Truth be told, I'll miss it a bit because it gives me those Tolkien vibes, and I've never seen anyone be offended by it. Still, "species" is more technically correct and has less potential for hurtful misunderstandings, and there's nothing wrong with using "race" in a LOTR-style setting, so I think it's the right choice.
I think a lot of the talk of using "species" instead of "race" is kinda missing the point.
Species isn't really any better. Classifying peoples in D&D settings as different species still depicts them as, well, different. The base problem - the one that's there if we strip away everything about stats and elves and dice and fantasy settings - is that we real-world humans have some pretty bad habits when it comes to how we treat the Other. We invented the concept of race from whole cloth; it has no basis in biology. And we did it because some of us wanted very strong-sounding justifications for treating others of us like crap. Sure, species is technically slightly better because while it's still an arbitrary classification scheme it's functional in that we humans invented it to make sorting living things we saw in nature easier. But if we try to apply it to orcs and elves and whatnot it's still a way of delineating one from the other (there's that word again).
So if we try to say "no, no, no, elves and orcs aren't different races... they're different species" the part of that sentence that comes across strongest is "different." Which, yeah, I get it, orcs and elves are dissimilar. But remember the base problem is that we're bad about how we treat people who are different. Unfortunately that fact permeates every part of our culture. That includes arts and entertainment. That includes D&D. Even though Faerun is a made-up fantasy world, it is still inexorably tied to the very real world we live in that has very real problems around our foolish, destructive, made-up concept called race. Calling orcs and elves species instead of races doesn't fix that problem. It just hides the problem, like hanging a poster to hide where you punched a hole in the wall. Poster's cool and all, but... hole's still there. If we just use an alternate word to highlight groups of peoples being different, we're still defining everything in terms of differences; we're still Other-ing. If we don't fix it then we're still stuck bringing in real-world prejudices and applying them to groups of people in our make-believe fantasy game that's supposed to give us an escape from real-world drama. I get that it can be tempting to think about all this and decide not to bring it up for fear of "politics" but, honestly, doing nothing is just as much a choice and just reinforces a different set of politics. We can't pretend the real world doesn't exist and D&D just exists in a sociopolitical vacuum.
So... Personally, I'm coming around on just using "people."
"Who are your people?" [This deceptively simple question asks a lot more than just "what kind of humanoid are you?" When you ask about the people someone comes from you're asking about society, ethnicity, religion, trade, handed-down customs, etc.]
"My people are humans in Neverwinter who..." [Talking about a character's people instead of just their appearance opens up a lot of thought on character and motivation. Suddenly human means more than just two arms, two legs, average height, round ears. Humans from Neverwinter have different customs, laws, local folklore, traditions, and religious practices from humans in, say, Calimshan, or from Tethyr. Apply the same concept to orcs and elves. Think of how they would describe the people they come from when they're talking about their family unit and local community rather than thinking of some monolithic definition of all orcs or all elves.]
Using "people" gets us away from the "how do we make sure everyone knows they're different" problem. I think it also subtly encourages adding more depth during the character creation process; sort of an abstract companion to the hero's chronicle from the Explorer's Guide to Wildemount.
As for the stats question, I get the attachment to aligning stat bonuses like +2 strength to orcs and +2 dexterity to elves. It's been around for a while, it's easy, it's comfortable. But if we see all the humans, orcs, elves, dwarves, firbolgs, etc. as "peoples" with as much variance within those groups as between, suddenly those pre-set bonuses don't make as much sense. Honestly I think I've come to prefer the idea of giving everyone the option of taking either +1 to all or a single +2/single +1 combo. Like, all half-orcs get +2 strength and +1 constitution? Really? But my half-orc comes from a village of fishers and hunters who value quick, steady hands over feats of strength, and he's been trained to be a cleric of Eldath, like his father and his father before him. +2 wisdom/+1 dexterity (or reversing those numbers) makes a lot more sense considering the upbringing he had in his family and community. Skills and proficiencies become upbringing/community-based as well.
