To start, there is nothing wrong with a table continuing to use the term, provided they are using it out of habit rather than to intentionally dog whistle.
But I did want to take a moment and let you know why there is a need for Wizards to change the phrase, even if that same reason does not apply to your individual table.
Wizards has effectively acknowledge that their game has a history of racially-motivated elements that are a holdover from the game’s earlier days. With Wizards acknowledging that parts of their game were created by outspoken racists, Wizards sees the need to change the language insofar as that language became racially charged by the bigotry of those who chose to use those words.
This change is really just about “hey, sorry that our game took a fairly regular fantasy word and used it in a racist way. We’re going to take a mulligan and start afresh with a word that doesn’t have the stains of our own past.”
Trying to distance yourself not from a word per se, but from the hatred your own product installed into that word’s usage within the product itself is a pretty valid reason to make a change.
I'd agree if they were using a better replacement.
But the promlematic stuff was when people used the various fantasy races as analogs for real world peoples and did the ol wink wink nudge nudge while creating a space to play out their screwed up stereotypes.
But, here's the issue. Does it make it more, or less problematic when you are now referring to these analogs as entirely different species from one another.
To me that is worlds worse. Because we're now back to some old timey 18th century racism where we're calling different people different species. That's leagues worse.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
To start, there is nothing wrong with a table continuing to use the term, provided they are using it out of habit rather than to intentionally dog whistle.
But I did want to take a moment and let you know why there is a need for Wizards to change the phrase, even if that same reason does not apply to your individual table.
Wizards has effectively acknowledge that their game has a history of racially-motivated elements that are a holdover from the game’s earlier days. With Wizards acknowledging that parts of their game were created by outspoken racists, Wizards sees the need to change the language insofar as that language became racially charged by the bigotry of those who chose to use those words.
This change is really just about “hey, sorry that our game took a fairly regular fantasy word and used it in a racist way. We’re going to take a mulligan and start afresh with a word that doesn’t have the stains of our own past.”
Trying to distance yourself not from a word per se, but from the hatred your own product installed into that word’s usage within the product itself is a pretty valid reason to make a change.
I'd agree if they were using a better replacement.
But the promlematic stuff was when people used the various fantasy races as analogs for real world peoples and did the ol wink wink nudge nudge while creating a space to play out their screwed up stereotypes.
But, here's the issue. Does it make it more, or less problematic when you are now referring to these analogs as entirely different species from one another.
To me that is worlds worse. Because we're now back to some old timey 18th century racism where we're calling different people different species. That's leagues worse.
Thus is a really easy question answered by reading the very post you responded to.
Within the context of the game, the word “race” has been charged with the racism of Gary, Ernie, and the assorted TSR and Wizards writers who came up with various questionable products.
“Species” does not have that charge in the context of the game.
Really a pretty easy distinction to make - it is clearly worse for Wizards to use a word that their predecessors and themselves have used in a racist manner than it would be for them to use a word that has not been used problematically within the game.
Now, there are valid arguments against species - this thread is pretty clear that a large number associate the term with middle school science definitions and modernity (even though both arguments are inaccurate). But trying to ascribe older eugenicist views to the word itself (when the same argument can effectively be made for any word denoting classification) is a bit of a stretch.
To start, there is nothing wrong with a table continuing to use the term, provided they are using it out of habit rather than to intentionally dog whistle.
But I did want to take a moment and let you know why there is a need for Wizards to change the phrase, even if that same reason does not apply to your individual table.
Wizards has effectively acknowledge that their game has a history of racially-motivated elements that are a holdover from the game’s earlier days. With Wizards acknowledging that parts of their game were created by outspoken racists, Wizards sees the need to change the language insofar as that language became racially charged by the bigotry of those who chose to use those words.
This change is really just about “hey, sorry that our game took a fairly regular fantasy word and used it in a racist way. We’re going to take a mulligan and start afresh with a word that doesn’t have the stains of our own past.”
Trying to distance yourself not from a word per se, but from the hatred your own product installed into that word’s usage within the product itself is a pretty valid reason to make a change.
I'd agree if they were using a better replacement.
But the promlematic stuff was when people used the various fantasy races as analogs for real world peoples and did the ol wink wink nudge nudge while creating a space to play out their screwed up stereotypes.
