All the hand-wringing about whether or not the use of the word "species" cuts out mixed-heritage characters is ridiculous. Ridiculous. It is nothing more than people fishing for an excuse to reject the word. D&D is a world where making a deal with a devil can cause your descendants a dozen generations removed to randomly look like devils. Modern biological science is a suggestion, not a rule, and the word "species" is commonly understood by the ordinary person to mean "a group of individuals who share the same general body plan and physiological traits, such that they can be recognized as the same type of being by outside observers."
Pantagruel said it pages ago - there is no better word. If there was an obviously better choice, Wizards would have picked that word instead. There isn't. Being pedantic about an overly technical definition of species that has never applied to D&D is not going to convince anyone that the word is Evil and must be Expunged From D&D Forever. Pick a better argument.
I'm not going to read through literally hundreds of comments, but I'd just like to chime in to say that I like the idea of calling them "lineages". It's already been used in a few spots in D&D, such as the gothic or custom lineages, and I find it rolls off the tongue better than "species". "Species" also feels too separated, especially in the idea of mixed blood (which they seem to be embracing with the new rules about that). Mixed lineage just feels better than mixed species.
That being said, "species" is still likely generally a better term than "race".
[...]the word "species" is commonly understood by the ordinary person to mean "a group of individuals who share the same general body plan and physiological traits, such that they can be recognized as the same type of being by outside observers."
To be frank, that's a far better and accurate description of what a species really is than anything about being fertile.
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.
On top of that, isn't One D&D shifting away from half elves and half orcs as defined 'races' and just making a basic ruleset for those characters anyway?
"Modern biological science is a suggestion, not a rule, and the word "species" is commonly understood by the ordinary person to mean "a group of individuals who share the same general body plan and physiological traits, such that they can be recognized as the same type of being by outside observers."
Kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus , species. This is the heirarchy of modern taxonomy.
Species is a term used in biology to denote specificity. Species and specific even share the same root. Although the first usage of the term species was in the renaissance and predates Darwin's work by hundreds of years, including a term like species in a fantasy game ruins the immersive nature of the experience. Have you not been made to cringe by the word mutant in The Witcher? The word species presents the same problem. Pretty soon we'll be discussing "evolution" in the world of Faerun where "species" don't evolve but are magically created..
Heritage, lineage, ancestry, and other words with more arcane origins are better choices. Race was always a poor choice and should have been changed long ago, but species is much more appropriate for a sci-fi setting. Leave the magic of this world intact and go study biology in real life.
It's been there from the start. The DMG uses it in the description of the Philter of Love: "If the creature is of a species and gender you are normally attracted to, [...]" The PHB uses it in the description... of races! "[D]warves, elves, halflings, and countless other fantastic species."
I'll admit that I probably just ignored these instances but that is my point. I don't dispute that they have used the term species before; instead I assert that they should not have. It's going to be impossible to ignore the word moving forward and my concern is that it's presence will foster discussions about evolution in a fantasy world. I don't want to have those conversations.
Why? I believe strongly in evolution. It's the truth in real life. Religious people want to fight with me about it and I judge them in a very harsh way. That said, I've played D&D with people who I now know do not believe in evolution and because the issue never came up, I actually enjoyed their company while blisfully immersed in this world of magic.
I've had the evolution debate too many times and it just isn't something I consider recreational.
Although the first usage of the term species was in the renaissance and predates Darwin's work by hundreds of years, including a term like species in a fantasy game ruins the immersive nature of the experience.
. . .
Pretty soon we'll be discussing "evolution" in the world of Faerun where "species" don't evolve but are magically created..
These are both bad arguments.
For starters, you recognise there is a centuries-old, fantasy-appropriate definition and choose to ascribe modern biological baggage to the word… which is the exact same problem "race” has had for decades. Pedantic sociologists have been making the same argument against “race” that you are making against “species” - ignoring the centuries-old definition while sycophantically insisting their modern definition is the only one that people would apply.
