I have been watching this whole debate and it is amazing how the same debate is being mirrored for so many things. In the UK a major supermarket renamed one of it's sweets from Midget Gems to Mini Gems. It caused consternation amongst some, "Why are we renaming it, I am not offended by it and so neither should anyone else be" and "They haven't complained before why complain now" where 2 of the most common arguments put forward by various (typically) right of centre commentators and news organisations. The name of the sweet changed and, guess what, the world is still whole the sky has not fallen down, the sweets are still the same and a group of people are not offended by them any longer.
A group of people found that product name offensive and finally, in 2022, they where able to find a platform and voice there feelings and be taken seriously.
No person or group should have to put up with language they find offensive. It doesn't matter if the word Race has been used for 30 years, language evolves and changes anyway and it seems right that, in 2022, this new version of DnD should also consider the language that surrounds the game, as well (and this is really going to upset some people) as the lore to bring it more in line with thinking in the 21st century. The game is a set of mechanics to define a world that isn't real, changing the name of a group of beings from Race is not going to break the game or make peoples enjoyment less, but if removing it makes 1 person feel more included in our world then it is the right choice to make.
Now there may well be debates about what word should be used instead, I personally can't see an issue with the word Species, I have seen some take offence and we need to consider that as well, but that is why Wizards have said the next review period for ONE DnD will ask peoples views on this, we have seen with the mechanical changes made to Dragonborn and Ardling in this recent rules drop that our feedback IS being considered and fed back into the game they are hearing us and that is a good thing. This is going to be the closest thing I can think of to a TTRPG that is written and shaped for and by the players, I don't know a single game company that has taken this true crowdsourcing approach to game development for a whole new edition to this scale.
I will also say to those trying to be scientific, or logical in picking an alternative word, we are playing in a made up fantasy land where dragons are real, animals can be spoken to and Hell really does exist, let's accept the word used doesn't really need to follow any logical rules other then not being offensive, if you want a realistic TTRPG who's rules and language are based more in reality then there are loads out there that will meet your requirements.
Jennifer Kretchmer is not mentioned on the article on the front page of this website to which this thread is about. Nor is any name for that matter.
And why do you think that is? Because the developers know that naming the people consulted would lead to them being targets of bigoted hate mobs that would make their online presence a misery, perhaps? The fact that this thread has so many post is so sad for what it means about society. That people care more about a superficial name change than actual changes to core mechanics of the game they play... I can't help but pity those so enthralled by the anti-SJW "Daily Hate" that they have lost all connection to anything that really matters. How many of you in this group made someone else smile today? Or found a reason to smile yourself? Why do you persist in making yourselves furious over nothing more than a rebranding exercise?
No person or group should have to put up with language they find offensive. It doesn't matter if the word Race has been used for 30 years, language evolves and changes anyway and it seems right that, in 2022, this new version of DnD should also consider the language that surrounds the game, as well (and this is really going to upset some people) as the lore to bring it more in line with thinking in the 21st century. The game is a set of mechanics to define a world that isn't real, changing the name of a group of beings from Race is not going to break the game or make peoples enjoyment less, but if removing it makes 1 person feel more included in our world then it is the right choice to make.
it may not have come across in my post yesterday, but you touched on the core idea behind my argument. Race probably should be changed because of how the word has changed from when I was young. However, we can’t realistically remove EVERY hurtful word from the game. My deleted thread made an argument around how class could be a hurtful word. I could also see where terms like “dwarf” or “fairy” or even “giant slug” could also be hurtful to certain individuals given how these might be used in a derogatory way. And what about terms like god, Hell, Demons, Devas and Devils - these could be extremely hurtful to individuals with certain religiously beliefs.
No person or group should have to put up with language they find offensive. It doesn't matter if the word Race has been used for 30 years, language evolves and changes anyway and it seems right that, in 2022, this new version of DnD should also consider the language that surrounds the game, as well (and this is really going to upset some people) as the lore to bring it more in line with thinking in the 21st century. The game is a set of mechanics to define a world that isn't real, changing the name of a group of beings from Race is not going to break the game or make peoples enjoyment less, but if removing it makes 1 person feel more included in our world then it is the right choice to make.
it may not have come across in my post yesterday, but you touched on the core idea behind my argument. Race probably should be changed because of how the word has changed from when I was young. However, we can’t realistically remove EVERY hurtful word from the game. My deleted thread made an argument around how class could be a hurtful word. I could also see where terms like “dwarf” or “fairy” or even “giant slug” could also be hurtful to certain individuals given how these might be used in a derogatory way. And what about terms like god, Hell, Demons, Devas and Devils - these could be extremely hurtful to individuals with certain religiously beliefs.
