If I may give a half-hearted defense of species over lineage or ancestry, the later could be taken to imply not so much being that sort of entity as being descended from one. I’d still probably prefer the later though. When it comes to interbreeding, remember that the first play test calls it a magical event rather than a biological one.
EDIT: Also throw me in as another one who prefers changing it from race in general. I really dislike thinking of different humanoids as stand-ins for real world racial groups and would rather have depictions of racially (as we use the term) diverse humans, elves, dwarves, and so on.
"Species" is the leading replacement term for "race." None of the other terms—such as "lineage," "ancestry," and "kind"—that have been explored with external consultants were deemed as appropriate as "species."
If you don't like that word, the choice comes down to you and your table. And as always, the survey will provide ample opportunity to give feedback on the new term.
My personal preference is also Ancestry, but primarily because it would give a mostly alphabetical set of character options. And this is the feedback I plan to leave on that.
Ancestry
Background
Class
Description
Equipment
Feats
...
Spells
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat On - Mod Hat Off
Im sorry but who exactly outside of twitter had issues with words like Race, its honestly doesnt realy mather what word humans/orcs or other creatures are descbribed as when the real issue is how little they value established lore as evident by everything else being changed
A lot of people have had a problem with it for a long time. There's another thread on the General forum that asked the same question. It's been locked already, with an excellent statement from the moderators.
"Species" is the leading replacement term for "race." None of the other terms—such as "lineage," "ancestry," and "kind"—that have been explored with external consultants were deemed as appropriate as "species."
I'd love to have access to that discussion and the arguments used. Not that it would or should ever happen, it just sounds really interesting.
"Species" is the leading replacement term for "race." None of the other terms—such as "lineage," "ancestry," and "kind"—that have been explored with external consultants were deemed as appropriate as "species."
Out of curiosity, are you guys (the mods) involved in those conversations since DDB is now under WotC? Sorry if this question seems insensitive - you don't have to answer it if you don't want to - I'm just really curios tbh.
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.
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.
Magic. Dragons and Humans have always obviously been members of very different species, but they can interbreed because of magic.
Also, "a group of organisms that can produce fertile offspring with one another" has been a bad definition of what species are for a long time now. Ever heard of Ring Species? They prove that the definition is wrong (because species is a term made up by humans and any definition of it will be imperfect, but it's the best thing we've currently got).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
"Species" is the leading replacement term for "race." None of the other terms—such as "lineage," "ancestry," and "kind"—that have been explored with external consultants were deemed as appropriate as "species."
If you don't like that word, the choice comes down to you and your table. And as always, the survey will provide ample opportunity to give feedback on the new term.
My personal preference is also Ancestry, but primarily because it would give a mostly alphabetical set of character options. And this is the feedback I plan to leave on that.
Ancestry
Background
Class
Description
Equipment
Feats
...
Spells
Yeah, it bugs me to use species as in lore most of the player ancestries can be mixed, hells one of the core choices since forever is a mix of human and elf. Which by definition means Humans and Elves are the same species, sub species maybe, but in scientific terms all the ancestries for the most part would be listed as Homo sapiens Elf, Homo sapiens Orc, Homo sapiens Dwarf.
Also some of the choices ie drow, kalashtar, tiefling would actually be regional variations, or a non genetic alteration.
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.
We are all d&d nerds, we are going to argue about and question whatever word they choose to replace race with.
I think it is a lot better to use species and have to have to deal with the "My uncle was a scientist, actually" crap, than to use lineage, ancestry, or descent and the eugenicist and lost cause white supremacist baggage and connotations.
Yeah, species is probably the most neutral. I just don't like the scientific, modern feel to it for a game that's generally based in a pseudo-medieval world.
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.
Magic. Dragons and Humans have always obviously been members of very different species, but they can interbreed because of magic.
Also, "a group of organisms that can produce fertile offspring with one another" has been a bad definition of what species are for a long time now. Ever heard of Ring Species? They prove that the definition is wrong (because species is a term made up by humans and any definition of it will be imperfect, but it's the best thing we've currently got).
I'm well versed in Ring Species, did you know Humans technically count as one with Chimpanzee. But. In the case of D&D dragons can use magic to become Human, their offspring are human with a touch of draconic essence. So it's not a valid argument. Also in D&D we have a Ring Species situation built into the lore. Orcs and Elves according to lore cannot interbreed. (due to their gods) however orcs and elves can mix with....Humans, humans can mix with just about all other player ancestries.
The exceptions are very specific as to why.
