven't been any complaints.
In principle, this really is the way to go, but we'd probably need to change the term for sub-subtypes, such as
Type: Humanoid
Subtype: Elf
Variant: Drow
Well if you look at MMM, it would more likely be Humanoid (Drow) with a feature in the text also saying "You count as an Elf for anything that requires it."
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Canto alla vita alla sua bellezza ad ogni sua ferita ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
One thing of note: in the latest survey they have a question about word preference that has two alternatives and they ask you about your reasoning for ranking things in the order you did. So for those that prefer something other than species, you now have an opportunity to give that feedback officially.
Not going to lie, I honestly didn't think they could come up with something even more insulting/bigoted than Species, then we got Kind and Type.
One thing of note: in the latest survey they have a question about word preference that has two alternatives and they ask you about your reasoning for ranking things in the order you did. So for those that prefer something other than species, you now have an opportunity to give that feedback officially.
Not going to lie, I honestly didn't think they could come up with something even more insulting/bigoted than Species, then we got Kind and Type.
Imagine you held some one else in utter contempt because of their ethnicity, color, sex, race, whatever. And/or believed your race/ethnicity/whatever was simply better. That is the type of individual that would use words like "species", "type", or "kind" to dehumanize them or to distinguish you from them, intentionally making it clear that they are not only different, but that there is a distinct incompatibility between your kind, or type, or species and theirs.
That is why. They very specifically carry insinuated insult and divisiveness. They are not just other, they are so different that they are a completely seperate category of being.
Imagine you held some one else in utter contempt because of their ethnicity, color, sex, race, whatever. And/or believed your race/ethnicity/whatever was simply better. That is the type of individual that would use words like "species", "type", or "kind" to dehumanize them or to distinguish you from them, intentionally making it clear that they are not only different, but that there is a distinct incompatibility between your kind, or type, or species and theirs.
That is why. They very specifically carry insinuated insult and divisiveness. They are not just other, they are so different that they are a completely seperate category of being.
I'm sorry, in that case what term would you rather use?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Canto alla vita alla sua bellezza ad ogni sua ferita ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
This all just comes back around to one of the first arguments. The problem is not the word, whether race, species, kind, or type; the problem is the intent behind the word when used by specific people.
This all just comes back around to one of the first arguments. The problem is not the word, whether race, species, kind, or type; the problem is the intent behind the word when used by specific people.
This is ignoring the fact that words have history and associations and absolutely can be hurtful unintentionally.
This all just comes back around to one of the first arguments. The problem is not the word, whether race, species, kind, or type; the problem is the intent behind the word when used by specific people.
This is just not true whatsoever. Again, if I say something rude and hurtful, it isn't suddenly polite because I didn't mean to offend anyone.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explainHERE.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Species is a far more accurate term than race in this context. I'm happy with the change.
I wound up putting subtype at the top, because it's reasonably clear what it means, has history in D&D already (monster entries in 3.5e had type and subtype -- and subtype for humanoids tended to be the same as their race), and doesn't have any extraneous meanings.
I picked Type (Subtype) for my top choice. As long as we're trying for something more detached and technical, we might as well go all the way. It is nakedly a rules only term, not meant to be used diegetically and I am more than fine with that. It avoids all sorts of associations and leaves the choice for a diegetic term up to the DM and world building.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
See for me "Kind" works best of the presented options. Mostly because I can say things like "They are elven kind-" "The many kinds of the coast-" "They are of your kind-"
With species I feel like the first thing that comes to mind is explicitly non-sentient things "The species that live here-" feels like Im talking about plants and animals, I have to add "The sentient species-" to tell the players and sell the scene of what I mean.
Race had a similar issue, where I was hesitant to use it in actual narrative because of it's real life connotations, and I sort of worry the same is true here for species. (Though obviously with species the connotations link to science, and although historically quite messy not as badly with social issues)
Not that it cant change mind you. I can see myself adapting. I'd just personally rather Folk or Kind so I can use the words in narrative without feeling like a villainous scientist talking about how inferior the halfling species is biologically.
Adding sentient to species does make it come across in use a lot better to my ear. It might be a bit cumbersome but is a good suggestion for implementing the word into game play.
"Sapient" is the word you're looking for. Most animals that people think about regularly (primarily mammals) should be considered "Sentient".
In modern usage, "Sapience" is used to denote a more vague "human-like" tier of intelligence. Obviously, any language used to separate creatures by capacity can and will be twisted to divide in-groups and out-groups. Either way, slapping on more adjectives is inelegant.
Perhaps what we really need is to skip clinical terms and find language that is overtly representative of achievement, such as "civilization", "culture", "adaptation", etc... perhaps replace racial traits with regional traits, like how Tasha's Custom Lineages allows common races to have a completely different suite of abilities. (Obviously this doesn't solve referring to race in general, but separates it from the mechanical consequences.)
Or maybe we can take a more poetic approach. For example, refer to "races" as "divine seeds" and use the gods of the races as representatives of the species.
[With 18 pages, I'm just going to assume this post has some overlap with something already discussed.]
I don't have a problem with this format.
I've been using D&D for educational purposes in the school where I work, and in my ministry, for several years now. Using the term 'race' became an issue in 2014 and 2011 respectively, so I switched over to using 'form'. There haven't been any complaints.
In principle, this really is the way to go, but we'd probably need to change the term for sub-subtypes, such as
Type: Humanoid
Subtype: Elf
Variant: Drow
That could work.
Well if you look at MMM, it would more likely be Humanoid (Drow) with a feature in the text also saying "You count as an Elf for anything that requires it."
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
Not going to lie, I honestly didn't think they could come up with something even more insulting/bigoted than Species, then we got Kind and Type.
...explain?
[REDACTED]
Imagine you held some one else in utter contempt because of their ethnicity, color, sex, race, whatever. And/or believed your race/ethnicity/whatever was simply better. That is the type of individual that would use words like "species", "type", or "kind" to dehumanize them or to distinguish you from them, intentionally making it clear that they are not only different, but that there is a distinct incompatibility between your kind, or type, or species and theirs.
That is why. They very specifically carry insinuated insult and divisiveness. They are not just other, they are so different that they are a completely seperate category of being.
I'm sorry, in that case what term would you rather use?
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
Exactly. De-humanizing is exactly what people have done for ages to get peoples to do awful things to other peoples.
Molon Labe, Lord Low
This all just comes back around to one of the first arguments. The problem is not the word, whether race, species, kind, or type; the problem is the intent behind the word when used by specific people.
This is ignoring the fact that words have history and associations and absolutely can be hurtful unintentionally.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
This is just not true whatsoever. Again, if I say something rude and hurtful, it isn't suddenly polite because I didn't mean to offend anyone.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.