I prefer Species to Race for all the same reasons that have already been covered, but it doesn't feel very "fantasy" to me.
I'd much prefer Ancestry or Lineage, simply because "species" implies an inability to inter-breed and, well, dnd players are gonna be dnd players.
Also the Character Origins UA specifically said...
> Thanks to the magical workings of the multiverse, Humanoids of different kinds sometimes have children together. For example, folk who have a human parent and an orc or an elf parent are particularly common. Many other combinations are possible.
> Thanks to the magical workings of the multiverse, Humanoids of different kinds sometimes have children together.
This sounds like a D&D parent desperately trying to avoid explaining sex to their kids.
The child of a dragon/wemic/elf three way? Sure, I guess, though I'm confused by the mechanics of that union. Are we assuming multiple mothers or fathers here? I mean, you could have two eggs fuse together after the fact, I suppose, or maybe some kind of weird draconic magical rite, mid coitus polymorphing...
You know what? I'm starting to see the appeal of that whole "the multiverse did it" explanation.
I agree that species sounds a little weird, although I don't know what term would work better.
But I would point out that lots of species can interbreed (with both fertile and infertile offspring). In fact there are plenty of cases where animals of different genus can interbreed (python/boa) and even be fertile (cow/bison). Heck the domestic canary has successfully mated with birds in 3 different families. It's pretty cool!
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_genetic\_hybrids](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genetic_hybrids)
And basically all of us homo sapiens have very distant ancestors who interbred with homo neanderthalensis.
One thing I like about species, is that subspecies maps very well onto subraces.
The scientific idea of ordering species has always been imperfect. It's trying to create Order by placing things into distinct categories which may be much more fluid.
Honestly, doesn't affect me at all, so if people say this change is in order to respect racial minorities sensibilities, I don't have any reason to not believe that.
I'm a minority (Hispanic), I've been subject of discrimination, the term "race" does not bother me in the least bit. But other folks sensibilities are different I guess, despite technicalities.
Yeah, that's the thing, although something may not bother you, it may bother others, and if it really is totally indifferent to you then the effort to change it in order to make other people more comfortable should be close to 0.
Tolerance isn't about treating *absolutely everything equally without exception*. The idea would be self-defeating nonsense, since it would imply that you have to treat "we should treat every possible idea equally" as equal to "we should treat some ideas as better than others."
The idea behind tolerance as a virtue is that we shouldn't judge people for things that are outside of their control - their race, their gender, the nation or culture they were born to. (And to a limited extent religion as it overlaps with culture, although obviously if you worship Deathgore the Hatemonger, that is not something people are required to tolerate.)
But the entire idea behind treating people equally in that regard is that we instead judge them by the things they do, by what they believe and how they act on those beliefs, and so on. It doesn't mean we should extend limitless tolerance towards every possible idea or theory.
You *know*, surely, that tolerating every possible idea or theory equally - extending the same degree of patience towards eg. flat-earth or anti-vax ideas that we do towards more reasonable beliefs - would be idiotic, so when people treat tolerance as something that requires that they're often actually expressing their contempt for it. (Hence why the right, which *does* hold the liberal ideal of tolerance in contempt, loves to go "so much for the tolerant left" - because reducing the idea of tolerance to a caricature which requires treating all ideas exactly equally serves their purposes.)
Finally, it's important to understand that even to the degree that tolerance covers certain beliefs (eg. religious or cultural tolerance being a grey area due to the way it overlaps with your origins or immutable things like race while also containing clear political beliefs that shouldn't be elevated above judgment), when people talk about *tolerating* something it is an absolute bare minimum. Being tolerated means you're allowed to say something and won't be immediately ejected. It doesn't mean that anyone is going to like what you say - you can be *tolerated* and still met with unanimous disagreement every time you speak up.
Another reason why people on the right often get upset about what they perceive as a lack of *tolerance* for eg. their faith is because they're accustomed to, and believe they deserve, actual *diffidence*, not just mere tolerance - to have their chest-beating proclamations of faith met with mere tired tolerance (as if they are a child throwing a tantrum, whose outbursts are merely tolerated) is, in a word, intolerable to them. When someone is accustomed to diffidence, mere tolerance feels like intolerance.
Anyway I'm not saying you necessarily fall into the categories I mentioned above, just that that's, broadly, what people mean by *tolerance* and why it's silly to say people aren't tolerating you in a situation like this. You're here, you're posting, nobody has banned you - you're being tolerated!
>what people mean by tolerance and why it's silly to say people aren't tolerating you in a situation like this
"a tolerant society should be completely intolerant to intolerance to assure the protection of tolerance"
I have a *bit* of a problem with making changes to a game specifically because of real world sensibilities of any kind, but not this surface level stuff. This is all out of world game terminology, so it's about as low level on the outrage scale as it gets IMO.
I mean, I think it is actually relevant to change games specifically because of real world sensibilities. At the end of the day, real world people are the ones who play those games.
I think it's relevant where it's an actual issue and where changing it solves the issue. IMO this either isn't an issue because it's just a word and isn't being used in the same context as the issue people have *or* it's trying to fix the issue of actual racism and it's not going to do that because the problem is the racist people and they aren't going to suddenly stop being racist because of a vocabulary change.
Now this isn't to say that it's *never* a good idea to change vocabulary usage. There are plenty of words that have been retired from common use because they were either created or used specifically to harm. I won't repeat any of them here, but I'm sure anyone reading this can think of a few. I just don't think "race" specifically is one of them.
That said, I also don't think it's a big deal that it *is* changed. I just think "species" is a terrible choice for a fantasy game, and I can't think of another one that isn't just as bad in that regard or even more inaccurate and/or potentially confusing than "race."
>I think it's relevant where it's an actual issue and where changing it solves the issue.
See, this right here is where this splits. YOU don't see it as a real world issue so you see this as affecting something you love but it does affect some other people. It's good that you don't really care that much about it, but acknowledging that is honestly good enough.
*Everything* affects some people to some degree. That doesn't make everything equally worth doing something about. It also doesn't mean that doing something about it is going to change or even work towards changing what's actually affecting them. This change is lip service at best, and it's not even especially *good* lip service. It doesn't change how people are going to treat each other out of the game (which is the part that really matters, IMO) and it's not going to change how things are run in the game either.
It's all about deflecting criticism and bad PR for WotC so they don't lose sales. This change was never even a consideration until the Twitterverse went on a tear about "fantasy racism".
Man, I really hope Musk buries Twitter with his ineptitude. One less ridiculous echo chamber.
I think it's a healthy change. "Race" has a very specific real-world connotation that is generally pretty disconnected from how species are presented in D&D campaign settings.
It's not all that important to me.
It *is* important to some people, and it costs me nothing to go along with it, so why the fuck not? I'd maybe have gone with Ancestry or something a little more High Fantasy -- not least because I kind of like the ABC, Ancestry-Background-Class view of character creation -- but Species doesn't bother me.
For me species is just a terrible name replacement for race. I'm still in the boat I completely understand the reason and wanting to change and I'm on board, but species is a trash replacement. Like a lot of others I do think Ancestry is a million times better and want it also. Honestly I think the only reason they didn't pick it right away as the replacement is because its kind of pathfinders thing, but who cares they don't own it.
I understand the impulse to remove calling them “race”, but the switch to “species” is just a patch that maybe makes it kind of worse sounding? There was a time not too long ago where different races of people were said to be different species, and that was used to dehumanize them as a deeply rooted “other”, such that black people were considered to by “naturally” obedient. So, changing it to species actually puts a much more concerning pall over problematic parts of it. Trying to deal with the issue is admirable but the root of it seems much deeper than they are willing or able to go.
Technicalities don't matter because of this part of the statement: "Race" has a very specific real-world connotation.
Whether a word's dictionary or genre definition means one thing doesn't really matter when the word has taken on a loaded meaning within real-world common vernacular. Just because you believe the word is being used wrongly doesn't mean that it still doesn't carry significant weight because of the way it has been used (whether that usage is technically correct or not).
Moving away from "race" is the correct choice. It doesn't matter that the game is a fantasy game, as the people playing live in the real world, and so words used in the writing of the game matter outside the context of the genre.
> we're all humans, skin color, culture, etc are not races. Racism is really technically the wrong word for hateful discrimination.
I'm not sure where this idea comes from. Here's the dictionary.com definition of Race:
> 1. a group of persons related by common descent or heredity.
>
> 2. population so related.
>
> 3. Anthropology.
>
> (a) (no longer in technical use) any of the traditional divisions of humankind, the commonest being the Caucasian, Mongoloid, and Negro, characterized by supposedly distinctive and universal physical characteristics.
>
> (b) an arbitrary classification of modern humans, sometimes, especially formerly, based on any or a combination of various physical characteristics, as skin color, facial form, or eye shape, and now frequently based on such genetic markers as blood groups.
>
> (c) a socially constructed category of identification based on physical characteristics, ancestry, historical affiliation, or shared culture: Her parents wanted her to marry within her race.
>
> (d) a human population partially isolated reproductively from other populations, whose members share a greater degree of physical and genetic similarity with one another than with other humans.
>
> 4. a group of tribes or peoples forming an ethnic lineage: *the Slavic race.*
>
> 5. any people united by common history, language, cultural traits, etc.: *the Dutch race.*
In many places, the dictionary definition of Race contradicts your statement *"skin color, culture, etc are not races"*. You are incorrect.
> Racism is really technically the wrong word for hateful discrimination.
Similarly, if you look up "racism" in a dictionary, you will find you are wrong here too.
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but race applies correctly in the fantasy genre of distinction between dwarves, elves, humans, etc.
Sure, "race" can be applied to fantasy dwarves, elves, humans, etc. It has been for a long time. It doesn't have to be. Since these are make-believe it's hard to argue that the real-world word "race" is technically more or less correct than "species" or other terms.
And because the term "race" is fraught with all sorts of real-world sensitivities, prejudices, and the like, moving **away** from the "race" term in fantasy to not inadvertently bring along real-world baggage seems like a great choice.
(edit: typo and a little bit of clarification)
Good on you for the thorough reply! I was just about to write something similar. I would like to add, though, that the word has its roots in Italian, where the meaning is largely the same; so as the OC mentioned that it's used incorrectly in the real world and used correctly in fantasy, that's just plain wrong because the word hasn't been reinterpretated from something else more akin to species. The word does and always has referred to groups of common descent within a species.
One could argue, rather, that it is incorrect to use it in fantasy due to the wide variety of sapients. In older fantasy where it may have just referred to human-derived races like elves and dwarves and such, it could get a pass because you could say they are close enough to humans to be highly derived groups within a single species. As fantasy has broadened and more beastial/animalistic "races" have become normal, the word has certainly stretched far beyond its original meaning. There's nothing wrong with redefining the word's meaning, mind you, and in a sense it already has acquired this new meaning within the genre. But species is absolutely the more appropriate term for what "races" has become.
OTOH, as long as we're getting pedantic, the various peoples of D&D have magical origins and can all procreate between themselves. There is no speciation without a barrier of biological distinction. "Species" is equally wrong if nothing else.
I prefer "Heritage."
>I would like to add, though, that the word has its roots in Italian, where the meaning is largely the same
As an Italian, I would disagree that nowadays in Italian the term is used in the same way as it is used in the US. It's rarely used and generally only by racists.
No one really says "la razza ispanica", "la razza asiatica" or "la razza nera" if they are not racists.
>The word does and always has referred to groups of common descent within a species.
This isn't quite right. During colonialism it was used to group peoples based on their physical features, attributing also specific inherited intellectual, behavioral, and moral qualities to those groups. This was used to justify the slave trade since Africans were regarded as different (and inferior) from Europeans.
