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."
Just because I think this is interesting:
Even if you assume the Meyr definition of species (1942), which you describe, is still authoritative, this use of the term doesn't necessarily have to reflect it, nor even the famous "Latin names" Linnaean taxonomic definition of species (1735). In fact, it probably shouldn't.
Aristotle's core definition of species (although he obviously originally wrote in Greek) was accepted biological fact from the 4th Century BCE through at least the 15th Century CE, which neatly encompasses essentially all of the historical eras that inspire Dungeons & Dragons. He defined species as "forms" (e.g., orc, human, elf, dwarf) within a genus or "kind" (e.g., humanoid), and held that kinds and forms were distinct and unchanging, defined by divine fiat. If that's not some classic D&D stuff, I don't know what is.
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
Frankly, when I read "species", I almost expected to see the Latin name for each of them. Like Dragonborn (Homo Draconis Erectus).
Why would it be "Homo"? They wouldn't even be in the same Order as humans. "Draconis/Draco erectus" could work, though. Here's how I'd classify the PHB species/subspecies using my limited understanding of latin, etymology, alternative names for D&D races, and taxonomy.
I personally was never bothered by the term “race,” but that may easily be privilege talking. If you feel more welcome by the term “species” than “race,” then you are clearly more invested in the issue than I am and I’m glad you feel welcome.
That said, words have meaning. Here’s what these words mean to me:
Race: syn. Ethnicity, which is probably the term I use more often in reality. Someone who has a different background, language, culture, etc, but whom is still relatable on some relatively easy level. This is how what are now called “species” are usually treated in fantasy, or sci-fi.
species: wholly other, alien. I know of no other sentient species in reality, only animals, which makes me somewhat prejudiced against other species. The only time I’ve read of a species in these terms where the term denoted an equal, or even superior, creature, it was probably Orson Scott Card’s Formic Hive Queens, with nigh insurmountable differences.
this isn’t a complaint. Maybe they’ll start writing species as being much less human. Maybe we’ll subconsciously start playing them as less human. Might be fun.
Why not Folk? Because that has some modern issues. "The Folk" is often used as a dogwhistle in some white supremacist groups, and comes directly from the Völkisch (English "Folkish") white-nationalist movement. Not every use of "folk" or "folks" is suspect obviously, but referring to one's race as one's Folk is far, FAR worse than calling one's biology their race.
Edit: this was a reply. Why did it not post as one?
Personally, I don't care if they change the word... Although I think they could have done it without talking about it. I think if people are annoyed by the change, it's mostly just because it comes off as virtue signal pandering. If it were up to me, I'd tell people I changed it because it sounded cooler. But that's just my opinion. I think my group will still stick with the term race because it's easier.
Personally, I don't care if they change the word... Although I think they could have done it without talking about it. I think if people are annoyed by the change, it's mostly just because it comes off as virtue signal pandering.
I feel like anyone who sees this as "pandering" is showing themselves to be insensitive to the pain of others at best, and deliberately cruel at worst.
If it were up to me, I'd tell people I changed it because it sounded cooler. But that's just my opinion. I think my group will still stick with the term race because it's easier.
You are, of course, free to do so.
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!
Personally, I don't care if they change the word... Although I think they could have done it without talking about it. I think if people are annoyed by the change, it's mostly just because it comes off as virtue signal pandering. If it were up to me, I'd tell people I changed it because it sounded cooler. But that's just my opinion. I think my group will still stick with the term race because it's easier.
This mostly summarizes my opinion as well.
Technically speaking 'species' is a far more accurate term. Especially given the broad, broad, number of viable player races before even tapping into the 'design your own' mechanics for stuff like monsterous races. I'm sure even the least progressive table could be persuaded to acknowledge it is the more accurate term as well. However, not only do I feel like this won't end up taking if only due to the vast amount of games that still use the 'race' designation; combined with how the species are now being handled it feels like the effort is being placed on a political narrative instead of a good product.
Trying not to hurt people isn't political. This is not hard.
It's not about politics. It's about where the effort is being placed and the reasons for it. I already have massive doubts as they not only effectively axed my favorite species (half-elf) in favor of a generic option, but the manner in which they're handling the species is questionable from a design perspective at best since it means you need information from yet another book to know anything about your selected species other than the most basicaspects. Instead of providing even some basic guidelines for say, what makes a dwarf a dwarf as opposed to a short human with a beard, even if they'd made it blatantly clear these were just suggestions, they are instead posting about how they're removing the word 'race'. I would much rather see more fleshed out content for the species, roleplay guidelines, and idea suggestions.
I do get that this is important to some players and I am not going to suggest we switch back out of some stubborn notion that the old ways are inherently better or anything. For those players to whom the term really is a sore spot, I do hope they have fun. However, I wish they had put their energy elsewhere and this feels like they decided to prioritize politics over product.
