For those people who don't understand why some people might find the word 'race' problematic: why do you find changing it problematic? If it's truly unimportant, having the word be changed should also be unimportant.
The reality is, neither race nor species is the correct term, because D&D does not correspond to real world biology. As such, there's no reason to keep using a term that some people find offensive. Unless you actually want to be offensive.
What I want to know is how this relates to tieflings. A tiefling isn't a race or a species. It's a condition that happens to someone. It corresponds to what in older editions was called a template.
For that matter, a warforged is also neither a race nor a species.
For those people who don't understand why some people might find the word 'race' problematic: why do you find changing it problematic? If it's truly unimportant, having the word be changed should also be unimportant.
The reality is, neither race nor species is the correct term, because D&D does not correspond to real world biology. As such, there's no reason to keep using a term that some people find offensive. Unless you actually want to be offensive.
Exactly. It's almost as if some people (not calling anyone out here) actively try to find things to offend others with. It's such a tiny change that literally does not affect anyone negatively in any way. It really reminds me of transphobes refusing to use someone's correct pronouns for the sole purpose of offending them. It's pointless.
It saddens me that we're now talking about that we can't even use the word race in a correct, non derogatory, context for fear of offending people and I think having different kinds (races) of the same species e.g. elves being listed as completely different species rather than races of the same species just to avoid using the word race (even in the correct context) is actually even more divisional, but I haven't seen the material that shows how they're planning to implement this in full yet so withholding my judgement a little for now.
Because that word doesn't exist in a non-derogatory context. It arose within a system of white supremacy and, therefore, any use of such a term perpetuates violence toward people of color.
Do better.
So the term “the human race” is derogatory and perpetuates violence against POC?
I have no trouble calling warforged a species. They are constructs but they are sapient and sentient and very much alive. A species of living constructs.
Exactly. WotC specifically cited cancel culture/politics for this name change. Not because it made more logical sense or whatever - because of politics. So we can add DnD to the growing pile of places people can't go to escape the nonsense of real world politics.
This is not due to "politics," and saying that "WotC specifically cited cancel culture" and politics for this change is downright false. People were hurt by this, so it changed. Listening to people who have long been marginalized is not "political."
People were hurt that the human race was a race in a tabletop game? Cite some stuff from these hurt and marginalized people. Give me some info to make the case this was not about politics or cancel culture.
Making a blind statement, then asking for evidence on the contrary is not how arguments work.
So the term “the human race” is derogatory and perpetuates violence against POC?
No. But using the word "race" to describe different species (including ones other than humans) is derogatory to many and encourages (false) stereotypes about different real life races having different physical and psychological abilities and traits. Whether or not you personally find this term offensive, numerous other people do. And again, changing the word hurts no one, it only makes the game a safer space for others.
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.
So the term “the human race” is derogatory and perpetuates violence against POC?
No. But using the word "race" to describe different species (including ones other than humans) is derogatory to many and encourages (false) stereotypes about different real life races having different physical and psychological abilities and traits. Whether or not you personally find this term offensive, numerous other people do. And again, changing the word hurts no one, it only makes the game a safer space for others.
That’s not what I asked. The person I responded to wrote that the word itself “doesn't exist in a non-derogatory context” and that “any use of such a term perpetuates violence toward people of color.” According to them, any and all use of the word “race” is derogatory and perpetuates violence. I asked if that specific use that I sited was actually derogatory and incited violence. Therefore, everything you wrote in response to my question is irrelevant as it doesn’t apply.
It saddens me that we're now talking about that we can't even use the word race in a correct, non derogatory, context for fear of offending people and I think having different kinds (races) of the same species e.g. elves being listed as completely different species rather than races of the same species just to avoid using the word race (even in the correct context) is actually even more divisional, but I haven't seen the material that shows how they're planning to implement this in full yet so withholding my judgement a little for now.
Because that word doesn't exist in a non-derogatory context. It arose within a system of white supremacy and, therefore, any use of such a term perpetuates violence toward people of color.