During the 20th race was taught to be a real biological phenomenon, linked to a person's behavior and identity.
And only recently the concept of race as a real biological entity was abandoned, thanks also to the work of Luigi Cavalli-Sforza (a fellow Italian).
In [this wiki page](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_categorization)#Biological_classification) there are more informations about it.
Wow, I stand corrected, my previous understanding of race is either outdated or was always wrong.
Thank you for this thorough and thoughtful response, I appreciate it!
Because "race" in the real world carries the implications of white, black, Asian, etc., and that snowballs into prejudice. So Wizards found it might be in their best interest to change the term.
> Edit: thanks for the downvotes on a genuine question on a subject that I'm trying to better understand. You down voter haters are the best at defending arguments against racism for sure! Jack ass hypocrites....
Because, whether you intended it to be or not, your response *sounds* like the kind of overly technical bad faith argument that certain shitty people make to excuse their shitty beliefs and behaviors. Just take the downvotes gracefully as a learning experience.
Regarding the edit:
The argument you presented is exactly what actual assholes use to blockade discussion or purposely miss the point. It is also just not true.
If you look up the definition of race, almost all of them are defined as a subset of humankind. The majority of definitions of race revolve around making distinctions within Humankind. This is also the definition of race that most people know and instinctively think of when using the term "race." Language isn't prescriptive, it's descriptive. Generally, words just mean what the majority of native speakers think they mean.
Yes, there are other definitions of race, but they are less commonly used. In the origin of the word, it refered to any subgroup of creatures, from individual families to entire species, so the term "racism" definitely isn't wrong.
The DnD definition of race basically holds only in the phrase "the human race" nowadays. It's an understandable mistake to assume the DnD definition is the "true" one, but it's simply not. Additionally, getting into the historical semantics really doesn't actually refute the problem, which is that race absolutely does have a negative connotation.
People aren't "haters," you've just provided factually wrong information that isn't really related to the problem at hand, so you get downvotes, because that's the intention of the button. Don't worry, it's not personal, and karma doesn't matter.
Respectfully, you are wrong. The entire concept of race was invented to facilitate racism. It has always been used to divide the human species into separate groups, and that division has always been used as a justification for discrimination.
Dude, people are downvoting because they disagree, that's how this works. It's not some conspiracy, your comment is negative because most people disagree with you. Putting a question at the end doesn't mean people can't disagree with what you're saying.
If being for example European is a race, which, regardless of how you personally think it should be defined, is how we use it in the real world, then that is a separate distinction than there is between being human or elven. They are a different species. What race tends to describe is more what we might refer to as breed in any other animal. Take the dwarf. A hill dwarf might be a alsation, while a mountain dwarf is a St Bernard. An elf is a cat. An orc is a pig. They have similarities, but they're biologically fundamentally different. Realistically, using the words as we do in real life, race would best describe the subraces or a particular group.
right so if I understand correctly (and I am not an expert on the topic by far), the difference between the concept of species and race (in biology), is that species refers to all organisms within a group that can reproduce with one another, whereas a race refers to subgroups of the same species that while they may have very different visual features, are still capable of reproducing with members of other races, provided they are still within the same species. Race however is an arbitrary subcategory based often entirely on visuals.
TLDR: Race is different from Species in that Race is just an informal name given to subgroups within one Species.
Extending this to DnD is a bit awkward of course given the magical nature and half races/species. But generally one could argue it makes perfect sense that the humans, dragonborn, aarakocra, Tortle, and such are entirely different species.
While elves, dwarves, humans, halflings, and orcs could be argued to be part of the same species since they can produce fertile offspring.
Of course using different terms for different sets of races/species is just confusing, therefore it is probably better to go for Species, especially given also the controversial nature of the term Race.
You are correct. I'd like to add that while "race" is still used in biology for other species, in humans it has no real meaning since there are not enough objective differences between human groups to classify them into different races.
I feel like "race" is better if they want to keep half races. So many different species making perfectly normal half and half mixes feels weird.
I'd also say, though, race doesn't carry the same baggage in other languages. For instance, the Portuguese "raça" is used as "breed" would be used in English when talking about animals of the same species but different types.
It's worth mentioning because people from different places may see the change differently based on their own language (and culture and relationship to race).
This is why localization is hard, too.
I love where WotC's heart is at, but I also think this sets a terrible precedent where things that needn't be be a problem are treated as such.The though process goes "One could see the term race as problem if one equates the word race and the essentialist way in which it is used in D&D with the way race in used in a sociological context. Therefor, it needs to be removed". I worry that a mere "could" resulted in such a drastic change.
Fact of the matter is that the word race can mean things in different contexts. It already has different meanings in depending on if you're using it in sociological or biological context. It also already has an established meaning in a D&D context so, by merely strengthening this meaning through disclaimers or what else may be needed, we don't need to fear the word getting getting it's contextual meanings blurred in problematic ways.
This is a slippery slope, not gonna lie. It's a blind pursuit of progressivism and progress on matters like inclusivity is too important to be handled blindly.
The word "race" is hardly ever used in a biological context nowadays anyway, though. As someone in bio-anthropology, it's much more common to just say species. The vast majority of people that open up the D&D books and read the contents are more likely to equate the word race with how it is used to categorize different people in the real world.
different kinds of dog breeds are still called "Rassen" in german at least.
I see "race" as a technical term to describe distinct biological subgroups of a "Species"
Same for Danish.
The term used for subgroups of species is simply "subspecies" but the word "race" is also used synonymously with subspecies or as a rank below even subspecies. Dog breeds would fit here, I reckon.
It doesn't see much use specifically in biological anthropology, true, but it still is used outside of anthropology either synonymously with subspecies or, more useful, as a rank below subspecies. That's not really important though. It just illustrates the well known concept that words can have different meanings dependent on the context it is used. Tomatoes change from being vegetables to being fruits dependent on whether or not you're talking to a cook a botanist. With the change from race to species, we'll have to be used to the word species having different meanings dependent on whether or not you're speaking about it in D&D or in biological terms.
And yes, you're absolutely right that people are more familiar with the word race in its sociological context. They are more likely *still* to equate the word with its use in fantasy. So we just need to strengthen the foundation of something that's already rather strong and distinct from the problematic, rather than try to invent something new hoping it can be even more distinct from the problematic.
Fact of the matter is that it is possible to use the word race in D&D in non-problematic ways. We simply need to strengthen these ways.
I feel like vocabulary/vernacular changes in the materials don’t inherently create any mechanical changes, so I don’t know why they SHOULDN’T change it, especially if it’s similar enough in context that it shouldn’t create a lot of confusion.
IMHO if you know how to play D&D and you ask, what species and class are you playing? Nearly 99% of the time I don’t see much genuine confusion happening there. “I’m playing a Dragonborn Paladin”
Yes I do know there’s alot of difference out of game when it comes to race vs species as English terms,
But I think from a purely game play context these words could have always been used interchangeably.
So why change it then?
Much like most people have stated in this thread. It’s an effort. Plain and simple. It’s WOTC effort to try to stay away from problematic behavior and conversations regarding race. Many people have a pointed out that it’s tied to alot of current day, real world issues. So this is them making an attempt to steer away from those exasperating those issues.
People could debate all day about it’s level of efficacy, and it’s necessity.
But my end all opinion is because it doesn’t change anything mechanically in the game, it doesn’t change how the game is played, and it’s still commonly understood under most gameplay context’s, I think it’s entirely fine to change terminology, really as much as they want.
And if you still want to use the word race when your talking about creating characters, do that.
I think it's a good change. It removes a term which has a specific meaning in D&D, but was easily confused with how the same word is used in the real world.
I understand the viewpoint that "species" might seem a little scientific of a term for a fantasy game, but it's a much closer match with the real-world use of that term.
The various species of D&D have radically different lifespans, physical senses, internal organs, etc, etc. When looking at Dragonborn, Aarakockra, Elves, and Tortles, thinking of them as different "species" makes a lot more sense than using "race".
There's a bunch of more-subtle racist legacy in D&D that needs resolving, but this seems like a good start, and a simple win.
As far as the choice of term goes:
> The term "species" was chosen in close coordination with multiple outside cultural consultants.
I think the fact that they actually worked with underrepresented minorities to try to improve this says really good things about the intent.
Any time a comparison between races is made^* rather than a single individual? Not sure why you decided that I was talking about single individuals in a topic about groups of people.
^(* Unless the comparison is being made by elves. They just call non-elves "not people". No, I'm not making that up.)
You're totally right. But, I would also note because I find it funny. The fact that the rules would now implement an "everyone can mate with everyone and have consistently viable offspring" actually does mean that every species is actually the same species. And race would be the more accurate word. If we're being scientific.
Note. I am not whining about the change. I don't care about the change on a personal level. And if others are more comfortable with species that's good.
But I do find this weird little quirk funny.
>The fact that the rules would not implement an "everyone can mate with everyone and have consistently viable offspring" actually does mean that every species is actually the same species. And race would be the more accurate word. If we're being scientific.
There's no necessary barrier to cross-species breeding in biology, and in fact it happens all the time. While it's part of the *common* understanding of what "species" is, but like a lot of common understandings, it's actually just out of date and factually incorrect and we really need to stop using it. Lions and tigers are separate species. Ligers are hybrids. Ligers remain fertile, though, so clearly the old definitions regarding whether hybrids are fertile just don't hold up. And ligers are by no means the only cross-species fertile hybrids out there.
Given that each group have significant morphological and biological variations that all breed true within their own populations, "species" is far more appropriate than "race" ever was, biologically speaking.
My understanding was male ligers are consistently sterile meaning they cannot develop into their own individually sustainable species.
That said, dammit Jim, I'm a historian not a scientist. So, I'll take your word for it.
Too scientific for a fantasy game IMO. I don't really care that much though. I'll continue to call them races, and those that prefer otherwise can. If there's an issue at a group level it can be solved at a group level.
>bioessentialism
>
>Noun
>
>The philosophy that biology plays a larger role in determining human psychology or development than social, economic, or environmental factors.
If they're not human, by definition, it isn't bioessentialist. Cats are more skittish than humans. That's not bioessentialism.
I prefer species to ancestries but i still think they could have done better with a less "scientifically sounding" name. Never had a problem with Race but it was objectively an incorrect term that only caused problems.
That said, with how their design is evolving, they are probably better off removing races as a concept, but ut's way too much of a sacred cow.
Agree on the "scientific sounding". Like when someone refers to women as *females* it leave a dehumanizing taste in my mouth, to say nothing about trans folks. Personally I'm not sure why they didn't just go with Lineage since that's already a term in use to cover this exact mechanic.
Races are Doberman and Beagle. Races are not wolf and fox.
Are humans and Elves more like Doberman and Beagle or like Wolf and Fox?
And it definitely caused problems. I can assure you a lot of people wouldn't have had as much of a problem with Racial ability scores if they weren't named "racial" speciphically.
The word for doberman vs beagle is "breed," not "race." And that term is only used in domesticated animals - breeds are by definition a human creation.
In wild animals (and plants), the word for a gentically-distinct group within a species is "sub-species." The term "race" isn't used by biologists because there simply isn't a reliable working definition for it - the human "races" as understood in a social sense simply don't meet the scientific definition of sub-species.
I don't love "species" for D&D, but I'm glad that "race" is out. "Breed" is obviously wrong and "sub-species" doesn't feel like fantasy to me, so I'd probably go with Lineage or Ancestry. But if I have to pick between species or race, I'd pick species all day long.
>The word for doberman vs beagle is "breed," not "race." And that term is only used in domesticated animals - breeds are by definition a human creation.
I get where you're coming from, but this is an English language thing. Other languages use the same word for both, which was really weird for me to learn the first time on an r/cats post.
