Haven't read the entire thread, so sorry if it's been suggested already.
I personally like the word "Being".
"What manner of being is that?"
"What sort of being are you?"
"I am an Elven being."
It could sound a bit silly at times (when you say it too many times in a row, just like any word really. :D), but I like it since it can cover any playable character that simply exists. (I like playing Warforge's, so yeah. :D)
"Species" as a word also describes most of the entries in the Monster Manual. If we want to distinguish between them, especially for new players, "Kindred" may be the better option.
RIP all the half elves and half orcs and other half races. Sorry species.
Species can not reproduce with each other. It would be like getting a elephant to mate with a cat. It doesn't work the genetics don't match. This is why removing "Race" from the game means all those half races are now dead.
RIP all the half elves and half orcs and other half races. Sorry species.
Species can not reproduce with each other. It would be like getting a elephant to mate with a cat. It doesn't work the genetics don't match. This is why removing "Race" from the game means all those half races are now dead.
There have now been fourteen pages on this thread disproving this argument. To sum, you are using one specific, scientific definition for a word that has multiple definitions, several of which are perfectly applicable to the usage of the term in this manner.
This is a pedantic argument that ignores basic linguistics - it was a bad argument when sociologists made the same complaint about Race not fitting the sociological definition; it remains a bad argument when biologists complain about using a definition other than the scientific.
And your post is simply wrong about the scientific usage to boot. The scientific definition involves different species producing viable offspring. A horse and a donkey, though different species, can produce a mule - the mule just will not be able to produce viable offspring of its own. So, even if you go with a strictly scientific usage in your game, half-elves and such are still perfectly acceptable, they’ll just be sterile (which I am not recommending, just stating that one could do that if they wanted to apply the scientific usage).
I understand not wanting to read 14 pages of stuff, but you can check keywords and see if someone has already said what you were gonna say. Because odds are pretty good that they have, in that many posts.
RIP all the half elves and half orcs and other half races. Sorry species.
Species can not reproduce with each other. It would be like getting a elephant to mate with a cat. It doesn't work the genetics don't match. This is why removing "Race" from the game means all those half races are now dead.
Ah damn I don't exist. Wait neither do most people.
*poofs into dust*
Seriously though, most modern humans are hybrids, due to interbreeding with other species. This is due to interbreeding with neanderthals and denisovans. There are thousands of examples of different species interbreeding to make hybrids. Sometimes fertile, sometimes not. Sometimes they branch off into their own new species, as is the case with the clymene dolphin. Some animals can interbreed (rarely) despite not being the same genus or even the same tribe. For example chickens and peacocks have sometimes produced offspring.
RIP all the half elves and half orcs and other half races. Sorry species.
Species can not reproduce with each other. It would be like getting a elephant to mate with a cat. It doesn't work the genetics don't match. This is why removing "Race" from the game means all those half races are now dead.
I suppose mules, ligers, tigons, zedonks and humans are all figments of our collective imagination. Why do I say that? Because they've all had ancestors where two different species have mated and produced offspring.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
I need to read the PDF, but species means you can interbreed. If Elves and Humans are different species, then half-elves are either all sterile, or won't exist.
Nope. Ring species exist. And different species can definitely produce fertile offspring, like coyotes and wolves do, or homo sapiens did with neanderthals and Denisovans.
Not really an argument? It's quite debatable whether wolves and coyotes (especially the more coyote-like wolf "species") aren't all the same species. And Neanderthals are homo sapiens.
But all of this assumes evolutionary genetics, which most fantasy worlds either don't employ at all, or not for sapient races.
The issue here is that "race" doesn't mean the same thing in fantasy that it does in the real world, but WOTC is acting like it does.
The issue here is that "race" doesn't mean the same thing in fantasy that it does in the real world, but WOTC is acting like it does.
No, WotC is acting like when players hear the word 'race' they assume real world usage. Neither species nor race is entirely accurate, but species has less real world baggage.
The moderators - publicly, and multiple times - have disagreed with the assertion that the situation is "absurd".