If the various species (or whatever you call them -- ancestry, ethnicity, and so forth) are not going to be different from each other, and more to the point, very different from humans, why have them? Why not just have humans and non-sentient monsters, and be done with it. Declare all sentient, humanoid races, are just humans.
There are games like this, you know. The medieval authentic OSR guys have worlds with almost no sentient races, and most or all PCs pretty much have to be some sort of regular human in that setting. Then everyone can be the same and you won't have to get all upset that people are treated "differently."
Also, the idea that you'd be concerned about "othering" a fictional species that does not and has never existed is rather odd to me. You can't offend any orcs by othering them. There ARE no orcs.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
The problem is that you can offend real people who would like to play orcs by using problematic depictions and stereotypes taken from real-world history and using those as touchstones for how you depict those orcs. Because for decades that was the default depiction of orcs. By giving orcs depth and the ability to be more than just one monolithic thing you're making them more available to a wider range of play styles at the same time that you're separating them from problematic depictions based on real-world stereotypes.
We want to be able to welcome more people to play at our tables, especially folks who have traditionally felt excluded. One example of what we're hearing from those folks as part of why they aren't playing is that they already deal with the cumulative effect of generations of being stereotyped as sub-human, brutish savages. Seeing that in-game puts a damper on the cool power fantasy of playing an orc.
And honestly, what would it even matter if orc, elf, or human were simply superficial? Gender is superficial in 5E and that's perfectly fine.
Also, I'm nowhere near upset. I'm aware of problematic parts of our history and culture that get overlooked because it's easy for most of us to do so. And I'd really like to share the joy of playing D&D with more people, especially those who most often feel excluded. Apologies if you're misunderstanding this as me being upset. What I really am is enthusiastic at the prospect of welcoming more people to come share this cool thing I've enjoyed for the past 30 years.
If race is wrong because it makes groups of people sound different from one another, and species is wrong because of the same reason. How exactly is calling them different peoples going to change that?
Your example argument is really the crux of the problem it is not what ever word we use to categorize the playable characters that makes any change, it is going to be how people apply the word "different"
Elves and orcs are different races Elves and orcs are different species Elves and orcs are different people
All three of those sentences "Other" the groups they are talking about. Why? Because the word different is the key. Even in the real world, we will use the phrase "different culture" to other and alienate a group of people. So frankly no matter what term you change it to, if you use the word different; you are other-ing the group you talk about.
But BioWizard summarized most of my thoughts. If Dragonborns, Elves, Orcs, and humans are not going to be "different" from one another (I don't mean in the ASI way) then why bother having them. I'd Feel the same way if D&D was all humans but you chose Roman, Greek, Indian, Russian - but there was nothing that made those choices distinct. It goes back to the first concept of RPGs - Don't give choices if the choices don't matter.
I’ve discussed this topic with my table and all of us shrugged our shoulders at the whole thing. It’ll be interesting how they differentiate between each of the different... um... uhhhhhhh... biological creatures? Has anyone here been offended by humans and elves being split down the middle with the word “race?” It has never crossed my mind.
This could just be a dud headline and WotC might not actually do anything with it in the end and leave it as is. All it did was ruffle a few feathers and caused the stir we are reading around the internet today.
I’ll give online resources a bit more reading but if anyone else has links to others that should be noted then I don’t mind going over it.
EDIT: I read the headline that OP placed and “origin” sounds fine. A bit science-y, sure. If I sound a bit off it’s because I am on my phone so pardon any mistakes. Species? Sounds just as good if a bit... wide spread? Might be a better word for it that isn’t popping into my head. I feel like the word “race” encompasses elves and all their different variants just fine; “species” feels like I’m pointing out humanoids who are thin with pointy ears. The names are just the same but again a lot of people will take this with a pinch of salt.
It is funny listening to everyone hate on the word "species" now since Jeremy and Chris have been using it to describe the playable races, and other D&D creatures for a good few years.
