PDA

View Full Version : "Race" - offensive? Alternate terms?



Altair_the_Vexed
2017-06-10, 03:43 AM
I'm concerned that using "race" to refer to other speciies in games might be offensive to some people - but I'm not sure if it's really a thing, so I'd like to tap into the wisdom of the Playground!

In many fantasy and sci-fi games we use "race" to refer to other species - halflings, elves, vulcans, whatever.

In real-life, the term "race" has historical meanings to do with ethnicity. We still use the term "racism" to refer to discrimination on ethnic grounds.

Because I'm a liberal middle-class white bloke living in a conservative part of my country, I'm not sure if anyone is actually offended by that term, or if I'm just being too cautious.

So - please let me know if:


You think "race" is offensive to use for other species
You DON'T think "race" is offensive to use that way
You never really thought about it before - but now you think it might be offensive
You never really thought about it before - and now you think I'm being over-sensitive


Please also feel free to expand on the topic. But let's be careful and sensitive! It would be easy to stray into discussing genuinely offensive things with a topic like this!

---

EDIT: I've never know a question to generate so much bile!

Here's a summary of the responses so far:

Yes it is: 6
No it isn't: 6
No it isn't - but it is wrong: 9
No it isn't - and I'm going to insult you for asking: 14
No it isn't - and I'm going to use racist terminology to explain why I'm right: 16
Dunno - but I'm not sure the term is right: 10
I'm just going to talk about D&D examples: 11

Disclaimer: a subjective assessment of responses.

Dappershire
2017-06-10, 03:55 AM
I mean, it never hurts to ask, but its a literal definition.


a : a family, tribe, people, or nation belonging to the same stock
b : a class or kind of people unified by shared interests, habits, or characteristics
c : an actually or potentially interbreeding group within a species; also a taxonomic category (such as a subspecies) representing such a group
d: a category of humankind that shares certain distinctive physical traits


So using it to speak of dwarves and trolls and fairies, etc, is proper.
Using it to describe a subset might be rude (Example: "I hate the whole Lincoln Tunnel Dwarven race!") because it denotes that they aren't real members of that race (in example, dwarves). But as that is what racism is, and given the reality of most RPGs as a whole, racism isn't something that has disappeared. I say just role (heh) with it.
Its not as if it isn't in our movies, video games, and comics. All the snotty remarks about elves and dwarves in LOTR. Ghouls in Fallout 4. Mutants in Marvel.

hymer
2017-06-10, 04:04 AM
You think "race" is offensive to use for other species
Potentially, but not generally. But using 'race' when talking about a different species is just a bad habit we need to drop, just like talking about 'the human race', which makes no sense.


You DON'T think "race" is offensive to use that way
As said above, it can be offensive, but needn't be. As for irritating, though....


You never really thought about it before - but now you think it might be offensive
What little I have thought about it is entirely overshadowed by how I don't like the term for its inaccuracy.


You never really thought about it before - and now you think I'm being over-sensitive
I guess you could oversensitive, but better to be a little too sensitive than a little too blunt. And while you're at it, get a better term, because it sucks unequivocally for a clear reason. :smallsmile:

Coidzor
2017-06-10, 04:12 AM
I'm concerned that using "race" to refer to other speciies in games might be offensive to some people

Who? Why? What?


Because I'm a liberal middle-class white bloke living in a conservative part of my country, I'm not sure if anyone is actually offended by that term, or if I'm just being too cautious.

You're being overly cautious and a bit alarmist, yes.



You think "race" is offensive to use for other species
You DON'T think "race" is offensive to use that way
You never really thought about it before - but now you think it might be offensive
You never really thought about it before - and now you think I'm being over-sensitive


No. Unless you're one of those kinds of people who find inaccuracy offensive.

Using the word "race" isn't inherently anything. Well, I guess it's inherently an English word so one has spoken English in order to say the word.

This has never come up before, and I've been in threads that devolved into mud-slinging over the coloration of Drow. Be more concerned with your attitude and how you actually treat people, rather than seeing potential controversy in innocuous terms.


Using it to describe a subset might be rude (Example: "I hate the whole Lincoln Tunnel Dwarven race!") because it denotes that they aren't real members of that race (in example, dwarves). But as that is what racism is, and given the reality of most RPGs as a whole, racism isn't something that has disappeared. I say just role (heh) with it.
Its not as if it isn't in our movies, video games, and comics. All the snotty remarks about elves and dwarves in LOTR. Ghouls in Fallout 4. Mutants in Marvel.

If someone makes a racist statement while referring to a race as a race, the offensive part isn't the use of the word "race," it's the actual sentiment expressed by the statement.

Bogwoppit
2017-06-10, 04:29 AM
I never really thought about it before - but now I'm worried.

Mastikator
2017-06-10, 04:33 AM
If you're talking about humans vs elves then race is the correct term, half elves are a thing. Humans and orcs are not different species either, because of half orcs. Humans and goblins are different species.

I have thought of this before, if race should really be used so much for every thing, but not from the angle of "is this offensive to someone?". Words can't be objectively offensive, it all matters on the context and to whom, you just have to be ever vigilant and ever thoughtful. There are no easy answers.

Lazymancer
2017-06-10, 05:11 AM
I'm concerned that using "race" to refer to other speciies in games might be offensive to some people - but I'm not sure if it's really a thing, so I'd like to tap into the wisdom of the Playground!
This is EU speaking. Since we've gone all Nazi here and IRL race is somehow relevant: white EU.

What I find offensive is the crypto-Fascist pandering to the "political correctness". If you don't like the term "race", change it to "species" (as Fantasy Craft did, for example). Why turn this into witch-hunt/circus?

Satinavian
2017-06-10, 05:22 AM
If you're talking about humans vs elves then race is the correct term, half elves are a thing. Humans and orcs are not different species either, because of half orcs. Humans and goblins are different species.

I have thought of this before, if race should really be used so much for every thing, but not from the angle of "is this offensive to someone?". Words can't be objectively offensive, it all matters on the context and to whom, you just have to be ever vigilant and ever thoughtful. There are no easy answers.Superficially that might work, but if both Orcs and Elvves are just human races, where are the Elf/Orc-Hybrids ?

Also, half-Anything existing might not be enough considering that Fantasy authors like to introduce halfs without regard for biology. Halfogres, Halfgiants, Halfdragons, Halffiends, Halffeys, Halfvampires, even Halfelementals. To declare Elemantas, Humans and dragons the same species because of that might be a tatd too far.

Finally as real life Lion-Tiger-Offspring shows, capability to have offspring, even fertile offspring is not neccessarily enough to be considered subspecies or races instead of species.

Frozen_Feet
2017-06-10, 05:49 AM
Race is neither offensive nor incorrect for most fantastic species - both because they technically are races of a larger species, or because of archaic language conventions using it as a synonym for species (see: human race). The word "race" in fantasy games rarely refers to different human races.

However, at many occasions it's just as correct or more to refer to fantastic humanoids as different species. Breeds is another possible term, as is kin.

Eldan
2017-06-10, 05:58 AM
Superficially that might work, but if both Orcs and Elvves are just human races, where are the Elf/Orc-Hybrids ?


Humanoids are a ring species, duh.

Anyway, regardless of correctness, if you don't want to use race... kind? Folk? People? Elvenfolk, halfling kind, dwarven people?

Millstone85
2017-06-10, 06:20 AM
If you replace race with species or whatever, you will just have changed the word to add -ism after.

What people really complain about is the premise that certain creatures have a population that is entirely evil, predominantly evil or just generally more evil than humans, because their ancestors were created by an evil god, or because they have inherited a demonic taint, or some such.

It means that fantasy characters are very much right to distrust their neighbors on the basis of their birth. Accepting an orc in our village? That would be unwise. Accepting an illithid? You must be out of your freaking mind!

And as adventurers, it is often the job of the PCs to, well, cleanse an area.

Millstone85
2017-06-10, 07:21 AM
Millstone85: Illithids literally feed on human brains. Wouldn't hating all illithids would be closer to hating all mosquitos?This kind of biological imperative falls under the "or some such" of my previous post.

It does challenge the notion of moral responsibility, and thus of evil. But, paradoxically, so does bearing the taint of an embodiment of evil, as 5e gnolls do. Not much free will there.

That changes nothing to the problem. Your character meets a man-sized mosquito. This is a sentient sapient creature with interesting theories on the nature of gravity. And your character must kill it on sight, or s/he is too dumb to live.

It sends all kind of weird messages when the players try to make a parallel with the real world.

...

And your message disappeared while I was typing the answer. I would complain but I have done it too. Anyway, I will still post this because it is guaranteed someone else will say that about illithids.

Lazymancer
2017-06-10, 07:22 AM
And as adventurers, it is often the job of the PCs to, well, cleanse an area.
Yeah. One of the more recent run-ins I had was the first part of Jade Regent AP - it should've been called die Endlösung die Goblinfrage: sheriff restores "goblin bounty" of 10 gp per sufficiently fresh goblin ear, since some goblins attacked merchants. I was slightly perplexed by this, since goblins are practically PC race (not even dumb: dwarf-level penalty to Charisma) and sheriff was Chaotic Good.

At least it wasn't scalping.

JNAProductions
2017-06-10, 07:48 AM
I'd use specie instead of race, just because it's more technically accurate. Race would be a subset of species (for instance, there's the species Givfunen, but they have three major races-the blue, green, and purple Givfunens).

Overall, I'm sure SOMEONE would be offended by it, but someone else will be offended by you specifically AVOIDING the word race. So long as you aren't actually being a jerk about it (for instance, making a weak and stupid species a racial stereotype-or, honestly, making ANY species a racial stereotype) you should be fine.

Frozen_Feet
2017-06-10, 08:38 AM
It sends all kind of weird messages when the players try to make a parallel with the real world.

We had another entire thread about this topic, but to paraphrase: there is no real world parallel. It's a space whale aesop. Unless you can somehow prove fictional genocide of surreal creatures promotes real *******ry, it's a useless thing to worry about.