None of us are sensitivity consultants. That's a real job, with real people who are trained and studied on this issue. One can disagree with the idea of "Species" as a replacement, considering it too "sci fi" and not liking how the word feels in their fantasy lexicon. While I consider that to be an absurd claim, it is nevertheless a valid one for someone other than me to have. Wanting a 'more Fantasy' word is weird and seems like a total nothingburger not an invalid desire to express.
What is not valid is the claim that replacing the word "race" is absurd. The decision was made for a reason, and many thousands of D&D players have already long since made the same replacement for the very same reasons Wizards is doing so directly now. Whatever one's opinion of the real-world connotations of the term, the existence of those connotations cannot legitimately be denied. Wizards no longer wishes to deal with those connotations. The people who are paid to know these things say "Species" is the best alternative based on parameters we do not know and will not be made privy to. We can raise our opinion on the matter and since this website actually has a community manager now, that discontent may be relayed back to Wizards. They may choose a different word, in cooperation with their sensitivity consultants.
That word will not be "race". Not now, and ideally not ever again.
Read this thread when it was first posted and then got dragged away to actually do some DNDing while I was pondering the various offerings posted here as a replacement for the replacement. Finally I'm getting back around to that aborted reply, because most of what I've seen just.. doesn't do it for me as a replacement for Race for a variety of reasons. I'm not going to go into every term offered up and why they don't work for me, but here are the highlights:
Species: Do Not Like. It's too tied up with the real world definitions to be used in this context and holds the same problem as most of the other suggestions I've seen in that it implies biological lifeforms that we're familiar to fantasy beings that may not fit within that context, like Warforged and Autognomes, which are not necessarily biologically alive.
Ancestry: Pfft. Really? C'mon! It's being used by a direct and major off-shoot competitor for what would be the exact same purpose. Just no. Also see above. Implies biological life via bloodlines and genetic heritage. Also Heritage, Lineage and the like fall under this Also. Plus terms like this might be better used in specific settings as a Rules Term than as the overall term for the physical housing of your character's being.
Creature: Being used elsewhere already as a far more general term as in for example 'your Creature Type' Construct, Monstrosity, Ooze, Beast. The replacement term should not be something that's already used in a more general fashion, should specifically let you know it means, 'You Character's Personal Being' and not 'Oh wait.. does this mean that or does it mean this other thing of a broader shared type.'
Folk: Neutral enough to work in some regards, it still feels more tied into biologicals than being broad enough to encompass other beings, though less so than many. What ended up being my main problem with this term is that it feels more in-game terminology than an actual Rules Term and what I want in a replacement term is something where I see that term I know we're speaking of the Rules rather than the setting or speaking directly in character. For example I could fully seen an NPC something like, 'I don't recognize your kind, what folk are you from?' 'Ah, yes I am of the Tabaxi people, we are quite rare around these lands'. Whereas you don't generally see NPCs or Characters going around asking, 'What Class are you.' Rather, 'What your profession, what skills do you offer? What do you do for a living?" I see Class and I know what's being discussed and that were now referring to The Rules rather than the game being played right now.
Origin: An interesting suggestion.. I almost like it in a 'Well this is your character's starting point so it makes since in that regard' kind of way. But then I think, what if you need the adjective for it? And we get Original? So.. gone from the list! Possibly a Vampire.
Kindred: Definitely a Vampire! Get out of here! I've got garlic and a cross! Okay I don't have garlic. Or a cross. But I could make one real quick, out of Lego so like, gimme a moment.
Kin: You're just a Vampire trying to trick me now.
Okay, enough of this, I can't just shoot down other options and not bring anything to the table, so here it is my preference for the new Rules Term to refer specifically to your characters actual being as a starting point.
Archetype: As in 'a very typical example of a certain person or thing.'