Never really crossed my mind until now. I’m not wholly against it. It’ll be like getting used to a new car when they bring out a new edition using the term, gotta arrange that seat until you’re comfortable! Like this edition it took me a few weeks to get used to calling fortitude saving throws instead of constitution saving throws.
The problem is that you can offend real people who would like to play orcs by using problematic depictions and stereotypes taken from real-world history and using those as touchstones for how you depict those orcs.
Then don't have orcs.
Again, if describing other races in terms that are not glowing and human-like, is going to offend people, then OK, I don't want people to be upset or have their feelings hurt. I'm fine if D&D goes the medieval authentic route and says "only humans, no other races." (In fact I am dying to try one of the mediaval authentic games out there but haven't found anyone to play them with.) Then as humans you can do your +2 to one stat +1 to another to any stat you want, and introduce a bunch of feats or background options that replace the old racial abilities, and everyone can still build the PC they want, and nobody has to be offended.
Personally, I think this is foreclosing a bunch of really great story potential and you are getting rid of many sources of conflict, which means you will have a lot more trouble driving narrative, since conflict normally drives narrative. But if people are going to be upset because a sentient race is described with a bunch of negative adjectives, and take those negative adjectives as a commentary on real-world human ethnicities, then OK... shut it all down.
But having all the D&D "species," or whatever you want to now call races, just represent reskins of humans utterly voids the reason to have the races in the first place. I mean why even "like to play orcs" rather than humans, if orcs are just humans with tusk teeth who will just be played as, and reacted to, as a human? Again, may as well just play a human. And then put in a "tusk toothed" feat or background option that gives you +1 con and darkvision and let people take that, and play a 'tusked human'.
I wouldn't necessarily object to them doing this, by the way. My point is just, if you're going to make all the (whatever we call races now) of D&D from kobolds to orcs to Aarakocra to leonins to centaurs, just be "exactly like humans but with a different skin," then there's no point to having any of them. Like I say, medieval authentic already does that. I guess D&D should just buy up the copyright of the best one they can find and switch to those rules instead.
Which is ironic really, because original D&D in 1974 envisioned a world of almost entirely humans with almost no other (PC) races. OD&D did not have explicit rules for anything playable but elves and dwarves (no orcs, centaurs, half-kobolds, etc, although there was a note to the DM saying such things could be allowed if the player really wanted). And even there, OD&D explicitly limited those non-human races in sometimes-crippling ways (like a low max level vs. humans) to purposely discourage non-human play. it's like we've come full circle, from "everyone has to be a human," right back -- all we've got left is "some of the humans have feathers and wings or a half horse body."
I think a lot of the talk of using "species" instead of "race" is kinda missing the point.
Species isn't really any better. Classifying peoples in D&D settings as different species still depicts them as, well, different. The base problem - the one that's there if we strip away everything about stats and elves and dice and fantasy settings - is that we real-world humans have some pretty bad habits when it comes to how we treat the Other. We invented the concept of race from whole cloth; it has no basis in biology. And we did it because some of us wanted very strong-sounding justifications for treating others of us like crap. Sure, species is technically slightly better because while it's still an arbitrary classification scheme it's functional in that we humans invented it to make sorting living things we saw in nature easier. But if we try to apply it to orcs and elves and whatnot it's still a way of delineating one from the other (there's that word again).
So if we try to say "no, no, no, elves and orcs aren't different races... they're different species" the part of that sentence that comes across strongest is "different." Which, yeah, I get it, orcs and elves are dissimilar. But remember the base problem is that we're bad about how we treat people who are different. Unfortunately that fact permeates every part of our culture. That includes arts and entertainment. That includes D&D. Even though Faerun is a made-up fantasy world, it is still inexorably tied to the very real world we live in that has very real problems around our foolish, destructive, made-up concept called race. Calling orcs and elves species instead of races doesn't fix that problem. It just hides the problem, like hanging a poster to hide where you punched a hole in the wall. Poster's cool and all, but... hole's still there. If we just use an alternate word to highlight groups of peoples being different, we're still defining everything in terms of differences; we're still Other-ing. If we don't fix it then we're still stuck bringing in real-world prejudices and applying them to groups of people in our make-believe fantasy game that's supposed to give us an escape from real-world drama. I get that it can be tempting to think about all this and decide not to bring it up for fear of "politics" but, honestly, doing nothing is just as much a choice and just reinforces a different set of politics. We can't pretend the real world doesn't exist and D&D just exists in a sociopolitical vacuum.
