Maybe I just don't understand it, but how is the term "Race" problematic? As a whole, we humans are a race, which is the way it is described in the Players Handbook for other humanoids as well. Even if "Species" is a more accurate term to describe the differences between different humanoids, it sounds far too scientific and impersonal.
To me it comes down to the meaning of the word race in game and the meaning of the word race IRL. They aren't the same and if you're part of a real world racial group that has been demeaned and marginalized when a fantasy race gets depicted in similar ways can be upsetting for some, which kind of ruins some of the experience in a game where you're trying to have fun.
A different word is cleaner and species is more accurate, though I agree it does come out rather awkwardly when used in game. Though I imagine that people will get used to it sooner or later and it won't seem that weird anymore.
That still doesn't explain what's racist about it. Are some depictions of races racist, such as them being very similar to a certain problematic view of a certain people, sure. But saying things like "BLANK's get a bonus to certain skills and traits" or that same fantasy race having specific physical traits, such as pointed ears or tusks, is not racist.
I just don't understand.
As already said in other posts responding to you: The problem with the word is how it was historically used by actual, outspoken racists within the game itself. If you are a company, and your company historically used the word “Buckle” to mean something racist—even though the word "Buckle” is not a racially charged word—you would still want to say “hey, we are going to stop using this word and instead use a different word that we never used in an improper manner.”
As for racial traits (which is a separate issue than language)—physical traits are still represented with a species’ abilities. A Tabaxi, for example, will have its claws. The thing Wizards is distancing itself from is things like “all orcs are strong because they get a static strength bonus.” That (a) often reflected harmful stereotypes of the real world cultures some of the species are based on and (b) isn’t great game design (it made certain species and class pairs suboptimal, making it harder to play the role you wanted to play in your roleplaying game. Plus, differences between species could be better represented in other ways, like specific species features).
Removing Race as one of the dumber things WoTC has done. What is offensive with "Race" I mean I see how AD&D uses it as a positive the HUMAN RACE is just one they don't have time to worry about color when Lizard People are after them.
Since this is a new thread page, let me answer this question again for the umpteenth time.
D&D’s early founders had some very questionable views on race—there was zealous support of eugenics (even after the 40s made eugenics pretty unpopular); there were some rampant stereotypes against tribal cultures that were added to the game; there was a tacit endorsement of genocide by some of the founders; one of the founders right now is literally advocating for D&D to return to the racist vision of himself and his father; etc.
Race, as used in D&D became charged by the hatred of the early game—the term itself was, after all, used in furtherance of the hate in the hearts of folks like Gary and Ernie Gygax.
Wizards, in their attempt to excise Gygaxian racism from the game, is removing the word Race because they know it has historically been used in a problematic way by their own game. Choosing a new word allows them to take a mulligan and start afresh, using a word without any in-game historical charge, rather than trying to scrub the stain of bigotry from an existing word.
Removing Race as one of the dumber things WoTC has done. What is offensive with "Race" I mean I see how AD&D uses it as a positive the HUMAN RACE is just one they don't have time to worry about color when Lizard People are after them.
My take is that it helps many new players who may have negative life experiences around race more easily embrace the game. Experienced players generally understand the difference in meaning behind race in real life and race in a fantasy setting. But for new players that might not be immediately obvious and if they've been stereotyped in hurtful ways around real world race and they see some of the same patterns in the game (such as saying some races aren't as smart as others) that they've experienced they might be turned off before they can get into the game.
Species is more accurate, but so far I've found it clunky and kind of psychologically divisive. I've been using either player race or player species so far and that feels comfortable to me. I think it helps define what we're talking about a bit better.
I'm really getting tired of trotting out the same damn answers every single time some fresh-faced forum rookie decides to resurrect this thread and complain about Race Not Being Offensive without reading one single good goddamned word of the prior thirty frickin' pages of angry forum infighting on the subject.
Y'all's opinion isn't special. Read the thread, then resurrect it if you must. if you're not willing to read anything we've already said, why should we be willing to talk to you?
I'm really getting tired of trotting out the same damn answers every single time some fresh-faced forum rookie decides to resurrect this thread and complain about Race Not Being Offensive without reading one single good goddamned word of the prior thirty frickin' pages of angry forum infighting on the subject.