But, here's the issue. Does it make it more, or less problematic when you are now referring to these analogs as entirely different species from one another.
To me that is worlds worse. Because we're now back to some old timey 18th century racism where we're calling different people different species. That's leagues worse.
Thus is a really easy question answered by reading the very post you responded to.
Within the context of the game, the word “race” has been charged with the racism of Gary, Ernie, and the assorted TSR and Wizards writers who came up with various questionable products.
“Species” does not have that charge in the context of the game.
Really a pretty easy distinction to make - it is clearly worse for Wizards to use a word that their predecessors and themselves have used in a racist manner than it would be for them to use a word that has not been used problematically within the game.
Now, there are valid arguments against species - this thread is pretty clear that a large number associate the term with middle school science definitions and modernity (even though both arguments are inaccurate). But trying to ascribe older eugenicist views to the word itself (when the same argument can effectively be made for any word denoting classification) is a bit of a stretch.
No it ain't. It ain't a stretch at all.
Dude. You want dialog, in game dialog, to start pointing out that elves aren't even the same species as humans. Or, a human character telling an orc his species ain't welcome in this town?
We're heading to some old timey racism. Its a extremely problematic word for this game.
Whatever the official term is that separates the varies ancestries in the game is... is going to become what people start using in in-game lore and dialog.
So you really want to drive home that these various peoples are so distinct that we gotta start calling them all different species? The connotation here is even more divisive than the term 'race' implies.
We need a LESS divisive term, not one that imllies MORE distinction.
Ancestry is super vague, it fits perfect. Subtype is hella bland, but is also vague enough to do the job. We need a term that indicates some unique history for the different peoples of these worlds, but not one that implies the peoples of the world are so distinct that they're foreign, alien, to one another.
Example: "Caucasion race". Okay, yeah, has some potential baggage. Compare to "Caucasion species". Oh. Now that sounds super extra old timey racist. Doesn't it?
When people have done the most problematic stuff in fantasy literature it is by uses the various fantasy races as analogs for various real world ethnicities. And I assure you making the extra distinction that theyre not even the same species as humans is far worse than not the same race.
I'm very happy to change the term, but not if theyre literally making it worse than it already is.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Dude. You want dialog, in game dialog, to start pointing out that elves aren't even the same species as humans. Or, a human character telling an orc his species ain't welcome in this town?
In game dialog isn't likely to use any terminology, you'd just say "Orcs ain't welcome in this town".
Dude. You want dialog, in game dialog, to start pointing out that elves aren't even the same species as humans. Or, a human character telling an orc his species ain't welcome in this town?
You can do all of those things with the word "race" as well. Changing it to species isn't going to suddenly make that possible.
Dude. You want dialog, in game dialog, to start pointing out that elves aren't even the same species as humans. Or, a human character telling an orc his species ain't welcome in this town?
You can do all of those things with the word "race" as well. Changing it to species isn't going to suddenly make that possible.
No but it makes it a lot worse. It is not only racist but now also dehumanizing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
I will never understand how the simple accurate word Race is racist people have lost their minds.
It is really easy to understand. This is not about the word “race” as a word. This is about the term of art “race” within D&D. As a term of art within D&D, it has been used by TSR and Wizards to promulgate racism. Rather than continue to use a term of art which has taken on a problematic meaning within its usage as a term of art, they are seeking a new term of art that does not represent the same self-inflicted baggage.
Dude. You want dialog, in game dialog, to start pointing out that elves aren't even the same species as humans. Or, a human character telling an orc his species ain't welcome in this town?
In game dialog isn't likely to use any terminology, you'd just say "Orcs ain't welcome in this town".
Yeah, people with good intentions would indeed avoid using this problematic term. Correct.
But the fact we need to avoid using it should be a big hint that it is problematic.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Dude. You want dialog, in game dialog, to start pointing out that elves aren't even the same species as humans. Or, a human character telling an orc his species ain't welcome in this town?
You can do all of those things with the word "race" as well. Changing it to species isn't going to suddenly make that possible.
No but it makes it a lot worse. It is not only racist but now also dehumanizing.
What you still fail to understand - wilfully failing, I expect, since it has been explained to you a few times and it strains credulity to believe you are honestly missing the point - is that we are talking about Wizards’ usage of game terminology.