Trying not to hurt people isn't political. This is not hard.
It's not about politics. It's about where the effort is being placed and the reasons for it. I already have massive doubts as they not only effectively axed my favorite species (half-elf) in favor of a generic option, but the manner in which they're handling the species is questionable from a design perspective at best since it means you need information from yet another book to know anything about your selected species other than the most basicaspects. Instead of providing even some basic guidelines for say, what makes a dwarf a dwarf as opposed to a short human with a beard, even if they'd made it blatantly clear these were just suggestions, they are instead posting about how they're removing the word 'race'. I would much rather see more fleshed out content for the species, roleplay guidelines, and idea suggestions.
I do get that this is important to some players and I am not going to suggest we switch back out of some stubborn notion that the old ways are inherently better or anything. For those players to whom the term really is a sore spot, I do hope they have fun. However, I wish they had put their energy elsewhere and this feels like they decided to prioritize politics over product.
Everything is political. The reason for this change is political. The word "race" comes with a lot of baggage; most of it bad. And "species" isn't much better. If you approach it from a scientific angle, as others here have, then your "favorite species (half-elf)" is a mule. Every mixed person who plays this game can see that, and so can a fair number of people who aren't.
If the understanding we're meant to have is something closer to the Latin root ("to look") and Aristotle's teachings before that, then we're not that far removed. Every character, PC and NPC alike, are simply people. The features are just a reflection of their form. But since Latin is the language of scientific classification, we really only have a flowery version of the first reading. The sting isn't as intense because it sounds more poetic, more artsy, but the effect is the same. You can't honestly divorce them.
A reminder that political discussion and debate is not appropriate for this forum; sensitivity, consideration, and compassion towards marginalised peoples is not an inherently political discussion and attempts to make it one will not be tolerated. Kindness and compassion are apolitical
“Race,” “species,” “lineage,” as long as everyone knows what we’re all talking about a name is just a name. If “race” bothers some people because it has come to mean in the vernacular something different than it used to mean (as in “the human race”) then whatever, change it. It doesn’t really matter to the game so what’s the problem with changing it? This whole argument seems like much ado about nothing.
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.
Real world species can often interbreed to create hybrid species. Sometimes sterile, sometimes not.
Then are situations where species A and species B cannot interbreed, while both are able to reproduce with species C.
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.
Really hope there are still half species, but the rules allow for more then just "take the rules for one of the 2" in my world there are half species of every type, elf/orc, dwarf/gnome Tabaxi/Goliath. none of them are PC's currently just because homebrewing all those rules would be more then the time I have, but it is also because a big theme of my world is that one particular empire hates all mix species births. The party have seen this first hand through witnessing the abuse anyone with mixed heritage is subjected to by members of the empire as well as saving the baby of a mix species relationship who's grand parents where going to kill it. I hope that a set of rules is created to allow players to mix and match different species traits to make true mixed PC's
in terms of Lore as to the how, WOTC can move away from specifying that in general and it can become a more generic idea, so for instance if a DM wants half orcs to be the result of a forced situation then they can. I have roleplayed that very type of character (it was also a weak half orc, didn't have the plus to strength as it was more intelligent), and the way I had been conceived played into my characters hatred of Orcs.
My feedback, for what it is worth, is the "species" is more accurate than "race".
There are those who fight against any attempts at altering status quo but to them I say just roll with it. It is not hurting anyone to use the word species instead of race.
Good move. Long overdue socially plus a term that is more accurate anyways.
The problem with lineage is that it could be confused with social background. "What is his lineage? Oh, he's the son of a Duke and so is 14th in line for the throne." Same with "decent".
This is much ado about nothing --to those for whom "race" does have affect your life. Be happy that race doesn't affect your life. Because, for many, they do not have that luxury. There are people who are mistreated in our world simply because of their race (often on a daily basis, day after day, year after year). I can understand how these people would like to enjoy going into a fantasy world and not have to be reminded, yet again, about "race'.
Doesn't hurt. Can only help. If it doesn't help you don't presume it will not help others. At least that is the way I look at it.
The problem with lineage is that it could be confused with social background. "What is his lineage? Oh, he's the son of a Duke and so is 14th in line for the throne." Same with "decent".
This is much ado about nothing --to those for whom "race" does have affect your life. Be happy that race doesn't affect your life. Because, for many, they do not have that luxury. There are people who are mistreated in our world simply because of their race (often on a daily basis, day after day, year after year). I can understand how these people would like to enjoy going into a fantasy world and not have to be reminded, yet again, about "race'.
Doesn't hurt. Can only help. If it doesn't help you don't presume it will not help others. At least that is the way I look at it.