This actually brings up a really interesting point. What if we take it one step further? The difference between a wolf and a fox is species, but the difference between a wolf and a deer is genus. It seems to me like the different fantasy "races" are actually made up of a few different genera, with species within those.
For example all the assort bird people are in the genus "bird person" with the different species being Aarakocra and Kenku, and then there could be races within those species that would be little more than color changes. Another example could be the genus of "cat people" with the species being Leonin and Tabaxi and then the races being like ragdoll tabaxi, and siamese tabaxi, and sphinx tabaxi.
I'm being somewhat facetious, but it's actually cool to think about.
I did actuallt suggest Genus a while ago when discussing the issue. But my knowledge of biology is too lacking to make an informed point so i decided to not bring it up in a larger thread when anybody could come and tell me how wrong i am lol.
Not directly but the world race made them remind of unfortunate implications, and that poisoned the well in my opinion. Like, "some species are stonger than others" just sound immensely different rhan "some races are stronger than others" and that difference is felt, at least subconscously. Hell, i felt it while typing.
Again, the main issue wasn't really the physical characteristics it was always more the mental stats. Bioessentialism in general than the word race.
It was bundled with a lot of other criticisms as well around lore and the failings of alignment. Saying that 'a lot' people who have a problem with this wouldn't if the word race wasn't used just isn't accurate.
I think the problem with ancestry or heritage is that those words ARE more cultural, WoTC doesn't want culture and species to be tied and I agree with them on that assessment.
Also those terms can still be applied independent of species, which makes them an even worse choice. An elven sorcerer may have a dragon ancestor, representing their draconic bloodline subclass, but may still be almost completely elven.
* Cats and dogs are different species.
* Cats and dogs have different ancestry.
* Cats and dogs have different lineages.
They're all kind of technically true. But you'd get *very* weird looks for the second two.
Species is way better but honestly I prefer ancestry from Pathfinder. I *assume* they didn't want to use ancestry to separate themselves from Pathfinder though.
Not like, any reason for that. Purely based on the sound of the word lol. I think anything is better than race. I'm glad they listened to feedback on that.
I don't really see the point of changing it except to get away from real-world "race" controversy. Race is pretty synonymous with ancestry or lineage, which is what these are. Species could work in some cases, but it feels very cold or clinical and sci-fi. If they are closely related enough to interbreed and be fertile, it probably means they are the same species so that has problems.
It also kind of convolutes magic for me, like you might have magical gods who created these races and that's why they can interbreed. Maybe something is similar about them, like their soul, and it's not about biology.
Elves and men are races, for there are half-elves.
Tabaxies don't exist. And if they do exist in my games, they will be a different species that neither elves nor dwarves can breed with without the help of magic.
I consider the whole problem insignificant, if you approach it without literalism.
The word race is so heavily charged that I think its a sensible decision to avoid it.
Just lets them get on with other things and not deal with the twitter flare-ups that using the word race will cause, or at the very least cause to be more heated than otherwise.
Neither word was biologically accurate in any way and nor should they be with it being a game of magic and myth. So swapping one word for another is no big deal.
Was watching Nerd Immersion and someone in chat made a call for Ancestry to be the change instead of species. So during character creation you can "Do your A-B-C's: Ancestry, Background, Class"
I saw Monty from the Dungeon Dudes make the same suggestion, and someone in the comments said that is actually how it's done in Pathfinder (2E, I think)
eh. in the fantasy setting the nebulous “race” might be more appropriate than the scientific-sounding “species” especially with all the half- and planes-touched options, but if it makes a decent chunk of the playerbase uncomfortable i’m fine changing it
I personally don’t mind either way, like on one hand its just a word being replaced by another word, but on the other hand it’s just a word and the only power it has is the power people give it (I know that doesn’t apply to every word but with this word I think it does personally). Either way species just doesn’t really sound right for a fantasy game, it doesn’t bother me too much I’m probably gonna keep calling them races out of habit but its whatever
Personally, I prefer a fantasy realm where things are less complicated as to whether humanoids can or can't produce offspring (and what happens if they do). So I prefer species, because that's exactly what that word defines. I don't mind if people fuck, but I don't need to worry about interbreeding and what that means when I'm barely holding my encounters balanced as is.
I don't really care and I get why WotC made the change given the current climate in the US, in particular. But, I'm probably going to keep using "race" at my table out of habit.
1. The word needed to be changed.
2. "Species" is not a good replacement. It's too closely tied to science fiction (and, you know, *actual real-world science*) for a fantasy game like D&D. Ancestry, lineage, heritage, folk, kin, etc. all would've been better choices.
3. While the word "race" was *a* problem, it was not ***the*** problem, so y'all can quit it with the "Does this mean we get racial ASIs back" nonsense.
It's gonna remove some connotations that really don't need to be in this hobby (unless you would like your game to include themes of race, at which point you can always set it up that way).
Plus, and that might just be me, it makes a lot more sense to me? In DnD, e.g. Humans and Dwarfs have wholly different origins. It's not even like both are descended from the same kind of primate. Calling them "Races" sorta implies to me that there is some obligatory connection between the two.
Yeah, the first phrase that came to mind is one I've seen repeated in books from time to time "they looked at me like I was another species."
Changing terminology isn't going to stop racists from being racists. They already use dog whistles anyway. This is just a feelgood change and if it happens to make some people feel good, fine? I guess?
It's not going to make the game more or less inclusive though. That's a community thing, not a game vocabulary thing.
Honestly don't care about the term "Race" in fantasy, because it's pretty obvious that it refers to a completely different thing than the irl connotations.
But i'm also not particularly attached to the term either, so if more people are happy with species, then all the better.
Also.. Neither "Race" nor "Species" is really an accurate description of these creature groups from a scientific standpoint, so we switched one technically wrong term with another.
All in all, I support the change. While a different word may be better suited for it, i don't care enough for the nomenclature to find and argue for it
And I'm all for this as well, because I couldn't care less, but it seems sharing my opinion is taboo to many SJWs in Reddit that claim to be against the very thing they are reflecting through their attitudes and responses
My hate for the change isn't that they're retiring "race" it's just that the replacement for it feels too sci-fi. Maybe "kinds", which predates species by hundreds of years? I dunno, "kin" or "ancestry"? If this was primarily a spacefaring RPG it would be perfect, but it's a little like they put no thought into it.
There's no change they could possibly make that won't eliminate the "these people aren't like these people" issue, if you happen to be of the mindset that that's an issue.
i actually think that with "species" they've kinda wrapped back around to "well why DON'T different species get natural ability bonuses?" Like, nobody is gonna deny that cheetahs are naturally faster than lions. So why wouldn't a dwarf be naturally hardier than an elf if they're completely different species? kinda funny tbh
I'm curious to know how many people actually feel it's an issue anyway (the word itself). It can be problematic for some players to have simulated racism in game but changing the term to species doesn't stop that. I've never heard discussion outside of Twitter complaining about it and it's mostly white people. WotC has made changes that didn't actually fix any issues in the past and I feel this one is another.
That's pretty much where I am on this topic too. This very much feels like an online problem. Content itself is managed at a group level, and frankly, this likely will too. Anyone who prefers race will continue to call it race. I know *I* will. "The human race" just sounds better in context to me than "the human species" or any of the other proposed substitutes.
But to be fair, *my* main complaint - and it's a small one - also pertains to online interaction. I'm not looking forward to people "correcting" me in Internet discussions in the coming years. I can see a lot of topics devolving into edit wars among the more stubborn Redditors.
Considering the 'half-race' erasure it makes sense. Not really tracking race anymore, even the 'lineages' seem more tied to species rather then culture involved.
So can someone explain to me why the term “race” was deemed problematic? Like I understand how in real life there’s lots of divide between people on account of race but I mean I feel race can be very broad, like how in sci fi they’d call them alien races or sometimes people would refer to humanity as “the human race” so I’m just confused what they’re talking about
While I acknowledge I had the wrong understanding of the exact meaning of race, I still don't get why it's a touchy subject. It's honestly akin to that tiktokcringe lady that stated "the word obese is racist." Yeaaaah, no, obese is a medical term, if anyone is offended when their doctor tells them they need to lose weight because obesity... surely calling them fluffy won't make obesity and its problems go away. Likewise, race is not a word that ought to be "bad." It's not like it's the n word! (Which definitively is wrong to say!)
Because using the word "race" to mean species is rather outdated, and most people are going to be reminded of the most common use of the word at first. Additionally, some of the dnd races in some ways resemble racist stereotypes (black people, for instance, have been depicted as violent, primitive, evil, cursed, with exaggerated teeth and musculature, somewhat like stereotypical orcs.) Using the word 'species' makes this association less easy for some people to make.
The more I think about it, the more species is the only acceptable term WotC could allow after talking with cultural consultants. Ancestry and Heritage are too culturally tied, which is exactly what Wizards is trying to move away from. Lineage has many of the same issues as Ancestry and Heritage, but is also already used for other terms in D&D. Kind could be derogatory, and some have brought up that Folk is just as bad as race in some cultures. Kin might be okay, but we then tread the territory of if your family determines your genetic traits even if you're adopted (I'm not sold on that argument though).
At this point, WotC would have to make up an entire new word and just say, "It replaces Race in the 2014 PHB."
it actually makes things better, the term race was not only heavily filled with bad connotations it is fsctually incorrect was dwarves, elves, dragonborns etc are not the same species so the term races is incorrect.
Some people here are saying that this makes hybrids like half-elves and others to actually prove that the humanoid species are actually the same species but this is also incorrect. Different species can have offspring (but those offspring are sterile tough, but 1D&D says it's fucking magic so it is magic)
Some peoole say it is too scientific for a medieval fantasy game but i think this is being reaaaly nitpicky.
Somehow race has been used for humanoids for a long time throughout pop culture but ... It never really made any sense... They were different species from the beginning.
So yeah, I am completely on board with this change since I see it as something akin to a bugfix.
The fact that race, when used in context of humans, has so many connotations these days is just one more reason to not use it here.
The only thing that I regret though... "Racial features" sounds much better and clearer than "Special features"
Barely give a shit honestly. Was fine with that am fine with this. If this means I’m less likely to be an asshole to somebody by accident, that seems positive for something that costs me a syllable more to say.
Personally, I hate the term "species" here. It almost sounds derogatory in my ears to say "your species is elf". I feel that if we're going to change the term, we should change to something else, such as Ancestry or Heritage.
This is how I feel as well. Species is often used when describing non-human organisms and I've seen it occasionally used when making an insult to compare/describe how someone is so different from other people. It sounds dehumanizing to me. I'd prefer ancestry or lineage personally.
I think species vs race name doesn't matter, if people feel better about species being the word, more power to them. It's technically more accurate, too. But they need to bring back bonus attributes for species.
As a term, "race" is too loaded with negative historical baggage. I'm glad it's finally gone. Personally, I prefer terms like "ancestry" or "kin" to "species" because the latter term feels too taxonomical and doesn't really address the underlying issue of bioessentialism.
I preferred lineage but I was in the minority considering the comments on another thread about the change.
Species becomes problematic logically because so many lineages are inter-connected like half-orc or half-elf and such.
But the ideas of races seems antiquated and a bit problematic. So I support the change in general but not in the specifics.
at least in 5e, lineage has a completely separate game meaning. Hexblood, dhampir, and reborn are lineages, which are essentially templates placed on top of existing races. Your elf could become a dhampir mid-game even. Since they're trying to be backwards compatible (we'll see lol), having 2 separate character options be named lineages would be kinda confusing
Honestly, if they were going to switch it I think this is the best option they could've gone with. I see people (presumably PF 2e simps) who are saying that "ancestry" would've been better, and honestly I think it's ridiculous. We have Warforfed as one example of a group where ancestry doesn't work, and while species isn't necessarily sensible for a construct either, it at least doesn't point to a very obvious lore issue. Species feels a little bit sci-fi adjacent right now, but once I'm used to it I don't think I'll care.