It was a bad argument then, it is a bad argument now. People were easily able to divorce the term from its technical, academic definition (the problems came from application of other baggage with the word Race, both from the real world and D&D’s early problematic depictions of race)
Your second argument is a slippery slope, and that’s a textbook bad argument, especially when you are trying to extrapolate a decline from a singular piece of data and a personal anecdote (a personal anecdote, I might add, which shows your problem with evolution entering D&D seems to both predate and be unrelated to the change to the word species).
Heritage, lineage, ancestry, and other words with more arcane origins are better choices.
I'm pretty sure you mean archaic rather than arcane. However, they've a been discussed and have their own problems, notably that they all imply that all the species are actually humans with a little of the other species mixed in, like Tieflings. Lineage is actually a terrible choice - being an in-game term currently in use, it would cause a lot of confusion.
Kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus , species. This is the heirarchy of modern taxonomy.
Species is a term used in biology to denote specificity. Species and specific even share the same root. Although the first usage of the term species was in the renaissance and predates Darwin's work by hundreds of years, including a term like species in a fantasy game ruins the immersive nature of the experience. Have you not been made to cringe by the word mutant in The Witcher? The word species presents the same problem.
The word "species" has been used in D&D since at least 1989 when they released AD&D2e, so it's been used for at least 33 years. You've seen it used for either 8 years or for as long as you've been playing D&D (whichever is shorter) without noting it before now. That is proof that the word is not immersion breaking. The whole concept behind something being immersion breaking is that it bring you out of immersion, it makes you specifically realise "hang on, I'm not in this world, I'm playing a game". That the word has been there for years, possibly decades even (depending on how long you've been playing), you've read it who knows how many times and never even noted its presence. That means that it's not immersion breaking.
Pretty soon we'll be discussing "evolution" in the world of Faerun where "species" don't evolve but are magically created..
In a later post, you discuss that you dislike the word at least partly because you fear that the word's presence in the game will cause a debate about evolution. I have to ask you...has it done so yet? Remember, the word has been used for two thirds of the game's life (at least), has it caused that debate yet?
Honestly, I'm very dubious that it would cause you this problem. For one, the game is pretty explicit that evolution doesn't exist, or at least it isn't the origin of species as it is in real life (which is the bone of contention for most creationists).
For another...not only does it sound like the word's use has not provoked this Armageddon debate yet, despite years of use...but even creationists use the term "species". I find it hard to believe that they're suddenly going to be turned into automaton proselyters by its mere presence in the PHB when it hasn't done so before. I think it's very much more likely that the reason why they've never brought it up before is...they're just not that interested in discussing it. They're there to play D&D, and aren't looking for a debate on whether we come from monkeys or a spare rib.
Even if I'm wrong... there's a simple and adult way of handling it. Just say "I don't find discussions of evolution enjoyable and I just want to enjoy an evening of D&D smashing up orcs and seducing carps, can we discuss something else?"
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've been arguing for species since before this official change. Having the chance to play in game with the discussion of races in play, I have to say species does seem kind of off putting. Its like I have been instinctively thinking of the different fantasy species as being more akin to humans with different shells than distinct types of beings.
I still think the change is a good one, it may take some getting used to though. Implicitly thinking of the fantasy races as being more distinct may be an improvement, we'll see.
I've been arguing for species since before this official change. Having the chance to play in game with the discussion of races in play, I have to say species does seem kind of off putting. Its like I have been instinctively thinking of the different fantasy species as being more akin to humans with different shells than distinct types of beings.
I still think the change is a good one, it may take some getting used to though. Implicitly thinking of the fantasy races as being more distinct may be an improvement, we'll see.
That's also relevant to another thread that's currently going. There is a trap that's quite easy to fall into if we consider them races rather than species - thinking of them as humans, but with hats. A dragonborn isn't a human but with scales, it's a creature that was created by dragons for various purposes and there is a certain viewpoint that comes with that. Elves aren't humans with pointy ears. Plasmoids aren't humans with the ability to grow extra appendages. This hasn't been discussed before in this thread (IIRC), but is a good point for the word species. I don't think it'll be revolutionary, but it's still a positive contribution.
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.