I think you misunderstood me. I said the argument against changing it is much ado about nothing.
Personally, I don't care if they change the word... Although I think they could have done it without talking about it. I think if people are annoyed by the change, it's mostly just because it comes off as virtue signal pandering.
I feel like anyone who sees this as "pandering" is showing themselves to be insensitive to the pain of others at best, and deliberately cruel at worst.
If it were up to me, I'd tell people I changed it because it sounded cooler. But that's just my opinion. I think my group will still stick with the term race because it's easier.
You are, of course, free to do so.
I feel that it's alienating and an insult to others when you tell them something they've been doing / saying is all of a sudden offensive to a group you'll have little to no interaction with, when it's been fine for decades. What you've said to me was insulting, and may have possibly been your own "insensitivities" showing.
Back on topic though.. what about the word "being" as a replacement?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
When in doubt, go left. And don't get scared, get angry.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Frankly, when I read "species", I almost expected to see the Latin name for each of them. Like Dragonborn (Homo Draconis Erectus).
Just because I think this is interesting:
Even if you assume the Meyr definition of species (1942), which you describe, is still authoritative, this use of the term doesn't necessarily have to reflect it, nor even the famous "Latin names" Linnaean taxonomic definition of species (1735). In fact, it probably shouldn't.
Aristotle's core definition of species (although he obviously originally wrote in Greek) was accepted biological fact from the 4th Century BCE through at least the 15th Century CE, which neatly encompasses essentially all of the historical eras that inspire Dungeons & Dragons. He defined species as "forms" (e.g., orc, human, elf, dwarf) within a genus or "kind" (e.g., humanoid), and held that kinds and forms were distinct and unchanging, defined by divine fiat. If that's not some classic D&D stuff, I don't know what is.
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
Why would it be "Homo"? They wouldn't even be in the same Order as humans. "Draconis/Draco erectus" could work, though. Here's how I'd classify the PHB species/subspecies using my limited understanding of latin, etymology, alternative names for D&D races, and taxonomy.
Ardling - Bestia erectus?
Dragonborn - Draconis/Draco erectus (with ten/fifteen subspecies)
Dwarf - Pumili robustus
Drow - Alfarum tenebris
High Elf - Alfarum summus
Wood Elf - Alfarum lignum
Deep Gnome - Gnomus neblini imum
Forest Gnome - Gnomus neblini silvas
Rock Gnome - Gnomus neblini saxum
Goliath - Homo giganticus
Human - Homo sapiens
Halfling - Homo floresiensis
Orc - Orcneas erectus
Tiefling - Homo infernum
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I personally was never bothered by the term “race,” but that may easily be privilege talking. If you feel more welcome by the term “species” than “race,” then you are clearly more invested in the issue than I am and I’m glad you feel welcome.
That said, words have meaning. Here’s what these words mean to me:
Race: syn. Ethnicity, which is probably the term I use more often in reality. Someone who has a different background, language, culture, etc, but whom is still relatable on some relatively easy level. This is how what are now called “species” are usually treated in fantasy, or sci-fi.
species: wholly other, alien. I know of no other sentient species in reality, only animals, which makes me somewhat prejudiced against other species. The only time I’ve read of a species in these terms where the term denoted an equal, or even superior, creature, it was probably Orson Scott Card’s Formic Hive Queens, with nigh insurmountable differences.
this isn’t a complaint. Maybe they’ll start writing species as being much less human. Maybe we’ll subconsciously start playing them as less human. Might be fun.
Why not Folk? Because that has some modern issues. "The Folk" is often used as a dogwhistle in some white supremacist groups, and comes directly from the Völkisch (English "Folkish") white-nationalist movement. Not every use of "folk" or "folks" is suspect obviously, but referring to one's race as one's Folk is far, FAR worse than calling one's biology their race.
Edit: this was a reply. Why did it not post as one?
If we take into account all fringe cases of slurs used by all obscure groups out there, we won't have enough "clean" words to constitute a language.
Personally, I don't care if they change the word... Although I think they could have done it without talking about it. I think if people are annoyed by the change, it's mostly just because it comes off as virtue signal pandering. If it were up to me, I'd tell people I changed it because it sounded cooler. But that's just my opinion. I think my group will still stick with the term race because it's easier.
When in doubt, go left. And don't get scared, get angry.
I feel like anyone who sees this as "pandering" is showing themselves to be insensitive to the pain of others at best, and deliberately cruel at worst.
You are, of course, free to do so.
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!
This mostly summarizes my opinion as well.