So... Personally, I'm coming around on just using "people."
"Who are your people?" [This deceptively simple question asks a lot more than just "what kind of humanoid are you?" When you ask about the people someone comes from you're asking about society, ethnicity, religion, trade, handed-down customs, etc.]
"My people are humans in Neverwinter who..." [Talking about a character's people instead of just their appearance opens up a lot of thought on character and motivation. Suddenly human means more than just two arms, two legs, average height, round ears. Humans from Neverwinter have different customs, laws, local folklore, traditions, and religious practices from humans in, say, Calimshan, or from Tethyr. Apply the same concept to orcs and elves. Think of how they would describe the people they come from when they're talking about their family unit and local community rather than thinking of some monolithic definition of all orcs or all elves.]
Using "people" gets us away from the "how do we make sure everyone knows they're different" problem. I think it also subtly encourages adding more depth during the character creation process; sort of an abstract companion to the hero's chronicle from the Explorer's Guide to Wildemount.
As for the stats question, I get the attachment to aligning stat bonuses like +2 strength to orcs and +2 dexterity to elves. It's been around for a while, it's easy, it's comfortable. But if we see all the humans, orcs, elves, dwarves, firbolgs, etc. as "peoples" with as much variance within those groups as between, suddenly those pre-set bonuses don't make as much sense. Honestly I think I've come to prefer the idea of giving everyone the option of taking either +1 to all or a single +2/single +1 combo. Like, all half-orcs get +2 strength and +1 constitution? Really? But my half-orc comes from a village of fishers and hunters who value quick, steady hands over feats of strength, and he's been trained to be a cleric of Eldath, like his father and his father before him. +2 wisdom/+1 dexterity (or reversing those numbers) makes a lot more sense considering the upbringing he had in his family and community. Skills and proficiencies become upbringing/community-based as well.
Here's the thing. All the different races ARE different. They have different physiology so they would have different stats, advantages and disadvantages. A half-orc is not a pure human. A tiefling is not a gnome. A halfling is not an elf.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with being different.
Always thought I was a member of the human race. Guess that was wrong lol. Can't change it to separate species if they can interbreed like humans, elves, half elves, half orcs, etc. as a defining feature of being in the same species is the ability to interbreed. That is if you want to be scientific about it. Class would be more like it or possibly order, but you have some currently listed as races that have completely different biology that could be up as far as the class level scientifically. Should probably not use the term class either as that can be offensive along with race.
How about Type to replace race and Order to replace class? Probably have to do away with kingdoms and hierarchy as that can be offensive and sexist (it's not a queendom ya know). Same with combat, can't offend any pacifists or have their be any winners as that would imply a loser which is absolutely unequal. Levels don't make it an even playing field for all either so everyone should just be level 20 and not have physical or mental restrictions to play any certain class as that would be exclusionary. Or just leave it be since they are just different words for the same thing.
Here's the thing. All the different races ARE different. They have different physiology so they would have different stats, advantages and disadvantages. A half-orc is not a pure human. A tiefling is not a gnome. A halfling is not an elf.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with being different.
It's not about being different, it's about being deterministic. Racial essentialism is a common argument used to denigrate other peoples on a really flimsy empirical foundation.
Always thought I was a member of the human race. Guess that was wrong lol. Can't change it to separate species if they can interbreed like humans, elves, half elves, half orcs, etc. as a defining feature of being in the same species is the ability to interbreed. That is if you want to be scientific about it. Class would be more like it or possibly order, but you have some currently listed as races that have completely different biology that could be up as far as the class level scientifically. Should probably not use the term class either as that can be offensive along with race.
