An alternative to zorp or schmorp is 'Player Entity'
Ideal and boring game language. Doesn't have any history of being used by far right and eugenicist movements. No one can be offended by it. And its meaning is nice and clear.
But it's so broad. Player entity sounds like it refers to the whole character. We need something that refers specifically to the collection of biological traits that the character has.
I like species, but I'd be willing to accept the silliness of zorp in order to satisfy the intersection of biologists and pedants who play D&D.
I like species as well, and it's the word I'd pick given the choice as it's most accurate. But the sad thing is that the word has been used by eugenicists and white supremacists in the past and so many people still have issues with it.
This sounds compelling - which is why it is a go-to argument for folks concern trolling (trying to troll the other side by looking sympathetic, but actually are mocking their targets through hyperbole or trying to convince the other side to inaction through fake outrage over better alternatives).
It is not a great argument since it ignores the same point so many advocating to keep “race” ignore - the problem is not with the word race per se, but with how the word has been used within the confines of D&D.
Species might be used by some bigoted folks in an insulting manner - you’ll be hard pressed to find many words that have not. But it was not used by the specific bigoted folks that Wizards of the Coast is trying to distance themselves from. Within the confines of the game, it does not have the same harmful stigma that is causing Wizards to distance itself from the word Race.
They have to use a real word in order for the game to be accessible (particularly since this deals with one of the first choices a new player will make) - frankly, they so obviously have to use an easily understood word that I am inclined to believe all the suggestions of using a made up word are folks trolling. They want a word folks understand in the context instantly and without having ever read the rules, without relevant meanings that might be confusing in light of other sections of the game, is suitable for use in a fantasy setting, is not already strongly associated with a rival’s intellectual property, is not offensive on its face (which does not mean “never has been used offensively”), and without having been used by their own product to further stereotyping.
An alternative to zorp or schmorp is 'Player Entity'
Ideal and boring game language. Doesn't have any history of being used by far right and eugenicist movements. No one can be offended by it. And its meaning is nice and clear.
But it's so broad. Player entity sounds like it refers to the whole character. We need something that refers specifically to the collection of biological traits that the character has.
I like species, but I'd be willing to accept the silliness of zorp in order to satisfy the intersection of biologists and pedants who play D&D.
I like species as well, and it's the word I'd pick given the choice as it's most accurate. But the sad thing is that the word has been used by eugenicists and white supremacists in the past and so many people still have issues with it.
This sounds compelling - which is why it is a go-to argument for folks concern trolling (trying to troll the other side by looking sympathetic, but actually are mocking their targets through hyperbole or trying to convince the other side to inaction through fake outrage over better alternatives).
It is not a great argument since it ignores the same point so many advocating to keep “race” ignore - the problem is not with the word race per se, but with how the word has been used within the confines of D&D.
Species might be used by some bigoted folks in an insulting manner - you’ll be hard pressed to find many words that have not. But it was not used by the specific bigoted folks that Wizards of the Coast is trying to distance themselves from. Within the confines of the game, it does not have the same harmful stigma that is causing Wizards to distance itself from the word Race.
They have to use a real word in order for the game to be accessible (particularly since this deals with one of the first choices a new player will make) - frankly, they so obviously have to use an easily understood word that I am inclined to believe all the suggestions of using a made up word are folks trolling. They want a word folks understand in the context instantly and without having ever read the rules, without relevant meanings that might be confusing in light of other sections of the game, is suitable for use in a fantasy setting, is not already strongly associated with a rival’s intellectual property, is not offensive on its face (which does not mean “never has been used offensively”), and without having been used by their own product to further stereotyping.
Species checks all those boxes.
A part of the issue about why no word (even a made up one) will ever satisfy everyone, is that different people view the different schmorps in DnD in different ways.
Some view a human, an elf, and a dragonborn as different species. Much like a cat, a horse, and a seal. To these people, the different species having different stats and abilities is completely reasonable, and in fact would be weird and immersion breaking to not have significant differences.
Other people view a human, and elf, and a dragonborn as similar to existing irl human ethnicities or races. To these people, saying 'x race is stronger while y race is smarter and z race is unable to do this, is completely abhorrent. Just like saying x ethnicity is stronger or smarter than y ethnicity. Having forced stat and ability differences has direct tie-ins to nazi's and eugenicists from this angle.