This is my term of preference, since before adding in things like culture differences, formative conditions and life occurrences, formal training and specialized skills, etc, this is what your newly being made character is: a very typical example of an Elf, a Warforged, a Human, a Thri-kreen, etc. I like it because it is divorced from being more heavily linked to biological beings, a scientific term with various meanings that may bring in real world baggage. It's not used elsewhere as a Rules Term like 'Creature' is. As a Rules defining term it simply works for me. It's a term that when used elsewhere in the book would be very clear as to it's meaning, you'd see Archetype and know without other context, 'Oh this goes back to what I physically am as a being.' Additionally for things like.. Moon Elves, and Hill Dwarves, Sub-Type is less.. worrisome and much more neutral a term than Sub-Race, or Sub-Species might be to some people. Much like Class, if you say Archetype, it'd very clear you're speaking of The Rules, rather than the setting or lore or in character. Adjectivally, if one were to create feats tied to specific Archetypes, Archetypical Feats works better as a term than Specific Feats or Special Feats or other adjective forms of species that might be floating about. Species just does not have a good way of handling, "These are Feats that you can take because you are dragonborn," or like use cases where you'd really want adjective instead of just reusing the noun form like Species Feats.
Finally when you create a character if we used this term we would pick an Archetype, grab a Background, choose Character Class, basically you'd do you ABCs to make your new character. Hnn.. Dice out your stats.. though if you're using point buy or standard array there'd be no dice involved.. Divvy up? Yep that works.. Equip.. Anyways. Concluding now. Have a good day. Keep on gaming.
You're welcome to dislike the term species, but it should be noted that the word just means type, kind or category. For example, here https://chemistry.stackexchange.com/questions/15289/what-is-the-difference-between-particles-molecules-and-chemical-species they talk about species of particles. There was a formal paper but the link was to a PDF and I didn't want to link directly to a download, and I didn't want to continue looking. However, our professors at uni used the term quite frequently in reference to particles and whatnot. It would be correct and could apply to Warforged et al if you use it to mean "type of being" rather than "type of organic life". If we had Warforged et al in real life, I'm sure that change would naturally come to the word's use anyway.
Of course, if you feel it has the wrong tone then that's valid, but I wanted to point out that the word is technically applicable.
As for archetype, I'm not sure. The word is used elsewhere in reference to what we call class - that could lead to confusion for anyone who plays other RPGs.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Edit: Maybe only for rangers, fighters and rogues?
Just Fighters and Rogues. Rangers have Conclaves.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
I'm happy with species. But I think archetype is another fine option. Maybe there are other objections or issues with archetype beyond the ranger, rogue and fighter subclasses because those could easily be reworded in 1dnd.
SPOSSS? needs work...
:)
Haven't read the entire thread, so sorry if it's been suggested already.
I personally like the word "Being".
"What manner of being is that?"
"What sort of being are you?"
"I am an Elven being."
It could sound a bit silly at times (when you say it too many times in a row, just like any word really. :D), but I like it since it can cover any playable character that simply exists. (I like playing Warforge's, so yeah. :D)
*Edited for formatting.
Left D&D for Pathfinder a second time.
I feel a good replacement for the term subrace is ethnic.
Thought of a new thing:
"Species" as a word also describes most of the entries in the Monster Manual. If we want to distinguish between them, especially for new players, "Kindred" may be the better option.
Sentient Physiological Organism who is Occasionally a Nuisance.
SPOON for short. XD
RIP all the half elves and half orcs and other half races. Sorry species.
Species can not reproduce with each other. It would be like getting a elephant to mate with a cat. It doesn't work the genetics don't match. This is why removing "Race" from the game means all those half races are now dead.
There have now been fourteen pages on this thread disproving this argument. To sum, you are using one specific, scientific definition for a word that has multiple definitions, several of which are perfectly applicable to the usage of the term in this manner.
This is a pedantic argument that ignores basic linguistics - it was a bad argument when sociologists made the same complaint about Race not fitting the sociological definition; it remains a bad argument when biologists complain about using a definition other than the scientific.
And your post is simply wrong about the scientific usage to boot. The scientific definition involves different species producing viable offspring. A horse and a donkey, though different species, can produce a mule - the mule just will not be able to produce viable offspring of its own. So, even if you go with a strictly scientific usage in your game, half-elves and such are still perfectly acceptable, they’ll just be sterile (which I am not recommending, just stating that one could do that if they wanted to apply the scientific usage).