Millstone85
2017-06-10, 08:54 AM
We had another entire thread about this topic, but to paraphrase: there is no real world parallel. It's a space whale aesop. Unless you can somehow prove fictional genocide of surreal creatures promotes real *******ry, it's a useless thing to worry about.And I agree with that conclusion. Let monsters be monstrous. Do not systematically try to make humans the real monsters.

Yet that thread, or one of many similar ones, was longer and more divisive than I have seen "fantasy race / fantasy species" be.

So if the OP is worried about being offensive, I thought I would mention the bigger fish.

VoxRationis
2017-06-10, 09:15 AM
I doubt it's really offensive, particularly within the gaming subculture. The thing with "species" is that it sounds too modern, too scientific, to use in most fantasy settings. If you want a different archaic term that's less loaded, you could say gens, although that can also mean "clan" or "noble house". You could go with English "kind," and by extension from that term, "sort" might work informally. Terms like "people" or "folk" probably aren't great except in contexts where you want to play up social/cultural differences rather than biological ones.

Nifft
2017-06-10, 09:29 AM
I don't find the word "race" to be problematic for fantasy races.


Some fantasy races are NOT species, of course:
- Warforged
- Vampires
- 3.5e Dragonborn / Arcana Evolved Mojh
- etc.

... so just swapping the words around doesn't actually increase accuracy.

Blackhawk748
2017-06-10, 09:34 AM
Superficially that might work, but if both Orcs and Elvves are just human races, where are the Elf/Orc-Hybrids ?

In Kingdoms of Kalamar: Dangerous Denizens, they are called the Tel-Amhothlen

Koo Rehtorb
2017-06-10, 10:07 AM
I wouldn't say it's offensive so much as a little bit uncomfortable. But the term is so widely spread in the culture that I don't think it's a huge deal. Something a few games do that I really like is use the word "stock" instead.

Malimar
2017-06-10, 11:17 AM
"Race" is not offensive, but it is confusing and incoherent and not very accurate.

I wrote a blog post (http://luduscarcerum.blogspot.com/2012/06/race-problem.html) about this question awhile back, let's see if I still agree with anything I said then...

Hm, yes, I think this blog post is mostly reasonable. Skip the last section, about the "fairly complete D&D taxonomy", that's muddled incoherent garbage. But the rest of it is mostly fair points.

tl;dr: drop "race" and "species" altogether as muddled and incoherent in a fantasy setting; instead use "ethnicity" for what we'd call "race" on Earth and use "kind" for the distinction between elves and orcs and humans and so on.

Max_Killjoy
2017-06-10, 11:18 AM
If you're talking about humans vs elves then race is the correct term, half elves are a thing. Humans and orcs are not different species either, because of half orcs. Humans and goblins are different species.


So lions and tigers aren't different species?

Yora
2017-06-10, 11:40 AM
Aparently they are not. Taxonomy is a complicated and somewhat arbitrary field. In botany we have to put up with new classifications of common plants all the time. It turned out that the geranium species is not actually a member of the geranium genus, which it gave its name, but belongs to pelargonium. Taxonomy is a spectrum and any lines you draw to separate individuals are based on arbitrarily chosen traits. And actual organisms tend to feel no compulsion to follow those arbitrary definitions.

For my fantasy humanoids, I tend to go with peoples.

Max_Killjoy
2017-06-10, 11:54 AM
Aparently they are not. Taxonomy is a complicated and somewhat arbitrary field. In botany we have to put up with new classifications of common plants all the time. It turned out that the geranium species is not actually a member of the geranium genus, which it gave its name, but belongs to pelargonium. Taxonomy is a spectrum and any lines you draw to separate individuals are based on arbitrarily chosen traits. And actual organisms tend to feel no compulsion to follow those arbitrary definitions.

For my fantasy humanoids, I tend to go with peoples.


One of my fantasy settings specifically uses "people". Sun People. Moon People. Storm People. Star People. Earth People.


But when it comes to "species", I'd say that "can't interbreed at all" isn't a good working definition. Lions and tigers certainly aren't the same species, but they can interbreed (though the offspring are IIRC almost always themselves infertile).

Kitten Champion
2017-06-10, 12:09 PM
I think where fantasy races and any form of Other in fiction or roleplaying games have their issues - though the Always Alignment concept is problematic to many on an existential level as well - is where fantasy race X is perceived to be an analogue for a real world peoples. Native American Elves, Mongolian Orcs, Japanese Dwarves, and so on. Doing so can invite criticism on oneself - fair or not - based on their depiction. More broadly speaking, there's also the basic idea of you literally alienating a peoples by making them genuinely non-human in your fantasy world.

Whether you use the term "Race" or something else to describe your different fantasy peoples however is in and of itself rather... insignificant, I suppose. They're the same whatever label you put on them, and in my experience the term "Race" is only used within the mechanical discourse of the RPG. Ya'know, when filling out the character sheet or describing racial skills.

Beleriphon
2017-06-10, 12:13 PM
One of my fantasy settings specifically uses "people". Sun People. Moon People. Storm People. Star People. Earth People.


But when it comes to "species", I'd say that "can't interbreed at all" isn't a good working definition. Lions and tigers certainly aren't the same species, but they can interbreed (though the offspring are IIRC almost always themselves infertile).

I think the more useful definition of species are the offspring of breeding in themselves fertile. Which lions and tigers producing offspring are not, just like mules aren't fertile but horse and donkey's can breed. Keep in mind as well that lions and tigers aren't that different at a chromosome level, but good luck breeding a cheetah and a lion. Incidentally, house cats and big cats like tigers can produce offspring so anybody want a tabby the size of a tiger?

At any rate I'll use race to denote to different kinds of humanoids, but not two different variants of the same humanoid. From a straight up biology perspective humans with different skin colours aren't different enough from each other to qualify as a biological race, socially that's a different issue entirely.

Honest Tiefling
2017-06-10, 12:42 PM
I'd say just use race. I don't think it is a good idea to change things because you think they might be well, racist. If you are really worried about the topic, become informed. Read articles. Do some research. It's good to be mindful of these things, but I wouldn't say it is racist or fine without at least considering some arguments for and against.

Don't assume what people will and will not be offended by. I don't think you're being over-sensitive (the weirdest **** can be seen as offensive in hindsight). I just think you're going about it the wrong way. Yes, you are gathering opinions, but we're crazy internet people. That's not the best way to often tackle these issues.

Or just plain ask anyone at the table if they are offended by the term and offer to change it if they are if you are feeling particularly lazy.


Potentially, but not generally. But using 'race' when talking about a different species is just a bad habit we need to drop, just like talking about 'the human race', which makes no sense.

Well, it kinda does when you realize that not all of us have 100% homo sapiens DNA. The definition of a species tend to crash and burn when you consider the human tendency to try to screw neighboring people...

Vinyadan
2017-06-10, 12:46 PM
"Race" is a pretty weird word. It has a lot of different meanings and a lot of synonyms. It means something like "kind", but it has been loaded with first a rather neutral ethnological overtone, then with openly racist philosophies with practical results.
While I think that especially the scientific or pseudoscientific use it has received makes it ill-suited for medieval fantasy (the word itself didn't exist in the middle ages, and its origin is unknown), it's also true that its meaning per se isn't insulting or endorsing racism. I also think that swapping it with species is just a fig leaf and an equally ill-suited word. Ethnicity doesn't overlap with race, and is also imho ill suited (I think it breaks character when a middle ages man talks like an xviii century ethnologist, a xvii century naturalist or a xxi century social studies student). I think that people is the best option.

Beleriphon
2017-06-10, 01:51 PM
I think you can with a few options: homotypes or anthrotypes for anything humanish (elves, dwarves, goblins, etc.) works well for modernish/sci-fi inspired games. Fantasy the Races of X works as well, in that you're basically lumping all elves, all dwarves, humans and what not into separate groups.

Mastikator
2017-06-10, 02:44 PM
Superficially that might work, but if both Orcs and Elvves are just human races, where are the Elf/Orc-Hybrids ?

Also, half-Anything existing might not be enough considering that Fantasy authors like to introduce halfs without regard for biology. Halfogres, Halfgiants, Halfdragons, Halffiends, Halffeys, Halfvampires, even Halfelementals. To declare Elemantas, Humans and dragons the same species because of that might be a tatd too far.

Finally as real life Lion-Tiger-Offspring shows, capability to have offspring, even fertile offspring is not neccessarily enough to be considered subspecies or races instead of species.

Dragons and demons can mate with anything because they are shape shifters, so that says absolutely nothing about whether something is biologically related.
Vampirism is not a species or a race, it's a condition, a disease. It also says absolutely nothing about relation.
Half elementals is the result of magic, not natural procreation, so again, it says nothing about biological relation.

Also +1 to Eldan for the ring species comment. It explains everything. Humans, elves, orcs, dwarves, hobbits, gnomes are all the same species, but only along a certain line.
Hell you could even go further, orc -> bugbear -> hobgoblin -> goblin
also orc -> bugbear -> ogre -> giant

All part of the same genus but not necessarily the same species across the entire length.

Nifft
2017-06-10, 02:57 PM
Dragons and demons can mate with anything because they are shape shifters, so that says absolutely nothing about whether something is biologically related.
Species is a poor word for what "race" denotes.

More examples where the word "species" fails utterly:

- Warforged
- Maug
- 3.5e Dragonborn
- Arcana Evolved Mojh
- Lantern Archon
- Brain in a Jar (the undead creature)
- Awakened Tree
- Rampant AI (Shadowrun)
- Formerly-human cortical stack uploaded into an octomorph sleeve (Eclipse Phase)

... all of those get written on the character sheet in the "race" box.

= = =

Anyway, let's drop "species" and try to think of a replacement word which is a better fit than "race".

It's tough -- "race" has the massive advantage of historical precedent.