How about Type to replace race and Order to replace class? Probably have to do away with kingdoms and hierarchy as that can be offensive and sexist (it's not a queendom ya know). Same with combat, can't offend any pacifists or have their be any winners as that would imply a loser which is absolutely unequal. Levels don't make it an even playing field for all either so everyone should just be level 20 and not have physical or mental restrictions to play any certain class as that would be exclusionary. Or just leave it be since they are just different words for the same thing.
Plenty of examples in science of animals classified as different species that produce viable off spring. So species can still work as a word used to describe D&D creatures.
Here's the thing. All the different races ARE different. They have different physiology so they would have different stats, advantages and disadvantages. A half-orc is not a pure human. A tiefling is not a gnome. A halfling is not an elf.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with being different.
It's not about being different, it's about being deterministic. Racial essentialism is a common argument used to denigrate other peoples on a really flimsy empirical foundation.
It can also be used to praise or brag about them. Do not ban or try to remove something because it may be used negatively. Do that enough, because it’ll never end, and you’ll destroy everything.
Here's the thing. All the different races ARE different. They have different physiology so they would have different stats, advantages and disadvantages. A half-orc is not a pure human. A tiefling is not a gnome. A halfling is not an elf.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with being different.
It's not about being different, it's about being deterministic. Racial essentialism is a common argument used to denigrate other peoples on a really flimsy empirical foundation.
It can also be used to praise or brag about them. Do not ban or try to remove something because it may be used negatively. Do that enough, because it’ll never end, and you’ll destroy everything.
Why do you oppose diversity?
Because stereotypes are not diversity. When you have a TV show with an all-white cast, adding a black character who's only purpose on the show is to tell you how black they are does not make the show more diverse.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Here's the thing. All the different races ARE different. They have different physiology so they would have different stats, advantages and disadvantages. A half-orc is not a pure human. A tiefling is not a gnome. A halfling is not an elf.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with being different.
It's not about being different, it's about being deterministic. Racial essentialism is a common argument used to denigrate other peoples on a really flimsy empirical foundation.
It can also be used to praise or brag about them. Do not ban or try to remove something because it may be used negatively. Do that enough, because it’ll never end, and you’ll destroy everything.
Why do you oppose diversity?
Because stereotypes are not diversity. When you have a TV show with an all-white cast, adding a black character who's only purpose on the show is to tell you how black they are does not make the show more diverse.
That has nothing to do with Dungeons and Dragons. At all.
If you look at orcs and drow and see racial stereotypes then you are the one with the problem. Not the game.
Negative. Ignoring the racial stereotypes and pretending they don't exist doesn't make them go away, no matter how much some people wish to pretend otherwise.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Simply repeating the claim that it doesn't actually exist isn't actually proof that it doesn't exist. And even if you somehow could disprove it, it doesn't actually matter because Wizards of the Coast already made the decision and really aren't likely to go back on it just because of the words of a few people on a message forum.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Right, they are their own race.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
Truth be told, I'll miss it a bit because it gives me those Tolkien vibes, and I've never seen anyone be offended by it. Still, "species" is more technically correct and has less potential for hurtful misunderstandings, and there's nothing wrong with using "race" in a LOTR-style setting, so I think it's the right choice.
Wizard (Gandalf) of the Tolkien Club
I think a lot of the talk of using "species" instead of "race" is kinda missing the point.
Species isn't really any better. Classifying peoples in D&D settings as different species still depicts them as, well, different. The base problem - the one that's there if we strip away everything about stats and elves and dice and fantasy settings - is that we real-world humans have some pretty bad habits when it comes to how we treat the Other. We invented the concept of race from whole cloth; it has no basis in biology. And we did it because some of us wanted very strong-sounding justifications for treating others of us like crap. Sure, species is technically slightly better because while it's still an arbitrary classification scheme it's functional in that we humans invented it to make sorting living things we saw in nature easier. But if we try to apply it to orcs and elves and whatnot it's still a way of delineating one from the other (there's that word again).
