They should do what Pathfinder 2e did with their character creation: (A)ncestry, (B)ackground, (C)lass. The ABC's of character creation . . . . it rolls with the tongue.
This. D&D 5e already does Background and Class, so I'd be super into them adopting the Ancestry term. It makes you think about your character more, too, and starts building out the history from the start.They should do what Pathfinder 2e did with their character creation: (A)ncestry, (B)ackground, (C)lass. The ABC's of character creation . . . . it rolls with the tongue.
ah i see gotcha, yeah species would work.In D&D where you can play a fire person or a fish person, i don't think culture would fit much to characterize them. As it's much more tied to their genetics (or a different plane of existence entirely) than the where and how they where raised.
I like Kin personnaly. But species fit too i guess.
They should do what Pathfinder 2e did with their character creation: (A)ncestry, (B)ackground, (C)lass. The ABC's of character creation . . . . it rolls with the tongue.
I mean given that half-elves and half-dwarves exist, and that tieflings are just humans whose ancestors made deals with devils, I think delineation between species (individuals incapable of bearing fertile offspring by biology or geography) would be an incorrect descriptor.
Moreover, a big criticism of D&D is with the biological determinism, and using the label "species" would only further justify that (i.e. nobody argues that humans are not as strong as gorillas).
IIRC, there's evidence of some genetic reproductive barriers between neanderthals and Homo sapiens.I don't think species is the right word either, but not for this reason. "Species" in real life is useful in designating populations of animals, but there's no universal definition and often arbitrary. See: Coyote/Wolves and a hundred other examples. (Even from a human stand point, whether Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens Sapiens should be considered the same species (despite fitting all the traditional qualifications) is controversial.)
I don't think species is the right word either, but not for this reason. "Species" in real life is useful in designating populations of animals, but there's no universal definition and often arbitrary. See: Coyote/Wolves and a hundred other examples. (Even from a human stand point, whether Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens Sapiens should be considered the same species (despite fitting all the traditional qualifications) is controversial.)
I could be wrong, but I don't think the issues are that physical differences exist at all. I don't see a problem with saying, on average, an Orc is stronger than a halfling. The issue is coding the Orc as a stereotypically non-white European based on Victorian era concepts of Race that still exist to marginalize and other people today. Or the idea that dark skinned races like Drow are inherently evil compared to their lighter skinned counterpart (as well as the fact that even the "good" drow are treated as one of the "good ones" and are coded as being morally superior because they act like the lighter skinned races, rather than possessing their own unique culture.
Yeah. It pretty much has to be species to really get across what the races in DnD really are.In D&D where you can play a fire person or a fish person, i don't think culture would fit much to characterize them. As it's much more tied to their genetics (or a different plane of existence entirely) than the where and how they where raised.
I like Kin personnaly. But species fit too i guess.
Ancestry is the best word to substitute imo. Good on them in any case.
"Who are your Folk?" "What are your Kin?"Ancestry is the only thing that really works. "Species" sounds scientific, which D&D is not. "What's your kin" and "What's your folk" just sounds off. Origin and culture could be confused with character Background.
In that case, I like folk.My problem with ancestry is that it's even more cumbersome than species. It works fine one a character sheet, but people are just gonna shorthand back to race in conversation. Tell me this doesn't happen in Pathfinder all the time.
It needs to be something pithy and casual
Ancestry is the best word to substitute imo. Good on them in any case.
PoE uses "kith" to refer to the "sentient" races in the world. I always thought that was a concise and flavorful word choice.My problem with ancestry is that it's even more cumbersome than species. It works fine one a character sheet, but people are just gonna shorthand back to race in conversation. Tell me this doesn't happen in Pathfinder all the time.
It needs to be something pithy and casual
I happily stand corrected very good points.My problem with ancestry is that it's even more cumbersome than species. It works fine one a character sheet, but people are just gonna shorthand back to race in conversation. Tell me this doesn't happen in Pathfinder all the time.
It needs to be something pithy and casual
This would be a good choice as well, weighty but succinct.PoE uses "kith" to refer to the "sentient" races in the world. I always thought that was a concise and flavorful word choice.
Cool post.Speaking as a professor/researcher who studies evolution, ecology (and cancer), I wanted to point out three things:
That all being said, to replace the term "race," I personally like "ancestry" best. It sounds medieval to my ear, and doesn't imply any assumptions. While I love the sound of "kith" it actually means friends and associates, and is contrasted with "kin" which means relatives. So kith would be misleading.
- Drow ought to be white (albino actually). Organisms that evolve in caves quickly lose pigmentation. Now, given dark vision, this might not necessarily hold, but it would be a reasonable way to improve realism and remove the racist trope of "black is evil".
- As someone who has published on the concept of species IRL, I can address what Lesath and Tabaxi have been debating. Both are right. There is no clear, unambiguous, universally useful definition of species. That is not to say that a species concept is meaningless (it's not merely a cultural construct). Organisms do tend to cluster together with shared features, and this is largely because of reproductive barriers. So, ability to interbreed, as Lesath pointed out, is the core of the species concept that is mostly used by biologists. However, as Tabaxi points out, there are hybrids in nature, and some are fertile (e.g. dogs and wolves can produce viable puppies). However, even if dogs and wolves can interbreed, that doesn't necessarily mean they are the same species. Often the hybrids are less successful than either parental species (wolves and dogs have very different strategies for survival, and a wolf-dog hybrid might suck at both strategies). That being said, it seems like half-elves and half-orcs do just fine. If your world does not include ¼ elves, ¾ elves, ¼ orcs, etc., then perhaps half-elves and half-orcs are sterile in your world, and they really are different biological species. However, if half-elves and half-orcs are fertile and can freely interbreed with elves, humans and/orcs, this would argue that elves, humans and orcs are all part of the same species (from a biologist's perspective) with a wide variation in features ("phenotypes"). This would also imply that orcs should express a full spectrum of moral capacity and choice (good to evil), just like humans and elves.
- Now, from a storyteller's perspective, I get it that sometimes we don't want to tell stories of moral ambiguity, and there is a need sometimes for an unambiguously evil enemy. I'm fine with that, as long as it doesn't reinforce racist stereotypes.
Cool post.
Are half-orc half-humans sterile? Is it mentioned anywhere?
Otherwise you'd expect there to be a wide spectrum of people having some mixed ancestry. I suppose you could say that intermixing is super rare or only started recently.
I haven't played DnD in like 15 years so I have no idea what the lore is