Do better.
So the term “the human race” is derogatory and perpetuates violence against POC?
Everything is fungible these days. Walking down the street and see someone else? You wave and politely say, “Hi.” Well waving comes from saluting way back in the day from European armies and as that can be interpreted as colonialism and such - YOU are now spreading colonialism, which we all know is only bad when white Europeans did it, and therefore spreading hate and fear.
Why must you keep waving hi to people? Just stop. It uses less energy, which means you require less food and means that’s better for the climate.
I demand that people stop spreading colonialism against the environment immediately and WotC needs to remove all instances of greetings from characters and campaigns. Hold on. Did you actually gender your character as a male with a high strength role? TAXIC MASCULINITY!!
Oh come on. False equivalency and slippery slope?
Also, toxic masculinity is a real problem. Nobody has ever said that making a buff dude character is toxic. All you have done is demonstrate a severe lack of understanding on the topic.
I don't mean to assume, but I'm guessing you were also upset when Tasha's Cauldron was released, with its ASI rules.
It saddens me that we're now talking about that we can't even use the word race in a correct, non derogatory, context for fear of offending people and I think having different kinds (races) of the same species e.g. elves being listed as completely different species rather than races of the same species just to avoid using the word race (even in the correct context) is actually even more divisional, but I haven't seen the material that shows how they're planning to implement this in full yet so withholding my judgement a little for now.
Because that word doesn't exist in a non-derogatory context. It arose within a system of white supremacy and, therefore, any use of such a term perpetuates violence toward people of color.
Do better.
So the term “the human race” is derogatory and perpetuates violence against POC?
YES!
And the person above asking for evidence is committing a microaggression against us. Our lived experiences are sacred, and aren't your playthings.
I don’t understand how, but am trying to.Please elaborate.
Please allow me to (probably) p*** everyone off ( I seem to be good at that here). Race is not a good term to use in a (dominantly) American game as its roots and common usage are prejudicial and n,east to large segments of the population. Even something like “The Human race” as it has often been used as a stand in for “ the white race” . WOTC decided to change that for whatever reasons they have public and/or private. Several folks of color have stated in this thread that they appreciate this change so I personally applauded the change as being welcoming and beneficial. As for the use of the term species, no it’s not a fantasy term, yes it is a science term, and, for DnD it is a good term to use for the range of playable character types. Why? Because that is what they are - species separate true breeding populations of organisms with their own unique adaptations to their world(s). The fact that some (many/most?) can interbreed to varying degrees of success doesn’t actually matter to the definition. (While some mixed species crosses are sterile like the mule, others, like the eastern coyote (a triple cross of coyote, wolf and dog - 3 separate species) are quite fertile and both breed true and breed out successfully. So yes the differences in types of elves is correctly described as subspecies. The fact that these species (and subspecies) have physiological adaptations that grant physiological differences isn’t surprising- hence species (and subspecies) physical/stat bonuses. While species have a biological/genetic impact on a character’s physiology the culture they were raised in will have a larger pact on who and what they are. If we actually look at the lore from the published worlds it’s clear (to me at least) that there is actually a huge amount of racism running just under the surface of each world - dwarves dislike elves and humans but hate orcs and goblinoids so they are willing to ally with elves and humans when needful etc. some, like the Drow and klepto kinder of early Dragonlance are obviously stereotyped and given prejudicial beliefs about them in world. (Drow really should be white skinned having lost all pigmentation from living underground for thousands of years - making them black skinned was just nasty) There is also clearly racism within at least some species with elves being a prime example ( even leaving the Drow out of the discussion). If species is too “scientific” I recommend Bloodline as a good term for future use as it Carry’s much the same meaning while having a less scientific feel but still allowing for the in game racism of groups like the elves and many human communities on many worlds.
The New: "Species" dates as far back as the late 1300s, but didn't fully transition into the vernacular until around 1600. That might be why it feels modern. But since it did exist around the late-medieval/early-Renaissance time, I can look past it, even if the devs use it when I think there are better terms.