So if we try to say "no, no, no, elves and orcs aren't different races... they're different species" the part of that sentence that comes across strongest is "different." Which, yeah, I get it, orcs and elves are dissimilar. But remember the base problem is that we're bad about how we treat people who are different. Unfortunately that fact permeates every part of our culture. That includes arts and entertainment. That includes D&D. Even though Faerun is a made-up fantasy world, it is still inexorably tied to the very real world we live in that has very real problems around our foolish, destructive, made-up concept called race. Calling orcs and elves species instead of races doesn't fix that problem. It just hides the problem, like hanging a poster to hide where you punched a hole in the wall. Poster's cool and all, but... hole's still there. If we just use an alternate word to highlight groups of peoples being different, we're still defining everything in terms of differences; we're still Other-ing. If we don't fix it then we're still stuck bringing in real-world prejudices and applying them to groups of people in our make-believe fantasy game that's supposed to give us an escape from real-world drama. I get that it can be tempting to think about all this and decide not to bring it up for fear of "politics" but, honestly, doing nothing is just as much a choice and just reinforces a different set of politics. We can't pretend the real world doesn't exist and D&D just exists in a sociopolitical vacuum.
So... Personally, I'm coming around on just using "people."
"Who are your people?" [This deceptively simple question asks a lot more than just "what kind of humanoid are you?" When you ask about the people someone comes from you're asking about society, ethnicity, religion, trade, handed-down customs, etc.]
"My people are humans in Neverwinter who..." [Talking about a character's people instead of just their appearance opens up a lot of thought on character and motivation. Suddenly human means more than just two arms, two legs, average height, round ears. Humans from Neverwinter have different customs, laws, local folklore, traditions, and religious practices from humans in, say, Calimshan, or from Tethyr. Apply the same concept to orcs and elves. Think of how they would describe the people they come from when they're talking about their family unit and local community rather than thinking of some monolithic definition of all orcs or all elves.]
Using "people" gets us away from the "how do we make sure everyone knows they're different" problem. I think it also subtly encourages adding more depth during the character creation process; sort of an abstract companion to the hero's chronicle from the Explorer's Guide to Wildemount.
As for the stats question, I get the attachment to aligning stat bonuses like +2 strength to orcs and +2 dexterity to elves. It's been around for a while, it's easy, it's comfortable. But if we see all the humans, orcs, elves, dwarves, firbolgs, etc. as "peoples" with as much variance within those groups as between, suddenly those pre-set bonuses don't make as much sense. Honestly I think I've come to prefer the idea of giving everyone the option of taking either +1 to all or a single +2/single +1 combo. Like, all half-orcs get +2 strength and +1 constitution? Really? But my half-orc comes from a village of fishers and hunters who value quick, steady hands over feats of strength, and he's been trained to be a cleric of Eldath, like his father and his father before him. +2 wisdom/+1 dexterity (or reversing those numbers) makes a lot more sense considering the upbringing he had in his family and community. Skills and proficiencies become upbringing/community-based as well.
If the various species (or whatever you call them -- ancestry, ethnicity, and so forth) are not going to be different from each other, and more to the point, very different from humans, why have them? Why not just have humans and non-sentient monsters, and be done with it. Declare all sentient, humanoid races, are just humans.
There are games like this, you know. The medieval authentic OSR guys have worlds with almost no sentient races, and most or all PCs pretty much have to be some sort of regular human in that setting. Then everyone can be the same and you won't have to get all upset that people are treated "differently."
