I kind of think it’s worse, I preferred lineage, species implies that there are no halfbreeds (half elf, half orc etc), since species is the distinct separation we have in nature.
I content that Lineage or mixed lineage offers a less offensive view of an adventurer’s birth and cultural circumstances.
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.
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.
Granted that might just be my upbringing that is giving me this view (apartheid South Africa) so I really want to stomp that kind of puritan separatism into the ground
The UAs so far show that you can have "mixed" heritage, and provide some limited mechanical support for it. Using the term "species" isn't changing that, regardless of any real-world scientific definitions (which are fuzzy on this, anyway).
Totally agree this is a step, I think we can push for more. I can’t think of a political argument using the word species referring to different people (or genders) that is used favorably.
Totally agree this is a step, I think we can push for more. I can’t think of a political argument using the word species referring to different people (or genders) that is used favorably.
Because in the real world all people are of the same species, so using it in that way is completely offensive.
I'm not a fan, but whatever. Not a fan of species though - too scientific of a term.
I liked race due to the connection and legacy from JRR Tolkien - "Seven, to the Dwarf Lords, great miners and craftsmen of the mountain halls.And nine, nine rings were gifted to the race of Men, who above all else desire power."
WOTC can call it what they want, but our group will still call it race since that's what we're used to calling it.
We've known it to be a more accurate and less rude naming choice for the mechanics since the word 'race' was first printed in 1974, and the same arguments have been happening over and over ever since. I'm glad to see them go.
I suspect that in the '70s the logic was precisely that 'species' sounded too sci-fi for a fantasy game. It was a bad reason then and it's still a bad reason. The use of the word 'species' in this way dates back to Classical Roman translations of Aristotle.
Keep in mind also that early editions of D&D attempted to codify racism mechanically. Not as a positive construct, but as a challenging function of social interaction to be overcome. This was a design goal of the system. We do not do this anymore, because there is finally widespread understanding that inviting the enjoyment of more players is more important than attempted realism in a simulation of a fantasy world that will never be more than poorly functional.
'Species' is a good, sterile word. Like 'melee' or 'proficiency.' I welcome it to the lexicon.
Now if only we could get the damned combat movement rules to acknowledge the Pythagorean theorem.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
J Great Wyrm Moonstone Dungeon Master
The time of the ORC has come. No OGL without irrevocability; no OGL with 'authorized version' language. #openDND
Practice, practice, practice • Respect the rules; don't memorize them • Be merciless, not cruel • Don't let the dice run the game for you
I'm good with dropping the term. As pointed out: it has a lot of baggage and connotations that are or can be harmful.
I do vastly prefer lineage, ancestry, or descent over species. I feel like the latter just invites a lot of "My uncle was a scientist, actually" kind of crap from people as well as questions about how do they make kids together.
I think it's a positive step, though I do wish they had gone with a more archaic term.
I agree, as using Species ignores the scientific definition of a species. "A biological species is a group of organisms that can reproduce with one another in nature and produce fertile offspring."
Since many of the humanoid player characters can interbreed, and produce long lineages with Humans (Specifically Humans, and Dragons) using the word species feels wrong, and almost as bad as race. I know they call one player character option lineages already, but honestly Ancestral Lineage would be a better term, unless they split it up to the in universe lore correct species.
Human (Human, Elves, Dwarves, Orcs, tiefling, dragonborn, kalastar ...
Gnomes (Gnomes are in lore unable to mix with other races, because in forgotten realms they are gems turn humanoid.)
When I got back into D&D a couple years ago after playing as a kid in the 80s and first hearing of this controversy, I thought a lot of it was over the top.
I completely understand the discomfort the use of race gives a lot of people and was fully in favor of changing the word to species as a way to distinguish the meaning of race in the fantasy setting and race in the real world. After hearing the discussion over the issue I now think ancestry or lineage is a better choice as species has some issues of its own, namely mixed ancestry.
WOTC decides to no longer use the term 'race' in their content, going with 'species' instead.
I think it's a positive step, though I do wish they had gone with a more archaic term.
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!
Love it. Been doing this at our table for a while now anyway.
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
Good decision. Like it.
Really looking forward to the ongoing development in 2023.