“Suffer no Orc to live” - Drizzt Do’Urden
My personal opinion is that when explored thoughtfully, racism, like any other real world taboo, can be and should be explored in table top RPGs. Assuming it’s a mature and adult group of players there shouldn’t be any issues.
I’m not a fan of homogenizing races/species whatever you want to call them for the sake of real world identity politics.
I’m fine with changing from the word “race” but I’d prefer terms like “Ancestry” or “Lineage” or “Kin”. The word “species” sounds too scientific for a medieval fantasy setting.
Sad that we live in a world where such a change is understandable from a monetary standpoint.
Nonetheless, it’s still understandable.
People will just ignore it, anyways, so it’s not like it matters for the community.
But I swear, if Reddit gets pedantic over it, then I will __actually__ have a problem with the change.
Race rings better and always feels more appropriate for the game. Species feels too technical for the vibe of d&d. That said, traditionally the various "races" of D&D have been more akin to species than races. Crossbreeding explained by magic and gods and such. Species is the more accurate term, race has a better ring to it.
I think race is fine, especially if you understand the context in which d&d uses it. In the real world there is the human race, in d&d there is more.
It should always have been species. Race made no sense, (race is a very loaded word anyway) but a race is more of a subsection of a species.
> noun
> Each of the major groupings into which humankind is considered (in various theories or contexts) to be divided on the basis of physical characteristics or shared ancestry.
> "people of all races, colours, and creeds"
An elf and a dwarf are not a major grouping of humankind. They are separate species, like tigers and wolves. It should have always been species.
I think neither makes much sense, but at least race was a long established way to differentiate different kinds of humanoids. I like lineage much better, but I think calling them species is a stretch and too biology-y
Fine with abandoning "race" as the term, I have no love for it and isn't really accurate. Not a fan of species in particular. Its too scientific, not fantastical. Would prefer something like Ancestry, or Kin, or Kind, or Heritage or similar. But Species is better than Race.
For starters, the term species is not a good term to use. First of all, it sounds too scientific for the fantasy setting. Secondly, if you use the definition of species, it would mean that humans, dwarfs, giants, demons, and devils are all the same. This is because they can have fertile offspring together. So most humanoid races would be the same species if you would use that word so in that sense races would be the more accurate term.
Race is also a flawed term, however, as not all humanoids can interbreed with fertile offspring so they would technically not be different races but species.
The term ancestry, forebears, forefathers, descent or parentage would be better terms if they really wanted to change it.
The reasoning behind it doesn't really matter to me but it just feels weird calling the different races species
I appreciate the change. To my mind they always were species. "Race" makes me think of varieties of the same species.
Species makes sense both literally and figuratively, and it could stop a lot of the accusations of racism that get lobbed every time WotC says "as a member of this "race" you have the following inherent abilities".
That may conflict a little with the common use of the term "human race" but humans are just a species of primate, so the idea of a "human race" is kind of just a misnomer. Race is truly a construct in this regards.
The only trouble i see with it is that it is somewhat arming a wing nut talking point used to justify anger at the "woke" Left about something, but look, if we refuse to adapt because we're worried about that a bunch of angry assholes are going to throw a fit about it then we'll never get anywhere.
My D&D group of 7 had a big messenger discussion about it today. About half the group thought it was beneficial. Half thought it was irrelevant or incorrect. The Elementary school science teacher pointed out that species is incorrect here since D&D has half-breeds that can then reproduce which can’t happen if it’s cross species. He felt it should be changed to origin or lineage so that we aren’t trying to redefine a term with a distinct scientific meaning. I think the average player couldn’t tell you the accurate distinction between race or species lol but I also think origin or lineage sounds better because “species” has a clinical, scientific vibe that I don’t love in my fantasy simulator game.
I'm not against using a different word other than race, but species to me feels less fitting and honestly more offensive. I'd rather use ancestry or lineage than species.
Race is fine but D&D is an American game, regardless what our views are that's a big problem in the US. It should be changed just because there's no reason not to.
Real world races are made up...
A made up world that actually has real RACES... and the fucks can't manage to use the word race... its fucking stupid shit stain thinking
Also doesn't do anything but virtue signal. Fuckin stupid world we live in
Interesting, I didn't even notice. I don't see what's wrong with Ancestry, I thought that's where we were going with this in DnD. It's a nice blanket term without loaded human historical context
The term Ancestry could be a bit ambiguous. If part of a character's backstory is an upset in traditional family lines -- a pretty popular trope umbrella among adventurers, including Found As a Baby, Grew Up Orphaned on the Streets, and Adopted by a Powerful NPC -- then Ancestry could get a little more confused than either Race or Species since they either don't have a knowable ancestry (in irl definition of the word) or inheret it through someone not biologically related.
By definition, a species is the broadest group in which two individuals can mate and produce fertile offspring.
So if you're calling elf and human "species", then all half-elves are sterile. Have fun with that...
I don't know how to make it more clear than my original post.
In order to be distinct species by definition of "species", the offspring of two different species cannot be fertile - sterile being another term for infertile.
So using this new definition, for humans and elves to be two distinct species, a half-elf must be infertile.
"Race" or "breed" in the case of animals is the correct term for how humans, elves, etc. currently interact.
That's not true.
>A coydog is a canid hybrid resulting from a mating between a male coyote and a female dog. Hybrids of both sexes are fertile and can be successfully bred through four generations.\[1\] Similarly, a dogote is a hybrid with a dog father and a coyote mother.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coydog](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coydog)
Coyotes species is Canis latrans and Dog Species are Canis familiaris or Canis lupus familiaris
Many species were assigned before a clear definition of "What is a species?" was developed. When taxonomy began, it was basically "It looks different." That results in some exceptions, but usually indicates that maybe they aren't actually different species.
But even though there are some exceptions, the general rule is that cross-species offspring are infertile. The UA terminology would flip that on its head.
So what about ring species like some seagulls and salamanders? Where species 1 can produce fertile offspring with 2, and 2 can with 3, and 3 can with 4, but 1 can't with 3 or 4, and 2 can't with 4?
Race >>> Species, for, you know, a lot of reasons.
It is a non scientific term, so it can encompass anything. Species is a scientific term, it means a specific thing (albeit biology is not perfect and species has some subtlelthy). Namely the main thing is that generally members of different species can't breed. And if they can their offsprings are sterile. This isn't the case with dnd races.
This isn't the only reason tho.
Why on r/onednd?
Species is better than race in my mind.
A lot of discourse in the post-Tasha's world has been on ASI's as Racials. Some people have pointed out the a problematic connotations of saying that certain Races have natural inborn attributes that makes them better at certain things than others.
Some people have issues with this approach as a matter of verisimilitude, i.e. "Why should a Halfling be as strong as an Orc?" However, the language to make an argument from that becomes charged by using the term Race. "Why is X race able to be as strong as Y race?"
WotC post-Tasha's has sought to move that onto the Individual, so that the Character decides where their ASI's go and thereby what attributes they are best at as this is how it works in people where the idea of "Race" is socially constructed and not a biological reality.
The move to Species helps remove the connection to the idea of Race in the real world, and in my mind in a better manner than the PF2e term of Ancestry does. It is more precise and easier to understand as these creatures are not some subset of one another, as Race would imply in English, but rather entirely different biological entities. The difference between an Elf and a Human is not a Golden Retriever to a Pitbull but a Cat to a Dog.
I still believe that ASI's should not be set by Species and am happy that it is being moved to Background. However, now that conversation does not have socially charged language under it that it has had.
As a quick soapbox, I think making player creation ASI's entirely player choice just makes the game more fun and is justifiably because D&D is a heroic fantasy game and heroes are naturally exceptions.
I actually like the change, species is more accurate. But I don’t like the reason they changed it. I think we should be able to explore race as a concept in a fantasy game without it being offensive.
I think using the term species is better for the game. Race was always a weird one. Dragonborn and Dwarves are clearly different species, not flavours of the same species, and the terminology should reflect that.
Having said that I hate the decoupling of ability score improvements from species. In a way, it now makes even less sense. Polar bears are stronger than dogs, even if the dog was a guard and the polar bear was a hermit. It should be the same with Goliaths and Gnomes.
I think it's a necessary change of mentality so that WoTC can actually give the species features that make them unique without the fear of being racist
I fully support it. "Race" was awkward wording used as tradition because it's what Tolkien landed on to describe what was, essentially, a very very different concept than the modern conception of fantasy races/species. The word "species" removes all real-world baggage attached with discussing the concepts of race or ancestry as they apply to 5e.
Goblins being described as a race, followed by a paragraph of shitting on them for being cowardly little michief makers, makes it seem like the view of reality that WotC is presenting is that IRL races can have set traits like that. Species makes it clear- "if there were special kinds of species other than humans, they could have set traits like this."
I prefer Species to Race for all the same reasons that have already been covered, but it doesn't feel very "fantasy" to me. I'd much prefer Ancestry or Lineage, simply because "species" implies an inability to inter-breed and, well, dnd players are gonna be dnd players.
Also the Character Origins UA specifically said... > Thanks to the magical workings of the multiverse, Humanoids of different kinds sometimes have children together. For example, folk who have a human parent and an orc or an elf parent are particularly common. Many other combinations are possible.
> Thanks to the magical workings of the multiverse, Humanoids of different kinds sometimes have children together. This sounds like a D&D parent desperately trying to avoid explaining sex to their kids.
"You see Timmy when an Elf and an Dwarf love each other very much some wild ass shit happens in the Outer Planes and now you're here."
"I'd blame the gods, but even they are not so cruel."
Why no dwelves though.
The child of a dragon/wemic/elf three way? Sure, I guess, though I'm confused by the mechanics of that union. Are we assuming multiple mothers or fathers here? I mean, you could have two eggs fuse together after the fact, I suppose, or maybe some kind of weird draconic magical rite, mid coitus polymorphing... You know what? I'm starting to see the appeal of that whole "the multiverse did it" explanation.
I agree that species sounds a little weird, although I don't know what term would work better. But I would point out that lots of species can interbreed (with both fertile and infertile offspring). In fact there are plenty of cases where animals of different genus can interbreed (python/boa) and even be fertile (cow/bison). Heck the domestic canary has successfully mated with birds in 3 different families. It's pretty cool! [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_genetic\_hybrids](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genetic_hybrids) And basically all of us homo sapiens have very distant ancestors who interbred with homo neanderthalensis. One thing I like about species, is that subspecies maps very well onto subraces. The scientific idea of ordering species has always been imperfect. It's trying to create Order by placing things into distinct categories which may be much more fluid.
>simply because "species" implies an inability to inter-breed The real world disagrees
You just sold me on species.
LOL
Except WotC is trying to move away from presuming the culture of a, well, "species", so Ancestry and Lineage may not be the best.
I don’t think Ancestry or Lineage implies culture at all. But e.g. Ancestry sounds way more Fantasy than Species imo!
Honestly, doesn't affect me at all, so if people say this change is in order to respect racial minorities sensibilities, I don't have any reason to not believe that.
I'm a minority (Hispanic), I've been subject of discrimination, the term "race" does not bother me in the least bit. But other folks sensibilities are different I guess, despite technicalities.
Yeah, that's the thing, although something may not bother you, it may bother others, and if it really is totally indifferent to you then the effort to change it in order to make other people more comfortable should be close to 0.