Perhaps:

Nature ("type of being")
Nurture ("background / class")


... or:

Intrinsic Type
Extrinsic Training


... or even:

You Didn't Ask For This (race)
The Choices You Made (class)

dps
2017-06-10, 04:00 PM
Terms like "people" or "folk" probably aren't great except in contexts where you want to play up social/cultural differences rather than biological ones.

Given the widespread interbreeding (with fertile offspring) we often get in fantasy, arguably different fantasy "races" are more different cultures and societies than they are different species. Which would make the term "race" in this context more problematic. OTOH, I wouldn't worry about it, as I've never seen the term used in-game by a gamer (as opposed to a game character) with a negative connotation.

Lemmy
2017-06-10, 05:06 PM
:smallsigh:

No. It is not.

Why would it be?

Noje
2017-06-10, 05:28 PM
I don't see how someone could get offended (OOC) if you are discriminating a race that doesn't exist. That would be like getting offended by the way humans react to the bugs in Starship Troopers. In character, this could make for an interesting story arc. But if people are getting offended out of character, they are taking the game way too seriously.

Guizonde
2017-06-10, 05:29 PM
alright, i think the problem is not the word "race", but with context.

in the real world, "race" is a pretty loaded word nowadays, and it will mostly devolve into a sterile political debate. so let's not get into that.

in fantasy speak, though, "race" is akin to "species". there are of course different species (orks, humans, elves, dwarves, what have you's...), and i refuse to believe that an ork and a halfling are genetically the same race or species. does it mean i am a racist for hating elves and loving dwarves? yeah, probably. it also makes me a xenophile. dwarves as a species/race are horribly xenophobic, hating anything green or with pointy ears (with the exception of halflings, depending on physical interpretation). elves are widely seen as snooty supremacists, disliking/distrusting anything not elven.

and that's ok because this is fantasy land where there are no parallels with the real world! of course, some idiots will always go on ahead and choose sides and bring reality to the table (please look at youtube comments regarding the stormcloaks vs the empire in skyrim lore videos), but that's both a) not applicable or b) the designer's intent (exceptions apply, for example fatal, rahowa... but those rpg's are made by overt racists and supremacists).

i'd argue a pen and paper gamer is racist by default, or else they would not be able to reason why different races have different stat blocks. now, i've always had a problem with the concept of "racism", since that implies there are more than one human races. it may be silly, but for me it sounds better for a dude that hates dogs to be racist, since it's not the same race of animals.

i'd say, don't think about it too much. you're playing for fun, not political correctness. besides, is there still a moral panic about pen and paper going on or are we finally just a bunch of nerds? last time i was accused of being a satanist for playing dnd was back in 2009. in any case, it's probably not exactly good to say in polite company you're a pen and paper player.

Coidzor
2017-06-10, 05:44 PM
I wouldn't say it's offensive so much as a little bit uncomfortable. But the term is so widely spread in the culture that I don't think it's a huge deal.

What on earth is uncomfortable about saying or writing or reading the word?


Something a few games do that I really like is use the word "stock" instead.

That doesn't really seem like it shoulslot in to English as a substitute, without adding in a lot more wordiness or using less fantastic creatures and instead sticking to basically just variations of different types of human or smeerpf or Street Shark or Thundaran.

Can you provide some examples of how they manage to make that work?


Yeah. One of the more recent run-ins I had was the first part of Jade Regent AP - it should've been called die Endlösung die Goblinfrage: sheriff restores "goblin bounty" of 10 gp per sufficiently fresh goblin ear, since some goblins attacked merchants. I was slightly perplexed by this, since goblins are practically PC race (not even dumb: dwarf-level penalty to Charisma) and sheriff was Chaotic Good.

At least it wasn't scalping.

Golarion's treatment of gobbos is delightfully disjointed and weird.

First they paint them as a race of invariably insane pyromaniacal, football-headed idiots. Then they offer goblins as a PC race with no real explanation for how one is able to function as a PC doing really any of the things PCs do.

:smallconfused:


I think where fantasy races and any form of Other in fiction or roleplaying games have their issues - though the Always Alignment concept is problematic to many on an existential level as well - is where fantasy race X is perceived to be an analogue for a real world peoples. Native American Elves, Mongolian Orcs, Japanese Dwarves, and so on. Doing so can invite criticism on oneself - fair or not - based on their depiction. More broadly speaking, there's also the basic idea of you literally alienating a peoples by making them genuinely non-human in your fantasy world.

Whether you use the term "Race" or something else to describe your different fantasy peoples however is in and of itself rather... insignificant, I suppose. They're the same whatever label you put on them, and in my experience the term "Race" is only used within the mechanical discourse of the RPG. Ya'know, when filling out the character sheet or describing racial skills.

Oh, I see how it is. Vaguely Scotch-Norse Dwarves are OK, but the moment they're included in an East Asia-themed setting, then it's racist. :smalltongue:


I don't see how someone could get offended (OOC) if you are discriminating a race that doesn't exist. That would be like getting offended by the way humans react to the bugs in Starship Troopers. In character, this could make for an interesting story arc. But if people are getting offended out of character, they are taking the game way too seriously.

The OP's question isn't even about actual racism at the table or even in game lore, though, just the fact that the rules, character sheets, etc. use the word "race."


also orc -> bugbear -> ogre -> giant

All part of the same genus but not necessarily the same species across the entire length.

IIRC, Orcs can more commonly breed with Ogres than they can with bugbears. I think that's where one variety of orog comes from.

Mechalich
2017-06-10, 06:20 PM
Race, in fantasy settings, and especially in D&D, should be dropped, because it is tied to extremely old-fashioned ideas about ethnicity that are offensive and as such the way 'races' are divided in D&D gives voice to the legacy of an outdated worldview.

Species is reasonably accurate to refer to the 'races' of D&D and many other fantasy settings. Yes they can and do interbreed and produce fertile offspring. So do any number of species in the real world. The biological species concept of Ernst Mayr is the be all and end all of species differentiation, especially in the modern era with genetic measures to delineate populations. Additionally, much D&D-style interspecies crosses are magically mediated (ex. Aasimar and Tieflings) and defy common biological principles anyway. Ethnicity or ethnic group maps best to 'sub-races' as found throughout many settings very effectively.

Honest Tiefling
2017-06-10, 06:25 PM
Ethnicity or ethnic group maps best to 'sub-races' as found throughout many settings very effectively.

No, it really doesn't. A half-orc, a tiefling, a demon and a tribe of vampiric draconic kender could all be the same ethnicity. Ethnicity is one's culture, and does not anything to do with their heritage or species. Using the term in place of race will just create confusion in your players as they'll wonder why all gnomes have vastly different cultural norms then every human despite occupying the same city and working together.

Nifft
2017-06-10, 06:32 PM
No, it really doesn't. A half-orc, a tiefling, a demon and a tribe of vampiric draconic kender could all be the same ethnicity. Ethnicity is one's culture, and does not anything to do with their heritage or species. Using the term in place of race will just create confusion in your players as they'll wonder why all gnomes have vastly different cultural norms then every human despite occupying the same city and working together.

Absolutely right.

A halfling from a woodland nation (which is shared with elves & gnomes, and ruled by an elected council of Druids) will probably not have the same traditions nor opinions as a halfling from the neighboring urban city-state (which is shared with humans & tieflings, and ruled by an oligarchy of Artificers).

"Halfling" distinguishes a set of traits that are independent from culture, and thus "halfling" cannot mean ethnicity.

Mechalich
2017-06-10, 06:43 PM
No, it really doesn't. A half-orc, a tiefling, a demon and a tribe of vampiric draconic kender could all be the same ethnicity. Ethnicity is one's culture, and does not anything to do with their heritage or species. Using the term in place of race will just create confusion in your players as they'll wonder why all gnomes have vastly different cultural norms then every human despite occupying the same city and working together.

Ethnicity absolutely includes a biological component. Almost all ethnic groups have closely shared genetic heritage, and claiming to be a member of an ethnic group whose genetic heritage you do not share is generally frowned upon and in some countries illegal. Most ethnic groups self-segregated, especially in pre-modern fantasy settings. Demons don't have an ethnicity because they aren't biological beings and their culture is inherent to their makeup. A vampiric kender is part of whatever kender ethnic group it belonged to before becoming a vampire (unless driven into exile via discovery). Half-orcs and tieflings are their own species, produced via hybrid speciation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_speciation), the same as all the other true-breeding half-breed species, and would contain ethnic groups of their own.

Max_Killjoy
2017-06-10, 07:19 PM
Race, in fantasy settings, and especially in D&D, should be dropped, because it is tied to extremely old-fashioned ideas about ethnicity that are offensive and as such the way 'races' are divided in D&D gives voice to the legacy of an outdated worldview.

Species is reasonably accurate to refer to the 'races' of D&D and many other fantasy settings. Yes they can and do interbreed and produce fertile offspring. So do any number of species in the real world. The biological species concept of Ernst Mayr is the be all and end all of species differentiation, especially in the modern era with genetic measures to delineate populations. Additionally, much D&D-style interspecies crosses are magically mediated (ex. Aasimar and Tieflings) and defy common biological principles anyway. Ethnicity or ethnic group maps best to 'sub-races' as found throughout many settings very effectively.


No, it really doesn't. A half-orc, a tiefling, a demon and a tribe of vampiric draconic kender could all be the same ethnicity. Ethnicity is one's culture, and does not anything to do with their heritage or species. Using the term in place of race will just create confusion in your players as they'll wonder why all gnomes have vastly different cultural norms then every human despite occupying the same city and working together.


Absolutely right.

A halfling from a woodland nation (which is shared with elves & gnomes, and ruled by an elected council of Druids) will probably not have the same traditions nor opinions as a halfling from the neighboring urban city-state (which is shared with humans & tieflings, and ruled by an oligarchy of Artificers).

"Halfling" distinguishes a set of traits that are independent from culture, and thus "halfling" cannot mean ethnicity.