Offspring
Breed
I understand not wanting to read 14 pages of stuff, but you can check keywords and see if someone has already said what you were gonna say. Because odds are pretty good that they have, in that many posts.
Ah damn I don't exist. Wait neither do most people.
*poofs into dust*
Seriously though, most modern humans are hybrids, due to interbreeding with other species. This is due to interbreeding with neanderthals and denisovans. There are thousands of examples of different species interbreeding to make hybrids. Sometimes fertile, sometimes not. Sometimes they branch off into their own new species, as is the case with the clymene dolphin. Some animals can interbreed (rarely) despite not being the same genus or even the same tribe. For example chickens and peacocks have sometimes produced offspring.
I suppose mules, ligers, tigons, zedonks and humans are all figments of our collective imagination. Why do I say that? Because they've all had ancestors where two different species have mated and produced offspring.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Not really an argument? It's quite debatable whether wolves and coyotes (especially the more coyote-like wolf "species") aren't all the same species. And Neanderthals are homo sapiens.
But all of this assumes evolutionary genetics, which most fantasy worlds either don't employ at all, or not for sapient races.
The issue here is that "race" doesn't mean the same thing in fantasy that it does in the real world, but WOTC is acting like it does.
No, WotC is acting like when players hear the word 'race' they assume real world usage. Neither species nor race is entirely accurate, but species has less real world baggage.
The moderators - publicly, and multiple times - have disagreed with the assertion that the situation is "absurd".
None of us are sensitivity consultants. That's a real job, with real people who are trained and studied on this issue. One can disagree with the idea of "Species" as a replacement, considering it too "sci fi" and not liking how the word feels in their fantasy lexicon. While I consider that to be an absurd claim, it is nevertheless a valid one for someone other than me to have. Wanting a 'more Fantasy' word is
weird and seems like a total nothingburgernot an invalid desire to express.What is not valid is the claim that replacing the word "race" is absurd. The decision was made for a reason, and many thousands of D&D players have already long since made the same replacement for the very same reasons Wizards is doing so directly now. Whatever one's opinion of the real-world connotations of the term, the existence of those connotations cannot legitimately be denied. Wizards no longer wishes to deal with those connotations. The people who are paid to know these things say "Species" is the best alternative based on parameters we do not know and will not be made privy to. We can raise our opinion on the matter and since this website actually has a community manager now, that discontent may be relayed back to Wizards. They may choose a different word, in cooperation with their sensitivity consultants.
That word will not be "race". Not now, and ideally not ever again.
Please do not contact or message me.
Read this thread when it was first posted and then got dragged away to actually do some DNDing while I was pondering the various offerings posted here as a replacement for the replacement. Finally I'm getting back around to that aborted reply, because most of what I've seen just.. doesn't do it for me as a replacement for Race for a variety of reasons. I'm not going to go into every term offered up and why they don't work for me, but here are the highlights:
Species: Do Not Like. It's too tied up with the real world definitions to be used in this context and holds the same problem as most of the other suggestions I've seen in that it implies biological lifeforms that we're familiar to fantasy beings that may not fit within that context, like Warforged and Autognomes, which are not necessarily biologically alive.
Ancestry: Pfft. Really? C'mon! It's being used by a direct and major off-shoot competitor for what would be the exact same purpose. Just no. Also see above. Implies biological life via bloodlines and genetic heritage. Also Heritage, Lineage and the like fall under this Also. Plus terms like this might be better used in specific settings as a Rules Term than as the overall term for the physical housing of your character's being.
Creature: Being used elsewhere already as a far more general term as in for example 'your Creature Type' Construct, Monstrosity, Ooze, Beast. The replacement term should not be something that's already used in a more general fashion, should specifically let you know it means, 'You Character's Personal Being' and not 'Oh wait.. does this mean that or does it mean this other thing of a broader shared type.'
