It's a non-starter, because one of the possible meanings of "demihuman" is "inferior to human"
Of the terms suggested in the thread so far, "origin" seems the best to me, as it would encompass warforged, tieflings etc.
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 have no problem with race term being used to it for so long to represent various type of creatures in a fantasy game. TBH if it must change for species, ancestry, origin or anything else it will feel weird to me whatever the term chosen.
Is there a reason they can't just use "creature"? It eliminates virtually any negative connotation and is already used in a LOT of areas, to simply describe what is affected by things. Everything living seems to be considered a creature, so it should be all-encompassing. It sounds like a lot of time and energy is being directed at something that could be implemented and already fits with terminology in most existing books.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Talk to your Players.Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
Is there a reason they can't just use "creature"? It eliminates virtually any negative connotation and is already used in a LOT of areas, to simply describe what is affected by things. Everything living seems to be considered a creature, so it should be all-encompassing. It sounds like a lot of time and energy is being directed at something that could be implemented and already fits with terminology in most existing books.
Creature is already a rules term with specific meaning. Creature refers to a class of game entity used when targeting, and creature type refers to a specific piece of game metadata. For example, eldritch blast only targets creatures and detect evil and good alerts you to specific creature types.
Have PCs be a creature [game entity class] of a certain creature type [humanoid] and also have a different kind of creature type [dragonborn] would be confusing.
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.
If you are going to tar and feather people by name it is generally good manners to at least cite your sources. Gygax was far from perfect, but most of the ugliness attributed to him these days is a function of Reddit whisper-down-the-lane.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
J Great Wyrm Moonstone Dungeon Master
The time of the ORC has come. No OGL without irrevocability; no OGL with 'authorized version' language. #openDND
Practice, practice, practice • Respect the rules; don't memorize them • Be merciless, not cruel • Don't let the dice run the game for you
Go with origin, upbringing, culture, or some such and do away with bonuses that are actually tied to genetics/construction.
Can you actually do away with bonuses tied to physiology when you have peoples that have wings and can fly and those that can breath fire? While I totally agree some things should not be tied to physiology, such as ability scores, proficiencies, or language, I don't see it possible separate physiological traits from physiology.
In a sufficiently magic (or sci fi, or...) setting, physiology itself need not be connected to lineage/parentage/blood/whatever.
The root problem is forcing "peoples" to stay in buckets.
In a sufficiently magic (or sci fi, or...) setting, physiology itself need not be connected to lineage/parentage/blood/whatever.
Why do you assume that they are by default? Aristotle described species in the 4th Century BCE but had no understanding of genetics. He believed species were discrete and unchanging by divine fiat. There are no rules for genes or even heredity in any D&D book I'm aware of. Half-orcs and half-elves are more defined by a lack of explanation than any kind of science.
The root problem is forcing "peoples" to stay in buckets.
Well, that's just unreasonable. Whatever the reason -- genes, divine fiat, magic, or whatever -- a species is a bucket. Species are defined by a group of common traits. It makes good sense to free these game mechanics from harmful and wrong ideas about hereditary superiority or inferiority, but characters possessing traits that differentiate one "people" from another is something to be celebrated, not quashed. You can't have diversity without diversity.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
J Great Wyrm Moonstone Dungeon Master
The time of the ORC has come. No OGL without irrevocability; no OGL with 'authorized version' language. #openDND
Practice, practice, practice • Respect the rules; don't memorize them • Be merciless, not cruel • Don't let the dice run the game for you
Go with origin, upbringing, culture, or some such and do away with bonuses that are actually tied to genetics/construction.
Can you actually do away with bonuses tied to physiology when you have peoples that have wings and can fly and those that can breath fire? While I totally agree some things should not be tied to physiology, such as ability scores, proficiencies, or language, I don't see it possible separate physiological traits from physiology.
In a sufficiently magic (or sci fi, or...) setting, physiology itself need not be connected to lineage/parentage/blood/whatever.
The root problem is forcing "peoples" to stay in buckets.
Its good to keep them biologically separated. I'm not a big fan of munchkins and this is what you will get. A lot of us are playing a game, its got rules and balance is important. For those of you playing the narrative style of game where combat is more of an afterthought and players don't die unless they OK it, well I understand wanting to be able to play a flying dwarf with dragon breath. I'm being partially facetious on the dwarf, but there are players who will do that. It should never be part of core rules, but if someone is playing narratively and rule of cool, then go for it. I don't want to have to have a discussion with a rules lawyer about why I'm not allowing this when the book says its possible. I've had to have a discussion on exactly how fast a dragon could fly down to the hour it could arrive to get to the players to make a point for a rules lawyer as an example of how people will go into the minutiae for some form of advantage in a RPG.