And then the many people sit at some varying point between these two positions.
No one word can satisfy everyone, as people haven't even agreed on what the word is describing yet.
Oh. My bad. Intentions have been discussed, and so shall never be mentioned again.
Let me ask you: Is every other post in this thread totally unique, bringing up no sliver of anything said by anyone else at any point? I find that doubtful indeed. And anyways, so someone else in this thread has tried. Really, I want to point out that the view of the majority is almost by definition the least expressed in internet discussion.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
An alternative to zorp or schmorp is 'Player Entity'
Ideal and boring game language. Doesn't have any history of being used by far right and eugenicist movements. No one can be offended by it. And its meaning is nice and clear.
But it's so broad. Player entity sounds like it refers to the whole character. We need something that refers specifically to the collection of biological traits that the character has.
I like species, but I'd be willing to accept the silliness of zorp in order to satisfy the intersection of biologists and pedants who play D&D.
I like species as well, and it's the word I'd pick given the choice as it's most accurate. But the sad thing is that the word has been used by eugenicists and white supremacists in the past and so many people still have issues with it.
This sounds compelling - which is why it is a go-to argument for folks concern trolling (trying to troll the other side by looking sympathetic, but actually are mocking their targets through hyperbole or trying to convince the other side to inaction through fake outrage over better alternatives).
It is not a great argument since it ignores the same point so many advocating to keep “race” ignore - the problem is not with the word race per se, but with how the word has been used within the confines of D&D.
Species might be used by some bigoted folks in an insulting manner - you’ll be hard pressed to find many words that have not. But it was not used by the specific bigoted folks that Wizards of the Coast is trying to distance themselves from. Within the confines of the game, it does not have the same harmful stigma that is causing Wizards to distance itself from the word Race.
They have to use a real word in order for the game to be accessible (particularly since this deals with one of the first choices a new player will make) - frankly, they so obviously have to use an easily understood word that I am inclined to believe all the suggestions of using a made up word are folks trolling. They want a word folks understand in the context instantly and without having ever read the rules, without relevant meanings that might be confusing in light of other sections of the game, is suitable for use in a fantasy setting, is not already strongly associated with a rival’s intellectual property, is not offensive on its face (which does not mean “never has been used offensively”), and without having been used by their own product to further stereotyping.
Species checks all those boxes.
A part of the issue about why no word (even a made up one) will ever satisfy everyone, is that different people view the different schmorps in DnD in different ways.
Some view a human, an elf, and a dragonborn as different species. Much like a cat, a horse, and a seal. To these people, the different species having different stats and abilities is completely reasonable, and in fact would be weird and immersion breaking to not have significant differences.
Other people view a human, and elf, and a dragonborn as similar to existing irl human ethnicities or races. To these people, saying 'x race is stronger while y race is smarter and z race is unable to do this, is completely abhorrent. Just like saying x ethnicity is stronger or smarter than y ethnicity. Having forced stat and ability differences has direct tie-ins to nazi's and eugenicists from this angle.
And then the many people sit at some varying point between these two positions.
No one word can satisfy everyone, as people haven't even agreed on what the word is describing yet.
Your underlying assumption is simply wrong - folks have agreed on what the word is describing, which is defined as “A term of art governing which category of playable creature folks choose when playing D&D.” This is a question of what term to use within the rules, with that term meaning something very specific under the rules. Everything else in your post is a question of lore that is interesting—but is a question independent of the issue of terminology. All that really matters in terms of the real-world definition is “would a new player understand immediately what the term of art means by making a simple logical jump from their existing knowledge to their game knowledge?” For species, the answer to that question is a resounding “yes.”
The “but is it actually a species?” debate only matters to pendants who cannot be bothered to pick up a dictionary and see that there are congruent definitions that would, in fact, apply to D&D’s usage and folks with a less than savoury ulterior motive in questioning any change to the game. Neither of those groups are worth catering to.
Oh. My bad. Intentions have been discussed, and so shall never be mentioned again.
I mean, we have repeatedly explained to you why actions are more important than intentions, so pointing that out is perfectly viable. However, no one said that they "shall never be mentioned" again, all we said is we would rather not have to explain this all over again. I do find it a bit funny though that you quote a post with close to three paragraphs talking about your point on intentions and then complain about other people refusing to talk about it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explainHERE.