Y'all's opinion isn't special. Read the thread, then resurrect it if you must. if you're not willing to read anything we've already said, why should we be willing to talk to you?
I have to ask if they aren’t willing to respect the effort already done, and they aren’t willing to let the thing die, then they can pay folks to keep teaching them.
this stuff ain’t free…
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
Do you think innate physical strength is any less a physical, genetic trait than claws? Because it's not. Bears are, as a species, stronger than humans. Most ability score bonuses are or could have resulted from genetic rather than cultural factors. e.g. Elven dexterity and grace is usually described as part of their nature not their upbringing. The mistake all the easily offended make is trying to draw parallels with real life, where the genetic differences between any given "race" are less than between individuals of the same "race". That clearly isn't true of the differences between e.g. a Gnome and an Orc.
You're vastly over-estimating the narrative significance of ability scores. Yes, orcs are stronger than gnomes. That doesn't mean that, as a matter of gameplay balance, it makes sense for orcs to have an inherently higher chance to hit with melee attacks than gnomes. What it does mean is that they can benchpress more, which is why they have the Powerful Build trait, something that they definitely still have in this new paradigm. Elven grace is represented by the Elven Accuracy feat, if a character chooses to take it.
I don't think anyone would reasonably argue that gnomes should be "just as strong" as orcs. The argument is that there are better and more interesting mechanics to convey that difference than ability score increases.
... The mistake all the easily offended make is trying to draw parallels with real life, where the genetic differences between any given "race" are less than between individuals of the same "race". That clearly isn't true of the differences between e.g. a Gnome and an Orc. ...
And the mistake all the hidebound callous jackwaffles who insist that nothing should ever offend anyone and exclusionism doesn't exist whilst being super offended at changing one word out to make a large number of people more comfortable with D&D make is in assuming that people are actively and deliberately seeking to "draw parallels with real life", instead of seeing parallels that already exist and feeling like those parallels say things about people that maybe the player doesn't like being said.
If nothing should ever offend anyone and exclusionism doesn't exist, then what's the harm in changing out a word for a different word? Oh, right - there is none.
Stop with the bioessentialism and the artificial limitations on character generation. If somebody wants to play a strong elf, an intelligent orc, a dextrous goliath, or any other 'Unthinkable!' combination, the problem is not with them for wanting to do that, it's with y'all for being so stuck in your old-ass ways that you can't pull enough stick out your ass to bend far enough to allow for actually interesting characters instead of replaying Lord of the Rings for the 3,783rd time.
I'm saying this with complete respect to anyone, and this is not meant to harm anyone's emotions, but how has this thread not died yet?
I'd say that there are still enough people who haven't been swayed by the arguments and would like to have their say on the matter. I'm convinced, but I'm not convinced enough to say case closed, ya'll need to respect mah authority now.
I'm saying this with complete respect to anyone, and this is not meant to harm anyone's emotions, but how has this thread not died yet?
I'd say that there are still enough people who haven't been swayed by the arguments and would like to have their say on the matter. I'm convinced, but I'm not convinced enough to say case closed, ya'll need to respect mah authority now.
It really should be a closed case.
On one side the argument is, "Hi, we are Wizards of the Coast. We would like to admit that our game has used the term 'race' problematically in the past, so we want to change to a different word."
On the other side, you have folks who have no concept of free speech who are trying to control Wizards of the Coast's speech by telling them "No, you are not allowed to change your own speech--you must conform to what we want, and what we want is to control your speech and force you to use a word that you do not feel comfortable using."
Pretty cut and dry which side is right--it's the side that is exercising its speech rights to fix a problem it recognizes in itself, not the folks who would repress Wizards' speech.
I'm saying this with complete respect to anyone, and this is not meant to harm anyone's emotions, but how has this thread not died yet?
I'd say that there are still enough people who haven't been swayed by the arguments and would like to have their say on the matter. I'm convinced, but I'm not convinced enough to say case closed, ya'll need to respect mah authority now.
It really should be a closed case.
On one side the argument is, "Hi, we are Wizards of the Coast. We would like to admit that our game has used the term 'race' problematically in the past, so we want to change to a different word."