This ^^ .. My campaign is full of enemies that bank off the personalities of "racists" and "Bigots". Elves hate dwarves, dwarves hate elves, Orcs hate everyone... I don't think my intent in creating evil characters equates to creating "Evil" in the real world. We really got stop Lord Voldemort-ing words as if it's going to raise a racist from the dead. Having the ability does not mean you're being enabled. We all have choices, we need to stop taking away the opportunity for accountability and do the diligent and right thing.
The word species feels strangely out of place in fantasy.
I've never read a fantasy novel where any character who wasn't some high browed professor who's clinical language was supposed to be looked down on, refer to elves or dwarves or gnomes as 'species'
There are plenty of other options for a replacement word.
I like species. It’s efficient and to the point and not too highbrow at all (though granted I say this without reading the other 52 responses).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I really like D&D, especially Ravenloft, Exandria and the Upside Down from Stranger Things. My pronouns are she/they (genderfae).
This ^^ .. My campaign is full of enemies that bank off the personalities of "racists" and "Bigots". Elves hate dwarves, dwarves hate elves, Orcs hate everyone... I don't think my intent in creating evil characters equates to creating "Evil" in the real world. We really got stop Lord Voldemort-ing words as if it's going to raise a racist from the dead. Having the ability does not mean you're being enabled. We all have choices, we need to stop taking away the opportunity for accountability and do the diligent and right thing.
It's being changed because the term race draws incorrect comparisons to real-world people. Orcs are not native American humans, for example - they're Orcs, and Elves are not white Europeans. Thus, a term other than "race" is needed.
Have PCs be a creature [game entity class] of a certain creature type [humanoid] and also have a different kind of creature type [dragonborn] would be confusing.
It, uh, may be confusing, but it is also already true. Dragonborn are dragonborn, humanoids, and creatures, by existing RAW.
I don't particularly like the use of the word in this context, but it does have the benefit of being a term that is already in use and does not seem to upset people. Begrudgingly, Falwith has a point.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
J Great Wyrm Moonstone Dungeon Master
The time of the ORC has come. No OGL without irrevocability; no OGL with 'authorized version' language. #openDND
Practice, practice, practice • Respect the rules; don't memorize them • Be merciless, not cruel • Don't let the dice run the game for you
Have PCs be a creature [game entity class] of a certain creature type [humanoid] and also have a different kind of creature type [dragonborn] would be confusing.
It, uh, may be confusing, but it is also already true. Dragonborn are dragonborn, humanoids, and creatures, by existing RAW.
I don't particularly like the use of the word in this context, but it does have the benefit of being a term that is already in use and does not seem to upset people. Begrudgingly, Falwith has a point.
Speaking from the perspective e of someone who regularly interoperates and writes rules, the fact that “creature” is already used is far from a benefit. Important words in any rule system should be defined within that system and only have one meaning. Once a word is defined within the ruleset, it loses its plain meaning - for all intents and purposes, the definition of prescribed by the rule controls and it becomes a “term of art” with a specific prescribed meaning. Adding multiple definitions takes that word from something clear and exact and introduces ambiguity into the rule system. No longer can you look at a word and say “X means Y”, you now have to look at the context and say, “X means Y in this context, but it means Z in a different context.” That is where you start to run into ambiguity problems, particularly in a game with as much complexity as D&D.
“Creature” presently has a very exacting, clear definition - it refers to certain entities players can interact with and is used when defining the targeting of spellcasting and other abilities. Rather than taint that definition by using the same word twice, it makes vastly more sense to create a new term of art which does not have any existing parallel.
Species feels a bit taxonomic, like it lacks recognition of people as people and sounds like identifying people as creatures divided into individual taxonomic groups.
Heritage is modernly used to identify cultures, as is Lineage. Both are focused on people as people on more-equal footing while giving a quick, general overview of cultural identities and common traits, though not wholly representative of individuals and not intended to promote stereotypes. Given how One D&D UA currently handles mixing of what it calls "Humanoid Kinds", taxonomic division is currently not really a factor anymore in 1dndua and it's really just a matter of a group of common traits passed through lineage.
Origin can be found in a few games for defining cultural and physical characteristics, but One D&D UA already uses "Character Origins" as the name for part of character creation.
I'ma not feeling my best. I'm uncertain if I'm conveying my thoughts well. Bloody weather. Bloody allergies.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider. My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong. I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲 “It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
Species feels a bit taxonomic, like it lacks recognition of people as people and sounds like identifying people as creatures divided into individual taxonomic groups.