Oh. My bad. Intentions have been discussed, and so shall never be mentioned again.
Let me ask you: Is every other post in this thread totally unique, bringing up no sliver of anything said by anyone else at any point? I find that doubtful indeed. And anyways, so someone else in this thread has tried. Really, I want to point out that the view of the majority is almost by definition the least expressed in internet discussion.
Species is meh for me, breaking game immersion too.
I'm trying to see from an in-game perspective how the "races" interact.
Lets say a male gnome sees a dryad for the first time and it's walking peacefully, but doesn't know what it is.
What would would he say to it or himself ?
I imagine he would say something like: "What kind of creature are you ?" or what kind of creature is that ? (if talking to himself)
So for me, "creature" type would be a good replacement for race.
I can also imagine myself, as a DM, telling my players: choose a "creature" type from the monster manual, for your character class.
Maybe to restrict it a little to a humanoid "creature" type for your, lets say, warrior class character, as players would be allowed to only play a humanoid "creature" as a PC.
Anyways, just my "seven cents".
(Was my two cents, but you know... inflation kicks in)
Species is meh for me, breaking game immersion too.
I'm trying to see from an in-game perspective how the "races" interact.
Lets say a male gnome sees a dryad for the first time and it's walking peacefully, but doesn't know what it is.
What would would he say to it or himself ?
I imagine he would say something like: "What kind of creature are you ?" or what kind of creature is that ? (if talking to himself)
So for me, "creature" type would be a good replacement for race.
I can also imagine myself, as a DM, telling my players: choose a "creature" type from the monster manual, for your character class.
Maybe to restrict it a little to a humanoid "creature" type for your, lets say, warrior class character, as players would be allowed to only play a humanoid "creature" as a PC.
Anyways, just my "seven cents".
(Was my two cents, but you know... inflation kicks in)
As has been discussed earlier in the thread, "creature type" already has a predefined meaning in game mechanics. It would entail that "human", "dwarf", or "elf" are all unique creature types, when in game terms they're humanoid creatures.
My vote goes to Lineage as my first pick with Species being a not preferred and bland but ultimately ok 2nd choice. 2nd because I haven't spent time considering other terms so Species is by default second.
It is probably worth noting that “Lineage” is all but certainly disqualified from consideration due to its already being an established D&D term. Presently, Lineage means “a special type of race choice where you are a transformed version of one of the other races - specifically a Reborn, Damphir, of Hexblood.” Because of the unique way these options work, they should be delineated with a unique term to quickly signal to players that they are slightly different than the other options.
That will create unnecessary confusion to folks who own physical copies of Ravenloft as well as folks who are used to the current terminology. Asking players to replace A with B is a pretty easy substation - asking players to replace A with the existing C and the existing C with a new D is a bit more prone to user error.
If we're supposed to be looking forward, consider how One D&D UA is considering character design instead of 5e. Taxonomic species is no longer a factor. Mixed characters now inherit all gameplay traits from one parents and role-playing appearance from player imagination.
In 1dndua, they might as well be all one species that, like people, simply look different.
Species does not get my vote due to its lack of acknowledgement of varying people with a cultural society versus animals that rarely interbreed with specific exceptions and due to that it recognizes a separation that no longer exists in 1dndua.
In 5e, you're stuck with what we got. So, we need to look forward for the things in 1dndua that can override 5e.
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 does not get my vote due to its lack of acknowledgement of varying people with a cultural society versus animals that rarely interbreed with specific exceptions and due to that it recognizes a separation that no longer exists in 1dndua.
There have been thirteen pages on this thread proving this point wrong. Thirteen pages showing that both modern linguistics and etymology provide a definitions of species independent of the scientific connotation surrounding viability of offspring. Thirteen pages of folks pointing out that pedantic sociologists were as equally bothered by race not following their field’s precise definition, and how their singular focus on one of many definitions—the same argument you now present against species—was silly and easily ignored. Thirteen pages of how the viability argument might not even apply to a world where magic could trump biology and produce viable offspring from otherwise different species under the scientific definition.
The word “species” as a classification is far older than the modern understanding of using it to classify creatures based on viability of offspring. In usage predating Modern English itself, it can mean classification based on outward appearance or grouping things in kind with one another, which does work quite nicely here.