Species can be used in a way to promulgate racism; but that will be by racists, not Wizards—and one only has to look at these forums to know that racist D&D players are going to find a way to be racist no matter what the terminology might be. As a game term, it has no stigma attached to it.
Wizards cannot control what their players add to the words; they can control what they add or choose to delete, and that is what they are doing here.
There’s a big difference between calling Caucasian and non-Caucasian different species and calling a human and talking bug-man different species: the former is just objectively factually wrong, while the latter is most likely true.
Yeah, people with good intentions would indeed avoid using this problematic term. Correct.
People with bad intentions would also avoid using the term, because it's not the way people actually talk. The only place actually using either term is likely is as a label in a box on a form, either a character sheet or an in-game form.
Dude. You want dialog, in game dialog, to start pointing out that elves aren't even the same species as humans. Or, a human character telling an orc his species ain't welcome in this town?
You can do all of those things with the word "race" as well. Changing it to species isn't going to suddenly make that possible.
No but it makes it a lot worse. It is not only racist but now also dehumanizing.
What you still fail to understand - wilfully failing, I expect, since it has been explained to you a few times and it strains credulity to believe you are honestly missing the point - is that we are talking about Wizards’ usage of game terminology.
Species can be used in a way to promulgate racism; but that will be by racists, not Wizards—and one only has to look at these forums to know that racist D&D players are going to find a way to be racist no matter what the terminology might be. As a game term, it has no stigma attached to it.
Wizards cannot control what their players add to the words; they can control what they add or choose to delete, and that is what they are doing here.
Whether a word has been used problematically by wizards in the past or not has ZERO impact on whether they should start using it problematically now or not. They shouldn't. Full stop.
That's what you are failing to understand.
Implying that Humans and, say, Halflings for example, are different "Species"... is SUPER bigoted and discriminatory. To name one of but many problems by trying to call them all different species.
Calling Dwarves a different species? Super problematic. It's really not ok.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
I will never understand how the simple accurate word Race is racist people have lost their minds.
Posting that you will "never understand" kind of shows your hand that you are not even here trying to understand how people have expressed that the terminology has hurt us. So that makes me disinclined from even dredging up the emotional labor to try to explain, since it seems like you will ignore it anyway. Instead I will just remind you that the moderators have made a statement about your type of remarks:
This is a reminder to everyone who makes the choice to participate in these discussions surrounding the One D&D changes to game language. You do so under the explicit assumption you will participate by the site rules.
I want to emphasize something; these changes are being made because people who play the game are experiencing harm at the language the game uses and have communicated this to Wizards of the Coast, who are taking action to continue to progress the game forwards to be as inclusive as it can be. The moderation team will not entertain the dismissal, invalidation, or margination of members of the community who have raised these valid concerns just because "I don't see a problem with the word". Privilege is a wonderful thing.
If you want to participate in this discussion without receiving warnings, infraction points, or bans, you will do so civilly, respectfully, and with kindness.
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!
Whether a word has been used problematically by wizards in the past or not has ZERO impact on whether they should start using it problematically now or not. They shouldn't. Full stop.
That's what you are failing to understand.
Implying that Humans and, say, Halflings for example, are different "Species"... is SUPER bigoted and discriminatory. To name one of but many problems by trying to call them all different species.
Calling Dwarves a different species? Super problematic. It's really not ok.
Game mechanics are necessarily discriminatory. Not in a socially derisive way, just by the nature of acknowledging differences. It is inherently objectifying and that needs to be understood separately from how the game itself is played.
Dwarves and Halflings literally aren't Human. The only reason why it's an issue is that in the real world "humans" are treated as superior to all other species for self-evident reasons. In multi-sapient settings, this simply isn't true. What we really need are terms to replace "humanity" and "humanoid". We need to take ourselves off of a pedestal. "Bigotry" is an unreasonable prejudicial belief about a group of individuals. It isn't bigotry when it is objectively true.
Separately, J.R.R. Tolkien got in an argument with the Oxford Dictionary about "Dwarves" versus "dwarfs". The former refer to a magical species that live in the mountains, the later refers to individuals with dwarfism.
Edit: This is separate from the issue of whether terms like "Dwarves" and "Halfling" are problematic, as they are obviously derivative. They ought to have names that reflect their own perspectives. Halflings shouldn't consider themselves half-sized relative to anything else.