"Modern biological science is a suggestion, not a rule, and the word "species" is commonly understood by the ordinary person to mean "a group of individuals who share the same general body plan and physiological traits, such that they can be recognized as the same type of being by outside observers."
Kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus , species. This is the heirarchy of modern taxonomy.
Species is a term used in biology to denote specificity. Species and specific even share the same root. Although the first usage of the term species was in the renaissance and predates Darwin's work by hundreds of years, including a term like species in a fantasy game ruins the immersive nature of the experience. Have you not been made to cringe by the word mutant in The Witcher? The word species presents the same problem. Pretty soon we'll be discussing "evolution" in the world of Faerun where "species" don't evolve but are magically created..
Heritage, lineage, ancestry, and other words with more arcane origins are better choices. Race was always a poor choice and should have been changed long ago, but species is much more appropriate for a sci-fi setting. Leave the magic of this world intact and go study biology in real life.
Therein lies the problem in this entire discussion - or at least, the reason why there's discussion to begin with. Words should never make a person cringe. Save a very few words, which we all know, words should NEVER make you cringe - and even that word needs context to even consider cringing. WTF is cringe anyway? Some sort of reaction to a thing to indicate that you've been offended in some way? Words have no weight by themselves. They're given weight by who said it and in what context. Stop giving so much weight to words from random people you don't know.Myself included..
Therein lies the problem in this entire discussion - or at least, the reason why there's discussion to begin with. Words should never make a person cringe. Save a very few words,which we all know, words should NEVER make you cringe - and even that word needs context to even consider cringing.
For one, this word hurt numerous people mainly because of the context in which is it used in the game. Secondly, words can hurt people. They have power. Recently, I stumbled upon a thread about how DDB was a "bastardized" "scam" and those words hurt me. There are more than a few words that are capable of hurting and harming people. And if someone says "This word hurts me, please don't use it," then your response shouldn't be to tell them that they aren't allowed to be offended by the word because it is not a word you would be offended by.
More than a few words are able to cause people harm. The notion that words don't have power and nothing should be done to stop words from hurting people is inconsiderate and wrong.
Have you not been made to cringe by the word mutant in The Witcher?
Therein lies the problem in this entire discussion - or at least, the reason why there's discussion to begin with. Words should never make a person cringe. Save a very few words, which we all know, words should NEVER make you cringe - and even that word needs context to even consider cringing. WTF is cringe anyway? Some sort of reaction to a thing to indicate that you've been offended in some way? Words have no weight by themselves. They're given weight by who said it and in what context. Stop giving so much weight to words from random people you don't know.Myself included..
1) You entirely misunderstood the usage of cringe here. It wasn't about whether it was squicky, it was about whether it's too science-y. (Which it isn't, as established earlier, by yours truly.)
2) The Witcher ABSOLUTELY wants you to cringe at how people treat Geralt and other witchers! Mutant is basically a slur in that universe! What are you on about?
It should be noted that certain races/species did explicitly evolve, such as the Githyanki who changed due to exposure to their environment (The Astral Sea) and interactions with other creatures over time (Mindflayers). They were originally similar to humans, and experienced a mutation of their physiology, gained psionic abilities, lost a portion of their digestive system, and apparently started laying eggs. Ergo, the conversation about evolution has been on the table since 1st edition. In a world of actual gods, the significance of evolution is ultimately irrelevant. Literally everything is "by design", and you could just as easily call evolution one more act of magic by some deity or another. Introducing the word "species" may bring it closer to the forefront, but that should make it no more difficult to shut down than saying "whether or not evolution takes place in the fantasy world, no one cares because the gods meddle too frequently for the necessary timescales to be relevant."
... Do you refuse to accept these as evidence that the evolution debate is happening now, today, in this very forum? ...
Speaking strictly to this point...notice that this is a forum. It is not a game table where D&D is happening. Long-winded debates about minutiae nobody wastes table time with is the entire point of forums. This is the place where yaybos go to yabber when they're not doing something more productive with their time. You stress about the agony of a creationist vs. evolutionist (and dear god do I hate that I even hate to type that) debate erupting spontaneously at your table the moment someone uses the word "species" instead of "race". My argument: how boring and unengaging must a game be that such a thing not only happens but is then encouraged rather than shot down by the table? They're there to play D&D, not have weird philosophical debates. Or at least the weird philosophical debates are supposed to be in character about things in the game world.