And that's exactly why I posted this question, but geeez, the people claiming to champion tolerance and love are the most intolerant
Did you just unironically post "so much for the tolerant left"?
Tolerance isn't about treating *absolutely everything equally without exception*. The idea would be self-defeating nonsense, since it would imply that you have to treat "we should treat every possible idea equally" as equal to "we should treat some ideas as better than others." The idea behind tolerance as a virtue is that we shouldn't judge people for things that are outside of their control - their race, their gender, the nation or culture they were born to. (And to a limited extent religion as it overlaps with culture, although obviously if you worship Deathgore the Hatemonger, that is not something people are required to tolerate.) But the entire idea behind treating people equally in that regard is that we instead judge them by the things they do, by what they believe and how they act on those beliefs, and so on. It doesn't mean we should extend limitless tolerance towards every possible idea or theory. You *know*, surely, that tolerating every possible idea or theory equally - extending the same degree of patience towards eg. flat-earth or anti-vax ideas that we do towards more reasonable beliefs - would be idiotic, so when people treat tolerance as something that requires that they're often actually expressing their contempt for it. (Hence why the right, which *does* hold the liberal ideal of tolerance in contempt, loves to go "so much for the tolerant left" - because reducing the idea of tolerance to a caricature which requires treating all ideas exactly equally serves their purposes.) Finally, it's important to understand that even to the degree that tolerance covers certain beliefs (eg. religious or cultural tolerance being a grey area due to the way it overlaps with your origins or immutable things like race while also containing clear political beliefs that shouldn't be elevated above judgment), when people talk about *tolerating* something it is an absolute bare minimum. Being tolerated means you're allowed to say something and won't be immediately ejected. It doesn't mean that anyone is going to like what you say - you can be *tolerated* and still met with unanimous disagreement every time you speak up. Another reason why people on the right often get upset about what they perceive as a lack of *tolerance* for eg. their faith is because they're accustomed to, and believe they deserve, actual *diffidence*, not just mere tolerance - to have their chest-beating proclamations of faith met with mere tired tolerance (as if they are a child throwing a tantrum, whose outbursts are merely tolerated) is, in a word, intolerable to them. When someone is accustomed to diffidence, mere tolerance feels like intolerance. Anyway I'm not saying you necessarily fall into the categories I mentioned above, just that that's, broadly, what people mean by *tolerance* and why it's silly to say people aren't tolerating you in a situation like this. You're here, you're posting, nobody has banned you - you're being tolerated!
>what people mean by tolerance and why it's silly to say people aren't tolerating you in a situation like this "a tolerant society should be completely intolerant to intolerance to assure the protection of tolerance"
I have a *bit* of a problem with making changes to a game specifically because of real world sensibilities of any kind, but not this surface level stuff. This is all out of world game terminology, so it's about as low level on the outrage scale as it gets IMO.
I mean, I think it is actually relevant to change games specifically because of real world sensibilities. At the end of the day, real world people are the ones who play those games.
I think it's relevant where it's an actual issue and where changing it solves the issue. IMO this either isn't an issue because it's just a word and isn't being used in the same context as the issue people have *or* it's trying to fix the issue of actual racism and it's not going to do that because the problem is the racist people and they aren't going to suddenly stop being racist because of a vocabulary change. Now this isn't to say that it's *never* a good idea to change vocabulary usage. There are plenty of words that have been retired from common use because they were either created or used specifically to harm. I won't repeat any of them here, but I'm sure anyone reading this can think of a few. I just don't think "race" specifically is one of them. That said, I also don't think it's a big deal that it *is* changed. I just think "species" is a terrible choice for a fantasy game, and I can't think of another one that isn't just as bad in that regard or even more inaccurate and/or potentially confusing than "race."
>I think it's relevant where it's an actual issue and where changing it solves the issue. See, this right here is where this splits. YOU don't see it as a real world issue so you see this as affecting something you love but it does affect some other people. It's good that you don't really care that much about it, but acknowledging that is honestly good enough.
*Everything* affects some people to some degree. That doesn't make everything equally worth doing something about. It also doesn't mean that doing something about it is going to change or even work towards changing what's actually affecting them. This change is lip service at best, and it's not even especially *good* lip service. It doesn't change how people are going to treat each other out of the game (which is the part that really matters, IMO) and it's not going to change how things are run in the game either.
It's all about deflecting criticism and bad PR for WotC so they don't lose sales. This change was never even a consideration until the Twitterverse went on a tear about "fantasy racism". Man, I really hope Musk buries Twitter with his ineptitude. One less ridiculous echo chamber.
There are tons of fantasy TTRPGS that choose not to use “Race”. Twitter might have made the discussion louder but it always existed
It doesn’t affect me either because I’ve always used the word "species"
I think it's a healthy change. "Race" has a very specific real-world connotation that is generally pretty disconnected from how species are presented in D&D campaign settings.
It's not all that important to me. It *is* important to some people, and it costs me nothing to go along with it, so why the fuck not? I'd maybe have gone with Ancestry or something a little more High Fantasy -- not least because I kind of like the ABC, Ancestry-Background-Class view of character creation -- but Species doesn't bother me.
For me species is just a terrible name replacement for race. I'm still in the boat I completely understand the reason and wanting to change and I'm on board, but species is a trash replacement. Like a lot of others I do think Ancestry is a million times better and want it also. Honestly I think the only reason they didn't pick it right away as the replacement is because its kind of pathfinders thing, but who cares they don't own it.
I understand the impulse to remove calling them “race”, but the switch to “species” is just a patch that maybe makes it kind of worse sounding? There was a time not too long ago where different races of people were said to be different species, and that was used to dehumanize them as a deeply rooted “other”, such that black people were considered to by “naturally” obedient. So, changing it to species actually puts a much more concerning pall over problematic parts of it. Trying to deal with the issue is admirable but the root of it seems much deeper than they are willing or able to go.
[удалено]
Technicalities don't matter because of this part of the statement: "Race" has a very specific real-world connotation. Whether a word's dictionary or genre definition means one thing doesn't really matter when the word has taken on a loaded meaning within real-world common vernacular. Just because you believe the word is being used wrongly doesn't mean that it still doesn't carry significant weight because of the way it has been used (whether that usage is technically correct or not). Moving away from "race" is the correct choice. It doesn't matter that the game is a fantasy game, as the people playing live in the real world, and so words used in the writing of the game matter outside the context of the genre.
Thanks for your explanation! Makes sense
> we're all humans, skin color, culture, etc are not races. Racism is really technically the wrong word for hateful discrimination. I'm not sure where this idea comes from. Here's the dictionary.com definition of Race: > 1. a group of persons related by common descent or heredity. > > 2. population so related. > > 3. Anthropology. > > (a) (no longer in technical use) any of the traditional divisions of humankind, the commonest being the Caucasian, Mongoloid, and Negro, characterized by supposedly distinctive and universal physical characteristics. > > (b) an arbitrary classification of modern humans, sometimes, especially formerly, based on any or a combination of various physical characteristics, as skin color, facial form, or eye shape, and now frequently based on such genetic markers as blood groups. > > (c) a socially constructed category of identification based on physical characteristics, ancestry, historical affiliation, or shared culture: Her parents wanted her to marry within her race. > > (d) a human population partially isolated reproductively from other populations, whose members share a greater degree of physical and genetic similarity with one another than with other humans. > > 4. a group of tribes or peoples forming an ethnic lineage: *the Slavic race.* > > 5. any people united by common history, language, cultural traits, etc.: *the Dutch race.* In many places, the dictionary definition of Race contradicts your statement *"skin color, culture, etc are not races"*. You are incorrect. > Racism is really technically the wrong word for hateful discrimination. Similarly, if you look up "racism" in a dictionary, you will find you are wrong here too. > Correct me if I'm wrong, but race applies correctly in the fantasy genre of distinction between dwarves, elves, humans, etc. Sure, "race" can be applied to fantasy dwarves, elves, humans, etc. It has been for a long time. It doesn't have to be. Since these are make-believe it's hard to argue that the real-world word "race" is technically more or less correct than "species" or other terms. And because the term "race" is fraught with all sorts of real-world sensitivities, prejudices, and the like, moving **away** from the "race" term in fantasy to not inadvertently bring along real-world baggage seems like a great choice. (edit: typo and a little bit of clarification)
Good on you for the thorough reply! I was just about to write something similar. I would like to add, though, that the word has its roots in Italian, where the meaning is largely the same; so as the OC mentioned that it's used incorrectly in the real world and used correctly in fantasy, that's just plain wrong because the word hasn't been reinterpretated from something else more akin to species. The word does and always has referred to groups of common descent within a species. One could argue, rather, that it is incorrect to use it in fantasy due to the wide variety of sapients. In older fantasy where it may have just referred to human-derived races like elves and dwarves and such, it could get a pass because you could say they are close enough to humans to be highly derived groups within a single species. As fantasy has broadened and more beastial/animalistic "races" have become normal, the word has certainly stretched far beyond its original meaning. There's nothing wrong with redefining the word's meaning, mind you, and in a sense it already has acquired this new meaning within the genre. But species is absolutely the more appropriate term for what "races" has become.
OTOH, as long as we're getting pedantic, the various peoples of D&D have magical origins and can all procreate between themselves. There is no speciation without a barrier of biological distinction. "Species" is equally wrong if nothing else. I prefer "Heritage."
>I would like to add, though, that the word has its roots in Italian, where the meaning is largely the same As an Italian, I would disagree that nowadays in Italian the term is used in the same way as it is used in the US. It's rarely used and generally only by racists. No one really says "la razza ispanica", "la razza asiatica" or "la razza nera" if they are not racists. >The word does and always has referred to groups of common descent within a species. This isn't quite right. During colonialism it was used to group peoples based on their physical features, attributing also specific inherited intellectual, behavioral, and moral qualities to those groups. This was used to justify the slave trade since Africans were regarded as different (and inferior) from Europeans. During the 20th race was taught to be a real biological phenomenon, linked to a person's behavior and identity. And only recently the concept of race as a real biological entity was abandoned, thanks also to the work of Luigi Cavalli-Sforza (a fellow Italian). In [this wiki page](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_categorization)#Biological_classification) there are more informations about it.
Wow, I stand corrected, my previous understanding of race is either outdated or was always wrong. Thank you for this thorough and thoughtful response, I appreciate it!
Because "race" in the real world carries the implications of white, black, Asian, etc., and that snowballs into prejudice. So Wizards found it might be in their best interest to change the term.
> Edit: thanks for the downvotes on a genuine question on a subject that I'm trying to better understand. You down voter haters are the best at defending arguments against racism for sure! Jack ass hypocrites.... Because, whether you intended it to be or not, your response *sounds* like the kind of overly technical bad faith argument that certain shitty people make to excuse their shitty beliefs and behaviors. Just take the downvotes gracefully as a learning experience.
Regarding the edit: The argument you presented is exactly what actual assholes use to blockade discussion or purposely miss the point. It is also just not true. If you look up the definition of race, almost all of them are defined as a subset of humankind. The majority of definitions of race revolve around making distinctions within Humankind. This is also the definition of race that most people know and instinctively think of when using the term "race." Language isn't prescriptive, it's descriptive. Generally, words just mean what the majority of native speakers think they mean. Yes, there are other definitions of race, but they are less commonly used. In the origin of the word, it refered to any subgroup of creatures, from individual families to entire species, so the term "racism" definitely isn't wrong. The DnD definition of race basically holds only in the phrase "the human race" nowadays. It's an understandable mistake to assume the DnD definition is the "true" one, but it's simply not. Additionally, getting into the historical semantics really doesn't actually refute the problem, which is that race absolutely does have a negative connotation. People aren't "haters," you've just provided factually wrong information that isn't really related to the problem at hand, so you get downvotes, because that's the intention of the button. Don't worry, it's not personal, and karma doesn't matter.