The Old: We can still refer to "the human race" without a problem.* And it is in this context (using it as a term for the species as a whole) that we can refer to "the elf race" or "the dwarf race" or "dragonborn race". I've heard of no one using it outside this context, nor have I heard of anyone inferring any meaning other than this one. I think the devs are being overcautious.
The Alternative: If we must go with something other than "Race," then may I suggest "People"? As in, "the peoples of Faerun"? Characters would no longer be what race they are, but what people they are of. And instead of subraces, "Cultures." I mean, even those that physiologically diverge (like the different magics available to varieties of elf, dwarf, and gnome, for example) started their divergences culturally, which then led to other changes. I'm also on board with a way of re-writing Peoples' entries such that we don't need to go there at all, like with the latest 1D&DUA Dragonborn and Goliath.
TL;DR- It's not the end of the world if the Rules use "species" or "race". I recommend "Peoples and Cultures" to replace "Races and Subraces" if needs must. We might not even need subraces or equivalent anymore at all, and just pack the variations into a single racial entry, a la Dragonborn or 1D&DUA Goliath.
*As far as I know. I could be wrong.
EDIT: I wrote this based on the original post only. I tend to get too distracted by the rest of the discussion, and wanted to get my thoughts down before they got too tangled. I afterwards read the rest of the discussion and now understand a lot better the problems with using "race" as a gaming term. Still, I recommend "Peoples" and if need be "Cultures" as alternatives, rather than "species" and "subspecies".
I recommend "Peoples and Cultures" to replace "Races and Subraces" if needs must.
The problem with “People” - and with a number of other alternatives proposed on this thread - is that it feels grammatically strange within common contexts. Consider “Now it is time to choose your people” or “what people are you playing as?” Both are fairly common phrases that will appear not only throughout one’s D&D experience, but are going to be some of the first questions a novice player has to answer.
If people is defined as a term of art within the rules to mean what “race” does presently, the statements would be grammatically correct - but when practically viewed in light of the listener (particularly a new listener) it sounds like you are supposed to choose multiple “people” akin to starting a Baldur’s Gate game.
Species avoid that problem by being similar grammatically to Race. “Choose your species” is intuitive, using the word “species” in a manner congruent with the layperson definition of the word. You can instantly grasp, without knowing a single thing about D&D that “species” refers to the type of critter you are playing as. Few - if any - alternatives can match how intuitive “species” would be to a brand new player, and that intuitiveness is far more important than getting a word that pleases the hardcore fantasy fans.
Please allow me to (probably) p*** everyone off ( I seem to be good at that here). Race is not a good term to use in a (dominantly) American game as its roots and common usage are prejudicial and n,east to large segments of the population. Even something like “The Human race” as it has often been used as a stand in for “ the white race” . WOTC decided to change that for whatever reasons they have public and/or private. Several folks of color have stated in this thread that they appreciate this change so I personally applauded the change as being welcoming and beneficial. As for the use of the term species, no it’s not a fantasy term, yes it is a science term, and, for DnD it is a good term to use for the range of playable character types. Why? Because that is what they are - species separate true breeding populations of organisms with their own unique adaptations to their world(s). The fact that some (many/most?) can interbreed to varying degrees of success doesn’t actually matter to the definition. (While some mixed species crosses are sterile like the mule, others, like the eastern coyote (a triple cross of coyote, wolf and dog - 3 separate species) are quite fertile and both breed true and breed out successfully. So yes the differences in types of elves is correctly described as subspecies. The fact that these species (and subspecies) have physiological adaptations that grant physiological differences isn’t surprising- hence species (and subspecies) physical/stat bonuses. While species have a biological/genetic impact on a character’s physiology the culture they were raised in will have a larger pact on who and what they are. If we actually look at the lore from the published worlds it’s clear (to me at least) that there is actually a huge amount of racism running just under the surface of each world - dwarves dislike elves and humans but hate orcs and goblinoids so they are willing to ally with elves and humans when needful etc. some, like the Drow and klepto kinder of early Dragonlance are obviously stereotyped and given prejudicial beliefs about them in world. (Drow really should be white skinned having lost all pigmentation from living underground for thousands of years - making them black skinned was just nasty) There is also clearly racism within at least some species with elves being a prime example ( even leaving the Drow out of the discussion). If species is too “scientific” I recommend Bloodline as a good term for future use as it Carry’s much the same meaning while having a less scientific feel but still allowing for the in game racism of groups like the elves and many human communities on many worlds.