Most Reptiles, Kobold & Lizard folk, due to signific biological differences, although Gith (Githyanki/Githzerai) can mix with all races including Lizard folk and humans, the children are always Gith.
Gnomes, in the Forgotten Realms books it was made clear Gnomes can't mix with anyone else due to them being basically humanoid gems., with a notable exception being Orcs... because Orcs can mix with anyone and make an orc except elves.
Honestly, I should list who can mix with who.
Orcs - All (Except Elves) children always Orc (sometimes called half-orc if raised civilized)
Humans - Most
Gnomes - none (Except Orcs)
Tiefling - Same as Human as they are human with a bit of infernal. Children always tiefling.
Elves - Same as Human except Orcs, as the gods disallow that pairing.
Dwarfs - Same as Human, children on the world of Athas become infertile 7 foot tall hairless beings called Mul.
...
Sure we can use Species, but then almost every ancestry would be a sub species of human. just like a Ring Species. (although one could make the argument that everyone is just an Orc Subspecies, and Gith are a mix of all subspecies. (which was a part of their lore when they were first introduced years ago.)
---
Oh and, yes there is a logic bomb in the lore, anything + Orc is an Orc, anything + tiefling is a tiefling
There is no current good answer as to what you get when you mix an orc and a tiefling, one can assume a tanarukk is the result, as a tanarukk is an infernal orc.
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.
Magic. Dragons and Humans have always obviously been members of very different species, but they can interbreed because of magic.
Also, "a group of organisms that can produce fertile offspring with one another" has been a bad definition of what species are for a long time now. Ever heard of Ring Species? They prove that the definition is wrong (because species is a term made up by humans and any definition of it will be imperfect, but it's the best thing we've currently got).
I would like to add support to this statement that magic should be sufficient. Darkvision. There is no biological explanation for the ability to see (with only your eyes) in the complete absence of light. It simply is so because these are magical creatures and our non-magical definitions will be imperfect, but approximate.
Species as defined above may be a layman’s definition, but it is hardly a scientific definition. The biological definition of a species is “an evolutionary independent population or group of populations” or any other analogous definitions (Freeman, 2011). Most asexual species flout the above layman’s definition. In fact, there are countless more asexual species on this planet than species that reproduce sexually. There are species that depend on other species for their own reproduction too, such as parasitic species, where one cannot reproduce with the other and in fact, oftentimes are killed by one species using it to reproduce. This also would not fit the definition offered in the post above. I believe the definition offered by gothicshark falls woefully short of the label ‘scientific’.
Yeah, species is probably the most neutral. I just don't like the scientific, modern feel to it for a game that's generally based in a pseudo-medieval world.
At first I wasn't crazy about species and wanted a more archaic or old-timey word. The problem is that any word that has been around long enough to sound old-timey has inevitably been around long enough to pick up its share of racist connotations and baggage. People are just the worst. If something lasts long enough someone will find a way to ruin it for everyone.
I would like to add support to this statement that magic should be sufficient. Darkvision. There is no biological explanation for the ability to see (with only your eyes) in the complete absence of light. It simply is so because these are magical creatures and our non-magical definitions will be imperfect, but approximate.
Species as defined above may be a layman’s definition, but it is hardly a scientific definition. The biological definition of a species is “an evolutionary independent population or group of populations” or any other analogous definitions (Freeman, 2011). Most asexual species flout the above definition. In fact, there are countless more asexual species on this planet than species that reproduce sexually. There are species that depend on other species for their own reproduction too, such as parasitic species, where one cannot reproduce with the other and in fact, oftentimes are killed by one species using it to reproduce. This also would not fit the definition offered in the post above. I believe the definition offered by gothicshark falls woefully short of the label ‘scientific’.
D&D is based on Medieval Pseudo-sciences, which the current edition doesn't detail often enough. The old explanation for Darkvision was not magic but the Medieval explanation why some animals eyes glow in the nights sky. They believed that the eyes projected energy, and we could see what the energy touched. Humans had a very low ability to project, cats and dogs had high levels, and basilisk and the medusa could turn you to stone with theirs. In 1st and second lore books this was explained in the rules, then they contradicted that with describing how a starlight night vision goggle worked, which is why darkvision sees no color.
Also for the most part taxonomy is still based on who can breed with who, it has only been in the last 10-20 years that biologists have been changing things due to the emergence of DNA testing. And DNA testing has been bringing many creature which were thought to be completely separate species, with different evolutionary paths into the same species, genus, and families. Likewise some species which they thought were related have been found to not even be close.