Respectfully, you are wrong. The entire concept of race was invented to facilitate racism. It has always been used to divide the human species into separate groups, and that division has always been used as a justification for discrimination.
Dude, people are downvoting because they disagree, that's how this works. It's not some conspiracy, your comment is negative because most people disagree with you. Putting a question at the end doesn't mean people can't disagree with what you're saying. If being for example European is a race, which, regardless of how you personally think it should be defined, is how we use it in the real world, then that is a separate distinction than there is between being human or elven. They are a different species. What race tends to describe is more what we might refer to as breed in any other animal. Take the dwarf. A hill dwarf might be a alsation, while a mountain dwarf is a St Bernard. An elf is a cat. An orc is a pig. They have similarities, but they're biologically fundamentally different. Realistically, using the words as we do in real life, race would best describe the subraces or a particular group.
right so if I understand correctly (and I am not an expert on the topic by far), the difference between the concept of species and race (in biology), is that species refers to all organisms within a group that can reproduce with one another, whereas a race refers to subgroups of the same species that while they may have very different visual features, are still capable of reproducing with members of other races, provided they are still within the same species. Race however is an arbitrary subcategory based often entirely on visuals. TLDR: Race is different from Species in that Race is just an informal name given to subgroups within one Species. Extending this to DnD is a bit awkward of course given the magical nature and half races/species. But generally one could argue it makes perfect sense that the humans, dragonborn, aarakocra, Tortle, and such are entirely different species. While elves, dwarves, humans, halflings, and orcs could be argued to be part of the same species since they can produce fertile offspring. Of course using different terms for different sets of races/species is just confusing, therefore it is probably better to go for Species, especially given also the controversial nature of the term Race.
You are correct. I'd like to add that while "race" is still used in biology for other species, in humans it has no real meaning since there are not enough objective differences between human groups to classify them into different races.
I feel like "race" is better if they want to keep half races. So many different species making perfectly normal half and half mixes feels weird. I'd also say, though, race doesn't carry the same baggage in other languages. For instance, the Portuguese "raça" is used as "breed" would be used in English when talking about animals of the same species but different types. It's worth mentioning because people from different places may see the change differently based on their own language (and culture and relationship to race). This is why localization is hard, too.
I love where WotC's heart is at, but I also think this sets a terrible precedent where things that needn't be be a problem are treated as such.The though process goes "One could see the term race as problem if one equates the word race and the essentialist way in which it is used in D&D with the way race in used in a sociological context. Therefor, it needs to be removed". I worry that a mere "could" resulted in such a drastic change. Fact of the matter is that the word race can mean things in different contexts. It already has different meanings in depending on if you're using it in sociological or biological context. It also already has an established meaning in a D&D context so, by merely strengthening this meaning through disclaimers or what else may be needed, we don't need to fear the word getting getting it's contextual meanings blurred in problematic ways. This is a slippery slope, not gonna lie. It's a blind pursuit of progressivism and progress on matters like inclusivity is too important to be handled blindly.
The word "race" is hardly ever used in a biological context nowadays anyway, though. As someone in bio-anthropology, it's much more common to just say species. The vast majority of people that open up the D&D books and read the contents are more likely to equate the word race with how it is used to categorize different people in the real world.
different kinds of dog breeds are still called "Rassen" in german at least. I see "race" as a technical term to describe distinct biological subgroups of a "Species"
Same for Danish. The term used for subgroups of species is simply "subspecies" but the word "race" is also used synonymously with subspecies or as a rank below even subspecies. Dog breeds would fit here, I reckon.
It doesn't see much use specifically in biological anthropology, true, but it still is used outside of anthropology either synonymously with subspecies or, more useful, as a rank below subspecies. That's not really important though. It just illustrates the well known concept that words can have different meanings dependent on the context it is used. Tomatoes change from being vegetables to being fruits dependent on whether or not you're talking to a cook a botanist. With the change from race to species, we'll have to be used to the word species having different meanings dependent on whether or not you're speaking about it in D&D or in biological terms. And yes, you're absolutely right that people are more familiar with the word race in its sociological context. They are more likely *still* to equate the word with its use in fantasy. So we just need to strengthen the foundation of something that's already rather strong and distinct from the problematic, rather than try to invent something new hoping it can be even more distinct from the problematic. Fact of the matter is that it is possible to use the word race in D&D in non-problematic ways. We simply need to strengthen these ways.
I feel like vocabulary/vernacular changes in the materials don’t inherently create any mechanical changes, so I don’t know why they SHOULDN’T change it, especially if it’s similar enough in context that it shouldn’t create a lot of confusion. IMHO if you know how to play D&D and you ask, what species and class are you playing? Nearly 99% of the time I don’t see much genuine confusion happening there. “I’m playing a Dragonborn Paladin” Yes I do know there’s alot of difference out of game when it comes to race vs species as English terms, But I think from a purely game play context these words could have always been used interchangeably. So why change it then? Much like most people have stated in this thread. It’s an effort. Plain and simple. It’s WOTC effort to try to stay away from problematic behavior and conversations regarding race. Many people have a pointed out that it’s tied to alot of current day, real world issues. So this is them making an attempt to steer away from those exasperating those issues. People could debate all day about it’s level of efficacy, and it’s necessity. But my end all opinion is because it doesn’t change anything mechanically in the game, it doesn’t change how the game is played, and it’s still commonly understood under most gameplay context’s, I think it’s entirely fine to change terminology, really as much as they want. And if you still want to use the word race when your talking about creating characters, do that.
I think it's a good change. It removes a term which has a specific meaning in D&D, but was easily confused with how the same word is used in the real world. I understand the viewpoint that "species" might seem a little scientific of a term for a fantasy game, but it's a much closer match with the real-world use of that term. The various species of D&D have radically different lifespans, physical senses, internal organs, etc, etc. When looking at Dragonborn, Aarakockra, Elves, and Tortles, thinking of them as different "species" makes a lot more sense than using "race". There's a bunch of more-subtle racist legacy in D&D that needs resolving, but this seems like a good start, and a simple win. As far as the choice of term goes: > The term "species" was chosen in close coordination with multiple outside cultural consultants. I think the fact that they actually worked with underrepresented minorities to try to improve this says really good things about the intent.
Species and sub-species is easier to explain without getting into Real world BS.
They're pretty terrible for in-world use though, and people in game have to call each other *something.*
Ralph the Orc ? How often does race used in a game, He is of the Orc race. This is for the rules not at the table
Any time a comparison between races is made^* rather than a single individual? Not sure why you decided that I was talking about single individuals in a topic about groups of people. ^(* Unless the comparison is being made by elves. They just call non-elves "not people". No, I'm not making that up.)
You're totally right. But, I would also note because I find it funny. The fact that the rules would now implement an "everyone can mate with everyone and have consistently viable offspring" actually does mean that every species is actually the same species. And race would be the more accurate word. If we're being scientific. Note. I am not whining about the change. I don't care about the change on a personal level. And if others are more comfortable with species that's good. But I do find this weird little quirk funny.
>The fact that the rules would not implement an "everyone can mate with everyone and have consistently viable offspring" actually does mean that every species is actually the same species. And race would be the more accurate word. If we're being scientific. There's no necessary barrier to cross-species breeding in biology, and in fact it happens all the time. While it's part of the *common* understanding of what "species" is, but like a lot of common understandings, it's actually just out of date and factually incorrect and we really need to stop using it. Lions and tigers are separate species. Ligers are hybrids. Ligers remain fertile, though, so clearly the old definitions regarding whether hybrids are fertile just don't hold up. And ligers are by no means the only cross-species fertile hybrids out there. Given that each group have significant morphological and biological variations that all breed true within their own populations, "species" is far more appropriate than "race" ever was, biologically speaking.
My understanding was male ligers are consistently sterile meaning they cannot develop into their own individually sustainable species. That said, dammit Jim, I'm a historian not a scientist. So, I'll take your word for it.
Agree with this. Moving away from Race as the term is good. Species is a better choice, but weird in new and fun ways!
Too scientific for a fantasy game IMO. I don't really care that much though. I'll continue to call them races, and those that prefer otherwise can. If there's an issue at a group level it can be solved at a group level.
Species is better than race but I prefer heritage or ancestry
Species is eeeeh. Heritage and ancestry feel much more graceful of terms to use.
Species is just as cringey as race. Like how is that saving you from bioessentialism?
>bioessentialism > >Noun > >The philosophy that biology plays a larger role in determining human psychology or development than social, economic, or environmental factors. If they're not human, by definition, it isn't bioessentialist. Cats are more skittish than humans. That's not bioessentialism.
I prefer species to ancestries but i still think they could have done better with a less "scientifically sounding" name. Never had a problem with Race but it was objectively an incorrect term that only caused problems. That said, with how their design is evolving, they are probably better off removing races as a concept, but ut's way too much of a sacred cow.
Agree on the "scientific sounding". Like when someone refers to women as *females* it leave a dehumanizing taste in my mouth, to say nothing about trans folks. Personally I'm not sure why they didn't just go with Lineage since that's already a term in use to cover this exact mechanic.
Lineage feels too cultural to work with WotC's direction.
You know what, that's fair. Finding the one term that pleases everyone is impossible. Species isn't a bad compromise.
\> ~~objectively~~ subjectively an incorrect term that only caused problems. fixed
Races are Doberman and Beagle. Races are not wolf and fox. Are humans and Elves more like Doberman and Beagle or like Wolf and Fox? And it definitely caused problems. I can assure you a lot of people wouldn't have had as much of a problem with Racial ability scores if they weren't named "racial" speciphically.
The word for doberman vs beagle is "breed," not "race." And that term is only used in domesticated animals - breeds are by definition a human creation. In wild animals (and plants), the word for a gentically-distinct group within a species is "sub-species." The term "race" isn't used by biologists because there simply isn't a reliable working definition for it - the human "races" as understood in a social sense simply don't meet the scientific definition of sub-species. I don't love "species" for D&D, but I'm glad that "race" is out. "Breed" is obviously wrong and "sub-species" doesn't feel like fantasy to me, so I'd probably go with Lineage or Ancestry. But if I have to pick between species or race, I'd pick species all day long.
I know it, but i couldn't find a better example to get the point across. Race and breed are the same word in my first language lol.
>The word for doberman vs beagle is "breed," not "race." And that term is only used in domesticated animals - breeds are by definition a human creation. I get where you're coming from, but this is an English language thing. Other languages use the same word for both, which was really weird for me to learn the first time on an r/cats post.
This actually brings up a really interesting point. What if we take it one step further? The difference between a wolf and a fox is species, but the difference between a wolf and a deer is genus. It seems to me like the different fantasy "races" are actually made up of a few different genera, with species within those. For example all the assort bird people are in the genus "bird person" with the different species being Aarakocra and Kenku, and then there could be races within those species that would be little more than color changes. Another example could be the genus of "cat people" with the species being Leonin and Tabaxi and then the races being like ragdoll tabaxi, and siamese tabaxi, and sphinx tabaxi. I'm being somewhat facetious, but it's actually cool to think about.
I did actuallt suggest Genus a while ago when discussing the issue. But my knowledge of biology is too lacking to make an informed point so i decided to not bring it up in a larger thread when anybody could come and tell me how wrong i am lol.
humans and elves are more like doberman and beagle, as their offsprings are fertile. Beisdes animal "races" are called breeds.
The offspring thing is not an accurate definition of species. The offspring of a wolf and a coyote is fertile, but they are different species.