First of all, your posts were deleted by a moderator, which they only do if they deem that it violates terms of use. I would advise not trying to post about the same thing again or your post will be deleted again.
Second of all, whether or not those other words are changed does not impact the topic of changing the term "race." It's related, certainly, but it's not the same topic. I understand you probably want to understand the motive behind the change, but don't think that changing one means that the other word will be changed or that the one change should wait until a more holistic change can be made. That would be making perfect the enemy of good. If we had to wait until the perfect plan comes along to change even one thing, nothing would ever change.
This is often used as a delaying tactic by people who dislike a change, dismissing the hurt and harm that real people experience in favor of the status quo. So it can be very annoying for those of us who have been harmed by the content to hear this kind of, "but what about this or that? How can you make one change without also addressing these other things?"
Yes, your point is relevant, and should be discussed. But don't let it obscure this specific and important discussion of this one particular term. Do you understand?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Canto alla vita alla sua bellezza ad ogni sua ferita ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
Furthermore, that we cannot realistically make everything perfect should never be a reason to not attempt to make things better. We can only try to make things better, and worrying about making things perfect gets in the way of that.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Canto alla vita alla sua bellezza ad ogni sua ferita ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
Don't love it, don't hate it. the things that people manage to take offense to kind of makes me roll my eyes sometimes, but it hurts nothing to make this change.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Furthermore, that we cannot realistically make everything perfect should never be a reason to not attempt to make things better. We can only try to make things better, and worrying about making things perfect gets in the way of that.
Truth. The parallel to that is understanding that sometimes to make something include a larger set of people you necessarily need to exclude groups that were previously part of the in-group. Who is included and excluded will shift over time, but ideally the percentage of people that are included grows as revisions happen if you're a business looking to make your user group as large as possible.
Do you really care if they call it races, species, origins, ancestry, or whatever? I mean, if there are people who, for whatever reason, are offended by the term "race", then look for another one that doesn't offend anyone. And species seems to not really offend anyone. So that one is fine. Actually, the complaints that I read seem to be more for having changed the word than because "species" is really a problem. And I don't understand that. If race was a problem for some people, the logical thing to do is to change it. And nothing happens. It doesn't change the essence of the game, or any other nonsense I've read.
I don't think many people who play D&D or have any legitimate interest in D&D are going to confuse the concept of a fantasy race with the usage of the word in real-life. Pandering to people who are "offended" and being inclusive aren't the same things and the former is actually problematic to do, since there are people continuously looking to be offended by literally anything, no matter how little of an issue it actually is, there is a risk of making them claim that they are "justified" in being offended.
I think a lot of people were offended by this word. Just because you didn't notice them doesn't mean they don't exist. Yes, there is always going to be one person on Earth face of Earth who doesn't like something, but those people are few and far between. There was much more than just a few people upset about the term "race". Also, people who are offended by this aren't confusing D&D with real life: Real people with real emotions can still be hurt by something in a fantasy game.
it may not have come across in my post yesterday, but you touched on the core idea behind my argument. Race probably should be changed because of how the word has changed from when I was young. However, we can’t realistically remove EVERY hurtful word from the game. My deleted thread made an argument around how class could be a hurtful word. I could also see where terms like “dwarf” or “fairy” or even “giant slug” could also be hurtful to certain individuals given how these might be used in a derogatory way. And what about terms like god, Hell, Demons, Devas and Devils - these could be extremely hurtful to individuals with certain religiously beliefs.
This is an exemplary example of a Slippery Slope logical fallacy: You are assuming that by changing one word that a large demographic of D&D players found hurtful will mandate removing a large number of words that have zero relation and/or connection to this argument or specific word.
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.