On the other side, you have folks who have no concept of free speech who are trying to control Wizards of the Coast's speech by telling them "No, you are not allowed to change your own speech--you must conform to what we want, and what we want is to control your speech and force you to use a word that you do not feel comfortable using."
Pretty cut and dry which side is right--it's the side that is exercising its speech rights to fix a problem it recognizes in itself, not the folks who would repress Wizards' speech.
That's obviously a completely biased take. You represent your own argument well but completely dismiss anyone else as being an authoritarian control freak. From the disagreements I've heard its not people saying Wizards isn't allowed and the use of the word race is mandatory, but rather that they don't understand or agree with the problematic aspects of IRL race vs fantasy race and are questioning or challenging it, sometimes in a disagreeable way which shouldn't be completely disqualifying.
I just object to the tone of "we win, case closed, go away now bad person" for a topic that is only a few months old to most people.
I'd say that there are still enough people who haven't been swayed by the arguments and would like to have their say on the matter.
At this point, I suspect it's mostly trolls and people who have been pointed to the thread by trolls. Anyone who jumps into a thirty page thread that has been up for months without reading at least some of the thread isn't really interested in discourse.
I'd say that there are still enough people who haven't been swayed by the arguments and would like to have their say on the matter.
From the disagreements I've heard its … … that they don't understand or agree with the problematic aspects of IRL race vs fantasy race and are questioning or challenging it, sometimes in a disagreeable way which shouldn't be completely disqualifying.
in this case, then the conversation isn’t a topic for these forums, is it?
None of the reasons for doing so have a damn thing to do with “in game” stuff, in the end, and all of them are things that people have been “not understanding or agreeing with” for something close to 900 years.
that is, there are people who do not understand what racism is, who disagree with what people say about racism, who benefit from it and may desire to see it continue, and who have done that for literal centuries.
land you expect those same people, who have ignored all the science, all the history, all the wars and bloody deaths of all those years, to somehow be swayed on a forum of people they have an inordinately high probability of not knowing by a couple arguments over a bleeping game?
a game, I note, where one of the core rules is if they don’t like the official position, then go make their own?
that stretches all bounds of belief and reason. And is both deeply disrespectful and incredibly rude.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
[Thread Title] I'm okay retiring race as a term, but can we get a replacement term other than species?
Conclusion: No. The decision has already been made.
If anyone really wants to discuss the merits of game language, purely as a matter of armchair philosophy, let's start a new thread and let this one be sterilized as the petri dish it is.
I just object to the tone of "we win, case closed, go away now bad person" for a topic that is only a few months old to most people.
As opposed to the tone of "the word isn't racist and anyone who thinks it's racist is an over-offended uppity woke jackass and therefore a Bad Person" that we constantly get from the people who continue to bump this godforsaken thread?
DDB website staff has stated that one is not allowed to "disagree" with the assertion that the word 'race' has caused issues in the past. People keep trying to denigrate, deny, and dismiss anyone who says so, and the site staff has openly said doing so is no longer permitted on DDB. We do win. The case is closed. Constantly harping and nagging and making a nasty unpleasant stink about it isn't going to change the fact that this is the way it will be. You can get used to it or you can...actually, there is no "or". You have the choice of Getting Used To It.
Kindly do not make everybody else's lives miserable during the process of Getting Used To It.
I just object to the tone of "we win, case closed, go away now bad person" for a topic that is only a few months old to most people.
As opposed to the tone of "the word isn't racist and anyone who thinks it's racist is an over-offended uppity woke jackass and therefore a Bad Person" that we constantly get from the people who continue to bump this godforsaken thread?
Yes, that is the tone I'm talking about. Only I tend to apply it across the board.
DDB website staff has stated that one is not allowed to "disagree" with the assertion that the word 'race' has caused issues in the past. People keep trying to denigrate, deny, and dismiss anyone who says so, and the site staff has openly said doing so is no longer permitted on DDB. We do win. The case is closed. Constantly harping and nagging and making a nasty unpleasant stink about it isn't going to change the fact that this is the way it will be. You can get used to it or you can...actually, there is no "or". You have the choice of Getting Used To It.
Also yes, I do find that stance objectionable.
Kindly do not make everybody else's lives miserable during the process of Getting Used To It.