And that’s the reality of English - the bastard linguistic child of Germanic, Celtic, and Romance languages - words tend to have a fair number of definitions that seem to linger. Sometimes they take on a newfangled life, as species did when it was chosen by some biologists for a new purpose, but that hardly means the old definitions are gone, and the new certainly does not preclude Wizards from a linguistically proper use of the old definition.
Actually species goes back further. It goes back to ancient greece as do most sciences. So, we would lose more than just the rapier.
Species is a Latin root—as noted previously on this thread—not Greek. Though, for purposes of etymology and the usage in an English sourcebook, entry into English, occurring sometime prior to the 1300s is the more important piece of data than its ancient linguistic roots.
Everyone should also remember that all new words feel weird at first. A few years from now, "species" will feel completely natural and this conversation will be forgotten.
This same problem has been present before, when other words were replaced. You know what words I mean. Slurs for mentally disabled people, mentally ill people, sexual minorities, people of color, seniors etc. Those were all dropped and people were whining back then like they are now. But as years pass, those old words become the weird ones and the new ones feel natural. Until language changes again like it always does.
Definitely prefer the option of going with "Playable Creatures," if we're going with something other than species. Either that, or "Playable Biological Quandry Notations." Because reasons. XD
Most living things are sentient, since that just means having senses. The word you're actually looking for is sapient. IIRC the confusion started back in Star Trek due to a dumb writer.
Sentient Physiological Constructs of a Generically Playable Nature.
Need to workshop this into an acronym. Sentient Physiological Organisms... something something something
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)
This sounds compelling - which is why it is a go-to argument for folks concern trolling (trying to troll the other side by looking sympathetic, but actually are mocking their targets through hyperbole or trying to convince the other side to inaction through fake outrage over better alternatives).
It is not a great argument since it ignores the same point so many advocating to keep “race” ignore - the problem is not with the word race per se, but with how the word has been used within the confines of D&D.
Species might be used by some bigoted folks in an insulting manner - you’ll be hard pressed to find many words that have not. But it was not used by the specific bigoted folks that Wizards of the Coast is trying to distance themselves from. Within the confines of the game, it does not have the same harmful stigma that is causing Wizards to distance itself from the word Race.
They have to use a real word in order for the game to be accessible (particularly since this deals with one of the first choices a new player will make) - frankly, they so obviously have to use an easily understood word that I am inclined to believe all the suggestions of using a made up word are folks trolling. They want a word folks understand in the context instantly and without having ever read the rules, without relevant meanings that might be confusing in light of other sections of the game, is suitable for use in a fantasy setting, is not already strongly associated with a rival’s intellectual property, is not offensive on its face (which does not mean “never has been used offensively”), and without having been used by their own product to further stereotyping.
Species checks all those boxes.
A part of the issue about why no word (even a made up one) will ever satisfy everyone, is that different people view the different schmorps in DnD in different ways.
Some view a human, an elf, and a dragonborn as different species. Much like a cat, a horse, and a seal. To these people, the different species having different stats and abilities is completely reasonable, and in fact would be weird and immersion breaking to not have significant differences.
Other people view a human, and elf, and a dragonborn as similar to existing irl human ethnicities or races. To these people, saying 'x race is stronger while y race is smarter and z race is unable to do this, is completely abhorrent. Just like saying x ethnicity is stronger or smarter than y ethnicity. Having forced stat and ability differences has direct tie-ins to nazi's and eugenicists from this angle.
And then the many people sit at some varying point between these two positions.
No one word can satisfy everyone, as people haven't even agreed on what the word is describing yet.
Oh. My bad. Intentions have been discussed, and so shall never be mentioned again.
Let me ask you: Is every other post in this thread totally unique, bringing up no sliver of anything said by anyone else at any point? I find that doubtful indeed. And anyways, so someone else in this thread has tried. Really, I want to point out that the view of the majority is almost by definition the least expressed in internet discussion.
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
Your underlying assumption is simply wrong - folks have agreed on what the word is describing, which is defined as “A term of art governing which category of playable creature folks choose when playing D&D.” This is a question of what term to use within the rules, with that term meaning something very specific under the rules. Everything else in your post is a question of lore that is interesting—but is a question independent of the issue of terminology. All that really matters in terms of the real-world definition is “would a new player understand immediately what the term of art means by making a simple logical jump from their existing knowledge to their game knowledge?” For species, the answer to that question is a resounding “yes.”