Pandering to people who are "offended" and being inclusive aren't the same things and the former is actually problematic to do
There is not a difference between those two things. The only difference is how the person saying it wants to frame the situation in order to justify their own view point. Absolutely any change with respect to cultural norms can and is called "pandering to whiners" by those who oppose the change and "respectful inclusivity" by those who support the change. So you perceive and describe it as pandering because you already oppose it you do not oppose it because you perceive it to be pandering. So please explain why it is you oppose this change.
No person or group should have to put up with language they find offensive. It doesn't matter if the word Race has been used for 30 years, language evolves and changes anyway and it seems right that, in 2022, this new version of DnD should also consider the language that surrounds the game, as well (and this is really going to upset some people) as the lore to bring it more in line with thinking in the 21st century. The game is a set of mechanics to define a world that isn't real, changing the name of a group of beings from Race is not going to break the game or make peoples enjoyment less, but if removing it makes 1 person feel more included in our world then it is the right choice to make.
it may not have come across in my post yesterday, but you touched on the core idea behind my argument. Race probably should be changed because of how the word has changed from when I was young. However, we can’t realistically remove EVERY hurtful word from the game. My deleted thread made an argument around how class could be a hurtful word. I could also see where terms like “dwarf” or “fairy” or even “giant slug” could also be hurtful to certain individuals given how these might be used in a derogatory way. And what about terms like god, Hell, Demons, Devas and Devils - these could be extremely hurtful to individuals with certain religiously beliefs.
Mine is one of those tables who do not play with gods because they make some people uncomfortable. We have simply replaced them with "Sephiroth" and everybody is fine with that. What is interesting is that, once we made that switch, we did start getting more people interested in playing. This was back with the 3.5 handbook, in which most of the "religion" pages were all lumped together and easily ignored. 5e, on the other hand, stuffed lore about the different "races" and their gods all over the PHB, the MM, DMG, and in multiple companion books. So it was somewhat more awkward to extract. But I didn't write an angry letter to WOTC telling them how disappointed I was. I know a lot of people like playing that way, and I don't want to ruin their fun. (In fact, I don't think I've even mentioned it here because I don't plan on inviting anybody from the forums to my table.) But I do want to say, I've introduced a lot more people to DnD simply by taking the "uncomfortable" aspect out of that mechanic.
I don't think many people who play D&D or have any legitimate interest in D&D are going to confuse the concept of a fantasy race with the usage of the word in real-life. Pandering to people who are "offended" and being inclusive aren't the same things and the former is actually problematic to do, since there are people continuously looking to be offended by literally anything, no matter how little of an issue it actually is, there is a risk of making them claim that they are "justified" in being offended.
I think a lot of people were offended by this word. Just because you didn't notice them doesn't mean they don't exist. Yes, there is always going to be one person on Earth face of Earth who doesn't like something, but those people are few and far between. There was much more than just a few people upset about the term "race". Also, people who are offended by this aren't confusing D&D with real life: Real people with real emotions can still be hurt by something in a fantasy game.
"you think" also does not really mean they actually exist either. Do a search for say "should D&D remove race as a term", almost all results are new and there isn't any real big movements or anything at all connected to them. If people legitimately felt like race as used in D&D was exclusionary, we would in fact hear more about it and would have done so for years.
As for the argument of people can be hurt by something in a fantasy game, GTA has gun violence in it, does it mean we should ban GTA because guns offend some people? It's not really a great argument to say something should be banned in some form of fantasy because it might make people feel hurt. If something is legitimately disgusting then sure, but we should be more rationale in the decision making process.
Now if we want to get into an actually legitimately offensive term, Barbarian, it was literally a word created to be derogatory inferring that the people they were describing as such were only capable of saying "bar-bar". The problem is that nobody is offended by the word Barbarian anymore, so despite it literally being a derogatory term, we are happy to see that stay while removing another term that might questionably be offensive.
I am for inclusion but I am cynical that this really is for inclusion's sake.
Barbarian? Heck! The word "dungeon" was introduced to the English language by French-speaking Normans who sailed over to England, killed the king, and then built large, fortified "donjons" from which they brutally enforced their regime. In French, the word implies a comfortable place where nobility live. In English, it implies...well, everybody in this forum had better know exactly what it implies.