To start, there is nothing wrong with a table continuing to use the term, provided they are using it out of habit rather than to intentionally dog whistle.
But I did want to take a moment and let you know why there is a need for Wizards to change the phrase, even if that same reason does not apply to your individual table.
Wizards has effectively acknowledge that their game has a history of racially-motivated elements that are a holdover from the game’s earlier days. With Wizards acknowledging that parts of their game were created by outspoken racists, Wizards sees the need to change the language insofar as that language became racially charged by the bigotry of those who chose to use those words.
This change is really just about “hey, sorry that our game took a fairly regular fantasy word and used it in a racist way. We’re going to take a mulligan and start afresh with a word that doesn’t have the stains of our own past.”
Trying to distance yourself not from a word per se, but from the hatred your own product installed into that word’s usage within the product itself is a pretty valid reason to make a change.
I'd agree if they were using a better replacement.
But the promlematic stuff was when people used the various fantasy races as analogs for real world peoples and did the ol wink wink nudge nudge while creating a space to play out their screwed up stereotypes.
But, here's the issue. Does it make it more, or less problematic when you are now referring to these analogs as entirely different species from one another.
To me that is worlds worse. Because we're now back to some old timey 18th century racism where we're calling different people different species. That's leagues worse.
This kind of put into words some of the feelings I've been having trying to use the word species in game.
In the race discussion prior to the UA change I had argued that species was a more accurate term and that some of the hurt caused by the word race in a fantasy setting was because people automatically bring in their own understanding of race in the real world with them. Saying differing races have differing levels of intelligence is hella racist sounding because of the same word having different meanings. Species cleared up that blending of definitions.
But using it in game to refer to player races feels too divisive to me. Its like yes, elves and dwarves are a lot more different biologically than one person from France and one person from China (which there is almost no difference). But using species sort of erases some sort of commonality they have too, it feels too divisive.
Now I'm thinking ancestry or even subtype might be better.
I'm in favour of words like "kind" as in elvenkind, dwarvenkind, etc.
Species is a bit problematic I think. I agree it is quite divisive. Are half-elves a different species. What if you're 1/4 elf, 1/8 elf? Are you a different species or still a half-elf?
These attributes are a game mechanic, they could also be classified under words like "heritage" or "origin." One of the definitions of heritage meaning for example "something that comes or belongs to one by reason of birth;"
Heritage is also less puritanical. It could also encompass characters who don't have a "pure" bloodline by the species argument. I'd prefer to leave the biology of interbreeding out of the game mechanic terminology, that's more world frame specific.
I'm in favour of words like "kind" as in elvenkind, dwarvenkind, etc.
Species is a bit problematic I think. I agree it is quite divisive. Are half-elves a different species. What if you're 1/4 elf, 1/8 elf? Are you a different species or still a half-elf?
These attributes are a game mechanic, they could also be classified under words like "heritage" or "origin." One of the definitions of heritage meaning for example "something that comes or belongs to one by reason of birth;"
Heritage is also less puritanical. It could also encompass characters who don't have a "pure" bloodline by the species argument. I'd prefer to leave the biology of interbreeding out of the game mechanic terminology, that's more world frame specific.
The phrase "your kind" and even the phrase "your people" have historically been used to dehumanize those of different ethnicities.
I've seen "folk" regularly suggested but when you translate it for the German-language edition of the game you're opening a whole other can of worms.
It's important to remember that some or even many ethnic minorities reject the term "people of color" and even consider it to be racist. There'll be no satisfying everyone unless something generic like "type" is used.
WotC have boxed themselves into a corner…. Sounds like whatever they choose is going to be bland at best. Whatever they choose will not go down well in some quarters.
perhaps, but Volk goes as far back as the 8th century, and the english version folk is also used frequently. And while it was used in a bad way, it is still used in many not bad ways, as it's a word that could be replaced often with group and people rather then race in many cases. The young folk, the old folk, the mountain folk, the island folk, the working folk, the partying folk, the learned folk, the crafty folk, and so on. Sure it can be used to racialize, but so can many other words. Religion, Ethos, Nationality, Social Class, anything can be used to for that. The thing is, that we don't do it in a malicious way, but a descriptive way. People from england are an island folk, as they live on an island, but they are quite different to other island folk like those from polynesia or those of the greek islands.