Folk: Neutral enough to work in some regards, it still feels more tied into biologicals than being broad enough to encompass other beings, though less so than many. What ended up being my main problem with this term is that it feels more in-game terminology than an actual Rules Term and what I want in a replacement term is something where I see that term I know we're speaking of the Rules rather than the setting or speaking directly in character. For example I could fully seen an NPC something like, 'I don't recognize your kind, what folk are you from?' 'Ah, yes I am of the Tabaxi people, we are quite rare around these lands'. Whereas you don't generally see NPCs or Characters going around asking, 'What Class are you.' Rather, 'What your profession, what skills do you offer? What do you do for a living?" I see Class and I know what's being discussed and that were now referring to The Rules rather than the game being played right now.
Origin: An interesting suggestion.. I almost like it in a 'Well this is your character's starting point so it makes since in that regard' kind of way. But then I think, what if you need the adjective for it? And we get Original? So.. gone from the list! Possibly a Vampire.
Kindred: Definitely a Vampire! Get out of here! I've got garlic and a cross! Okay I don't have garlic. Or a cross. But I could make one real quick, out of Lego so like, gimme a moment.
Kin: You're just a Vampire trying to trick me now.
Okay, enough of this, I can't just shoot down other options and not bring anything to the table, so here it is my preference for the new Rules Term to refer specifically to your characters actual being as a starting point.
Archetype: As in 'a very typical example of a certain person or thing.'
This is my term of preference, since before adding in things like culture differences, formative conditions and life occurrences, formal training and specialized skills, etc, this is what your newly being made character is: a very typical example of an Elf, a Warforged, a Human, a Thri-kreen, etc. I like it because it is divorced from being more heavily linked to biological beings, a scientific term with various meanings that may bring in real world baggage. It's not used elsewhere as a Rules Term like 'Creature' is. As a Rules defining term it simply works for me. It's a term that when used elsewhere in the book would be very clear as to it's meaning, you'd see Archetype and know without other context, 'Oh this goes back to what I physically am as a being.' Additionally for things like.. Moon Elves, and Hill Dwarves, Sub-Type is less.. worrisome and much more neutral a term than Sub-Race, or Sub-Species might be to some people. Much like Class, if you say Archetype, it'd very clear you're speaking of The Rules, rather than the setting or lore or in character. Adjectivally, if one were to create feats tied to specific Archetypes, Archetypical Feats works better as a term than Specific Feats or Special Feats or other adjective forms of species that might be floating about. Species just does not have a good way of handling, "These are Feats that you can take because you are dragonborn," or like use cases where you'd really want adjective instead of just reusing the noun form like Species Feats.
Finally when you create a character if we used this term we would pick an Archetype, grab a Background, choose Character Class, basically you'd do you ABCs to make your new character. Hnn.. Dice out your stats.. though if you're using point buy or standard array there'd be no dice involved.. Divvy up? Yep that works.. Equip.. Anyways. Concluding now. Have a good day. Keep on gaming.
You're welcome to dislike the term species, but it should be noted that the word just means type, kind or category. For example, here https://chemistry.stackexchange.com/questions/15289/what-is-the-difference-between-particles-molecules-and-chemical-species they talk about species of particles. There was a formal paper but the link was to a PDF and I didn't want to link directly to a download, and I didn't want to continue looking. However, our professors at uni used the term quite frequently in reference to particles and whatnot. It would be correct and could apply to Warforged et al if you use it to mean "type of being" rather than "type of organic life". If we had Warforged et al in real life, I'm sure that change would naturally come to the word's use anyway.
Of course, if you feel it has the wrong tone then that's valid, but I wanted to point out that the word is technically applicable.
As for archetype, I'm not sure. The word is used elsewhere in reference to what we call class - that could lead to confusion for anyone who plays other RPGs.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Archetype is the official game term for subclass.
Edit: Maybe only for rangers, fighters and rogues?
Just Fighters and Rogues. Rangers have Conclaves.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
No? Rangers definitely use archetype. The only usage of conclave I'm seeing is the Selesnya Conclave from Ravnica.
The abandoned UA revised ranger called its subclasses "conclaves." That may be what Linklite's getting confused by.
I'm happy with species. But I think archetype is another fine option. Maybe there are other objections or issues with archetype beyond the ranger, rogue and fighter subclasses because those could easily be reworded in 1dnd.