The one thing they still agree with, if it can breed it's still the same Species and Sub-species, which means Lions and Tigers are subspecies.
If I may give a half-hearted defense of species over lineage or ancestry, the later could be taken to imply not so much being that sort of entity as being descended from one. I’d still probably prefer the later though. When it comes to interbreeding, remember that the first play test calls it a magical event rather than a biological one.
EDIT: Also throw me in as another one who prefers changing it from race in general. I really dislike thinking of different humanoids as stand-ins for real world racial groups and would rather have depictions of racially (as we use the term) diverse humans, elves, dwarves, and so on.
Agreed
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“In a hole in the ground there lived a hobbit. Not a nasty, dirty, wet hole, filled with the ends of worms and an oozy smell, nor yet a dry, bare, sandy hole with nothing in it to sit down on or to eat: it was a hobbithole, and that means comfort.”
I would like to add support to this statement that magic should be sufficient. Darkvision. There is no biological explanation for the ability to see (with only your eyes) in the complete absence of light. It simply is so because these are magical creatures and our non-magical definitions will be imperfect, but approximate.
Species as defined above may be a layman’s definition, but it is hardly a scientific definition. The biological definition of a species is “an evolutionary independent population or group of populations” or any other analogous definitions (Freeman, 2011). Most asexual species flout the above definition. In fact, there are countless more asexual species on this planet than species that reproduce sexually. There are species that depend on other species for their own reproduction too, such as parasitic species, where one cannot reproduce with the other and in fact, oftentimes are killed by one species using it to reproduce. This also would not fit the definition offered in the post above. I believe the definition offered by gothicshark falls woefully short of the label ‘scientific’.
D&D is based on Medieval Pseudo-sciences, which the current edition doesn't detail often enough. The old explanation for Darkvision was not magic but the Medieval explanation why some animals eyes glow in the nights sky. They believed that the eyes projected energy, and we could see what the energy touched. Humans had a very low ability to project, cats and dogs had high levels, and basilisk and the medusa could turn you to stone with theirs. In 1st and second lore books this was explained in the rules, then they contradicted that with describing how a starlight night vision goggle worked, which is why darkvision sees no color.
Also for the most part taxonomy is still based on who can breed with who, it has only been in the last 10-20 years that biologists have been changing things due to the emergence of DNA testing. And DNA testing has been bringing many creature which were thought to be completely separate species, with different evolutionary paths into the same species, genus, and families. Likewise some species which they thought were related have been found to not even be close.
The one thing they still agree with, if it can breed it's still the same Species and Sub-species, which means Lions and Tigers are subspecies.
Well, which will you base your position on then? You are using unscientific terms and presenting them as scientific terms, which only serves to undermine your own argument. Perhaps you should rethink your message. If taxonomy is based on who can breed with whom, then according to you, N. viennensis is not a species. Further, Animalia can breed with Fungi if that is what taxonomy is based on. Taxonomy in biology is simply the effort to classify organisms. If you want to use pseudoscience, simply say as much, define your terms, then present your argument.
Well, which will you base your position on then? You are using unscientific terms and presenting them as scientific terms, which only serves to undermine your own argument. Perhaps you should rethink your message. If taxonomy is based on who can breed with whom, then according to you, N. viennensis is not a species. Further, Animalia can breed with Fungi if that is what taxonomy is based on. Taxonomy in biology is simply the effort to classify organisms. If you want to use pseudoscience, simply say as much, define your terms, then present your argument.
we are talking human biology, and related species, we are not talking single cell organisms. [REDACTED] I am talking basic English Definitions, and the Scientific meaning of these definitions as it applies to modern vertebrates. Are there exceptions to what I'm talking about, yes, all over the place, Biology can be messy at times. But with something like wolves, dogs, and coyote, they are all three considered the same species with various subspecies. Same with many types of Big Cats. (Much to the frustration of biologists as some creatures which shouldn't be able to breed still can ie several domestic - wild cat hybrids.
Not to mention coyote domestic hybrids.
Even humans, 1% - 2% DNA came from neanderthal, only that shouldn't have happened, but the DNA testing proves it. And thanks to that, we understand that Humans were at one time a Ring Species. Which is both exciting and a bit frustrating. Because technically at the opposite end of the Ring Sits the Chimp and Bonobo, and the religious folks hate that a lot.
Notes: Please remain constructive with contributions.