Also, the idea that you'd be concerned about "othering" a fictional species that does not and has never existed is rather odd to me. You can't offend any orcs by othering them. There ARE no orcs.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
The problem is that you can offend real people who would like to play orcs by using problematic depictions and stereotypes taken from real-world history and using those as touchstones for how you depict those orcs. Because for decades that was the default depiction of orcs. By giving orcs depth and the ability to be more than just one monolithic thing you're making them more available to a wider range of play styles at the same time that you're separating them from problematic depictions based on real-world stereotypes.
We want to be able to welcome more people to play at our tables, especially folks who have traditionally felt excluded. One example of what we're hearing from those folks as part of why they aren't playing is that they already deal with the cumulative effect of generations of being stereotyped as sub-human, brutish savages. Seeing that in-game puts a damper on the cool power fantasy of playing an orc.
And honestly, what would it even matter if orc, elf, or human were simply superficial? Gender is superficial in 5E and that's perfectly fine.
Also, I'm nowhere near upset. I'm aware of problematic parts of our history and culture that get overlooked because it's easy for most of us to do so. And I'd really like to share the joy of playing D&D with more people, especially those who most often feel excluded. Apologies if you're misunderstanding this as me being upset. What I really am is enthusiastic at the prospect of welcoming more people to come share this cool thing I've enjoyed for the past 30 years.
If race is wrong because it makes groups of people sound different from one another, and species is wrong because of the same reason. How exactly is calling them different peoples going to change that?
Your example argument is really the crux of the problem it is not what ever word we use to categorize the playable characters that makes any change, it is going to be how people apply the word "different"
Elves and orcs are different races
Elves and orcs are different species
Elves and orcs are different people
All three of those sentences "Other" the groups they are talking about. Why? Because the word different is the key. Even in the real world, we will use the phrase "different culture" to other and alienate a group of people. So frankly no matter what term you change it to, if you use the word different; you are other-ing the group you talk about.
But BioWizard summarized most of my thoughts. If Dragonborns, Elves, Orcs, and humans are not going to be "different" from one another (I don't mean in the ASI way) then why bother having them. I'd Feel the same way if D&D was all humans but you chose Roman, Greek, Indian, Russian - but there was nothing that made those choices distinct. It goes back to the first concept of RPGs - Don't give choices if the choices don't matter.
I’ve discussed this topic with my table and all of us shrugged our shoulders at the whole thing. It’ll be interesting how they differentiate between each of the different... um... uhhhhhhh... biological creatures? Has anyone here been offended by humans and elves being split down the middle with the word “race?” It has never crossed my mind.
This could just be a dud headline and WotC might not actually do anything with it in the end and leave it as is. All it did was ruffle a few feathers and caused the stir we are reading around the internet today.
I’ll give online resources a bit more reading but if anyone else has links to others that should be noted then I don’t mind going over it.
EDIT: I read the headline that OP placed and “origin” sounds fine. A bit science-y, sure. If I sound a bit off it’s because I am on my phone so pardon any mistakes. Species? Sounds just as good if a bit... wide spread? Might be a better word for it that isn’t popping into my head. I feel like the word “race” encompasses elves and all their different variants just fine; “species” feels like I’m pointing out humanoids who are thin with pointy ears. The names are just the same but again a lot of people will take this with a pinch of salt.
It is funny listening to everyone hate on the word "species" now since Jeremy and Chris have been using it to describe the playable races, and other D&D creatures for a good few years.
Never really crossed my mind until now. I’m not wholly against it. It’ll be like getting used to a new car when they bring out a new edition using the term, gotta arrange that seat until you’re comfortable! Like this edition it took me a few weeks to get used to calling fortitude saving throws instead of constitution saving throws.
Then don't have orcs.
Again, if describing other races in terms that are not glowing and human-like, is going to offend people, then OK, I don't want people to be upset or have their feelings hurt. I'm fine if D&D goes the medieval authentic route and says "only humans, no other races." (In fact I am dying to try one of the mediaval authentic games out there but haven't found anyone to play them with.) Then as humans you can do your +2 to one stat +1 to another to any stat you want, and introduce a bunch of feats or background options that replace the old racial abilities, and everyone can still build the PC they want, and nobody has to be offended.