Ethnicity absolutely includes a biological component. Almost all ethnic groups have closely shared genetic heritage, and claiming to be a member of an ethnic group whose genetic heritage you do not share is generally frowned upon and in some countries illegal. Most ethnic groups self-segregated, especially in pre-modern fantasy settings. Demons don't have an ethnicity because they aren't biological beings and their culture is inherent to their makeup. A vampiric kender is part of whatever kender ethnic group it belonged to before becoming a vampire (unless driven into exile via discovery). Half-orcs and tieflings are their own species, produced via hybrid speciation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_speciation), the same as all the other true-breeding half-breed species, and would contain ethnic groups of their own.

Both sides in this are saying things that are somewhat true, but don't present the entire picture.

I think this misunderstanding between the two "sides" here might be in part because of the nitwitted way in which certain works (fiction and RPG) have ignorantly conflated "culture", "ethnicity", "race", and "species" into a single jumbled thing.

One example -- FFG's Star Wars RPG treats "human", "Correllian", and IIRC "Mandolorian" as separate "species", rather than treating "Correllian" and "Mandolorian" as separate cultures of which most members are humans.

"Ethnicity" is a jumble of genetic heritage and cultural heritage, and for clarity it's probably better to use species (human, elf, vulcan, whatever), treat genetic heritage within the species as simply cosmetic with the occasional medical quirk (which it pretty much is), and culture, as separate and distinct terms.

VoxRationis
2017-06-10, 07:28 PM
Given the widespread interbreeding (with fertile offspring) we often get in fantasy, arguably different fantasy "races" are more different cultures and societies than they are different species.

I tire of this argument. Half-breeds are a symptom of fantasy writers either not knowing or not caring about basic biology (and of D&D's quest for new templates and creature types). I don't think they're strong enough evidence to discount the concept that an orc is qualitatively and quantitatively different from a dwarf in many respects, or to support the notion that their differences are cultural rather than biological.

Honest Tiefling
2017-06-10, 07:41 PM
Ethnicity absolutely includes a biological component.

Not in the scientific sense, and I don't actually know of a different sense in which it is used frequently. Since this is often used in discussions regarding race/ethnicity, it'll confuse your players if you give the word a non-standard definition.

Wampyr
2017-06-10, 11:48 PM
Race should not be offensive because by definition it is a taxonomic category founded on physical characteristics. Some races from the real world are Caucasiod, Negroid, and Mongoloid.

Additionally, if you think species would be more suitable, stop thinking that. A species is a taxonomic category, albeit much broader than race. A species uses two Latin words as a name traditionally (there are rare exceptions). Take humans for example again, our species is called Homo Erectus and that refers to all humans generally, not to the specific races.

If you find race to be offensive, consider investing in a dictionary, because there is no reason to be offended by the correct taxonomical classification of something (especially in the case of entirely fictional races).

Lvl 2 Expert
2017-06-10, 11:51 PM
So lions and tigers aren't different species?

Tigons and Ligers are generally infertile or hard to breed with I think, like mules and hinnies. That makes them officially different species, while also showing how the concept of species starts wobbling around when you consider the effects of time. If you'd jump in a time machine and find two ancestrial lion and tiger populations which could still interbreed and produce fertile offspring, but who can also do the same with their modern day equivalents, where has your species divide gone?

In many fantasy worlds the fertile offspring thing is a bad rule in general because as others said there are half everythings, and the only thing keeping the world population from becoming one mixed species a few generations from now is culture. Species, subspecies, races, color variants (which is what we'd call it if we found the equivalent of human races in for instance birds or butterflies, generally, race is a term mostly reserved to domesticated animals) their distinctions would be way fuzzier than ours. So use whatever term you like. For fantasy book or RPG writers who have a large diverse audience it might be worth considering to use a word with no real world connections, but for us as players that might be going too far into things. Maybe just try to not have your heroes tying down dwarves in their ships to sell them to the elves across the slavers sea. That's what makes things really awkward.

Mastikator
2017-06-11, 01:31 AM
Not in the scientific sense, and I don't actually know of a different sense in which it is used frequently. Since this is often used in discussions regarding race/ethnicity, it'll confuse your players if you give the word a non-standard definition.

It's just a pure coincidence that when two people of the same ethnicity produce offspring their kid will also be the same ethnicity?
It's entirely a biological hereditary phenomenon and there's nothing offensive about me saying that.

Frozen_Feet
2017-06-11, 06:49 AM
Ethnicity contains both genetic and cultural components. Which component is emphasized more depends on contrast. For example, I'm ethnically Finnish, but despite genetic distance Finnish people don't look much different from, say, British people. So if an outside observer had to decide whether I'm Finnish or British, they'd likely focus on my living environment. But if I had mixed ancestry and had notably darker skin tone than average, they might decide I'm not Finnish even if I'd lived my whole life in Finland, spoke only Finnish etc..

The reason for this is that genetic differentiation and cultural differentiation are overlapping phenomenoms and hence correlate with each other. Some times this correlation becomes causation. For example, many ethnicities today who are concerned with maintaining their specific culture also trace down bloodlines of individual members. You are not considered a true member of the ethnic group unless you can trace down your ancestry to some select people in a select area. This also favors marriages within the group. Hence, the group either remains or becomes more distinct genetically from the surrounding population.

The obvious example is old European noble and royal bloodlines, but I hear some Sami, Jewish and Native American communities do the same.

Also, good to remember: culture is inherited. It's not genetically inherited, but what sort of parents a child spends time in early childhood massively influences language and behavioral development. This is important because there is a time window for learning languages: in order to learn to speak like a native, you have to begin learning it before late adolescence (~15 years of age), preferably before age 7 and preferably by being immersed in the language. The entire process of learning a language is different in early childhood versus adulthood and someone who starts learning late will always stick out in the culture speaking the language.

In fantasy terms: a halfling who grew up among humans and does not speak halfling is not ethnically halfling, despite genetically being so. Yet they are also not ethnically human, despite culturally being so. They're an outlier, an entity with some traits from both groups but unable to fit well in either.

Max_Killjoy
2017-06-11, 08:40 AM
Ethnicity contains both genetic and cultural components. Which component is emphasized more depends on contrast. For example, I'm ethnically Finnish, but despite genetic distance Finnish people don't look much different from, say, British people. So if an outside observer had to decide whether I'm Finnish or British, they'd likely focus on my living environment. But if I had mixed ancestry and had notably darker skin tone than average, they might decide I'm not Finnish even if I'd lived my whole life in Finland, spoke only Finnish etc..

The reason for this is that genetic differentiation and cultural differentiation are overlapping phenomenoms and hence correlate with each other. Some times this correlation becomes causation. For example, many ethnicities today who are concerned with maintaining their specific culture also trace down bloodlines of individual members. You are not considered a true member of the ethnic group unless you can trace down your ancestry to some select people in a select area. This also favors marriages within the group. Hence, the group either remains or becomes more distinct genetically from the surrounding population.

The obvious example is old European noble and royal bloodlines, but I hear some Sami, Jewish and Native American communities do the same.

Also, good to remember: culture is inherited. It's not genetically inherited, but what sort of parents a child spends time in early childhood massively influences language and behavioral development. This is important because there is a time window for learning languages: in order to learn to speak like a native, you have to begin learning it before late adolescence (~15 years of age), preferably before age 7 and preferably by being immersed in the language. The entire process of learning a language is different in early childhood versus adulthood and someone who starts learning late will always stick out in the culture speaking the language.

In fantasy terms: a halfling who grew up among humans and does not speak halfling is not ethnically halfling, despite genetically being so. Yet they are also not ethnically human, despite culturally being so. They're an outlier, an entity with some traits from both groups but unable to fit well in either.

A good explanation of what I was trying to point out earlier.

IMO, "ethnicity" makes for a bad character-construction category (splat) in RPG rules, because it's muddled and overlapping. If it really matters for your system or setting, go with "genetic heritage" and "cultural heritage", under whatever catchy names you want to call them. But don't conflate "race" with species, and don't conflate genetic ancestry with cultural background. FFG did this with "Correllians", and it just ends up looking silly.

Berenger
2017-06-11, 09:33 AM
[...] our species is called Homo Erectus [...]

Speak for yourself.

zlefin
2017-06-11, 10:29 AM
I haven't met anyone who found it offensive in the context of gaming (at least not where it's in the official rules).
I'd say it's fine to use because that's how the game officially lists things. and you can always note you simply use it because that's how the game lists things and it makes communication simpler.
from a practical level - If nobody in the playgroup has a problem with it, then it's totally fine. If someone has a problem, let them suggest an alternative and use it.

Max_Killjoy
2017-06-11, 10:33 AM
Race should not be offensive because by definition it is a taxonomic category founded on physical characteristics. Some races from the real world are Caucasiod, Negroid, and Mongoloid.

Additionally, if you think species would be more suitable, stop thinking that. A species is a taxonomic category, albeit much broader than race. A species uses two Latin words as a name traditionally (there are rare exceptions). Take humans for example again, our species is called Homo Erectus and that refers to all humans generally, not to the specific races.

If you find race to be offensive, consider investing in a dictionary, because there is no reason to be offended by the correct taxonomical classification of something (especially in the case of entirely fictional races).


1) Homo sapiens (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_sapiens), or more specifically Homo sapiens sapiens (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatomically_modern_human)... not Homo erectus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_erectus).

2) Second, Homo is the genus, sapiens is the species, but typically you see both together as binomial nomenclature (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binomial_nomenclature).

3) While the terms "Caucasiod, Negroid, and Mongoloid" still see some use in physical anthropology, with the advent of genetic anthropology and other techniques, there's some question as to their overall accuracy as categories beyond description of physical features. Plus... pretty loaded historically (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_racism).

4) Other than a few coincidental and superficial inheritable features, "race" is largely a sociopolitical construct, not a scientific concept. Investment advice noted (http://www.dictionary.com/browse/race).


All that said, "race" in the context of an RPG fantasy setting, as used to mean "humans, or elves, or orcs, or whatever" isn't offensive. It's just inaccurate to modern usage, and an artifact of source material going way back, and the source material of that source material, and so on. Tolkien, for example, refers to "the race of Men", and he's being neither racist nor sexist.