Heritage is modernly used to identify cultures, as is Lineage. Both are focused on people as people on more-equal footing while giving a quick, general overview of cultural identities and common traits, though not wholly representative of individuals and not intended to promote stereotypes. Given how One D&D UA currently handles mixing of what it calls "Humanoid Kinds", taxonomic division is currently not really a factor anymore in 1dndua and it's really just a matter of a group of common traits passed through lineage.
Origin can be found in a few games for defining cultural and physical characteristics, but One D&D UA already uses "Character Origins" as the name for part of character creation.
I'ma not feeling my best. I'm uncertain if I'm conveying my thoughts well. Bloody weather. Bloody allergies.
Heritage works too.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I really like D&D, especially Ravenloft, Exandria and the Upside Down from Stranger Things. My pronouns are she/they (genderfae).
Well, that's just unreasonable. Whatever the reason -- genes, divine fiat, magic, or whatever -- a species is a bucket.
That gets into the issue of D&D species (or whatever) not actually being species.
I do not really see that as an actual issue. For decades, fantasy fans have been fine with using an archaic definition of race even though it was not congruent with the modern day sociological definition. Using species in this manner is hardly any different that what everyone was already used to - though the modern day scientific definition might not be accurate, the “a class composed of individuals having some common qualities or characteristics” definition dating back a few hundred years does apply to “species” as used in D&D.
Now, yes, this means we are trading “but that’s not what race means in modern parlance” debates for “but that’s not what species means in modern parlance” debates. But that’s a lateral move that can be easily resolved with a dictionary, as it always has been, and that trade is well worth it as it eliminates a number of the other more problematic connotations “race” holds within D&D that “species” does not.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
It's a non-starter, because one of the possible meanings of "demihuman" is "inferior to human"
Of the terms suggested in the thread so far, "origin" seems the best to me, as it would encompass warforged, tieflings etc.
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)
You *can* use a different word, but I must happen to think "species" is the most straightforward term, with less ambiguity to be coded any which way.
Lineage is a simple option, much better than race, but not scientific at all. I already use that term in my games instead of race.
i have no problem with race term being used to it for so long to represent various type of creatures in a fantasy game. TBH if it must change for species, ancestry, origin or anything else it will feel weird to me whatever the term chosen.
Is there a reason they can't just use "creature"? It eliminates virtually any negative connotation and is already used in a LOT of areas, to simply describe what is affected by things. Everything living seems to be considered a creature, so it should be all-encompassing. It sounds like a lot of time and energy is being directed at something that could be implemented and already fits with terminology in most existing books.
Talk to your Players. Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
Creature is already a rules term with specific meaning. Creature refers to a class of game entity used when targeting, and creature type refers to a specific piece of game metadata. For example, eldritch blast only targets creatures and detect evil and good alerts you to specific creature types.
Have PCs be a creature [game entity class] of a certain creature type [humanoid] and also have a different kind of creature type [dragonborn] would be confusing.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
"Choose your creature" sounds weird. You could probably use "Choose your creature type" except that has a different pre-existing meaning.
The reality is that there are no good choices, for the simple reason that we're dealing with a situation with no real-world equivalent.
If you are going to tar and feather people by name it is generally good manners to at least cite your sources. Gygax was far from perfect, but most of the ugliness attributed to him these days is a function of Reddit whisper-down-the-lane.
J
Great Wyrm Moonstone Dungeon Master
The time of the ORC has come. No OGL without irrevocability; no OGL with 'authorized version' language. #openDND
Practice, practice, practice • Respect the rules; don't memorize them • Be merciless, not cruel • Don't let the dice run the game for you
In a sufficiently magic (or sci fi, or...) setting, physiology itself need not be connected to lineage/parentage/blood/whatever.
The root problem is forcing "peoples" to stay in buckets.
Why do you assume that they are by default? Aristotle described species in the 4th Century BCE but had no understanding of genetics. He believed species were discrete and unchanging by divine fiat. There are no rules for genes or even heredity in any D&D book I'm aware of. Half-orcs and half-elves are more defined by a lack of explanation than any kind of science.
Well, that's just unreasonable. Whatever the reason -- genes, divine fiat, magic, or whatever -- a species is a bucket. Species are defined by a group of common traits. It makes good sense to free these game mechanics from harmful and wrong ideas about hereditary superiority or inferiority, but characters possessing traits that differentiate one "people" from another is something to be celebrated, not quashed. You can't have diversity without diversity.