Heck we use folk all the time with some races already. Lizardfolk, Ratfolk, Catfolk,Birdfolk. Like we can say tabaxi and leonin are both catfolk, but very different. as the folk would be used to group them by something similar, in their case both are cat-like.
And i am not willing to let failed man with idiotic visions from the start of the 20th century to ruin more things then they already did.
Agreed, this is the one I voted for as well.
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!
I'd agree if they were using a better replacement.
But the promlematic stuff was when people used the various fantasy races as analogs for real world peoples and did the ol wink wink nudge nudge while creating a space to play out their screwed up stereotypes.
But, here's the issue. Does it make it more, or less problematic when you are now referring to these analogs as entirely different species from one another.
To me that is worlds worse. Because we're now back to some old timey 18th century racism where we're calling different people different species. That's leagues worse.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Thus is a really easy question answered by reading the very post you responded to.
Within the context of the game, the word “race” has been charged with the racism of Gary, Ernie, and the assorted TSR and Wizards writers who came up with various questionable products.
“Species” does not have that charge in the context of the game.
Really a pretty easy distinction to make - it is clearly worse for Wizards to use a word that their predecessors and themselves have used in a racist manner than it would be for them to use a word that has not been used problematically within the game.
Now, there are valid arguments against species - this thread is pretty clear that a large number associate the term with middle school science definitions and modernity (even though both arguments are inaccurate). But trying to ascribe older eugenicist views to the word itself (when the same argument can effectively be made for any word denoting classification) is a bit of a stretch.
No it ain't. It ain't a stretch at all.
Dude. You want dialog, in game dialog, to start pointing out that elves aren't even the same species as humans. Or, a human character telling an orc his species ain't welcome in this town?
We're heading to some old timey racism. Its a extremely problematic word for this game.
Whatever the official term is that separates the varies ancestries in the game is... is going to become what people start using in in-game lore and dialog.
So you really want to drive home that these various peoples are so distinct that we gotta start calling them all different species? The connotation here is even more divisive than the term 'race' implies.
We need a LESS divisive term, not one that imllies MORE distinction.
Ancestry is super vague, it fits perfect. Subtype is hella bland, but is also vague enough to do the job. We need a term that indicates some unique history for the different peoples of these worlds, but not one that implies the peoples of the world are so distinct that they're foreign, alien, to one another.
Example: "Caucasion race". Okay, yeah, has some potential baggage. Compare to "Caucasion species". Oh. Now that sounds super extra old timey racist. Doesn't it?
When people have done the most problematic stuff in fantasy literature it is by uses the various fantasy races as analogs for various real world ethnicities. And I assure you making the extra distinction that theyre not even the same species as humans is far worse than not the same race.
I'm very happy to change the term, but not if theyre literally making it worse than it already is.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
In game dialog isn't likely to use any terminology, you'd just say "Orcs ain't welcome in this town".
You can do all of those things with the word "race" as well. Changing it to species isn't going to suddenly make that possible.
No but it makes it a lot worse. It is not only racist but now also dehumanizing.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
It is really easy to understand. This is not about the word “race” as a word. This is about the term of art “race” within D&D. As a term of art within D&D, it has been used by TSR and Wizards to promulgate racism. Rather than continue to use a term of art which has taken on a problematic meaning within its usage as a term of art, they are seeking a new term of art that does not represent the same self-inflicted baggage.
Yeah, people with good intentions would indeed avoid using this problematic term. Correct.
But the fact we need to avoid using it should be a big hint that it is problematic.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
What you still fail to understand - wilfully failing, I expect, since it has been explained to you a few times and it strains credulity to believe you are honestly missing the point - is that we are talking about Wizards’ usage of game terminology.
Species can be used in a way to promulgate racism; but that will be by racists, not Wizards—and one only has to look at these forums to know that racist D&D players are going to find a way to be racist no matter what the terminology might be. As a game term, it has no stigma attached to it.
Wizards cannot control what their players add to the words; they can control what they add or choose to delete, and that is what they are doing here.
There’s a big difference between calling Caucasian and non-Caucasian different species and calling a human and talking bug-man different species: the former is just objectively factually wrong, while the latter is most likely true.
People with bad intentions would also avoid using the term, because it's not the way people actually talk. The only place actually using either term is likely is as a label in a box on a form, either a character sheet or an in-game form.