Personally, I think this is foreclosing a bunch of really great story potential and you are getting rid of many sources of conflict, which means you will have a lot more trouble driving narrative, since conflict normally drives narrative. But if people are going to be upset because a sentient race is described with a bunch of negative adjectives, and take those negative adjectives as a commentary on real-world human ethnicities, then OK... shut it all down.
But having all the D&D "species," or whatever you want to now call races, just represent reskins of humans utterly voids the reason to have the races in the first place. I mean why even "like to play orcs" rather than humans, if orcs are just humans with tusk teeth who will just be played as, and reacted to, as a human? Again, may as well just play a human. And then put in a "tusk toothed" feat or background option that gives you +1 con and darkvision and let people take that, and play a 'tusked human'.
I wouldn't necessarily object to them doing this, by the way. My point is just, if you're going to make all the (whatever we call races now) of D&D from kobolds to orcs to Aarakocra to leonins to centaurs, just be "exactly like humans but with a different skin," then there's no point to having any of them. Like I say, medieval authentic already does that. I guess D&D should just buy up the copyright of the best one they can find and switch to those rules instead.
Which is ironic really, because original D&D in 1974 envisioned a world of almost entirely humans with almost no other (PC) races. OD&D did not have explicit rules for anything playable but elves and dwarves (no orcs, centaurs, half-kobolds, etc, although there was a note to the DM saying such things could be allowed if the player really wanted). And even there, OD&D explicitly limited those non-human races in sometimes-crippling ways (like a low max level vs. humans) to purposely discourage non-human play. it's like we've come full circle, from "everyone has to be a human," right back -- all we've got left is "some of the humans have feathers and wings or a half horse body."
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Here's the thing. All the different races ARE different. They have different physiology so they would have different stats, advantages and disadvantages. A half-orc is not a pure human. A tiefling is not a gnome. A halfling is not an elf.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with being different.
Always thought I was a member of the human race. Guess that was wrong lol. Can't change it to separate species if they can interbreed like humans, elves, half elves, half orcs, etc. as a defining feature of being in the same species is the ability to interbreed. That is if you want to be scientific about it. Class would be more like it or possibly order, but you have some currently listed as races that have completely different biology that could be up as far as the class level scientifically. Should probably not use the term class either as that can be offensive along with race.
How about Type to replace race and Order to replace class? Probably have to do away with kingdoms and hierarchy as that can be offensive and sexist (it's not a queendom ya know). Same with combat, can't offend any pacifists or have their be any winners as that would imply a loser which is absolutely unequal. Levels don't make it an even playing field for all either so everyone should just be level 20 and not have physical or mental restrictions to play any certain class as that would be exclusionary. Or just leave it be since they are just different words for the same thing.
It's not about being different, it's about being deterministic. Racial essentialism is a common argument used to denigrate other peoples on a really flimsy empirical foundation.
Plenty of examples in science of animals classified as different species that produce viable off spring. So species can still work as a word used to describe D&D creatures.
It can also be used to praise or brag about them. Do not ban or try to remove something because it may be used negatively. Do that enough, because it’ll never end, and you’ll destroy everything.
Why do you oppose diversity?
Because stereotypes are not diversity. When you have a TV show with an all-white cast, adding a black character who's only purpose on the show is to tell you how black they are does not make the show more diverse.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
That has nothing to do with Dungeons and Dragons. At all.
If you look at orcs and drow and see racial stereotypes then you are the one with the problem. Not the game.
Negative. Ignoring the racial stereotypes and pretending they don't exist doesn't make them go away, no matter how much some people wish to pretend otherwise.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Except they aren't there. They are only being discussed because people insist something is there that doesn't exist in this particular instance.
Simply repeating the claim that it doesn't actually exist isn't actually proof that it doesn't exist. And even if you somehow could disprove it, it doesn't actually matter because Wizards of the Coast already made the decision and really aren't likely to go back on it just because of the words of a few people on a message forum.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.