J
Great Wyrm Moonstone Dungeon Master
The time of the ORC has come. No OGL without irrevocability; no OGL with 'authorized version' language. #openDND
Practice, practice, practice • Respect the rules; don't memorize them • Be merciless, not cruel • Don't let the dice run the game for you
Its good to keep them biologically separated. I'm not a big fan of munchkins and this is what you will get. A lot of us are playing a game, its got rules and balance is important. For those of you playing the narrative style of game where combat is more of an afterthought and players don't die unless they OK it, well I understand wanting to be able to play a flying dwarf with dragon breath. I'm being partially facetious on the dwarf, but there are players who will do that. It should never be part of core rules, but if someone is playing narratively and rule of cool, then go for it. I don't want to have to have a discussion with a rules lawyer about why I'm not allowing this when the book says its possible. I've had to have a discussion on exactly how fast a dragon could fly down to the hour it could arrive to get to the players to make a point for a rules lawyer as an example of how people will go into the minutiae for some form of advantage in a RPG.
This ^^ ..
My campaign is full of enemies that bank off the personalities of "racists" and "Bigots". Elves hate dwarves, dwarves hate elves, Orcs hate everyone... I don't think my intent in creating evil characters equates to creating "Evil" in the real world.
We really got stop Lord Voldemort-ing words as if it's going to raise a racist from the dead. Having the ability does not mean you're being enabled. We all have choices, we need to stop taking away the opportunity for accountability and do the diligent and right thing.
I like species. It’s efficient and to the point and not too highbrow at all (though granted I say this without reading the other 52 responses).
I really like D&D, especially Ravenloft, Exandria and the Upside Down from Stranger Things. My pronouns are she/they (genderfae).
It's being changed because the term race draws incorrect comparisons to real-world people. Orcs are not native American humans, for example - they're Orcs, and Elves are not white Europeans. Thus, a term other than "race" is needed.
[REDACTED]
It, uh, may be confusing, but it is also already true. Dragonborn are dragonborn, humanoids, and creatures, by existing RAW.
I don't particularly like the use of the word in this context, but it does have the benefit of being a term that is already in use and does not seem to upset people. Begrudgingly, Falwith has a point.
J
Great Wyrm Moonstone Dungeon Master
The time of the ORC has come. No OGL without irrevocability; no OGL with 'authorized version' language. #openDND
Practice, practice, practice • Respect the rules; don't memorize them • Be merciless, not cruel • Don't let the dice run the game for you
Speaking from the perspective e of someone who regularly interoperates and writes rules, the fact that “creature” is already used is far from a benefit. Important words in any rule system should be defined within that system and only have one meaning. Once a word is defined within the ruleset, it loses its plain meaning - for all intents and purposes, the definition of prescribed by the rule controls and it becomes a “term of art” with a specific prescribed meaning. Adding multiple definitions takes that word from something clear and exact and introduces ambiguity into the rule system. No longer can you look at a word and say “X means Y”, you now have to look at the context and say, “X means Y in this context, but it means Z in a different context.” That is where you start to run into ambiguity problems, particularly in a game with as much complexity as D&D.
“Creature” presently has a very exacting, clear definition - it refers to certain entities players can interact with and is used when defining the targeting of spellcasting and other abilities. Rather than taint that definition by using the same word twice, it makes vastly more sense to create a new term of art which does not have any existing parallel.
Species feels a bit taxonomic, like it lacks recognition of people as people and sounds like identifying people as creatures divided into individual taxonomic groups.
Heritage is modernly used to identify cultures, as is Lineage. Both are focused on people as people on more-equal footing while giving a quick, general overview of cultural identities and common traits, though not wholly representative of individuals and not intended to promote stereotypes. Given how One D&D UA currently handles mixing of what it calls "Humanoid Kinds", taxonomic division is currently not really a factor anymore in 1dndua and it's really just a matter of a group of common traits passed through lineage.
Origin can be found in a few games for defining cultural and physical characteristics, but One D&D UA already uses "Character Origins" as the name for part of character creation.
I'ma not feeling my best. I'm uncertain if I'm conveying my thoughts well. Bloody weather. Bloody allergies.
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider.
My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong.
I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲
“It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
Heritage works too.
I really like D&D, especially Ravenloft, Exandria and the Upside Down from Stranger Things. My pronouns are she/they (genderfae).
That gets into the issue of D&D species (or whatever) not actually being species.
I do not really see that as an actual issue. For decades, fantasy fans have been fine with using an archaic definition of race even though it was not congruent with the modern day sociological definition. Using species in this manner is hardly any different that what everyone was already used to - though the modern day scientific definition might not be accurate, the “a class composed of individuals having some common qualities or characteristics” definition dating back a few hundred years does apply to “species” as used in D&D.
Now, yes, this means we are trading “but that’s not what race means in modern parlance” debates for “but that’s not what species means in modern parlance” debates. But that’s a lateral move that can be easily resolved with a dictionary, as it always has been, and that trade is well worth it as it eliminates a number of the other more problematic connotations “race” holds within D&D that “species” does not.