Barbarian? Heck! The word "dungeon" was introduced to the English language by French-speaking Normans who sailed over to England, killed the king, and then built large, fortified "donjons" from which they brutally enforced their regime. In French, the word implies a comfortable place where nobility live. In English, it implies...well, everybody in this forum had better know exactly what it implies.
Lots of whips, shackles, leather, and a woman who advertises herself as 'Pro-pain and pro-pain accessories'?
I'm very happy they're dropping race. I prefer a word like ancestry, but I'll take whatever. I had hoped they'd do that in the very first UA, but as long as it's before the books are out, it's good.
@DireWolfreich I think you will find there *aren't* half orcs and half elves in the next version of D&D. Many people found them offensive, both people of mixed heritage and people who were nonwhite and felt it reflected too many real world historical problems with default whiteness and white purity tests (where even a tiny bit of non-white ancestry meant you weren't "really" white). Half orcs were historically assumed to be conceived via r@pe. What is a half orc? Half orc half what? Why do they only say the nonhuman half? That's the problem.
This does hit a nerve since I have several players who are proud of their bicontinental ancestry and don't like to be forced into a single stereotype. The old idea that one could be a blend of two cultures is something they can relate to. Knowing their ancestry, the idea that half-orcs only come about from brutality sounds juvenile. Many of the more nomadic tribes of North America encouraged intermarriage between tribes as a means of peacefully expanding their hunting and foraging territories. When food was scarce near home, there was always a relative to visit somewhere else where the food was just coming into season. To them, it was more normal being a part of every group of people than it was identifying only with one.
This was one of the reasons one of my players opted for their first PC to be a half-orc. Their ancestors had always been a people of "halves" and they had no trouble creating a backstory or playing the role. Yes, he was half-orc, but since he grew up in both worlds, his character was able to be as complex as the player wanted him to be. Sometimes he would wade into battle, flail swinging, and sometimes he would play chess with the wizard while the other party members argued about what to do next.
I totally agree but I love the notion of all these peoples living together and having communities that intermingle, so half(gnome/elf) (dwarf/human) (halfling/orc) shouldn’t be shut out. It creates a melting pot atmosphere that I think we are stripping away and leads to a further example of puritan philosophy.
I have a home brew where you pick a major and minor trait from an ancestry (love that btw) from two different parents to represent your character. So I have been grouping old racial abilities into two buckets major and minor . It’s not great or balanced but my players are able to play any kind of adventurer they want.
My table is not going to like that they got rid of mixed ancestry, and I'm already planning how I'm going to work around it with a similar home brew.
Ancestral traits seem to come in two varieties, physical and social. An aarakocra's wings are definitely physical, but many of the other traits could easily be seen as skills picked up from being raised in the social environment provided by the parents. If players want a homogenous PC, they can take all traits from one ancestry. If they want a blend, they can take physical from one and the social traits from another. An orc/elf, for example, could easily come with the physical traits of an orc, but have better perception and Mask of the Wild due to being raised with an elvish parent. A halfling/dwarf can easily be as tough as a dwarf and still have the stealth skills of a Lightfoot halfling--or the physical nimbleness of a halfling but the strength and armor training from growing up among the Mountain dwarves.
Pandering to people who are "offended" and being inclusive aren't the same things and the former is actually problematic to do, since there are people continuously looking to be offended by literally anything, no matter how little of an issue it actually is, there is a risk of making them claim that they are "justified" in being offended.
This is very belittling and it is invalidating to those who have said that this language is harmful. Don't do that. It also goes explicitly against what moderation has instructed us to do.
This is a reminder to everyone who makes the choice to participate in these discussions surrounding the One D&D changes to game language. You do so under the explicit assumption you will participate by the site rules.
I want to emphasises something; these changes are being made because people who play the game are experiencing harm at the language the game uses and have communicated this to Wizards of the Coast, who are taking action to continue to progress the game forwards to be as inclusive as it can be. The moderation team will not entertain the dismissal, invalidation, or margination of members of the community who have raised these valid concerns just because "I don't see a problem with the word". Privilege is a wonderful thing.
If you want to participate in this discussion without receiving warnings, infraction points, or bans, you will do so civilly, respectfully, and with kindness.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Canto alla vita alla sua bellezza ad ogni sua ferita ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
My table is not going to like that they got rid of mixed ancestry.