Genuine apologies, I did realize that my speaking up would cause strife. But I really do find the attitude I stated problematic.
Considering this actually started with the question of "Why not just use 'lineage' because 'species' sounds worse than 'race' from a tonal standpoint", and has since been correctly cited from Tasha's Cauldron of Everything as the reasonale behind this question. (See this forum pg. 8 for the first complete reference), I'm just gonna come in and say that if you want to continue the discussion, you can do so in a new thread. If you wanna troll, then there's 4Chan or 9GAG. If you wanna anti-virtue-signal, there's Twitter.
"Race" was deemed problematic, and the current head of state no longer wishes to use the term, so don't use the term. "Species" has a eugenics-vibe to it I don't like. "Lineage" seems the most neutral (even though it also has been contested) while also having this power to it.
People have pride in their Lineage. My family lineage has been military-bound for generations, a point members of my family take pride in. The Royal Lineage of the United Kingdom is a prestigious one, being the head of the Crown. Others attribute their Lineage to old money (which could also be seen as negative but that's a different topic). Others still attribute their lineage to one of prestigious academics or scholars.
I ask people think back, to a time when they were with those they loved, and discussed what of their family they were proud of. This kind of conversation is one of discussing the pride of your Lineage, one which all have to some degree. Everyone can come up with some kind of heartwarming tale of a distant ancestor establishing a time honored tradition that carries through the ages.
All that said, personally, I'mma just stick to Lineage even if OD&D uses "Species", because "Lineage" feels more at home to me. Feel free to use your own term that isn't "race". If it is also "Lineage" tell me why.
But also we should close this thread already because it's been opened and closed for weeks now. Kinda dumb.
I just object to the tone of "we win, case closed, go away now bad person" for a topic that is only a few months old to most people.
As opposed to the tone of "the word isn't racist and anyone who thinks it's racist is an over-offended uppity woke jackass and therefore a Bad Person" that we constantly get from the people who continue to bump this godforsaken thread?
Yes, that is the tone I'm talking about. Only I tend to apply it across the board.
DDB website staff has stated that one is not allowed to "disagree" with the assertion that the word 'race' has caused issues in the past. People keep trying to denigrate, deny, and dismiss anyone who says so, and the site staff has openly said doing so is no longer permitted on DDB. We do win. The case is closed. Constantly harping and nagging and making a nasty unpleasant stink about it isn't going to change the fact that this is the way it will be. You can get used to it or you can...actually, there is no "or". You have the choice of Getting Used To It.
Also yes, I do find that stance objectionable.
Kindly do not make everybody else's lives miserable during the process of Getting Used To It.
Genuine apologies, I did realize that my speaking up would cause strife. But I really do find the attitude I stated problematic.
The reason I think most people feel that way is because this isn't a truly open discussion forum (and it was never intended to be). I'm sure there is somewhere out there where you can have a full, honest, intellectual, logical, & fact based conversation about nuanced and controversial topics if that is your thing. DDB has never been that place, and probably never will be, because at the end of the day it's a business site, not a fan site. Or to be more specific, it's a digital book & character generator site that happens to have forums attached to it, not a forums for the sake of having discussions site. Amazon, not Facebook.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
As already said in other posts responding to you: The problem with the word is how it was historically used by actual, outspoken racists within the game itself. If you are a company, and your company historically used the word “Buckle” to mean something racist—even though the word "Buckle” is not a racially charged word—you would still want to say “hey, we are going to stop using this word and instead use a different word that we never used in an improper manner.”
As for racial traits (which is a separate issue than language)—physical traits are still represented with a species’ abilities. A Tabaxi, for example, will have its claws. The thing Wizards is distancing itself from is things like “all orcs are strong because they get a static strength bonus.” That (a) often reflected harmful stereotypes of the real world cultures some of the species are based on and (b) isn’t great game design (it made certain species and class pairs suboptimal, making it harder to play the role you wanted to play in your roleplaying game. Plus, differences between species could be better represented in other ways, like specific species features).
Since this is a new thread page, let me answer this question again for the umpteenth time.