As others have suggested, "people", "folk", "kin", "kind", and a bunch of other terms are out there if one finds "race" grating because of the blurry meaning and "species" grating because it lends too scientific an air to fantasy settings.

GPS
2017-06-11, 10:35 AM
This is EU speaking. Since we've gone all Nazi here and IRL race is somehow relevant: white EU.

What I find offensive is the crypto-Fascist pandering to the "political correctness". If you don't like the term "race", change it to "species" (as Fantasy Craft did, for example). Why turn this into witch-hunt/circus?
Neither "witch hunt" nor "circus" (both of which I assume you're using in the political sense) be used in this context. That's not a political statement, it's me straight up saying that you don't know how to use either of those phrases. Did you hope that if you used enough smart-sounding phrases, we wouldn't notice that you clearly didn't bother to Google them beforehand?

hamishspence
2017-06-11, 10:47 AM
Tigons and Ligers are generally infertile or hard to breed with I think, like mules and hinnies. That makes them officially different species, while also showing how the concept of species starts wobbling around when you consider the effects of time. If you'd jump in a time machine and find two ancestrial lion and tiger populations which could still interbreed and produce fertile offspring, but who can also do the same with their modern day equivalents, where has your species divide gone?


I've seen quite a few cladograms that put leopards between the two.

That is - modern common leopards and lions diverged more recently than lions and tigers did.

And snow leopards diverged from tigers more recently than tigers diverged from lions.

Which makes me think that the "proto-big cat" would have been leopard-ish in size and coat pattern, with lion and tiger large size evolving independently (and tiger stripes being a fairly recent development).

Twizzly513
2017-06-11, 12:41 PM
In human geography, ethnicity is basically someone's culture, including but not limited to food, clothing, language/accent, and nationality.

Race is harder to define. The Western definition, and probably the most widely accepted, is that race is dependent on color of skin and/or area of origin. Examples include Caucasian, Hispanic, and Pacific Islander. However in Africa, race was dependent on which language you spoke, which indicated tribe. By Western standards, all Africans were labeled as Blacks, but the Africans all saw themselves as many different races.

None of these really hit on how truly different the different species of fantasy worlds are. A Caucasian man and an African man, for instance, wouldn't be any different mechanically. Racism is (again by human geography definition) the notion that different races are inherently worse or better at different things. With that definition, you could argue that the "Races" of fantasy games are racist. However, given that the mechanics of two humans, regardless of color or language, would be the exact same when they are considered two different races in our cultures, racism isn't actually there.

The idea is that these are different species, not different races, that are close enough genetically that they can interbreed (half-orcs, for instance). Since these are different species, then I would say them being better at different things is not racist.

My final answer: It is not offensive in any way to refer to them as "Races" for simplicity. In all actuality, these are different species, and different species are obviously better at different things.

Vinyadan
2017-06-11, 01:03 PM
Race is harder to define. The Western definition, and probably the most widely accepted, is that race is dependent on color of skin and/or area of origin. Examples include Caucasian, Hispanic, and Pacific Islander. However in Africa, race was dependent on which language you spoke, which indicated tribe. By Western standards, all Africans were labeled as Blacks, but the Africans all saw themselves as many different races.



Even this isn't really a Western standard, Hispanics are white where I live. Arabs too.

Africa is a good example. I read somewhere that there is a bigger genetic difference between the various peoples of Subsaharan Africa than between races based on skin tone.

So yes, no big definition of race set in stone. Ethnographers worked a lot on it, and it was rather useless, when it didn't go to the head of ideologized politicians to create monsters like anti-miscigenation laws.

Kitten Champion
2017-06-11, 03:04 PM
The point my mind goes back to in this discussion is that it's too late to address this specific bit of terminology. There's the simple fact that every fantasy-based RPG I've seen with fantasy-type PC options - The Elder Scrolls, World of Warcraft Final Fantasy XI and XIV, Dragon Age, Guild Wars, and so on - has "Race" pasted on the screen somewhere during the character creation process. I was well aware of the concept and the use of it in its gaming context well before I rolled any 20-sided dice.

I mean, I'm not saying that's a valid reason to maintain it if your group would prefer something else because it's not really, but speaking for myself I'd still be conditioned mentally to think "Race" whenever it came up because that's the sum experience with relevant media and would show up on any Google search into the matter.

Lvl 2 Expert
2017-06-11, 03:30 PM
Africa is a good example. I read somewhere that there is a bigger genetic difference between the various peoples of Subsaharan Africa than between races based on skin tone.

Absolutely true.

As a first effect the group of people that left Africa for "the rest of the world" formed a relatively small group and/or bottlenecked somewhere shortly after that. As a result there are a bunch of genes that only occur in African populations while there are very few that only occur outside of Africa. (The genes lost are mostly random, some slightly better or worse protein variants. The difference does not make Africans unevolved, nor does it make everyone else inbred or incomplete.) On top of that African people were probably already diversifying when the out of Africa branch split of from just one of those groups. I've seen cladistic analyses that go as far as to declare the khoisan people ("bushmen") of southern Africa (and several related groups probably?) a separate race that splits off from the other branch of humanity even before that branch splits into "the rest of Africa" and "everyone else".

(Note: Nord African populations are a different story, but I feel that was clear from the quote on top.)

Honest Tiefling
2017-06-11, 03:45 PM
Africa is a good example. I read somewhere that there is a bigger genetic difference between the various peoples of Subsaharan Africa than between races based on skin tone.

Also depends on where you are. African Americans and European Americans groups do share DNA, especially for those who came before the American Civil War. I don't even know about Hispanic American, because that racial category didn't exist until recently.

Beleriphon
2017-06-11, 05:58 PM
It's just a pure coincidence that when two people of the same ethnicity produce offspring their kid will also be the same ethnicity?
It's entirely a biological hereditary phenomenon and there's nothing offensive about me saying that.

Ethnic divides in humans are functionally cultural. The genetic difference between a Korean and a Italian or an Australian aboriginal are all with the differences found within their own regional groups at a genetic level. So the difference essentially doesn't exist at a genetic level, only the genes that control things like hair and skin colour, or other broad physical characteristics are found in specific groups of humans.

If I'm remembering my anthro class correctly we could kill every human on the planet but 500 people in a random African village and we'd only lose about 5% of our genetic diversity. To highlight the difference modern humans and neatherthals existed at roughly the same time, they would have been genetically different species. But modern humans basically interbred with neanderthals and the later disappeared but the former are us now.

The other thing for games if we have tough dwarves, the average dwarf is more resistant to disease than the average human. The exact variation depends on game, but there is a difference an it isn't one that can be chalked up to statistical margins of error.

8BitNinja
2017-06-11, 06:11 PM
I don't think that it's offensive at all.

VoxRationis
2017-06-11, 06:53 PM
Ethnic divides in humans are functionally cultural. The genetic difference between a Korean and a Italian or an Australian aboriginal are all with the differences found within their own regional groups at a genetic level. So the difference essentially doesn't exist at a genetic level, only the genes that control things like hair and skin colour, or other broad physical characteristics are found in specific groups of humans.

If I'm remembering my anthro class correctly we could kill every human on the planet but 500 people in a random African village and we'd only lose about 5% of our genetic diversity. To highlight the difference modern humans and neatherthals existed at roughly the same time, they would have been genetically different species. But modern humans basically interbred with neanderthals and the later disappeared but the former are us now.

The other thing for games if we have tough dwarves, the average dwarf is more resistant to disease than the average human. The exact variation depends on game, but there is a difference an it isn't one that can be chalked up to statistical margins of error.

95% of human genetic diversity in one African village? I know that Africa is very genetically diverse, but that seems unlikely. Surely one village would be a little more homogenous than that. There are a lot of fairly regionally specific genetic traits.

DuctTapeKatar
2017-06-11, 08:50 PM
This entire conversation is just silly. I doubt that many people have concerned themselves with whether a term that has been used for generations of tabletop gaming could possibly be offensive, especially one as flexible as "race". Are we talking about the races of dwarves and elves, or are we talking about the subsects within orc communities and tribes? Ethnicity of the humans within a world? Defined culture?

Technically, the widely used label "white" or Caucasian covers a ridiculous amount of people, from Germans, Englishmen, Spanish, French, Russian, United-States American, and Canadian American. As a white person, I could take offense that I am simply lumped into such a large blanket term without regard for whatever my individual country is, but it has been cemented in international culture that all western-culture "whites" are all the same without the consideration of the centuries of individual culture.

This entire thread is silly, because I don't find any problem with the term "race," nor do I find offense with its use in gaming vernacular. It's a word. I could say an entire sentence filled with the most vile, offensive, filth that, if any other person heard it, my reputation would be ruined completely and utterly, but in the end, the only reason that they are offensive, is that somebody decided that they can be offended by it.

There is nothing wrong with the word. If someone does, perchance, get offended by the homonym for the competitive sport in which multiple participants are challenged to be the first to make it to a defined location, then they probably are the same people who asked themselves this question without consulting people on a website's forum before determining an answer, or actively trying to cause trouble on said websites.

goto124
2017-06-12, 01:31 AM
Sun elves, wood elves, dark elves...

Lvl 2 Expert
2017-06-12, 01:53 AM
95% of human genetic diversity in one African village? I know that Africa is very genetically diverse, but that seems unlikely. Surely one village would be a little more homogenous than that. There are a lot of fairly regionally specific genetic traits.

Most genetic differences don't result in notable or clearly visible traits. That's why they persist. If a new mutation causes a clear improvenent it will start outcompeting the old version, if its a clear problem it will often disappear again, but just a little bit less or more enzyme activity somewhere, those mutation can stay around and coexist with other versins of the same gene forever.

On top of that humans as a species are not incredibly diverse due to a bunch of bottleneck events. A primatologist who's name I keep forgetting whenever I want to quote him said that you will find more genetic diversity in a family group of chimpansees than in all of humanity.