People are dismissing your argument because it's a nonargument. It's the same as every other argument I've seen in this thread and others about the whole thing - a nit so finely picked you need needlenose pliers and a magnifier to even see it properly. The only valid argument I've seen against species is "I just don't like the way it sounds." Which is valid, but also completely nonactionable. Nobody can do spit about someone Not Liking The Way It Sounds. Your choices are to get used to it anyways or hope that enough other people get behind Not Liking The Way It Sounds that the term doesn't make it out of playtest.
Which, spoilers - it's gonna make it out of playtest. The alternatives Wizards gave us in the survey are "Type (subtype)", which is even drier and more clinical than people accuse 'species' of being while also being less clear and informative, and "Kind" which is so vague and meaningless it's useless as a gaming term. No one has ever asked someone else "what kind are you?" without having to immediately clarify "kind of what?" If those are the options, species wins by a mile in any category that matters. And frankly if a reverse miracle occurs and either "Type (Subtype)" or "Kind" wins? Everybody's going to just call it "species" anyways like we've already been doing for months or years now.
"I just don't like it" is valid. All the nasty pointless nitpicky-to-the-extreme arguments people are using to try and justify "I just don't like it" are not. Choir pointed out one of the main reasons why. Here I am pointing out another. Does that clarify matters at all?
They won't use Ancestry due to it being used in Pathfinder and it would make non-players think D&D is copying Pathfinder and choose Pathfinder instead (which would be hilariously ironic).
I doubt that's the reason. These are all public domain terms, and they said that they hired a sensitivity consultant who recommended "species". It's a bit like the proofreaders thay apparently used for Stormwreck Isle: they may have caught spelling errors, but the rogue and wizard pregens have game errors. Anyway, "species" is a term I've used when describing the game to those who haven't played yet.
I am all for ditching the word "race", and have already done so for myself. Regardless of the author's intent, the term has a racist history in which it was used to excuse and endorse practices like colonization and slavery by claiming that some humans are inherently less able and the oppressors were 'helping' them advance.
Warhammer FRP uses "species", so that's not a free term either. In WFRP, all playable beings are human or humanoids like Elves and Dwarfs [sic], so species is accurate enough. In D&D, there are sapient conscructs, fey, and semi-undead that 'species' doesn't fit.
I like Ancestry because then we'd have ABC -Ancestry, Background, and Class- as the main choices of character creation. It's still a bit of a stretch to say constructed beings have ancestors, though. WotC could allow playable beings to have more than one creature type: Warforged are Humanoid Constructs, Fairies could be Humanoid Fey, and Reborn may be Humanoid Undead. Depending on what a DM and their setting says about certain origin stories, Gnolls might be Humanoid Fiends. Then, 'Humanoid' would be the term for all playable beings.
I've been coming around to the idea that "Heritage" may be best. The first thing a person inherits is life itself, whether they were born of biology, artifice, or extraplanar magic. Whatever WotC does, I'll probably use both ancestry and heritage, and not worry about the rare case in which someone is aware of Pathfinder's terms, but not D&D's.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"There might yet be a heaven, but it isn't going to be 'perfect', and we're going to have to build it ourselves." - Philhellenes, Science Saved My Soul
The only valid argument I've seen against species is "I just don't like the way it sounds."
Has no one pointed out that species is even worse than race for justifying oppressive hierarchies with biological essentialism? Unlike race, species is actually real. It's maybe a tad more technically accurate than race, most of the time, but I do not see how it contributes in any way to solving the problem it's intended to solve, which is that "race" encourages, or at least facilitates, narrative themes that are harmful to people of color. I don't really personally have much issue with the word "race" even, in this context, but most of this thread has been arguing about biology, which makes me feel like the people who want orcs to all be evil are now gonna feel scientifically justified to be extremely gross about things. "Look, orcs are just a completely different species!" isn't something I want anyone saying at any table I'm playing at.