The “but is it actually a species?” debate only matters to pendants who cannot be bothered to pick up a dictionary and see that there are congruent definitions that would, in fact, apply to D&D’s usage and folks with a less than savoury ulterior motive in questioning any change to the game. Neither of those groups are worth catering to.
I mean, we have repeatedly explained to you why actions are more important than intentions, so pointing that out is perfectly viable. However, no one said that they "shall never be mentioned" again, all we said is we would rather not have to explain this all over again. I do find it a bit funny though that you quote a post with close to three paragraphs talking about your point on intentions and then complain about other people refusing to talk about 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.Somezorp hasn't understood the assignment
[REDACTED]
Species is meh for me, breaking game immersion too.
I'm trying to see from an in-game perspective how the "races" interact.
Lets say a male gnome sees a dryad for the first time and it's walking peacefully, but doesn't know what it is.
What would would he say to it or himself ?
I imagine he would say something like: "What kind of creature are you ?" or what kind of creature is that ? (if talking to himself)
So for me, "creature" type would be a good replacement for race.
I can also imagine myself, as a DM, telling my players: choose a "creature" type from the monster manual, for your character class.
Maybe to restrict it a little to a humanoid "creature" type for your, lets say, warrior class character, as players would be allowed to only play a humanoid "creature" as a PC.
Anyways, just my "seven cents".
(Was my two cents, but you know... inflation kicks in)
As has been discussed earlier in the thread, "creature type" already has a predefined meaning in game mechanics. It would entail that "human", "dwarf", or "elf" are all unique creature types, when in game terms they're humanoid creatures.
[REDACTED]
Welp... Species it is then I guess... lol
If we're supposed to be looking forward, consider how One D&D UA is considering character design instead of 5e. Taxonomic species is no longer a factor. Mixed characters now inherit all gameplay traits from one parents and role-playing appearance from player imagination.
In 1dndua, they might as well be all one species that, like people, simply look different.
Species does not get my vote due to its lack of acknowledgement of varying people with a cultural society versus animals that rarely interbreed with specific exceptions and due to that it recognizes a separation that no longer exists in 1dndua.
In 5e, you're stuck with what we got. So, we need to look forward for the things in 1dndua that can override 5e.
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.
There have been thirteen pages on this thread proving this point wrong. Thirteen pages showing that both modern linguistics and etymology provide a definitions of species independent of the scientific connotation surrounding viability of offspring. Thirteen pages of folks pointing out that pedantic sociologists were as equally bothered by race not following their field’s precise definition, and how their singular focus on one of many definitions—the same argument you now present against species—was silly and easily ignored. Thirteen pages of how the viability argument might not even apply to a world where magic could trump biology and produce viable offspring from otherwise different species under the scientific definition.
The word “species” as a classification is far older than the modern understanding of using it to classify creatures based on viability of offspring. In usage predating Modern English itself, it can mean classification based on outward appearance or grouping things in kind with one another, which does work quite nicely here.
And that’s the reality of English - the bastard linguistic child of Germanic, Celtic, and Romance languages - words tend to have a fair number of definitions that seem to linger. Sometimes they take on a newfangled life, as species did when it was chosen by some biologists for a new purpose, but that hardly means the old definitions are gone, and the new certainly does not preclude Wizards from a linguistically proper use of the old definition.
Actually species goes back further. It goes back to ancient greece as do most sciences. So, we would lose more than just the rapier.
Species is a Latin root—as noted previously on this thread—not Greek. Though, for purposes of etymology and the usage in an English sourcebook, entry into English, occurring sometime prior to the 1300s is the more important piece of data than its ancient linguistic roots.
No, it won't, for I will not use it.
Definitely prefer the option of going with "Playable Creatures," if we're going with something other than species.
Either that, or "Playable Biological Quandry Notations." Because reasons. XD
Sentient Physiological Constructs of a Generically Playable Nature.
I prefer zorp 👌
[REDACTED]
Most living things are sentient, since that just means having senses. The word you're actually looking for is sapient. IIRC the confusion started back in Star Trek due to a dumb writer.
Need to workshop this into an acronym. Sentient Physiological Organisms... something something something
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)
S.apient P.hysiological E.ntities C.ollated and I.ntegrated into E.xtant S.ystems