I think the village size may need to be a bit bigger to include some of the rarer random mutations, but aside from that I'm willing to believe it.

Similarly, you could probably get to 95% of all human diversity that's not exclusive to Africa by picking a village anywhere else.

hymer
2017-06-12, 03:26 AM
Well, it kinda does when you realize that not all of us have 100% homo sapiens DNA. The definition of a species tend to crash and burn when you consider the human tendency to try to screw neighboring people...

By what you seem to be implying, there would be a whole host of human races, not one race. 'The human race' is bad any way you slice it.

Satinavian
2017-06-12, 05:10 AM
If I'm remembering my anthro class correctly we could kill every human on the planet but 500 people in a random African village and we'd only lose about 5% of our genetic diversity. To highlight the difference modern humans and neatherthals existed at roughly the same time, they would have been genetically different species. But modern humans basically interbred with neanderthals and the later disappeared but the former are us now.That seems profoundly unlikely.

- Most genetic variations are pretty rare. Even if they were distributed equally, they might not be in a random village.

- They are not distributed equally. Founder effect alone makes sure of that.

- Most actuallly beneficial mutations that spread are beneficial in a certain reagion only. This kind of spread most mostly shown with genes tailoring the immune system or digestion to local pathogens and food sources. They tend to not spread fast to other parts of the world or are even detrimental mutations there

- Most mutations that are neither positive nor negative (the majority) don't spread fast either. It is pretty likely they wil be contained in a couple of families living in one or two hotspots for a very very long time.


As for the Neanderthal interbreeding. That is proven. There seem to have been two interbreeding events shortly after Homo sapiens left Africa. And still those Neanderthal genes did not get distributed everywhere. That is how slow genes travel.



Given the widespread interbreeding (with fertile offspring) we often get in fantasy, arguably different fantasy "races" are more different cultures and societies than they are different species. Which would make the term "race" in this context more problematic. OTOH, I wouldn't worry about it, as I've never seen the term used in-game by a gamer (as opposed to a game character) with a negative connotation.Many many other RPGs distinguish between race/species for all the biological properties and culture. And in none some Elf who grew up as citicen of a near exclusively human town would be anything else than an Elf who just happens to have a human culture. Nor would a human child raised by Orks be considered not a human.

No, fantasy "races" are not cultures and have never been. There are only some lazy authors taking the one race-one culture approach (for anything that is not human - humans are allowed to have lots of diverse cultures). And then we have people making that even worse with introducing a new subrace everytime they want to write a new nonhuman culture.

Altair_the_Vexed
2017-06-12, 05:49 AM
For a thread that's spawned three pages of discussion, I can hardly call the topic "silly"!

I find it particularly interesting that opinion is seems to be leaning in quite a different direction on this site to the other site where I posted this same question. That tells me that there's a cultural difference of opinion on the topic - which tells me that we should avoid the term, as we might not be aware that some people are finding it offensive.

I brought this subject up mainly because I'm working in game design, and I don't have to carry the baggage of old game systems with me. We don't have to use "race" that way, we can make our own term.

Mainly, though, what I've learned here is that the Playground will always assume you mean D&D, even when you post in the system-agnostic forum! :smallbiggrin:

Max_Killjoy
2017-06-12, 06:26 AM
For a thread that's spawned three pages of discussion, I can hardly call the topic "silly"!

I find it particularly interesting that opinion is seems to be leaning in quite a different direction on this site to the other site where I posted this same question. That tells me that there's a cultural difference of opinion on the topic - which tells me that we should avoid the term, as we might not be aware that some people are finding it offensive.

I brought this subject up mainly because I'm working in game design, and I don't have to carry the baggage of old game systems with me. We don't have to use "race" that way, we can make our own term.

Mainly, though, what I've learned here is that the Playground will always assume you mean D&D, even when you post in the system-agnostic forum! :smallbiggrin:

1) I don't fine "race" offensive in the context we're discussing, I just find it inaccurate and sloppy terminology, especially in science fiction settings.

2) That assumption you mention is called The Playgrounders' Fallacy for a reason. And as you say, no matter how clear you make it that you're not talking about D&D in particular, a good chunk of the responses will assume D&D.

Max_Killjoy
2017-06-12, 06:48 AM
If I'm remembering my anthro class correctly we could kill every human on the planet but 500 people in a random African village and we'd only lose about 5% of our genetic diversity. To highlight the difference modern humans and neatherthals existed at roughly the same time, they would have been genetically different species. But modern humans basically interbred with neanderthals and the later disappeared but the former are us now.


The fact that humans interbred with neanderthals and this resulted in viable offspring, is good evidence that "can't breed and produce fertile offspring" isn't always the line between species -- neanderthals were pretty clearly a different species, and yet here we are with neanderthal DNA in some modern humans.

As for things professors say... once had a professor insist that the US and USSR had enough nuclear firepower to "turn the moon to dust".

Elderand
2017-06-12, 06:59 AM
The fact that humans interbred with neanderthals and this resulted in viable offspring, is good evidence that "can't breed and produce fertile offspring" isn't always the line between species -- neanderthals were pretty clearly a different species, and yet here we are with neanderthal DNA in some modern humans.

As for things professors say... once had a professor insist that the US and USSR had enough nuclear firepower to "turn the moon to dust".

well....sin't...everything...in the end....just aggregated dust anyway :P

I had a science teacher insist lamarck was right >_>

Guizonde
2017-06-12, 07:03 AM
Also depends on where you are. African Americans and European Americans groups do share DNA, especially for those who came before the American Civil War. I don't even know about Hispanic American, because that racial category didn't exist until recently.

i'd hazard a guess that seeing how spain and portugal invaded south america thoroughly, finding a purebred qechua (or other native population) is pretty rare. most south americans do have some mediterranean blood in them. so hispanic americans shouldn't be too different in terms of mix than euro-americans or african-americans, just swap out some native blood for mediterranean. in history of pre-columbian civilizations, it's a pretty well-known fact that both invaders and invaded cross-bred and created stable lineages that endure until today.

VoxRationis
2017-06-12, 07:21 AM
Similarly, you could probably get to 95% of all human diversity that's not exclusive to Africa by picking a village anywhere else.

Now that's more plausible—the bottleneck getting out of Africa was pretty severe. But picking a single African village and thinking it will represent 95% of human genetics is like picking two marbles out of a bag and thinking they'll represent the diversity of the bag. The source is plenty diverse, but the sample size is nowhere large enough to represent that.

IShouldntBehere
2017-06-12, 07:22 AM
Literally never seen anyone bat an eye at the use of the word "Race" in an RPG context, and I play with some folks pretty darn deep in to the tumblrsphere. If there is some group of folks who are taking deep issues with this particular bit of terminology they're small enough group it's probably best to just ask them their preferred alternatives on a case-by-case basis if they show up at your table.

hifidelity2
2017-06-12, 07:25 AM
I'm concerned that using "race" to refer to other speciies in games might be offensive to some people - but I'm not sure if it's really a thing, so I'd like to tap into the wisdom of the Playground!

In many fantasy and sci-fi games we use "race" to refer to other species - halflings, elves, vulcans, whatever.

In real-life, the term "race" has historical meanings to do with ethnicity. We still use the term "racism" to refer to discrimination on ethnic grounds.

Because I'm a liberal middle-class white bloke living in a conservative part of my country, I'm not sure if anyone is actually offended by that term, or if I'm just being too cautious.

So - please let me know if:


You never really thought about it before - and now you think I'm being over-sensitive


Please also feel free to expand on the topic. But let's be careful and sensitive! It would be easy to stray into discussing genuinely offensive things with a topic like this!
so the last one for me

Wampyr
2017-06-12, 08:06 AM
As for things professors say... once had a professor insist that the US and USSR had enough nuclear firepower to "turn the moon to dust".

Can't say anything for sure, but it sounds like your professor was using hyperbole.

Max_Killjoy
2017-06-12, 08:25 AM
Can't say anything for sure, but it sounds like your professor was using hyperbole.

It quickly became clear that he wasn't. He really thought that the combined nuclear arsenals of the world would be enough to pulverize the moon... or knock it out of orbit. :smallconfused:

The energy levels of impact events that we know have occurred repeatedly on both the moon and earth, without doing any such thing, are pretty spectacular.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_event#Airbursts

Coidzor
2017-06-12, 12:25 PM
For a thread that's spawned three pages of discussion, I can hardly call the topic "silly"!

We talk about people being silly or dumb all the time, both on this site and off of it. Volume or replies isn't a good metric. Especially when many people blatantly misunderstood the question and thought we were discussing racism in RPGs, rather than the use of the word "race" when writing up various critters and things players can be and character sheets and so on and so forth.

The sheer weirdness of this thread's subject matter meant that if it didn't get ignored entirely, it would get replies.


I find it particularly interesting that opinion is seems to be leaning in quite a different direction on this site to the other site where I posted this same question. That tells me that there's a cultural difference of opinion on the topic - which tells me that we should avoid the term, as we might not be aware that some people are finding it offensive.

Well, were any of them able to come up with a cogent argument? Was this a SJW forum?

The only person who thought the word Race could be offensive that commented in this thread never actually elaborated on how and why.


Mainly, though, what I've learned here is that the Playground will always assume you mean D&D, even when you post in the system-agnostic forum! :smallbiggrin:

It is a handy reference, seeing as how its influence and impact are part of why race is so widely used in RPGs in the first place.

Mastikator
2017-06-12, 12:49 PM
Ethnic divides in humans are functionally cultural. The genetic difference between a Korean and a Italian or an Australian aboriginal are all with the differences found within their own regional groups at a genetic level. So the difference essentially doesn't exist at a genetic level, only the genes that control things like hair and skin colour, or other broad physical characteristics are found in specific groups of humans.

If I'm remembering my anthro class correctly we could kill every human on the planet but 500 people in a random African village and we'd only lose about 5% of our genetic diversity. To highlight the difference modern humans and neatherthals existed at roughly the same time, they would have been genetically different species. But modern humans basically interbred with neanderthals and the later disappeared but the former are us now.