We can keep chasing our tails over terms, until someday - propably in a future so distant none of us will live to see it - we're all out of words .. or, in some even more distant future, we realise the problem really isn't the term, but the intention.
Sure, the euphemism treadmill is a thing, but one can show better intent by making the effort to meet someone on their own terms. No one is taking away the utility of language, and that's a false slippery slope fallacy that bigots use to justify socially-regressive crap.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"There might yet be a heaven, but it isn't going to be 'perfect', and we're going to have to build it ourselves." - Philhellenes, Science Saved My Soul
The only valid argument I've seen against species is "I just don't like the way it sounds."
Has no one pointed out that species is even worse than race for justifying oppressive hierarchies with biological essentialism? Unlike race, species is actually real. It's maybe a tad more technically accurate than race, most of the time, but I do not see how it contributes in any way to solving the problem it's intended to solve, which is that "race" encourages, or at least facilitates, narrative themes that are harmful to people of color. I don't really personally have much issue with the word "race" even, in this context, but most of this thread has been arguing about biology, which makes me feel like the people who want orcs to all be evil are now gonna feel scientifically justified to be extremely gross about things. "Look, orcs are just a completely different species!" isn't something I want anyone saying at any table I'm playing at.
This argument has been addressed and generally discarded. Every single world dividing something into categories can be used to justify segregationist dialogues. The same thing you fear would happen with species has been happening with race - but it is doubtful the frequency of person with those tendencies will increase just because of a change in words.
Why make the change if both words can lead to similar outcomes and the frequency of problematic players is unlikely to change overnight? Wizards has a problem with race and the term as applied to D&D. Both species and race might bring outside baggage into the system (though the baggage associated with the word race is more significant than that of species) - but only race holds the grim baggage of D&D’s problematic history in its treatment of in-game races. The word change is a metaphysical representation of Wizards’ desire to turn over a new leaf, both by choosing a word with lesser real world baggage and one devoid of Wizards’ self-inflicted baggage.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
All the hand-wringing about whether or not the use of the word "species" cuts out mixed-heritage characters is ridiculous. Ridiculous. It is nothing more than people fishing for an excuse to reject the word. D&D is a world where making a deal with a devil can cause your descendants a dozen generations removed to randomly look like devils. Modern biological science is a suggestion, not a rule, and the word "species" is commonly understood by the ordinary person to mean "a group of individuals who share the same general body plan and physiological traits, such that they can be recognized as the same type of being by outside observers."
Pantagruel said it pages ago - there is no better word. If there was an obviously better choice, Wizards would have picked that word instead. There isn't. Being pedantic about an overly technical definition of species that has never applied to D&D is not going to convince anyone that the word is Evil and must be Expunged From D&D Forever. Pick a better argument.
Please do not contact or message me.
I'm not going to read through literally hundreds of comments, but I'd just like to chime in to say that I like the idea of calling them "lineages". It's already been used in a few spots in D&D, such as the gothic or custom lineages, and I find it rolls off the tongue better than "species". "Species" also feels too separated, especially in the idea of mixed blood (which they seem to be embracing with the new rules about that). Mixed lineage just feels better than mixed species.
That being said, "species" is still likely generally a better term than "race".
How to add tooltips on dndbeyond
To be frank, that's a far better and accurate description of what a species really is than anything about being fertile.
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.
On top of that, isn't One D&D shifting away from half elves and half orcs as defined 'races' and just making a basic ruleset for those characters anyway?
Kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus , species. This is the heirarchy of modern taxonomy.
Species is a term used in biology to denote specificity. Species and specific even share the same root. Although the first usage of the term species was in the renaissance and predates Darwin's work by hundreds of years, including a term like species in a fantasy game ruins the immersive nature of the experience. Have you not been made to cringe by the word mutant in The Witcher? The word species presents the same problem. Pretty soon we'll be discussing "evolution" in the world of Faerun where "species" don't evolve but are magically created..