Your table has nothing to worry about, because they didn't actually do that. All they did was have someone of mixed ancestry not be classified as a separate species.
I fully understand how WotC can't possibly make a balanced half species for every single pair of species in DnD. But I still really hate how half orc and half elf got mechanically removed. Especially as they're more convincingly possible hybrids, rather than someone's super special OC aarakoctaur.
Only way I can see it being made mechanically possible, is if each species gets a minor trait and a major trait. And then a hybrid gets one from each parent.
Pandering to people who are "offended" and being inclusive aren't the same things and the former is actually problematic to do, since there are people continuously looking to be offended by literally anything, no matter how little of an issue it actually is, there is a risk of making them claim that they are "justified" in being offended.
This is very belittling and it is invalidating to those who have said that this language is harmful. Don't do that. It also goes explicitly against what moderation has instructed us to do.
I don't want to get into legitimate arguments over what should or should not be questionable and not in the right state of mind personally, so I'm just deleting my comments since I am saying these things out of concern and not to necessarily offend or insult everybody. I do think there is legitimate questions around the word "race", when WotC continues to actually use words that were actually designed to be derogatory from their conception. It's very double standards.
Pandering to people who are "offended" and being inclusive aren't the same things and the former is actually problematic to do, since there are people continuously looking to be offended by literally anything, no matter how little of an issue it actually is, there is a risk of making them claim that they are "justified" in being offended.
This is very belittling and it is invalidating to those who have said that this language is harmful. Don't do that. It also goes explicitly against what moderation has instructed us to do.
I don't want to get into legitimate arguments over what should or should not be questionable and not in the right state of mind personally, so I'm just deleting my comments since I am saying these things out of concern and not to necessarily offend or insult everybody. I do think there is legitimate questions around the word "race", when WotC continues to actually use words that were actually designed to be derogatory from their conception. It's very double standards.
That is another deflection technique that people use when they don't want to admit the real reason they oppose something. It is called "What about-ism", others have already mentioned that not fixing everything is not a valid argument to not fix something. Let's face it you don't actually care about the use of the word Barbarian as you yourself admitted no one cares because it is far remove from its ancient Greek origins that they don't matter. (Language and culture changes, it always has and it always will). You are once again simply deflecting from the real reason you oppose these changes, please state them openly if you have a real disagreement about the use of "race" in this context.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I have been watching this whole debate and it is amazing how the same debate is being mirrored for so many things. In the UK a major supermarket renamed one of it's sweets from Midget Gems to Mini Gems. It caused consternation amongst some, "Why are we renaming it, I am not offended by it and so neither should anyone else be" and "They haven't complained before why complain now" where 2 of the most common arguments put forward by various (typically) right of centre commentators and news organisations. The name of the sweet changed and, guess what, the world is still whole the sky has not fallen down, the sweets are still the same and a group of people are not offended by them any longer.
A group of people found that product name offensive and finally, in 2022, they where able to find a platform and voice there feelings and be taken seriously.
No person or group should have to put up with language they find offensive. It doesn't matter if the word Race has been used for 30 years, language evolves and changes anyway and it seems right that, in 2022, this new version of DnD should also consider the language that surrounds the game, as well (and this is really going to upset some people) as the lore to bring it more in line with thinking in the 21st century. The game is a set of mechanics to define a world that isn't real, changing the name of a group of beings from Race is not going to break the game or make peoples enjoyment less, but if removing it makes 1 person feel more included in our world then it is the right choice to make.
Now there may well be debates about what word should be used instead, I personally can't see an issue with the word Species, I have seen some take offence and we need to consider that as well, but that is why Wizards have said the next review period for ONE DnD will ask peoples views on this, we have seen with the mechanical changes made to Dragonborn and Ardling in this recent rules drop that our feedback IS being considered and fed back into the game they are hearing us and that is a good thing. This is going to be the closest thing I can think of to a TTRPG that is written and shaped for and by the players, I don't know a single game company that has taken this true crowdsourcing approach to game development for a whole new edition to this scale.