While I do agree that racism and colonialism is very much present in traditional fantasy, I think in this drow case the black represents evil like "black magic" and "dark arts". As in actual black and darkness, not skin tone. Black and darkness being the antithesis of light and and good. A very common quality in people is a fear of dark and night. Many predators in real life and monsters in fantasy prey at night and in darkness. Darkness and night represent danger, while daylight and bright colors represent life and safety.
I think orcs are more of a racist and colonialistic depiction even though they are often green.
There's always some aspect to words with a negative connotation that'll follow to whatever word you use. Its like there are nasty flies buzzing around a word, the flies being the negative attitude towards the thing the word is defining. So we make a new word to use that doesn't have the flies buzzing around it, and that works for a while. But then the flies eventually find their way over to the new word and it becomes polluted again. Think how many iterations of terms we've had for various POC groups or mentally handicapped/ill.
I'm not saying there aren't better or worse words to use. Just that we need to keep in mind that ultimately it isn't the word that's the problem, its the attitude people have towards what the word is defining that needs changing.
I think in this drow case the black represents evil like "black magic" and "dark arts". As in actual black and darkness, not skin tone. Black and darkness being the antithesis of light and and good. A very common quality in people is a fear of dark and night. Many predators in real life and monsters in fantasy prey at night and in darkness. Darkness and night represent danger, while daylight and bright colors represent life and safety.
You kind of came at it from the reverse angle, but this is why calling darker skins tones "black" is problematic in the first place
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)
I recommend "Peoples and Cultures" to replace "Races and Subraces" if needs must.
The problem with “People” - and with a number of other alternatives proposed on this thread - is that it feels grammatically strange within common contexts. Consider “Now it is time to choose your people” or “what people are you playing as?” Both are fairly common phrases that will appear not only throughout one’s D&D experience, but are going to be some of the first questions a novice player has to answer.
If people is defined as a term of art within the rules to mean what “race” does presently, the statements would be grammatically correct - but when practically viewed in light of the listener (particularly a new listener) it sounds like you are supposed to choose multiple “people” akin to starting a Baldur’s Gate game.
Species avoid that problem by being similar grammatically to Race. “Choose your species” is intuitive, using the word “species” in a manner congruent with the layperson definition of the word. You can instantly grasp, without knowing a single thing about D&D that “species” refers to the type of critter you are playing as. Few - if any - alternatives can match how intuitive “species” would be to a brand new player, and that intuitiveness is far more important than getting a word that pleases the hardcore fantasy fans.
If anything, "species" would be more intuitive than "race", because "race" needs explanation that it doesn't refer to real-world people, whereas "species" is immediately obvious.
The argument is academic. Wizards of the Coast for good or ill will do what it will. There is a degree of merit in the matter but I wonder what else will be changed? DnD has evolved since the 70s to the present. As an Islander I have not seen many of these issues that have been discussed and for some I kind of shrug my shoulder and judge how the DM applies the material. Still it is good to see so many sides of this argument.
Still what does it bode when a four letter word has a way of stirring people up?
May you guys roll nat 20s!
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"You are a beginner once, but a student for life." - Firearm Instruction Adage.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
For those people who don't understand why some people might find the word 'race' problematic: why do you find changing it problematic? If it's truly unimportant, having the word be changed should also be unimportant.
The reality is, neither race nor species is the correct term, because D&D does not correspond to real world biology. As such, there's no reason to keep using a term that some people find offensive. Unless you actually want to be offensive.