Heritage, lineage, ancestry, and other words with more arcane origins are better choices. Race was always a poor choice and should have been changed long ago, but species is much more appropriate for a sci-fi setting. Leave the magic of this world intact and go study biology in real life.
My (rather antagonistic) response to this argument from a ways back.
I'll admit that I probably just ignored these instances but that is my point. I don't dispute that they have used the term species before; instead I assert that they should not have. It's going to be impossible to ignore the word moving forward and my concern is that it's presence will foster discussions about evolution in a fantasy world. I don't want to have those conversations.
Why? I believe strongly in evolution. It's the truth in real life. Religious people want to fight with me about it and I judge them in a very harsh way. That said, I've played D&D with people who I now know do not believe in evolution and because the issue never came up, I actually enjoyed their company while blisfully immersed in this world of magic.
I've had the evolution debate too many times and it just isn't something I consider recreational.
These are both bad arguments.
For starters, you recognise there is a centuries-old, fantasy-appropriate definition and choose to ascribe modern biological baggage to the word… which is the exact same problem "race” has had for decades. Pedantic sociologists have been making the same argument against “race” that you are making against “species” - ignoring the centuries-old definition while sycophantically insisting their modern definition is the only one that people would apply.
It was a bad argument then, it is a bad argument now. People were easily able to divorce the term from its technical, academic definition (the problems came from application of other baggage with the word Race, both from the real world and D&D’s early problematic depictions of race)
Your second argument is a slippery slope, and that’s a textbook bad argument, especially when you are trying to extrapolate a decline from a singular piece of data and a personal anecdote (a personal anecdote, I might add, which shows your problem with evolution entering D&D seems to both predate and be unrelated to the change to the word species).
I'm pretty sure you mean archaic rather than arcane. However, they've a been discussed and have their own problems, notably that they all imply that all the species are actually humans with a little of the other species mixed in, like Tieflings. Lineage is actually a terrible choice - being an in-game term currently in use, it would cause a lot of confusion.
The word "species" has been used in D&D since at least 1989 when they released AD&D2e, so it's been used for at least 33 years. You've seen it used for either 8 years or for as long as you've been playing D&D (whichever is shorter) without noting it before now. That is proof that the word is not immersion breaking. The whole concept behind something being immersion breaking is that it bring you out of immersion, it makes you specifically realise "hang on, I'm not in this world, I'm playing a game". That the word has been there for years, possibly decades even (depending on how long you've been playing), you've read it who knows how many times and never even noted its presence. That means that it's not immersion breaking.
In a later post, you discuss that you dislike the word at least partly because you fear that the word's presence in the game will cause a debate about evolution. I have to ask you...has it done so yet? Remember, the word has been used for two thirds of the game's life (at least), has it caused that debate yet?
Honestly, I'm very dubious that it would cause you this problem. For one, the game is pretty explicit that evolution doesn't exist, or at least it isn't the origin of species as it is in real life (which is the bone of contention for most creationists).
For another...not only does it sound like the word's use has not provoked this Armageddon debate yet, despite years of use...but even creationists use the term "species". I find it hard to believe that they're suddenly going to be turned into automaton proselyters by its mere presence in the PHB when it hasn't done so before. I think it's very much more likely that the reason why they've never brought it up before is...they're just not that interested in discussing it. They're there to play D&D, and aren't looking for a debate on whether we come from monkeys or a spare rib.
Even if I'm wrong... there's a simple and adult way of handling it. Just say "I don't find discussions of evolution enjoyable and I just want to enjoy an evening of D&D smashing up orcs and seducing carps, can we discuss something else?"
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've been arguing for species since before this official change. Having the chance to play in game with the discussion of races in play, I have to say species does seem kind of off putting. Its like I have been instinctively thinking of the different fantasy species as being more akin to humans with different shells than distinct types of beings.
I still think the change is a good one, it may take some getting used to though. Implicitly thinking of the fantasy races as being more distinct may be an improvement, we'll see.