D&D’s early founders had some very questionable views on race—there was zealous support of eugenics (even after the 40s made eugenics pretty unpopular); there were some rampant stereotypes against tribal cultures that were added to the game; there was a tacit endorsement of genocide by some of the founders; one of the founders right now is literally advocating for D&D to return to the racist vision of himself and his father; etc.
Race, as used in D&D became charged by the hatred of the early game—the term itself was, after all, used in furtherance of the hate in the hearts of folks like Gary and Ernie Gygax.
Wizards, in their attempt to excise Gygaxian racism from the game, is removing the word Race because they know it has historically been used in a problematic way by their own game. Choosing a new word allows them to take a mulligan and start afresh, using a word without any in-game historical charge, rather than trying to scrub the stain of bigotry from an existing word.
My take is that it helps many new players who may have negative life experiences around race more easily embrace the game. Experienced players generally understand the difference in meaning behind race in real life and race in a fantasy setting. But for new players that might not be immediately obvious and if they've been stereotyped in hurtful ways around real world race and they see some of the same patterns in the game (such as saying some races aren't as smart as others) that they've experienced they might be turned off before they can get into the game.
Species is more accurate, but so far I've found it clunky and kind of psychologically divisive. I've been using either player race or player species so far and that feels comfortable to me. I think it helps define what we're talking about a bit better.
I'm really getting tired of trotting out the same damn answers every single time some fresh-faced forum rookie decides to resurrect this thread and complain about Race Not Being Offensive without reading one single good goddamned word of the prior thirty frickin' pages of angry forum infighting on the subject.
Y'all's opinion isn't special. Read the thread, then resurrect it if you must. if you're not willing to read anything we've already said, why should we be willing to talk to you?
Please do not contact or message me.
I have to ask if they aren’t willing to respect the effort already done, and they aren’t willing to let the thing die, then they can pay folks to keep teaching them.
this stuff ain’t free…
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
You're vastly over-estimating the narrative significance of ability scores. Yes, orcs are stronger than gnomes. That doesn't mean that, as a matter of gameplay balance, it makes sense for orcs to have an inherently higher chance to hit with melee attacks than gnomes. What it does mean is that they can benchpress more, which is why they have the Powerful Build trait, something that they definitely still have in this new paradigm. Elven grace is represented by the Elven Accuracy feat, if a character chooses to take it.
I don't think anyone would reasonably argue that gnomes should be "just as strong" as orcs. The argument is that there are better and more interesting mechanics to convey that difference than ability score increases.
And the mistake all the hidebound callous jackwaffles who insist that nothing should ever offend anyone and exclusionism doesn't exist whilst being super offended at changing one word out to make a large number of people more comfortable with D&D make is in assuming that people are actively and deliberately seeking to "draw parallels with real life", instead of seeing parallels that already exist and feeling like those parallels say things about people that maybe the player doesn't like being said.
If nothing should ever offend anyone and exclusionism doesn't exist, then what's the harm in changing out a word for a different word? Oh, right - there is none.
Stop with the bioessentialism and the artificial limitations on character generation. If somebody wants to play a strong elf, an intelligent orc, a dextrous goliath, or any other 'Unthinkable!' combination, the problem is not with them for wanting to do that, it's with y'all for being so stuck in your old-ass ways that you can't pull enough stick out your ass to bend far enough to allow for actually interesting characters instead of replaying Lord of the Rings for the 3,783rd time.
Please do not contact or message me.
I'm saying this with complete respect to anyone, and this is not meant to harm anyone's emotions, but how has this thread not died yet?
I'm Hecate! I've got a lotta titles, and there's no way this sig space would hold them all lol
remember that my PMs are always open to anyone who needs someone to talk to, vent to, or just shout at, and i'll always respond relatively quickly
The Younger Twin (by ten minutes)
Extended signature: Here
It dies and a bunch of users with 1 or 2 posts keep reviving it.
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.I'd say that there are still enough people who haven't been swayed by the arguments and would like to have their say on the matter. I'm convinced, but I'm not convinced enough to say case closed, ya'll need to respect mah authority now.
It really should be a closed case.
On one side the argument is, "Hi, we are Wizards of the Coast. We would like to admit that our game has used the term 'race' problematically in the past, so we want to change to a different word."