Whether a word has been used problematically by wizards in the past or not has ZERO impact on whether they should start using it problematically now or not. They shouldn't. Full stop.
That's what you are failing to understand.
Implying that Humans and, say, Halflings for example, are different "Species"... is SUPER bigoted and discriminatory. To name one of but many problems by trying to call them all different species.
Calling Dwarves a different species? Super problematic. It's really not ok.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Posting that you will "never understand" kind of shows your hand that you are not even here trying to understand how people have expressed that the terminology has hurt us. So that makes me disinclined from even dredging up the emotional labor to try to explain, since it seems like you will ignore it anyway. Instead I will just remind you that the moderators have made a statement about your type of remarks:
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!
Game mechanics are necessarily discriminatory. Not in a socially derisive way, just by the nature of acknowledging differences. It is inherently objectifying and that needs to be understood separately from how the game itself is played.
Dwarves and Halflings literally aren't Human. The only reason why it's an issue is that in the real world "humans" are treated as superior to all other species for self-evident reasons. In multi-sapient settings, this simply isn't true. What we really need are terms to replace "humanity" and "humanoid". We need to take ourselves off of a pedestal. "Bigotry" is an unreasonable prejudicial belief about a group of individuals. It isn't bigotry when it is objectively true.
Separately, J.R.R. Tolkien got in an argument with the Oxford Dictionary about "Dwarves" versus "dwarfs". The former refer to a magical species that live in the mountains, the later refers to individuals with dwarfism.
Edit: This is separate from the issue of whether terms like "Dwarves" and "Halfling" are problematic, as they are obviously derivative. They ought to have names that reflect their own perspectives. Halflings shouldn't consider themselves half-sized relative to anything else.
This kind of put into words some of the feelings I've been having trying to use the word species in game.
In the race discussion prior to the UA change I had argued that species was a more accurate term and that some of the hurt caused by the word race in a fantasy setting was because people automatically bring in their own understanding of race in the real world with them. Saying differing races have differing levels of intelligence is hella racist sounding because of the same word having different meanings. Species cleared up that blending of definitions.
But using it in game to refer to player races feels too divisive to me. Its like yes, elves and dwarves are a lot more different biologically than one person from France and one person from China (which there is almost no difference). But using species sort of erases some sort of commonality they have too, it feels too divisive.
Now I'm thinking ancestry or even subtype might be better.
Real world dwarfism is neither a species nor a race, so they're just replacing one incorrect term with a different incorrect term.
D&D humanoid subtypes are also neither a species nor a race, they're not something that fits coherently within modern classifications.
I'm in favour of words like "kind" as in elvenkind, dwarvenkind, etc.
Species is a bit problematic I think. I agree it is quite divisive. Are half-elves a different species. What if you're 1/4 elf, 1/8 elf? Are you a different species or still a half-elf?
These attributes are a game mechanic, they could also be classified under words like "heritage" or "origin." One of the definitions of heritage meaning for example "something that comes or belongs to one by reason of birth;"
Heritage is also less puritanical. It could also encompass characters who don't have a "pure" bloodline by the species argument. I'd prefer to leave the biology of interbreeding out of the game mechanic terminology, that's more world frame specific.
WotC have boxed themselves into a corner…. Sounds like whatever they choose is going to be bland at best. Whatever they choose will not go down well in some quarters.
perhaps, but Volk goes as far back as the 8th century, and the english version folk is also used frequently. And while it was used in a bad way, it is still used in many not bad ways, as it's a word that could be replaced often with group and people rather then race in many cases. The young folk, the old folk, the mountain folk, the island folk, the working folk, the partying folk, the learned folk, the crafty folk, and so on. Sure it can be used to racialize, but so can many other words. Religion, Ethos, Nationality, Social Class, anything can be used to for that. The thing is, that we don't do it in a malicious way, but a descriptive way. People from england are an island folk, as they live on an island, but they are quite different to other island folk like those from polynesia or those of the greek islands.
Heck we use folk all the time with some races already. Lizardfolk, Ratfolk, Catfolk,Birdfolk. Like we can say tabaxi and leonin are both catfolk, but very different. as the folk would be used to group them by something similar, in their case both are cat-like.
And i am not willing to let failed man with idiotic visions from the start of the 20th century to ruin more things then they already did.