What I want to know is how this relates to tieflings. A tiefling isn't a race or a species. It's a condition that happens to someone. It corresponds to what in older editions was called a template.
For that matter, a warforged is also neither a race nor a species.
Exactly. It's almost as if some people (not calling anyone out here) actively try to find things to offend others with. It's such a tiny change that literally does not affect anyone negatively in any way. It really reminds me of transphobes refusing to use someone's correct pronouns for the sole purpose of offending them. It's pointless.
[REDACTED]
So the term “the human race” is derogatory and perpetuates violence against POC?
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I have no trouble calling warforged a species. They are constructs but they are sapient and sentient and very much alive. A species of living constructs.
Tieflings are a mixed race.
Finland GMT/UTC +2
Making a blind statement, then asking for evidence on the contrary is not how arguments work.
[REDACTED]
No. But using the word "race" to describe different species (including ones other than humans) is derogatory to many and encourages (false) stereotypes about different real life races having different physical and psychological abilities and traits. Whether or not you personally find this term offensive, numerous other people do. And again, changing the word hurts no one, it only makes the game a safer space for others.
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.That’s not what I asked. The person I responded to wrote that the word itself “doesn't exist in a non-derogatory context” and that “any use of such a term perpetuates violence toward people of color.” According to them, any and all use of the word “race” is derogatory and perpetuates violence. I asked if that specific use that I sited was actually derogatory and incited violence. Therefore, everything you wrote in response to my question is irrelevant as it doesn’t apply.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Oh come on. False equivalency and slippery slope?
Also, toxic masculinity is a real problem. Nobody has ever said that making a buff dude character is toxic. All you have done is demonstrate a severe lack of understanding on the topic.
I don't mean to assume, but I'm guessing you were also upset when Tasha's Cauldron was released, with its ASI rules.
[REDACTED]
I don’t understand how, but am trying to.Please elaborate.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Please allow me to (probably) p*** everyone off ( I seem to be good at that here). Race is not a good term to use in a (dominantly) American game as its roots and common usage are prejudicial and n,east to large segments of the population. Even something like “The Human race” as it has often been used as a stand in for “ the white race” . WOTC decided to change that for whatever reasons they have public and/or private. Several folks of color have stated in this thread that they appreciate this change so I personally applauded the change as being welcoming and beneficial. As for the use of the term species, no it’s not a fantasy term, yes it is a science term, and, for DnD it is a good term to use for the range of playable character types. Why? Because that is what they are - species separate true breeding populations of organisms with their own unique adaptations to their world(s). The fact that some (many/most?) can interbreed to varying degrees of success doesn’t actually matter to the definition. (While some mixed species crosses are sterile like the mule, others, like the eastern coyote (a triple cross of coyote, wolf and dog - 3 separate species) are quite fertile and both breed true and breed out successfully. So yes the differences in types of elves is correctly described as subspecies. The fact that these species (and subspecies) have physiological adaptations that grant physiological differences isn’t surprising- hence species (and subspecies) physical/stat bonuses. While species have a biological/genetic impact on a character’s physiology the culture they were raised in will have a larger pact on who and what they are. If we actually look at the lore from the published worlds it’s clear (to me at least) that there is actually a huge amount of racism running just under the surface of each world - dwarves dislike elves and humans but hate orcs and goblinoids so they are willing to ally with elves and humans when needful etc. some, like the Drow and klepto kinder of early Dragonlance are obviously stereotyped and given prejudicial beliefs about them in world. (Drow really should be white skinned having lost all pigmentation from living underground for thousands of years - making them black skinned was just nasty) There is also clearly racism within at least some species with elves being a prime example ( even leaving the Drow out of the discussion). If species is too “scientific” I recommend Bloodline as a good term for future use as it Carry’s much the same meaning while having a less scientific feel but still allowing for the in game racism of groups like the elves and many human communities on many worlds.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
The New: "Species" dates as far back as the late 1300s, but didn't fully transition into the vernacular until around 1600. That might be why it feels modern. But since it did exist around the late-medieval/early-Renaissance time, I can look past it, even if the devs use it when I think there are better terms.