Yeah, species is probably the most neutral. I just don't like the scientific, modern feel to it for a game that's generally based in a pseudo-medieval world.
The word has been around in its current form since the 1400's, and has very close roots dating back to classical latin. It's hardly a modern term. It's just got the Tiffany problem where everyone assumes it's a new term because of modern associations, when in reality it's more than half a millinia old.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I am fine with Species, but I would prefer Ancestry
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
If I may give a half-hearted defense of species over lineage or ancestry, the later could be taken to imply not so much being that sort of entity as being descended from one. I’d still probably prefer the later though. When it comes to interbreeding, remember that the first play test calls it a magical event rather than a biological one.
EDIT: Also throw me in as another one who prefers changing it from race in general. I really dislike thinking of different humanoids as stand-ins for real world racial groups and would rather have depictions of racially (as we use the term) diverse humans, elves, dwarves, and so on.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Moderator"Species" is the leading replacement term for "race." None of the other terms—such as "lineage," "ancestry," and "kind"—that have been explored with external consultants were deemed as appropriate as "species."
If you don't like that word, the choice comes down to you and your table. And as always, the survey will provide ample opportunity to give feedback on the new term.
My personal preference is also Ancestry, but primarily because it would give a mostly alphabetical set of character options. And this is the feedback I plan to leave on that.
Homebrew Rules || Homebrew FAQ || Snippet Codes || Tooltips
DDB Guides & FAQs, Class Guides, Character Builds, Game Guides, Useful Websites, and WOTC Resources
A lot of people have had a problem with it for a long time. There's another thread on the General forum that asked the same question. It's been locked already, with an excellent statement from the moderators.
I'd love to have access to that discussion and the arguments used. Not that it would or should ever happen, it just sounds really interesting.
Out of curiosity, are you guys (the mods) involved in those conversations since DDB is now under WotC? Sorry if this question seems insensitive - you don't have to answer it if you don't want to - I'm just really curios tbh.
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.Personally I don't think "species" sounds to scientific, especially compared to other terms in the rules such as "proficiency".
also does anyone know if this changes any thing in the rules? and why do they have the Ardling and Dragonborn rules again
The Ardling and Dragonborn are included again because they've revised them based on survey feedback.
Magic. Dragons and Humans have always obviously been members of very different species, but they can interbreed because of magic.
Also, "a group of organisms that can produce fertile offspring with one another" has been a bad definition of what species are for a long time now. Ever heard of Ring Species? They prove that the definition is wrong (because species is a term made up by humans and any definition of it will be imperfect, but it's the best thing we've currently got).
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Yeah, it bugs me to use species as in lore most of the player ancestries can be mixed, hells one of the core choices since forever is a mix of human and elf. Which by definition means Humans and Elves are the same species, sub species maybe, but in scientific terms all the ancestries for the most part would be listed as Homo sapiens Elf, Homo sapiens Orc, Homo sapiens Dwarf.
Also some of the choices ie drow, kalashtar, tiefling would actually be regional variations, or a non genetic alteration.
We are all d&d nerds, we are going to argue about and question whatever word they choose to replace race with.
I think it is a lot better to use species and have to have to deal with the "My uncle was a scientist, actually" crap, than to use lineage, ancestry, or descent and the eugenicist and lost cause white supremacist baggage and connotations.
Yeah, species is probably the most neutral. I just don't like the scientific, modern feel to it for a game that's generally based in a pseudo-medieval world.
I'm well versed in Ring Species, did you know Humans technically count as one with Chimpanzee. But. In the case of D&D dragons can use magic to become Human, their offspring are human with a touch of draconic essence. So it's not a valid argument. Also in D&D we have a Ring Species situation built into the lore. Orcs and Elves according to lore cannot interbreed. (due to their gods) however orcs and elves can mix with....Humans, humans can mix with just about all other player ancestries.
The exceptions are very specific as to why.
Most Reptiles, Kobold & Lizard folk, due to signific biological differences, although Gith (Githyanki/Githzerai) can mix with all races including Lizard folk and humans, the children are always Gith.
Gnomes, in the Forgotten Realms books it was made clear Gnomes can't mix with anyone else due to them being basically humanoid gems., with a notable exception being Orcs... because Orcs can mix with anyone and make an orc except elves.
Honestly, I should list who can mix with who.
Orcs - All (Except Elves) children always Orc (sometimes called half-orc if raised civilized)
Humans - Most
Gnomes - none (Except Orcs)
Tiefling - Same as Human as they are human with a bit of infernal. Children always tiefling.