That's also relevant to another thread that's currently going. There is a trap that's quite easy to fall into if we consider them races rather than species - thinking of them as humans, but with hats. A dragonborn isn't a human but with scales, it's a creature that was created by dragons for various purposes and there is a certain viewpoint that comes with that. Elves aren't humans with pointy ears. Plasmoids aren't humans with the ability to grow extra appendages. This hasn't been discussed before in this thread (IIRC), but is a good point for the word species. I don't think it'll be revolutionary, but it's still a positive contribution.
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.
Therein lies the problem in this entire discussion - or at least, the reason why there's discussion to begin with. Words should never make a person cringe. Save a very few words, which we all know, words should NEVER make you cringe - and even that word needs context to even consider cringing. WTF is cringe anyway? Some sort of reaction to a thing to indicate that you've been offended in some way? Words have no weight by themselves. They're given weight by who said it and in what context. Stop giving so much weight to words from random people you don't know.Myself included..
All things Lich - DM tips, tricks, and other creative shenanigans
For one, this word hurt numerous people mainly because of the context in which is it used in the game. Secondly, words can hurt people. They have power. Recently, I stumbled upon a thread about how DDB was a "bastardized" "scam" and those words hurt me. There are more than a few words that are capable of hurting and harming people. And if someone says "This word hurts me, please don't use it," then your response shouldn't be to tell them that they aren't allowed to be offended by the word because it is not a word you would be offended by.
More than a few words are able to cause people harm. The notion that words don't have power and nothing should be done to stop words from hurting people is inconsiderate and wrong.
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.1) You entirely misunderstood the usage of cringe here. It wasn't about whether it was squicky, it was about whether it's too science-y. (Which it isn't, as established earlier, by yours truly.)
2) The Witcher ABSOLUTELY wants you to cringe at how people treat Geralt and other witchers! Mutant is basically a slur in that universe! What are you on about?
It should be noted that certain races/species did explicitly evolve, such as the Githyanki who changed due to exposure to their environment (The Astral Sea) and interactions with other creatures over time (Mindflayers). They were originally similar to humans, and experienced a mutation of their physiology, gained psionic abilities, lost a portion of their digestive system, and apparently started laying eggs. Ergo, the conversation about evolution has been on the table since 1st edition. In a world of actual gods, the significance of evolution is ultimately irrelevant. Literally everything is "by design", and you could just as easily call evolution one more act of magic by some deity or another. Introducing the word "species" may bring it closer to the forefront, but that should make it no more difficult to shut down than saying "whether or not evolution takes place in the fantasy world, no one cares because the gods meddle too frequently for the necessary timescales to be relevant."
Speaking strictly to this point...notice that this is a forum. It is not a game table where D&D is happening. Long-winded debates about minutiae nobody wastes table time with is the entire point of forums. This is the place where yaybos go to yabber when they're not doing something more productive with their time. You stress about the agony of a creationist vs. evolutionist (and dear god do I hate that I even hate to type that) debate erupting spontaneously at your table the moment someone uses the word "species" instead of "race". My argument: how boring and unengaging must a game be that such a thing not only happens but is then encouraged rather than shot down by the table? They're there to play D&D, not have weird philosophical debates. Or at least the weird philosophical debates are supposed to be in character about things in the game world.
People are dismissing your argument because it's a nonargument. It's the same as every other argument I've seen in this thread and others about the whole thing - a nit so finely picked you need needlenose pliers and a magnifier to even see it properly. The only valid argument I've seen against species is "I just don't like the way it sounds." Which is valid, but also completely nonactionable. Nobody can do spit about someone Not Liking The Way It Sounds. Your choices are to get used to it anyways or hope that enough other people get behind Not Liking The Way It Sounds that the term doesn't make it out of playtest.
Which, spoilers - it's gonna make it out of playtest. The alternatives Wizards gave us in the survey are "Type (subtype)", which is even drier and more clinical than people accuse 'species' of being while also being less clear and informative, and "Kind" which is so vague and meaningless it's useless as a gaming term. No one has ever asked someone else "what kind are you?" without having to immediately clarify "kind of what?" If those are the options, species wins by a mile in any category that matters. And frankly if a reverse miracle occurs and either "Type (Subtype)" or "Kind" wins? Everybody's going to just call it "species" anyways like we've already been doing for months or years now.