On the other side, you have folks who have no concept of free speech who are trying to control Wizards of the Coast's speech by telling them "No, you are not allowed to change your own speech--you must conform to what we want, and what we want is to control your speech and force you to use a word that you do not feel comfortable using."
Pretty cut and dry which side is right--it's the side that is exercising its speech rights to fix a problem it recognizes in itself, not the folks who would repress Wizards' speech.
That's obviously a completely biased take. You represent your own argument well but completely dismiss anyone else as being an authoritarian control freak. From the disagreements I've heard its not people saying Wizards isn't allowed and the use of the word race is mandatory, but rather that they don't understand or agree with the problematic aspects of IRL race vs fantasy race and are questioning or challenging it, sometimes in a disagreeable way which shouldn't be completely disqualifying.
I just object to the tone of "we win, case closed, go away now bad person" for a topic that is only a few months old to most people.
At this point, I suspect it's mostly trolls and people who have been pointed to the thread by trolls. Anyone who jumps into a thirty page thread that has been up for months without reading at least some of the thread isn't really interested in discourse.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
Conclusion: No. The decision has already been made.
If anyone really wants to discuss the merits of game language, purely as a matter of armchair philosophy, let's start a new thread and let this one be sterilized as the petri dish it is.
As opposed to the tone of "the word isn't racist and anyone who thinks it's racist is an over-offended uppity woke jackass and therefore a Bad Person" that we constantly get from the people who continue to bump this godforsaken thread?
DDB website staff has stated that one is not allowed to "disagree" with the assertion that the word 'race' has caused issues in the past. People keep trying to denigrate, deny, and dismiss anyone who says so, and the site staff has openly said doing so is no longer permitted on DDB. We do win. The case is closed. Constantly harping and nagging and making a nasty unpleasant stink about it isn't going to change the fact that this is the way it will be. You can get used to it or you can...actually, there is no "or". You have the choice of Getting Used To It.
Kindly do not make everybody else's lives miserable during the process of Getting Used To It.
Please do not contact or message me.
Yes, that is the tone I'm talking about. Only I tend to apply it across the board.
Also yes, I do find that stance objectionable.
Genuine apologies, I did realize that my speaking up would cause strife. But I really do find the attitude I stated problematic.
Considering this actually started with the question of "Why not just use 'lineage' because 'species' sounds worse than 'race' from a tonal standpoint", and has since been correctly cited from Tasha's Cauldron of Everything as the reasonale behind this question. (See this forum pg. 8 for the first complete reference), I'm just gonna come in and say that if you want to continue the discussion, you can do so in a new thread. If you wanna troll, then there's 4Chan or 9GAG. If you wanna anti-virtue-signal, there's Twitter.
"Race" was deemed problematic, and the current head of state no longer wishes to use the term, so don't use the term. "Species" has a eugenics-vibe to it I don't like. "Lineage" seems the most neutral (even though it also has been contested) while also having this power to it.
People have pride in their Lineage. My family lineage has been military-bound for generations, a point members of my family take pride in. The Royal Lineage of the United Kingdom is a prestigious one, being the head of the Crown. Others attribute their Lineage to old money (which could also be seen as negative but that's a different topic). Others still attribute their lineage to one of prestigious academics or scholars.
I ask people think back, to a time when they were with those they loved, and discussed what of their family they were proud of. This kind of conversation is one of discussing the pride of your Lineage, one which all have to some degree. Everyone can come up with some kind of heartwarming tale of a distant ancestor establishing a time honored tradition that carries through the ages.
All that said, personally, I'mma just stick to Lineage even if OD&D uses "Species", because "Lineage" feels more at home to me. Feel free to use your own term that isn't "race". If it is also "Lineage" tell me why.
But also we should close this thread already because it's been opened and closed for weeks now. Kinda dumb.The reason I think most people feel that way is because this isn't a truly open discussion forum (and it was never intended to be). I'm sure there is somewhere out there where you can have a full, honest, intellectual, logical, & fact based conversation about nuanced and controversial topics if that is your thing. DDB has never been that place, and probably never will be, because at the end of the day it's a business site, not a fan site. Or to be more specific, it's a digital book & character generator site that happens to have forums attached to it, not a forums for the sake of having discussions site. Amazon, not Facebook.