I kind of think it’s worse, I preferred lineage, species implies that there are no halfbreeds (half elf, half orc etc), since species is the distinct separation we have in nature.
I content that Lineage or mixed lineage offers a less offensive view of an adventurer’s birth and cultural circumstances.
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.
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.
Granted that might just be my upbringing that is giving me this view (apartheid South Africa) so I really want to stomp that kind of puritan separatism into the ground
The UAs so far show that you can have "mixed" heritage, and provide some limited mechanical support for it. Using the term "species" isn't changing that, regardless of any real-world scientific definitions (which are fuzzy on this, anyway).
This is a tiny step forward, so it's not nothing.
Totally agree this is a step, I think we can push for more. I can’t think of a political argument using the word species referring to different people (or genders) that is used favorably.
Meh, doesn't essentially change things, although the word "species" has a dry, scientific ring to it. Why not "folk" or "kin"?
Because in the real world all people are of the same species, so using it in that way is completely offensive.
I'm not a fan, but whatever. Not a fan of species though - too scientific of a term.
I liked race due to the connection and legacy from JRR Tolkien - "Seven, to the Dwarf Lords, great miners and craftsmen of the mountain halls. And nine, nine rings were gifted to the race of Men, who above all else desire power."
WOTC can call it what they want, but our group will still call it race since that's what we're used to calling it.
Very good decision. Some people were hurt by a term, so Wizards of the Coast changes the term. This was long overdo.
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.It's a good move.
We've known it to be a more accurate and less rude naming choice for the mechanics since the word 'race' was first printed in 1974, and the same arguments have been happening over and over ever since. I'm glad to see them go.
I suspect that in the '70s the logic was precisely that 'species' sounded too sci-fi for a fantasy game. It was a bad reason then and it's still a bad reason. The use of the word 'species' in this way dates back to Classical Roman translations of Aristotle.
Keep in mind also that early editions of D&D attempted to codify racism mechanically. Not as a positive construct, but as a challenging function of social interaction to be overcome. This was a design goal of the system. We do not do this anymore, because there is finally widespread understanding that inviting the enjoyment of more players is more important than attempted realism in a simulation of a fantasy world that will never be more than poorly functional.
'Species' is a good, sterile word. Like 'melee' or 'proficiency.' I welcome it to the lexicon.
Now if only we could get the damned combat movement rules to acknowledge the Pythagorean theorem.
J
Great Wyrm Moonstone Dungeon Master
The time of the ORC has come. No OGL without irrevocability; no OGL with 'authorized version' language. #openDND
Practice, practice, practice • Respect the rules; don't memorize them • Be merciless, not cruel • Don't let the dice run the game for you
After giving it some thought, I could get behind “ancestry” more than “species”. Seems like a better fit for a fantasy setting.
I was personally hoping for descent.
I'm good with dropping the term. As pointed out: it has a lot of baggage and connotations that are or can be harmful.
I do vastly prefer lineage, ancestry, or descent over species. I feel like the latter just invites a lot of "My uncle was a scientist, actually" kind of crap from people as well as questions about how do they make kids together.
I don't get why they want to change it but I'm still going to call them races.
I agree, as using Species ignores the scientific definition of a species. "A biological species is a group of organisms that can reproduce with one another in nature and produce fertile offspring."
Since many of the humanoid player characters can interbreed, and produce long lineages with Humans (Specifically Humans, and Dragons) using the word species feels wrong, and almost as bad as race. I know they call one player character option lineages already, but honestly Ancestral Lineage would be a better term, unless they split it up to the in universe lore correct species.
Human (Human, Elves, Dwarves, Orcs, tiefling, dragonborn, kalastar ...
Gnomes (Gnomes are in lore unable to mix with other races, because in forgotten realms they are gems turn humanoid.)
Lizardfolk
...
When I got back into D&D a couple years ago after playing as a kid in the 80s and first hearing of this controversy, I thought a lot of it was over the top.
I completely understand the discomfort the use of race gives a lot of people and was fully in favor of changing the word to species as a way to distinguish the meaning of race in the fantasy setting and race in the real world. After hearing the discussion over the issue I now think ancestry or lineage is a better choice as species has some issues of its own, namely mixed ancestry.