"I just don't like it" is valid. All the nasty pointless nitpicky-to-the-extreme arguments people are using to try and justify "I just don't like it" are not. Choir pointed out one of the main reasons why. Here I am pointing out another. Does that clarify matters at all?
Please do not contact or message me.
I doubt that's the reason. These are all public domain terms, and they said that they hired a sensitivity consultant who recommended "species". It's a bit like the proofreaders thay apparently used for Stormwreck Isle: they may have caught spelling errors, but the rogue and wizard pregens have game errors.
Anyway, "species" is a term I've used when describing the game to those who haven't played yet.
I am all for ditching the word "race", and have already done so for myself. Regardless of the author's intent, the term has a racist history in which it was used to excuse and endorse practices like colonization and slavery by claiming that some humans are inherently less able and the oppressors were 'helping' them advance.
Warhammer FRP uses "species", so that's not a free term either. In WFRP, all playable beings are human or humanoids like Elves and Dwarfs [sic], so species is accurate enough. In D&D, there are sapient conscructs, fey, and semi-undead that 'species' doesn't fit.
I like Ancestry because then we'd have ABC -Ancestry, Background, and Class- as the main choices of character creation. It's still a bit of a stretch to say constructed beings have ancestors, though. WotC could allow playable beings to have more than one creature type: Warforged are Humanoid Constructs, Fairies could be Humanoid Fey, and Reborn may be Humanoid Undead. Depending on what a DM and their setting says about certain origin stories, Gnolls might be Humanoid Fiends. Then, 'Humanoid' would be the term for all playable beings.
I've been coming around to the idea that "Heritage" may be best. The first thing a person inherits is life itself, whether they were born of biology, artifice, or extraplanar magic. Whatever WotC does, I'll probably use both ancestry and heritage, and not worry about the rare case in which someone is aware of Pathfinder's terms, but not D&D's.
"There might yet be a heaven, but it isn't going to be 'perfect', and we're going to have to build it ourselves." - Philhellenes, Science Saved My Soul
Backgrounds • Feats • Magic Items • Monsters •
Ancestries• Spells •SubclassesHas no one pointed out that species is even worse than race for justifying oppressive hierarchies with biological essentialism? Unlike race, species is actually real. It's maybe a tad more technically accurate than race, most of the time, but I do not see how it contributes in any way to solving the problem it's intended to solve, which is that "race" encourages, or at least facilitates, narrative themes that are harmful to people of color. I don't really personally have much issue with the word "race" even, in this context, but most of this thread has been arguing about biology, which makes me feel like the people who want orcs to all be evil are now gonna feel scientifically justified to be extremely gross about things. "Look, orcs are just a completely different species!" isn't something I want anyone saying at any table I'm playing at.
Sure, the euphemism treadmill is a thing, but one can show better intent by making the effort to meet someone on their own terms.
No one is taking away the utility of language, and that's a false slippery slope fallacy that bigots use to justify socially-regressive crap.
"There might yet be a heaven, but it isn't going to be 'perfect', and we're going to have to build it ourselves." - Philhellenes, Science Saved My Soul
Backgrounds • Feats • Magic Items • Monsters •
Ancestries• Spells •SubclassesThis argument has been addressed and generally discarded. Every single world dividing something into categories can be used to justify segregationist dialogues. The same thing you fear would happen with species has been happening with race - but it is doubtful the frequency of person with those tendencies will increase just because of a change in words.
Why make the change if both words can lead to similar outcomes and the frequency of problematic players is unlikely to change overnight? Wizards has a problem with race and the term as applied to D&D. Both species and race might bring outside baggage into the system (though the baggage associated with the word race is more significant than that of species) - but only race holds the grim baggage of D&D’s problematic history in its treatment of in-game races. The word change is a metaphysical representation of Wizards’ desire to turn over a new leaf, both by choosing a word with lesser real world baggage and one devoid of Wizards’ self-inflicted baggage.