I will also say to those trying to be scientific, or logical in picking an alternative word, we are playing in a made up fantasy land where dragons are real, animals can be spoken to and Hell really does exist, let's accept the word used doesn't really need to follow any logical rules other then not being offensive, if you want a realistic TTRPG who's rules and language are based more in reality then there are loads out there that will meet your requirements.
And why do you think that is? Because the developers know that naming the people consulted would lead to them being targets of bigoted hate mobs that would make their online presence a misery, perhaps? The fact that this thread has so many post is so sad for what it means about society. That people care more about a superficial name change than actual changes to core mechanics of the game they play... I can't help but pity those so enthralled by the anti-SJW "Daily Hate" that they have lost all connection to anything that really matters. How many of you in this group made someone else smile today? Or found a reason to smile yourself? Why do you persist in making yourselves furious over nothing more than a rebranding exercise?
it may not have come across in my post yesterday, but you touched on the core idea behind my argument. Race probably should be changed because of how the word has changed from when I was young. However, we can’t realistically remove EVERY hurtful word from the game. My deleted thread made an argument around how class could be a hurtful word. I could also see where terms like “dwarf” or “fairy” or even “giant slug” could also be hurtful to certain individuals given how these might be used in a derogatory way. And what about terms like god, Hell, Demons, Devas and Devils - these could be extremely hurtful to individuals with certain religiously beliefs.
First of all, your posts were deleted by a moderator, which they only do if they deem that it violates terms of use. I would advise not trying to post about the same thing again or your post will be deleted again.
Second of all, whether or not those other words are changed does not impact the topic of changing the term "race." It's related, certainly, but it's not the same topic. I understand you probably want to understand the motive behind the change, but don't think that changing one means that the other word will be changed or that the one change should wait until a more holistic change can be made. That would be making perfect the enemy of good. If we had to wait until the perfect plan comes along to change even one thing, nothing would ever change.
This is often used as a delaying tactic by people who dislike a change, dismissing the hurt and harm that real people experience in favor of the status quo. So it can be very annoying for those of us who have been harmed by the content to hear this kind of, "but what about this or that? How can you make one change without also addressing these other things?"
Yes, your point is relevant, and should be discussed. But don't let it obscure this specific and important discussion of this one particular term. Do you understand?
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
Furthermore, that we cannot realistically make everything perfect should never be a reason to not attempt to make things better. We can only try to make things better, and worrying about making things perfect gets in the way of that.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
Don't love it, don't hate it. the things that people manage to take offense to kind of makes me roll my eyes sometimes, but it hurts nothing to make this change.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
You have no idea how many bad puns I've had to restrain myself from making in this thread out of respect for the seriousness of the issue.
Truth. The parallel to that is understanding that sometimes to make something include a larger set of people you necessarily need to exclude groups that were previously part of the in-group. Who is included and excluded will shift over time, but ideally the percentage of people that are included grows as revisions happen if you're a business looking to make your user group as large as possible.
Do you really care if they call it races, species, origins, ancestry, or whatever?
I mean, if there are people who, for whatever reason, are offended by the term "race", then look for another one that doesn't offend anyone. And species seems to not really offend anyone. So that one is fine.
Actually, the complaints that I read seem to be more for having changed the word than because "species" is really a problem. And I don't understand that. If race was a problem for some people, the logical thing to do is to change it. And nothing happens. It doesn't change the essence of the game, or any other nonsense I've read.
It really is for inclusion and making D&D a safer space for everyone.
I think a lot of people were offended by this word. Just because you didn't notice them doesn't mean they don't exist. Yes, there is always going to be one person on Earth face of Earth who doesn't like something, but those people are few and far between. There was much more than just a few people upset about the term "race". Also, people who are offended by this aren't confusing D&D with real life: Real people with real emotions can still be hurt by something in a fantasy game.
This is an exemplary example of a Slippery Slope logical fallacy: You are assuming that by changing one word that a large demographic of D&D players found hurtful will mandate removing a large number of words that have zero relation and/or connection to this argument or specific word.
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.There is not a difference between those two things. The only difference is how the person saying it wants to frame the situation in order to justify their own view point. Absolutely any change with respect to cultural norms can and is called "pandering to whiners" by those who oppose the change and "respectful inclusivity" by those who support the change. So you perceive and describe it as pandering because you already oppose it you do not oppose it because you perceive it to be pandering. So please explain why it is you oppose this change.