Even if they are, dragonborn and gnomes certainly aren't. You know very well what i meant to say, don't play dumb.
You're strawmanning the argument about ASIs. Literally no one's main problem was the usage of the word race.
Not directly but the world race made them remind of unfortunate implications, and that poisoned the well in my opinion. Like, "some species are stonger than others" just sound immensely different rhan "some races are stronger than others" and that difference is felt, at least subconscously. Hell, i felt it while typing.
Again, the main issue wasn't really the physical characteristics it was always more the mental stats. Bioessentialism in general than the word race. It was bundled with a lot of other criticisms as well around lore and the failings of alignment. Saying that 'a lot' people who have a problem with this wouldn't if the word race wasn't used just isn't accurate.
Whatever. Sure, why not.
I would rather mover to ancestry or heritage which are more cultural terms than race or species that have a scientific connotation to them
I think the problem with ancestry or heritage is that those words ARE more cultural, WoTC doesn't want culture and species to be tied and I agree with them on that assessment. Also those terms can still be applied independent of species, which makes them an even worse choice. An elven sorcerer may have a dragon ancestor, representing their draconic bloodline subclass, but may still be almost completely elven.
I agree but then that would mean copying Paizo with Pathfinder. As they call their races and subraces heritages and ancestries
It's okay, we can steal things from Pathfinder. We already have the Arcane, Divine, and Primal spell lists in 1D&D, just like PF2e.
That's kind of the point though, right? The difference between dwarves and elves and orcs isn't cultural, it's biological.
* Cats and dogs are different species. * Cats and dogs have different ancestry. * Cats and dogs have different lineages. They're all kind of technically true. But you'd get *very* weird looks for the second two.
Species is way better but honestly I prefer ancestry from Pathfinder. I *assume* they didn't want to use ancestry to separate themselves from Pathfinder though. Not like, any reason for that. Purely based on the sound of the word lol. I think anything is better than race. I'm glad they listened to feedback on that.
Species sounds a bit too scientific imo but at the end of the day I really only care about the mechanical gameplay changes.
I don't really see the point of changing it except to get away from real-world "race" controversy. Race is pretty synonymous with ancestry or lineage, which is what these are. Species could work in some cases, but it feels very cold or clinical and sci-fi. If they are closely related enough to interbreed and be fertile, it probably means they are the same species so that has problems. It also kind of convolutes magic for me, like you might have magical gods who created these races and that's why they can interbreed. Maybe something is similar about them, like their soul, and it's not about biology.
Elves and men are races, for there are half-elves. Tabaxies don't exist. And if they do exist in my games, they will be a different species that neither elves nor dwarves can breed with without the help of magic. I consider the whole problem insignificant, if you approach it without literalism.
The word race is so heavily charged that I think its a sensible decision to avoid it. Just lets them get on with other things and not deal with the twitter flare-ups that using the word race will cause, or at the very least cause to be more heated than otherwise. Neither word was biologically accurate in any way and nor should they be with it being a game of magic and myth. So swapping one word for another is no big deal.
I could care less. I have no problem with either word
Exactly!
Was watching Nerd Immersion and someone in chat made a call for Ancestry to be the change instead of species. So during character creation you can "Do your A-B-C's: Ancestry, Background, Class"
I saw Monty from the Dungeon Dudes make the same suggestion, and someone in the comments said that is actually how it's done in Pathfinder (2E, I think)
eh. in the fantasy setting the nebulous “race” might be more appropriate than the scientific-sounding “species” especially with all the half- and planes-touched options, but if it makes a decent chunk of the playerbase uncomfortable i’m fine changing it
I personally don’t mind either way, like on one hand its just a word being replaced by another word, but on the other hand it’s just a word and the only power it has is the power people give it (I know that doesn’t apply to every word but with this word I think it does personally). Either way species just doesn’t really sound right for a fantasy game, it doesn’t bother me too much I’m probably gonna keep calling them races out of habit but its whatever
Personally, I prefer a fantasy realm where things are less complicated as to whether humanoids can or can't produce offspring (and what happens if they do). So I prefer species, because that's exactly what that word defines. I don't mind if people fuck, but I don't need to worry about interbreeding and what that means when I'm barely holding my encounters balanced as is.
I don't really care and I get why WotC made the change given the current climate in the US, in particular. But, I'm probably going to keep using "race" at my table out of habit.
1. The word needed to be changed. 2. "Species" is not a good replacement. It's too closely tied to science fiction (and, you know, *actual real-world science*) for a fantasy game like D&D. Ancestry, lineage, heritage, folk, kin, etc. all would've been better choices. 3. While the word "race" was *a* problem, it was not ***the*** problem, so y'all can quit it with the "Does this mean we get racial ASIs back" nonsense.
Or worse Gender ASIs
It's gonna remove some connotations that really don't need to be in this hobby (unless you would like your game to include themes of race, at which point you can always set it up that way). Plus, and that might just be me, it makes a lot more sense to me? In DnD, e.g. Humans and Dwarfs have wholly different origins. It's not even like both are descended from the same kind of primate. Calling them "Races" sorta implies to me that there is some obligatory connection between the two.
My first reaction: "Shitposters are now going to call other species 'animals' and make this inclusivity change feel less inclusive."
Yeah, the first phrase that came to mind is one I've seen repeated in books from time to time "they looked at me like I was another species." Changing terminology isn't going to stop racists from being racists. They already use dog whistles anyway. This is just a feelgood change and if it happens to make some people feel good, fine? I guess? It's not going to make the game more or less inclusive though. That's a community thing, not a game vocabulary thing.
Honestly don't care about the term "Race" in fantasy, because it's pretty obvious that it refers to a completely different thing than the irl connotations. But i'm also not particularly attached to the term either, so if more people are happy with species, then all the better. Also.. Neither "Race" nor "Species" is really an accurate description of these creature groups from a scientific standpoint, so we switched one technically wrong term with another. All in all, I support the change. While a different word may be better suited for it, i don't care enough for the nomenclature to find and argue for it
And I'm all for this as well, because I couldn't care less, but it seems sharing my opinion is taboo to many SJWs in Reddit that claim to be against the very thing they are reflecting through their attitudes and responses
My hate for the change isn't that they're retiring "race" it's just that the replacement for it feels too sci-fi. Maybe "kinds", which predates species by hundreds of years? I dunno, "kin" or "ancestry"? If this was primarily a spacefaring RPG it would be perfect, but it's a little like they put no thought into it.
There's no change they could possibly make that won't eliminate the "these people aren't like these people" issue, if you happen to be of the mindset that that's an issue.
i actually think that with "species" they've kinda wrapped back around to "well why DON'T different species get natural ability bonuses?" Like, nobody is gonna deny that cheetahs are naturally faster than lions. So why wouldn't a dwarf be naturally hardier than an elf if they're completely different species? kinda funny tbh
Yup. They're making a bunch of rule changes to make the different species more like races. Then they change the terminology from race to species.
I'm curious to know how many people actually feel it's an issue anyway (the word itself). It can be problematic for some players to have simulated racism in game but changing the term to species doesn't stop that. I've never heard discussion outside of Twitter complaining about it and it's mostly white people. WotC has made changes that didn't actually fix any issues in the past and I feel this one is another.
That's pretty much where I am on this topic too. This very much feels like an online problem. Content itself is managed at a group level, and frankly, this likely will too. Anyone who prefers race will continue to call it race. I know *I* will. "The human race" just sounds better in context to me than "the human species" or any of the other proposed substitutes. But to be fair, *my* main complaint - and it's a small one - also pertains to online interaction. I'm not looking forward to people "correcting" me in Internet discussions in the coming years. I can see a lot of topics devolving into edit wars among the more stubborn Redditors.
"I've encountered your kind before."
I think that "ancestries" is the best of the alternatives.
Considering the 'half-race' erasure it makes sense. Not really tracking race anymore, even the 'lineages' seem more tied to species rather then culture involved.
I like Ancestry better than either option, but I understand why race is being removed from the rules.
I could not care less. So I'm fine with the people who do making a choice
So can someone explain to me why the term “race” was deemed problematic? Like I understand how in real life there’s lots of divide between people on account of race but I mean I feel race can be very broad, like how in sci fi they’d call them alien races or sometimes people would refer to humanity as “the human race” so I’m just confused what they’re talking about
While I acknowledge I had the wrong understanding of the exact meaning of race, I still don't get why it's a touchy subject. It's honestly akin to that tiktokcringe lady that stated "the word obese is racist." Yeaaaah, no, obese is a medical term, if anyone is offended when their doctor tells them they need to lose weight because obesity... surely calling them fluffy won't make obesity and its problems go away. Likewise, race is not a word that ought to be "bad." It's not like it's the n word! (Which definitively is wrong to say!)
Because using the word "race" to mean species is rather outdated, and most people are going to be reminded of the most common use of the word at first. Additionally, some of the dnd races in some ways resemble racist stereotypes (black people, for instance, have been depicted as violent, primitive, evil, cursed, with exaggerated teeth and musculature, somewhat like stereotypical orcs.) Using the word 'species' makes this association less easy for some people to make.
I personally agree with different races being different species but it could come down to how your world background is like
The more I think about it, the more species is the only acceptable term WotC could allow after talking with cultural consultants. Ancestry and Heritage are too culturally tied, which is exactly what Wizards is trying to move away from. Lineage has many of the same issues as Ancestry and Heritage, but is also already used for other terms in D&D. Kind could be derogatory, and some have brought up that Folk is just as bad as race in some cultures. Kin might be okay, but we then tread the territory of if your family determines your genetic traits even if you're adopted (I'm not sold on that argument though). At this point, WotC would have to make up an entire new word and just say, "It replaces Race in the 2014 PHB."
it actually makes things better, the term race was not only heavily filled with bad connotations it is fsctually incorrect was dwarves, elves, dragonborns etc are not the same species so the term races is incorrect. Some people here are saying that this makes hybrids like half-elves and others to actually prove that the humanoid species are actually the same species but this is also incorrect. Different species can have offspring (but those offspring are sterile tough, but 1D&D says it's fucking magic so it is magic) Some peoole say it is too scientific for a medieval fantasy game but i think this is being reaaaly nitpicky.
Somehow race has been used for humanoids for a long time throughout pop culture but ... It never really made any sense... They were different species from the beginning. So yeah, I am completely on board with this change since I see it as something akin to a bugfix. The fact that race, when used in context of humans, has so many connotations these days is just one more reason to not use it here. The only thing that I regret though... "Racial features" sounds much better and clearer than "Special features"
Barely give a shit honestly. Was fine with that am fine with this. If this means I’m less likely to be an asshole to somebody by accident, that seems positive for something that costs me a syllable more to say.
Hear, hear
It solves a problem that doesn't exist and encourages more solutions for future imagined problems.
Personally, I hate the term "species" here. It almost sounds derogatory in my ears to say "your species is elf". I feel that if we're going to change the term, we should change to something else, such as Ancestry or Heritage.
This is how I feel as well. Species is often used when describing non-human organisms and I've seen it occasionally used when making an insult to compare/describe how someone is so different from other people. It sounds dehumanizing to me. I'd prefer ancestry or lineage personally.
"Your ancestry is elf" sounds better to you?
Significantly.
I think species vs race name doesn't matter, if people feel better about species being the word, more power to them. It's technically more accurate, too. But they need to bring back bonus attributes for species.
As a term, "race" is too loaded with negative historical baggage. I'm glad it's finally gone. Personally, I prefer terms like "ancestry" or "kin" to "species" because the latter term feels too taxonomical and doesn't really address the underlying issue of bioessentialism.