Technically speaking 'species' is a far more accurate term. Especially given the broad, broad, number of viable player races before even tapping into the 'design your own' mechanics for stuff like monsterous races. I'm sure even the least progressive table could be persuaded to acknowledge it is the more accurate term as well. However, not only do I feel like this won't end up taking if only due to the vast amount of games that still use the 'race' designation; combined with how the species are now being handled it feels like the effort is being placed on a political narrative instead of a good product.
Trying not to hurt people isn't political. This is not hard.
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!
It's not about politics. It's about where the effort is being placed and the reasons for it. I already have massive doubts as they not only effectively axed my favorite species (half-elf) in favor of a generic option, but the manner in which they're handling the species is questionable from a design perspective at best since it means you need information from yet another book to know anything about your selected species other than the most basicaspects. Instead of providing even some basic guidelines for say, what makes a dwarf a dwarf as opposed to a short human with a beard, even if they'd made it blatantly clear these were just suggestions, they are instead posting about how they're removing the word 'race'. I would much rather see more fleshed out content for the species, roleplay guidelines, and idea suggestions.
I do get that this is important to some players and I am not going to suggest we switch back out of some stubborn notion that the old ways are inherently better or anything. For those players to whom the term really is a sore spot, I do hope they have fun. However, I wish they had put their energy elsewhere and this feels like they decided to prioritize politics over product.
Everything is political. The reason for this change is political. The word "race" comes with a lot of baggage; most of it bad. And "species" isn't much better. If you approach it from a scientific angle, as others here have, then your "favorite species (half-elf)" is a mule. Every mixed person who plays this game can see that, and so can a fair number of people who aren't.
If the understanding we're meant to have is something closer to the Latin root ("to look") and Aristotle's teachings before that, then we're not that far removed. Every character, PC and NPC alike, are simply people. The features are just a reflection of their form. But since Latin is the language of scientific classification, we really only have a flowery version of the first reading. The sting isn't as intense because it sounds more poetic, more artsy, but the effect is the same. You can't honestly divorce them.
A reminder that political discussion and debate is not appropriate for this forum; sensitivity, consideration, and compassion towards marginalised peoples is not an inherently political discussion and attempts to make it one will not be tolerated. Kindness and compassion are apolitical
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
“Race,” “species,” “lineage,” as long as everyone knows what we’re all talking about a name is just a name. If “race” bothers some people because it has come to mean in the vernacular something different than it used to mean (as in “the human race”) then whatever, change it. It doesn’t really matter to the game so what’s the problem with changing it? This whole argument seems like much ado about nothing.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Real world species can often interbreed to create hybrid species. Sometimes sterile, sometimes not.
Then are situations where species A and species B cannot interbreed, while both are able to reproduce with species C.
And it gets far more complex than that...
Really hope there are still half species, but the rules allow for more then just "take the rules for one of the 2" in my world there are half species of every type, elf/orc, dwarf/gnome Tabaxi/Goliath. none of them are PC's currently just because homebrewing all those rules would be more then the time I have, but it is also because a big theme of my world is that one particular empire hates all mix species births. The party have seen this first hand through witnessing the abuse anyone with mixed heritage is subjected to by members of the empire as well as saving the baby of a mix species relationship who's grand parents where going to kill it. I hope that a set of rules is created to allow players to mix and match different species traits to make true mixed PC's
in terms of Lore as to the how, WOTC can move away from specifying that in general and it can become a more generic idea, so for instance if a DM wants half orcs to be the result of a forced situation then they can. I have roleplayed that very type of character (it was also a weak half orc, didn't have the plus to strength as it was more intelligent), and the way I had been conceived played into my characters hatred of Orcs.
My feedback, for what it is worth, is the "species" is more accurate than "race".
There are those who fight against any attempts at altering status quo but to them I say just roll with it. It is not hurting anyone to use the word species instead of race.
Good move. Long overdue socially plus a term that is more accurate anyways.
The problem with lineage is that it could be confused with social background. "What is his lineage? Oh, he's the son of a Duke and so is 14th in line for the throne." Same with "decent".
This is much ado about nothing --to those for whom "race" does have affect your life. Be happy that race doesn't affect your life. Because, for many, they do not have that luxury. There are people who are mistreated in our world simply because of their race (often on a daily basis, day after day, year after year). I can understand how these people would like to enjoy going into a fantasy world and not have to be reminded, yet again, about "race'.
Doesn't hurt. Can only help. If it doesn't help you don't presume it will not help others. At least that is the way I look at it.
I think you misunderstood me. I said the argument against changing it is much ado about nothing.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I feel that it's alienating and an insult to others when you tell them something they've been doing / saying is all of a sudden offensive to a group you'll have little to no interaction with, when it's been fine for decades. What you've said to me was insulting, and may have possibly been your own "insensitivities" showing.
Back on topic though.. what about the word "being" as a replacement?
When in doubt, go left. And don't get scared, get angry.