Mine is one of those tables who do not play with gods because they make some people uncomfortable. We have simply replaced them with "Sephiroth" and everybody is fine with that. What is interesting is that, once we made that switch, we did start getting more people interested in playing. This was back with the 3.5 handbook, in which most of the "religion" pages were all lumped together and easily ignored. 5e, on the other hand, stuffed lore about the different "races" and their gods all over the PHB, the MM, DMG, and in multiple companion books. So it was somewhat more awkward to extract. But I didn't write an angry letter to WOTC telling them how disappointed I was. I know a lot of people like playing that way, and I don't want to ruin their fun. (In fact, I don't think I've even mentioned it here because I don't plan on inviting anybody from the forums to my table.) But I do want to say, I've introduced a lot more people to DnD simply by taking the "uncomfortable" aspect out of that mechanic.
~not a "lazy dungeon master"
Barbarian? Heck! The word "dungeon" was introduced to the English language by French-speaking Normans who sailed over to England, killed the king, and then built large, fortified "donjons" from which they brutally enforced their regime. In French, the word implies a comfortable place where nobility live. In English, it implies...well, everybody in this forum had better know exactly what it implies.
~not a "lazy dungeon master"
Lots of whips, shackles, leather, and a woman who advertises herself as 'Pro-pain and pro-pain accessories'?
This does hit a nerve since I have several players who are proud of their bicontinental ancestry and don't like to be forced into a single stereotype. The old idea that one could be a blend of two cultures is something they can relate to. Knowing their ancestry, the idea that half-orcs only come about from brutality sounds juvenile. Many of the more nomadic tribes of North America encouraged intermarriage between tribes as a means of peacefully expanding their hunting and foraging territories. When food was scarce near home, there was always a relative to visit somewhere else where the food was just coming into season. To them, it was more normal being a part of every group of people than it was identifying only with one.
This was one of the reasons one of my players opted for their first PC to be a half-orc. Their ancestors had always been a people of "halves" and they had no trouble creating a backstory or playing the role. Yes, he was half-orc, but since he grew up in both worlds, his character was able to be as complex as the player wanted him to be. Sometimes he would wade into battle, flail swinging, and sometimes he would play chess with the wizard while the other party members argued about what to do next.
My table is not going to like that they got rid of mixed ancestry, and I'm already planning how I'm going to work around it with a similar home brew.
Ancestral traits seem to come in two varieties, physical and social. An aarakocra's wings are definitely physical, but many of the other traits could easily be seen as skills picked up from being raised in the social environment provided by the parents. If players want a homogenous PC, they can take all traits from one ancestry. If they want a blend, they can take physical from one and the social traits from another. An orc/elf, for example, could easily come with the physical traits of an orc, but have better perception and Mask of the Wild due to being raised with an elvish parent. A halfling/dwarf can easily be as tough as a dwarf and still have the stealth skills of a Lightfoot halfling--or the physical nimbleness of a halfling but the strength and armor training from growing up among the Mountain dwarves.
~not a "lazy dungeon master"
This is very belittling and it is invalidating to those who have said that this language is harmful. Don't do that. It also goes explicitly against what moderation has instructed us to do.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
Your table has nothing to worry about, because they didn't actually do that. All they did was have someone of mixed ancestry not be classified as a separate species.
I fully understand how WotC can't possibly make a balanced half species for every single pair of species in DnD. But I still really hate how half orc and half elf got mechanically removed. Especially as they're more convincingly possible hybrids, rather than someone's super special OC aarakoctaur.
Only way I can see it being made mechanically possible, is if each species gets a minor trait and a major trait. And then a hybrid gets one from each parent.
That is another deflection technique that people use when they don't want to admit the real reason they oppose something. It is called "What about-ism", others have already mentioned that not fixing everything is not a valid argument to not fix something. Let's face it you don't actually care about the use of the word Barbarian as you yourself admitted no one cares because it is far remove from its ancient Greek origins that they don't matter. (Language and culture changes, it always has and it always will). You are once again simply deflecting from the real reason you oppose these changes, please state them openly if you have a real disagreement about the use of "race" in this context.