The other thing for games if we have tough dwarves, the average dwarf is more resistant to disease than the average human. The exact variation depends on game, but there is a difference an it isn't one that can be chalked up to statistical margins of error.

So if I adopt an aboriginal child and raise it with my Scandinavian culture, and my neighbor does the same. And then those two adopted people grow up and have kids- those kids will have blue eyes and blond hair?

You know very well that's a load of nonsense. The genetic component of your ethnicity is not affected by culture, the only thing that decide your genes is your parents genes.

You can even use genes to tell very precisely and accurately what (combo of) ethnicity you have. There's even a company called 23 and me that does this! And they do not do a cultural test, you spit into a jar and they test your DNA and that is all the information they will ever need.

Nifft
2017-06-12, 12:53 PM
So if I adopt an aboriginal child and raise it with my Scandinavian culture, and my neighbor does the same. And then those two adopted people grow up and have kids- those kids will have blue eyes and blond hair? Obviously yes.

Also, Chinese food cannot be cooked by Mexican people. It's physically impossible, due to the genetic nature of ethnicity.

FreddyNoNose
2017-06-12, 12:56 PM
I'm concerned that using "race" to refer to other speciies in games might be offensive to some people - but I'm not sure if it's really a thing, so I'd like to tap into the wisdom of the Playground!

In many fantasy and sci-fi games we use "race" to refer to other species - halflings, elves, vulcans, whatever.

In real-life, the term "race" has historical meanings to do with ethnicity. We still use the term "racism" to refer to discrimination on ethnic grounds.

Because I'm a liberal middle-class white bloke living in a conservative part of my country, I'm not sure if anyone is actually offended by that term, or if I'm just being too cautious.

So - please let me know if:


You DON'T think "race" is offensive to use that way


Please also feel free to expand on the topic. But let's be careful and sensitive! It would be easy to stray into discussing genuinely offensive things with a topic like this!

I think this is just more of the stupid PC world we live in. I am not going to tiptoe around every little minor non-issue that MIGHT get someone offended or who plays at being offended.

Vinyadan
2017-06-12, 01:08 PM
Ethnos is a fluid concept, anyway. One ethnos may contain people who think that you need curly hair to belong, another ethnos will expect you to serve in the army. It's just man-made standards, that change from age to age, place to place, and different people, even within the same ethnos. The typical example for me are barbarian peoples in the Roman Empire - there is this image of neatly divided peoples, each people built on genetic relations, with an ancient line of kings, their ancestral language, immutable culture and so on. It never worked that way, these peoples (gentes) were political units that lost pieces left and right and inglobated groups or individuals which had nothing to do with them, based on practical needs, and later survived as a denomination on a man-made legal basis (so you still have a few Goths in Italy in the IX century).

So general discussion of what makes an ethnos will never yield valid results. Now, if you wish to discuss what makes one particular ethnos or ethnicity or other subgroup of humans, that's another story.

FreddyNoNose
2017-06-12, 01:21 PM
If you're talking about humans vs elves then race is the correct term, half elves are a thing. Humans and orcs are not different species either, because of half orcs. Humans and goblins are different species.

I have thought of this before, if race should really be used so much for every thing, but not from the angle of "is this offensive to someone?". Words can't be objectively offensive, it all matters on the context and to whom, you just have to be ever vigilant and ever thoughtful. There are no easy answers.

At the very least it comes under the heading of industry speak. It has been used for 40 years by DND so it is acceptable.

Max_Killjoy
2017-06-12, 01:32 PM
At the very least it comes under the heading of industry speak. It has been used for 40 years by DND so it is acceptable.


"D&D does it" isn't really on my radar for whether something passes muster.

Vinyadan
2017-06-12, 01:48 PM
"D&D does it" isn't really on my radar for whether something passes muster.

Are you kidding? What about... Worgs? :smallbiggrin:

Lvl 2 Expert
2017-06-12, 01:55 PM
I think this is just more of the stupid PC world we live in. I am not going to tiptoe around every little minor non-issue that MIGHT get someone offended or who plays at being offended.

The law of political correctness: every generation thinks the last generations progress was something that should obviously have happened, but that the next generations ideas are going way too far.



Personally I decided to enjoy this effect extra, I've already decided I hate the generation that's being born right now, they'll be way too soft on pedophiles and with those brainchips of theirs their brains are practically rotting away. And their music sounds like **** as well!

(Note: this post is comedy, even when it isn't funny.)

Honest Tiefling
2017-06-12, 02:08 PM
By what you seem to be implying, there would be a whole host of human races, not one race. 'The human race' is bad any way you slice it.

Depends. If someone looks white and only has 10% African DNA, are they white? Or a different race completely? There really isn't a good answer because genetics are often a gradient, not a clear divide.


i'd hazard a guess that seeing how spain and portugal invaded south america thoroughly, finding a purebred qechua (or other native population) is pretty rare. most south americans do have some mediterranean blood in them. so hispanic americans shouldn't be too different in terms of mix than euro-americans or african-americans, just swap out some native blood for mediterranean. in history of pre-columbian civilizations, it's a pretty well-known fact that both invaders and invaded cross-bred and created stable lineages that endure until today.

Invaders crossbreeding with anything in their path is a well established trend. Plenty of people from European or Asian ancestry can be traced to Genghis Khan and his immediate family. So trying to isolate 'Mediterrean' DNA would be insanely difficult given the region's history as a center of trade, colonization, and migration. Furthermore, some Spainards are likely to be closer to French in their genetic history given the history of the region, just because human genetics don't like being terribly helpful.


Now that's more plausible—the bottleneck getting out of Africa was pretty severe. But picking a single African village and thinking it will represent 95% of human genetics is like picking two marbles out of a bag and thinking they'll represent the diversity of the bag. The source is plenty diverse, but the sample size is nowhere large enough to represent that.

I think this was likely hyperbole to demonstrate two points: Despite a lot of people lumping Africa as one culture/genetic group/race (unintentionally or no), Africa is the location with the most diversity in human genetics. Secondly, as a whole, the human race is not very genetically diverse for a k-strategy mammalian species.


Technically, the widely used label "white" or Caucasian covers a ridiculous amount of people, from Germans, Englishmen, Spanish, French, Russian, United-States American, and Canadian American. As a white person, I could take offense that I am simply lumped into such a large blanket term without regard for whatever my individual country is, but it has been cemented in international culture that all western-culture "whites" are all the same without the consideration of the centuries of individual culture.

As a white person, I'm personally not offended to be called white. My skin is white, this is a very indisputable fact. If someone came up to me and said I wasn't white, I'd call them blind. But to me, white is a physical feature like being tall or short. Rambling aside, I think this demonstrates that terms can mean very different things to different people, so there is a lot of validity in the idea of just asking a group what terms they'd prefer.

Mastikator
2017-06-12, 02:10 PM
Obviously yes.

Also, Chinese food cannot be cooked by Mexican people. It's physically impossible, due to the genetic nature of ethnicity.

I'm glad we're further going down this "culture is the same as genes" rabbit hole.

Coidzor
2017-06-12, 02:18 PM
So if I adopt an aboriginal child and raise it with my Scandinavian culture, and my neighbor does the same. And then those two adopted people grow up and have kids- those kids will have blue eyes and blond hair?

You know very well that's a load of nonsense. The genetic component of your ethnicity is not affected by culture, the only thing that decide your genes is your parents genes.

You can even use genes to tell very precisely and accurately what (combo of) ethnicity you have. There's even a company called 23 and me that does this! And they do not do a cultural test, you spit into a jar and they test your DNA and that is all the information they will ever need.

Indeed, a lot of people seem to be using an unusual variation of Ethnicity that just means nationality or culture in this thread, when generally I really only encounter it used to designate someone's specific family background within one's race. Like being ethnically Irish vs. Ethnically British vs. Ethnically German while all are White people.


I'm glad we're further going down this "culture is the same as genes" rabbit hole.

Civil Discourse is !!!FUN!!!


As a white person, I'm personally not offended to be called white. My skin is white, this is a very indisputable fact.

So what about people who are peach-skinned? :smalltongue:

Full-blown pink-skins?

Olive-skinned?

Nifft
2017-06-12, 02:27 PM
Civil Discourse is !!!FUN!!!
Indeed, that's the best kind.


So what about people who are peach-skinned? :smalltongue:
That category seems a bit fuzzy.

Vinyadan
2017-06-12, 02:35 PM
Full-blown pink-skins?



Then everything changed, when the Sunburnt Nation attacked.

Honest Tiefling
2017-06-12, 02:49 PM
ISo what about people who are peach-skinned? :smalltongue:

Full-blown pink-skins?

Olive-skinned?

I'm spending summer trying to avoid the heat rays of the Deathstar so I don't blister, and I have to make sure the windows are curtained so I don't burn through them. I think white is fine descriptor of my state right now.

ArcanaGuy
2017-06-12, 02:54 PM
Race is an offensive word only to those who make a habit of being offended. Any alternative word you use will run a greater risk. Stick with the technical term and you'll have the most safety.

Mastikator
2017-06-12, 03:01 PM
Indeed, a lot of people seem to be using an unusual variation of Ethnicity that just means nationality or culture in this thread, when generally I really only encounter it used to designate someone's specific family background within one's race. Like being ethnically Irish vs. Ethnically British vs. Ethnically German while all are White people.
Civil Discourse is !!!FUN!!!

I don't consider changing the definition of a word mid sentence to score meaningless points to be civil discourse. Obfuscation is a form of deception which I consider disrespectful. Even after i stipulate what I mean you give me this.

DuctTapeKatar
2017-06-12, 03:27 PM
For a thread that's spawned three pages of discussion, I can hardly call the topic "silly"!

I find it particularly interesting that opinion is seems to be leaning in quite a different direction on this site to the other site where I posted this same question. That tells me that there's a cultural difference of opinion on the topic - which tells me that we should avoid the term, as we might not be aware that some people are finding it offensive.