Elves - Same as Human except Orcs, as the gods disallow that pairing.
Dwarfs - Same as Human, children on the world of Athas become infertile 7 foot tall hairless beings called Mul.
...
Sure we can use Species, but then almost every ancestry would be a sub species of human. just like a Ring Species. (although one could make the argument that everyone is just an Orc Subspecies, and Gith are a mix of all subspecies. (which was a part of their lore when they were first introduced years ago.)
---
Oh and, yes there is a logic bomb in the lore, anything + Orc is an Orc, anything + tiefling is a tiefling
There is no current good answer as to what you get when you mix an orc and a tiefling, one can assume a tanarukk is the result, as a tanarukk is an infernal orc.
I would like to add support to this statement that magic should be sufficient. Darkvision. There is no biological explanation for the ability to see (with only your eyes) in the complete absence of light. It simply is so because these are magical creatures and our non-magical definitions will be imperfect, but approximate.
Species as defined above may be a layman’s definition, but it is hardly a scientific definition. The biological definition of a species is “an evolutionary independent population or group of populations” or any other analogous definitions (Freeman, 2011). Most asexual species flout the above layman’s definition. In fact, there are countless more asexual species on this planet than species that reproduce sexually. There are species that depend on other species for their own reproduction too, such as parasitic species, where one cannot reproduce with the other and in fact, oftentimes are killed by one species using it to reproduce. This also would not fit the definition offered in the post above. I believe the definition offered by gothicshark falls woefully short of the label ‘scientific’.
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
At first I wasn't crazy about species and wanted a more archaic or old-timey word. The problem is that any word that has been around long enough to sound old-timey has inevitably been around long enough to pick up its share of racist connotations and baggage. People are just the worst. If something lasts long enough someone will find a way to ruin it for everyone.
D&D is based on Medieval Pseudo-sciences, which the current edition doesn't detail often enough. The old explanation for Darkvision was not magic but the Medieval explanation why some animals eyes glow in the nights sky. They believed that the eyes projected energy, and we could see what the energy touched. Humans had a very low ability to project, cats and dogs had high levels, and basilisk and the medusa could turn you to stone with theirs. In 1st and second lore books this was explained in the rules, then they contradicted that with describing how a starlight night vision goggle worked, which is why darkvision sees no color.
Also for the most part taxonomy is still based on who can breed with who, it has only been in the last 10-20 years that biologists have been changing things due to the emergence of DNA testing. And DNA testing has been bringing many creature which were thought to be completely separate species, with different evolutionary paths into the same species, genus, and families. Likewise some species which they thought were related have been found to not even be close.
The one thing they still agree with, if it can breed it's still the same Species and Sub-species, which means Lions and Tigers are subspecies.
Agreed
“In a hole in the ground there lived a hobbit. Not a nasty, dirty, wet hole, filled with the ends of worms and an oozy smell, nor yet a dry, bare, sandy hole with nothing in it to sit down on or to eat: it was a hobbithole, and that means comfort.”
Well, which will you base your position on then? You are using unscientific terms and presenting them as scientific terms, which only serves to undermine your own argument. Perhaps you should rethink your message. If taxonomy is based on who can breed with whom, then according to you, N. viennensis is not a species. Further, Animalia can breed with Fungi if that is what taxonomy is based on. Taxonomy in biology is simply the effort to classify organisms. If you want to use pseudoscience, simply say as much, define your terms, then present your argument.
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
we are talking human biology, and related species, we are not talking single cell organisms. [REDACTED] I am talking basic English Definitions, and the Scientific meaning of these definitions as it applies to modern vertebrates. Are there exceptions to what I'm talking about, yes, all over the place, Biology can be messy at times. But with something like wolves, dogs, and coyote, they are all three considered the same species with various subspecies. Same with many types of Big Cats. (Much to the frustration of biologists as some creatures which shouldn't be able to breed still can ie several domestic - wild cat hybrids.
Not to mention coyote domestic hybrids.
Even humans, 1% - 2% DNA came from neanderthal, only that shouldn't have happened, but the DNA testing proves it. And thanks to that, we understand that Humans were at one time a Ring Species. Which is both exciting and a bit frustrating. Because technically at the opposite end of the Ring Sits the Chimp and Bonobo, and the religious folks hate that a lot.
The word has been around in its current form since the 1400's, and has very close roots dating back to classical latin. It's hardly a modern term. It's just got the Tiffany problem where everyone assumes it's a new term because of modern associations, when in reality it's more than half a millinia old.