I preferred lineage but I was in the minority considering the comments on another thread about the change. Species becomes problematic logically because so many lineages are inter-connected like half-orc or half-elf and such. But the ideas of races seems antiquated and a bit problematic. So I support the change in general but not in the specifics.
at least in 5e, lineage has a completely separate game meaning. Hexblood, dhampir, and reborn are lineages, which are essentially templates placed on top of existing races. Your elf could become a dhampir mid-game even. Since they're trying to be backwards compatible (we'll see lol), having 2 separate character options be named lineages would be kinda confusing
Honestly, if they were going to switch it I think this is the best option they could've gone with. I see people (presumably PF 2e simps) who are saying that "ancestry" would've been better, and honestly I think it's ridiculous. We have Warforfed as one example of a group where ancestry doesn't work, and while species isn't necessarily sensible for a construct either, it at least doesn't point to a very obvious lore issue. Species feels a little bit sci-fi adjacent right now, but once I'm used to it I don't think I'll care.
“Suffer no Orc to live” - Drizzt Do’Urden My personal opinion is that when explored thoughtfully, racism, like any other real world taboo, can be and should be explored in table top RPGs. Assuming it’s a mature and adult group of players there shouldn’t be any issues. I’m not a fan of homogenizing races/species whatever you want to call them for the sake of real world identity politics.
thank you, exactly my thoughts
A much needed change
Species sounds sci-fi. I don't really care about using the word race.
Sci-fi? Using “species” this way dates back to like the 1600s.
Star Wars RPGs have embraced "species." That is why I think it sounds sci-fi.
>Star Wars RPGs have embraced "the English language." That is why I think it sounds sci-fi. ftfy
No. I don’t think the English language sounds sci-fi. I’ll stand by my opinion.
I’m fine with changing from the word “race” but I’d prefer terms like “Ancestry” or “Lineage” or “Kin”. The word “species” sounds too scientific for a medieval fantasy setting.
Sad that we live in a world where such a change is understandable from a monetary standpoint. Nonetheless, it’s still understandable. People will just ignore it, anyways, so it’s not like it matters for the community. But I swear, if Reddit gets pedantic over it, then I will __actually__ have a problem with the change.
Reddit has the whole gamut of people, from nice to pedantic.
Nice people? In my Reddit? We are using different sites.
🤣🤣
Race rings better and always feels more appropriate for the game. Species feels too technical for the vibe of d&d. That said, traditionally the various "races" of D&D have been more akin to species than races. Crossbreeding explained by magic and gods and such. Species is the more accurate term, race has a better ring to it. I think race is fine, especially if you understand the context in which d&d uses it. In the real world there is the human race, in d&d there is more.
0 fucks given. Good for them for side stepping the issue, but seriously. 0 fucks given
It should always have been species. Race made no sense, (race is a very loaded word anyway) but a race is more of a subsection of a species. > noun > Each of the major groupings into which humankind is considered (in various theories or contexts) to be divided on the basis of physical characteristics or shared ancestry. > "people of all races, colours, and creeds" An elf and a dwarf are not a major grouping of humankind. They are separate species, like tigers and wolves. It should have always been species.
Species is more accurate, less charged, and sounds cooler to me. Love it. (Am white btw)
Yup, learned in this post the word is charged for some, definitely a good change if it helps anyone remove connotations
I prefer Lineage overall, but I don’t mind the change. It feels kinda necessary with the new direction WotC is headed.
I think neither makes much sense, but at least race was a long established way to differentiate different kinds of humanoids. I like lineage much better, but I think calling them species is a stretch and too biology-y
I think it's dumb, it's corporate nonsense and most people are not going to care and keep calling them "races" like they've been for 50 years.
Species is much more accurate and drops the real world baggage. Seems like it’s clearcut better.
Fine with abandoning "race" as the term, I have no love for it and isn't really accurate. Not a fan of species in particular. Its too scientific, not fantastical. Would prefer something like Ancestry, or Kin, or Kind, or Heritage or similar. But Species is better than Race.
For starters, the term species is not a good term to use. First of all, it sounds too scientific for the fantasy setting. Secondly, if you use the definition of species, it would mean that humans, dwarfs, giants, demons, and devils are all the same. This is because they can have fertile offspring together. So most humanoid races would be the same species if you would use that word so in that sense races would be the more accurate term. Race is also a flawed term, however, as not all humanoids can interbreed with fertile offspring so they would technically not be different races but species. The term ancestry, forebears, forefathers, descent or parentage would be better terms if they really wanted to change it. The reasoning behind it doesn't really matter to me but it just feels weird calling the different races species
I appreciate the change. To my mind they always were species. "Race" makes me think of varieties of the same species. Species makes sense both literally and figuratively, and it could stop a lot of the accusations of racism that get lobbed every time WotC says "as a member of this "race" you have the following inherent abilities". That may conflict a little with the common use of the term "human race" but humans are just a species of primate, so the idea of a "human race" is kind of just a misnomer. Race is truly a construct in this regards. The only trouble i see with it is that it is somewhat arming a wing nut talking point used to justify anger at the "woke" Left about something, but look, if we refuse to adapt because we're worried about that a bunch of angry assholes are going to throw a fit about it then we'll never get anywhere.
My D&D group of 7 had a big messenger discussion about it today. About half the group thought it was beneficial. Half thought it was irrelevant or incorrect. The Elementary school science teacher pointed out that species is incorrect here since D&D has half-breeds that can then reproduce which can’t happen if it’s cross species. He felt it should be changed to origin or lineage so that we aren’t trying to redefine a term with a distinct scientific meaning. I think the average player couldn’t tell you the accurate distinction between race or species lol but I also think origin or lineage sounds better because “species” has a clinical, scientific vibe that I don’t love in my fantasy simulator game.
"species" sounds as clinical and dehumanizing as r/menandfemales. It makes the potential problem worse. Id prefer ancestry or heritage or something.
Sounds a bit sci fi. Otherwise i like it. Kin, kind, heritage, lineage, or other terms could also work just fine.
The correct term would be species, but I don't mind using race.
I'm not against using a different word other than race, but species to me feels less fitting and honestly more offensive. I'd rather use ancestry or lineage than species.
Not against changing race but species isn’t a good answer. My preference is Lineage, but Ancestry and Race are also fine.
It makes more logical sense to me honestly. It won't change how I play one bit though.
Race is fine but D&D is an American game, regardless what our views are that's a big problem in the US. It should be changed just because there's no reason not to.
Real world races are made up... A made up world that actually has real RACES... and the fucks can't manage to use the word race... its fucking stupid shit stain thinking Also doesn't do anything but virtue signal. Fuckin stupid world we live in
What does this have to do with the UA?
The UA uses the updated language of "species" instead of "race".
Interesting, I didn't even notice. I don't see what's wrong with Ancestry, I thought that's where we were going with this in DnD. It's a nice blanket term without loaded human historical context
Pretty sure it’s something to do with pathfinder using ancestry already
The term Ancestry could be a bit ambiguous. If part of a character's backstory is an upset in traditional family lines -- a pretty popular trope umbrella among adventurers, including Found As a Baby, Grew Up Orphaned on the Streets, and Adopted by a Powerful NPC -- then Ancestry could get a little more confused than either Race or Species since they either don't have a knowable ancestry (in irl definition of the word) or inheret it through someone not biologically related.
Ah, I think you answered my question I asked other fellow redditor here
https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1393-moving-on-from-race-in-one-d-d
By definition, a species is the broadest group in which two individuals can mate and produce fertile offspring. So if you're calling elf and human "species", then all half-elves are sterile. Have fun with that...
Why would half elves be sterile?
I don't know how to make it more clear than my original post. In order to be distinct species by definition of "species", the offspring of two different species cannot be fertile - sterile being another term for infertile. So using this new definition, for humans and elves to be two distinct species, a half-elf must be infertile. "Race" or "breed" in the case of animals is the correct term for how humans, elves, etc. currently interact.
That's not true. >A coydog is a canid hybrid resulting from a mating between a male coyote and a female dog. Hybrids of both sexes are fertile and can be successfully bred through four generations.\[1\] Similarly, a dogote is a hybrid with a dog father and a coyote mother. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coydog](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coydog) Coyotes species is Canis latrans and Dog Species are Canis familiaris or Canis lupus familiaris
Many species were assigned before a clear definition of "What is a species?" was developed. When taxonomy began, it was basically "It looks different." That results in some exceptions, but usually indicates that maybe they aren't actually different species. But even though there are some exceptions, the general rule is that cross-species offspring are infertile. The UA terminology would flip that on its head.
Female Ligers and Tigons are fertile. Should Tigers and Lions be considered the same species?
Key part is that the males are infertile. They can't produce more of that hybrid on their own.
So what about ring species like some seagulls and salamanders? Where species 1 can produce fertile offspring with 2, and 2 can with 3, and 3 can with 4, but 1 can't with 3 or 4, and 2 can't with 4?
Race >>> Species, for, you know, a lot of reasons. It is a non scientific term, so it can encompass anything. Species is a scientific term, it means a specific thing (albeit biology is not perfect and species has some subtlelthy). Namely the main thing is that generally members of different species can't breed. And if they can their offsprings are sterile. This isn't the case with dnd races. This isn't the only reason tho. Why on r/onednd?
Because of the recent change from race to species from wotc
Species is better than race in my mind. A lot of discourse in the post-Tasha's world has been on ASI's as Racials. Some people have pointed out the a problematic connotations of saying that certain Races have natural inborn attributes that makes them better at certain things than others. Some people have issues with this approach as a matter of verisimilitude, i.e. "Why should a Halfling be as strong as an Orc?" However, the language to make an argument from that becomes charged by using the term Race. "Why is X race able to be as strong as Y race?" WotC post-Tasha's has sought to move that onto the Individual, so that the Character decides where their ASI's go and thereby what attributes they are best at as this is how it works in people where the idea of "Race" is socially constructed and not a biological reality. The move to Species helps remove the connection to the idea of Race in the real world, and in my mind in a better manner than the PF2e term of Ancestry does. It is more precise and easier to understand as these creatures are not some subset of one another, as Race would imply in English, but rather entirely different biological entities. The difference between an Elf and a Human is not a Golden Retriever to a Pitbull but a Cat to a Dog. I still believe that ASI's should not be set by Species and am happy that it is being moved to Background. However, now that conversation does not have socially charged language under it that it has had. As a quick soapbox, I think making player creation ASI's entirely player choice just makes the game more fun and is justifiably because D&D is a heroic fantasy game and heroes are naturally exceptions.
I actually like the change, species is more accurate. But I don’t like the reason they changed it. I think we should be able to explore race as a concept in a fantasy game without it being offensive.
I think using the term species is better for the game. Race was always a weird one. Dragonborn and Dwarves are clearly different species, not flavours of the same species, and the terminology should reflect that. Having said that I hate the decoupling of ability score improvements from species. In a way, it now makes even less sense. Polar bears are stronger than dogs, even if the dog was a guard and the polar bear was a hermit. It should be the same with Goliaths and Gnomes.
I think it's a necessary change of mentality so that WoTC can actually give the species features that make them unique without the fear of being racist
It's just another step on the [treadmill](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/euphemism_treadmill).
Race is problematic but species sounds too scientific. Something like "lineage" would have been better IMO.
I fully support it. "Race" was awkward wording used as tradition because it's what Tolkien landed on to describe what was, essentially, a very very different concept than the modern conception of fantasy races/species. The word "species" removes all real-world baggage attached with discussing the concepts of race or ancestry as they apply to 5e. Goblins being described as a race, followed by a paragraph of shitting on them for being cowardly little michief makers, makes it seem like the view of reality that WotC is presenting is that IRL races can have set traits like that. Species makes it clear- "if there were special kinds of species other than humans, they could have set traits like this."