The Old: We can still refer to "the human race" without a problem.* And it is in this context (using it as a term for the species as a whole) that we can refer to "the elf race" or "the dwarf race" or "dragonborn race". I've heard of no one using it outside this context, nor have I heard of anyone inferring any meaning other than this one. I think the devs are being overcautious.
The Alternative: If we must go with something other than "Race," then may I suggest "People"? As in, "the peoples of Faerun"? Characters would no longer be what race they are, but what people they are of. And instead of subraces, "Cultures." I mean, even those that physiologically diverge (like the different magics available to varieties of elf, dwarf, and gnome, for example) started their divergences culturally, which then led to other changes. I'm also on board with a way of re-writing Peoples' entries such that we don't need to go there at all, like with the latest 1D&DUA Dragonborn and Goliath.
TL;DR- It's not the end of the world if the Rules use "species" or "race". I recommend "Peoples and Cultures" to replace "Races and Subraces" if needs must. We might not even need subraces or equivalent anymore at all, and just pack the variations into a single racial entry, a la Dragonborn or 1D&DUA Goliath.
The problem with “People” - and with a number of other alternatives proposed on this thread - is that it feels grammatically strange within common contexts. Consider “Now it is time to choose your people” or “what people are you playing as?” Both are fairly common phrases that will appear not only throughout one’s D&D experience, but are going to be some of the first questions a novice player has to answer.
If people is defined as a term of art within the rules to mean what “race” does presently, the statements would be grammatically correct - but when practically viewed in light of the listener (particularly a new listener) it sounds like you are supposed to choose multiple “people” akin to starting a Baldur’s Gate game.
Species avoid that problem by being similar grammatically to Race. “Choose your species” is intuitive, using the word “species” in a manner congruent with the layperson definition of the word. You can instantly grasp, without knowing a single thing about D&D that “species” refers to the type of critter you are playing as. Few - if any - alternatives can match how intuitive “species” would be to a brand new player, and that intuitiveness is far more important than getting a word that pleases the hardcore fantasy fans.
While I do agree that racism and colonialism is very much present in traditional fantasy, I think in this drow case the black represents evil like "black magic" and "dark arts". As in actual black and darkness, not skin tone. Black and darkness being the antithesis of light and and good. A very common quality in people is a fear of dark and night. Many predators in real life and monsters in fantasy prey at night and in darkness. Darkness and night represent danger, while daylight and bright colors represent life and safety.
I think orcs are more of a racist and colonialistic depiction even though they are often green.
Finland GMT/UTC +2
There's always some aspect to words with a negative connotation that'll follow to whatever word you use. Its like there are nasty flies buzzing around a word, the flies being the negative attitude towards the thing the word is defining. So we make a new word to use that doesn't have the flies buzzing around it, and that works for a while. But then the flies eventually find their way over to the new word and it becomes polluted again. Think how many iterations of terms we've had for various POC groups or mentally handicapped/ill.
I'm not saying there aren't better or worse words to use. Just that we need to keep in mind that ultimately it isn't the word that's the problem, its the attitude people have towards what the word is defining that needs changing.
You kind of came at it from the reverse angle, but this is why calling darker skins tones "black" is problematic in the first place
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)
If anything, "species" would be more intuitive than "race", because "race" needs explanation that it doesn't refer to real-world people, whereas "species" is immediately obvious.
[REDACTED]
The argument is academic. Wizards of the Coast for good or ill will do what it will. There is a degree of merit in the matter but I wonder what else will be changed? DnD has evolved since the 70s to the present. As an Islander I have not seen many of these issues that have been discussed and for some I kind of shrug my shoulder and judge how the DM applies the material. Still it is good to see so many sides of this argument.
Still what does it bode when a four letter word has a way of stirring people up?
May you guys roll nat 20s!
"You are a beginner once, but a student for life." - Firearm Instruction Adage.