I brought this subject up mainly because I'm working in game design, and I don't have to carry the baggage of old game systems with me. We don't have to use "race" that way, we can make our own term.

Mainly, though, what I've learned here is that the Playground will always assume you mean D&D, even when you post in the system-agnostic forum! :smallbiggrin:

What "other site?" Different sites tend to attract different people with different views, and some sites have been known to be cruelly biased (not naming names, for obvious reasons).

If you are designer for a game, then make your own game without having to worry about these things. That's what editorial staff are for: making sure that your creation will be received by the public on good terms. Don't worry about words that may be offensive for the most obscure,
almost intangible reasons (unless you are an editor, then asking this might actually be a valid question).

FreddyNoNose
2017-06-12, 03:47 PM
"D&D does it" isn't really on my radar for whether something passes muster.

But if you are talking context of RPG it is relevant to the discussion. Even if you want to simply dismiss it as invalid.

Max_Killjoy
2017-06-12, 03:58 PM
But if you are talking context of RPG it is relevant to the discussion. Even if you want to simply dismiss it as invalid.

No matter what it's promoters and adherents might wish us to think D&D never was and never will be the whole of what an RPG is, or not, or could be. What D&D happens to do or not do does not define what works, what does not work, or what's "acceptable".

Early automobiles used a tiller for steering, multiple manual hand-levers for setting the gear ratio and throttle, and a crank in front for starting... when someone says "D&D does it, so it's fine", I picture them in the automotive industry trying to get cars made in 2017 with tiller steering, etc.

Satinavian
2017-06-13, 01:30 AM
Race is an offensive word only to those who make a habit of being offended. Any alternative word you use will run a greater risk. Stick with the technical term and you'll have the most safety.
Race is a thing that science completely avoids now. Not only in humans, it is not even used for animals nowadays (outside of a very narrow field specializing in breeds of domestic animals). The better alternative would be subspecies.

Now as for humans, not even subspecies are recogniced. Well, at least that was the case until people decided that (the extinct) Homo sapiens idaltu is different enough to be considered one which makes all existing humans again Homo sapiens sapiens.

"Races in humans" is a concept assigned to the dustbin of wrong ideas, together with the Aether, Lamarckism, and the alchemic concept of the true nature of things. What is more, when it was not yet completely discredited, all applyances of the concepts were basically "using it as an excuse to be racist idiots". And I suspect anyone who talks about human races nowadays to do the same.

Now the word race is somwhow left in RPGs. Because the source material is from a time where the idea was not so completely deconstructed as it is nowadays. And because sounding oldfashioned is chic.
But even there it is not really applied well. Even when "race" was still used in science, people would have considered most fantasy "races" different species, not different races. So even this outdated concept is applied the wrong way.


So overall, i would like to see this word abandoned in RPGs too.

Lvl 2 Expert
2017-06-13, 02:03 AM
But what if the term races secretly gives away a part of the setting? All humanoids can interbreed for the same reason all dogs can interbreed: they were bred from a single species. Widely differing appearances and physical properties, almost the same in mind and biology. But how did that happen? Who did it? Why?

;)

Edit: on the other hand, that would be breeds in English. Sometimes I'm about half as clever as I'd like to be.

Frozen_Feet
2017-06-13, 03:12 AM
Race is a thing that science completely avoids now. Not only in humans, it is not even used for animals nowadays (outside of a very narrow field specializing in breeds of domestic animals). The better alternative would be subspecies.

Now as for humans, not even subspecies are recogniced. Well, at least that was the case until people decided that (the extinct) Homo sapiens idaltu is different enough to be considered one which makes all existing humans again Homo sapiens sapiens.

"Races in humans" is a concept assigned to the dustbin of wrong ideas, together with the Aether, Lamarckism, and the alchemic concept of the true nature of things. What is more, when it was not yet completely discredited, all applyances of the concepts were basically "using it as an excuse to be racist idiots". And I suspect anyone who talks about human races nowadays to do the same.

This is true, but it is also misleading. The reason being that scientific terminology is by necessity more specific than common language. "Race" was abandoned because a specific theory about what races are and how they function was discredited. But this shift in technical nomenclature didn't do away with observable differences in human subpopulations.

Failure to acknowledge this and explain the actual reasons leads to stupid discussions which start with something like "races in humans have been proven to not exists" and is then followed by stupid questions like "well why are some people black and others white?" Etc.. Because what non-scientists refer to these days is not any scientific definition of "race" (they might not even be aware of any such thing; ironically, many actual racists.are guilty of this), they refer to observable differences between human subpopulations which they believe to be inherited by blood. Pretty much any observable differences between human subpopulations hence lend support to common use of the word "race", even when this is nonsense from a scientific perspective.

For a similar reason, I object to trying to use "ethnicity" to refer to mere genetics. If I would be 5% "Finnish" and 95% "Nigerian" by DNA, ordinary people would consider me Finnish about as often as they consider me a Neanderthal. That is, not at all. Because that 5% is most likely not observable without a DNA test. It's footnote in my family history, not something that would be relevant to me or anyone around me. "5% Finnish ethnicity" isn't really a thing.

Again, I say it's about contrast. When bloodline causes visible differences, bloodline matters more. When it doesn't, culture matters more. You need to both look and act like an ethnicity to count as an example of thay ethnicity to common people, otherwise you are an outsider.

Altair_the_Vexed
2017-06-13, 06:25 AM
What "other site?" Different sites tend to attract different people with different views, and some sites have been known to be cruelly biased (not naming names, for obvious reasons).

Ha! It's actually this site that seems to fall on the "Who cares about racism or giving offence?" side of the fence.


If you are designer for a game, then make your own game without having to worry about these things. That's what editorial staff are for: making sure that your creation will be received by the public on good terms. Don't worry about words that may be offensive for the most obscure, almost intangible reasons (unless you are an editor, then asking this might actually be a valid question).

It's not a large enough operation to have such clearly separated roles - we all get involved.

---

Frankly, I've rather had enough of this. The reaction to this question has been unpleasant. I'm surprised at the majority of attitudes being expressed, especially given the usually inclusive and tolerant behaviour on other threads.

Oh well, I'll not be coming back to this thread.

Satinavian
2017-06-13, 06:27 AM
Failure to acknowledge this and explain the actual reasons leads to stupid discussions which start with something like "races in humans have been proven to not exists" and is then followed by stupid questions like "well why are some people black and others white?" Etc.. Because what non-scientists refer to these days is not any scientific definition of "race" (they might not even be aware of any such thing; ironically, many actual racists.are guilty of this), they refer to observable differences between human subpopulations which they believe to be inherited by blood. Pretty much any observable differences between human subpopulations hence lend support to common use of the word "race", even when this is nonsense from a scientific perspective.But scientific knowledge spills over and changes everyday use. I would have a hard time finding even non scientists talking about human races around here. The word is not even used for different skin colors colloquially and even when skin colors are referred to, most peaple accept that there are many non clear cut cases (half of the people counting as Black in the US would not count as Black here anyway)
Which is one of the big reasons why modern humans did not get subspecies for classification : There has been way too much mixing to identify distinct subspecies. Significant portions of the overall population would not be able to be classified. (Other reasons are not big enough differences and, well, the history with race science)

For a similar reason, I object to trying to use "ethnicity" to refer to mere genetics. If I would be 5% "Finnish" and 95% "Nigerian" by DNA, ordinary people would consider me Finnish about as often as they consider me a Neanderthal. That is, not at all. Because that 5% is most likely not observable without a DNA test. It's footnote in my family history, not something that would be relevant to me or anyone around me. "5% Finnish ethnicity" isn't really a thing.Yes, would never use ethnicity to refer to genetics. That word is mostly used for cultural identifiers. Only ehen people wanted to seperate nationality from culture, ethnicity became an inherited trait.

Frozen_Feet
2017-06-13, 07:12 AM
I don't really disagree, I just wanted to note there's other ways for language to change. For comparison, there's the related word "racism", which here went from meaning "discrimination by race" to meaning "discrimination by ethnicity" to meaning just "discrimination". So now you get concepts like "age racism" which just means discrimination based on age and has nothing to do with race anymore.

(I'm not happy about these kinds of semantic dilution. Language changes; so does food when it rots and turns into putrid goo. :smalltongue:)

Max_Killjoy
2017-06-13, 08:23 AM
I don't really disagree, I just wanted to note there's other ways for language to change. For comparison, there's the related word "racism", which here went from meaning "discrimination by race" to meaning "discrimination by ethnicity" to meaning just "discrimination". So now you get concepts like "age racism" which just means discrimination based on age and has nothing to do with race anymore.

(I'm not happy about these kinds of semantic dilution. Language changes; so does food when it rots and turns into putrid goo. :smalltongue:)

I've never heard the term "age racism", and frankly I'm glad I haven't. There's a perfectly good term for age discrimination -- "age discrimination".

Then there's the other way in which "racism" has been warped as a term, instead of simply meaning "racial prejudice and/or discrimination", now some assert that power and systemic dynamics are required to meet their definition of the word.

As was covered in other threads, I'm very much opposed to "linguistic rot".

Psyren
2017-06-13, 08:33 AM
OP, I strongly suspect that the number of people offended over the word "race" are vastly overshadowed by the number of people offended that you'd ask a question trying not to offend people.

*skims thread*

Oh hey look.

Koo Rehtorb
2017-06-13, 08:38 AM
I don't really disagree, I just wanted to note there's other ways for language to change. For comparison, there's the related word "racism", which here went from meaning "discrimination by race" to meaning "discrimination by ethnicity" to meaning just "discrimination". So now you get concepts like "age racism" which just means discrimination based on age and has nothing to do with race anymore.

Well that's dumb. There's a term for that. Ageism.

Max_Killjoy
2017-06-13, 08:50 AM
OP, I strongly suspect that the number of people offended over the word "race" are vastly overshadowed by the number of people offended that you'd ask a question trying not to offend people.

*skims thread*

Oh hey look.

What about those of us who aren't offended by just the word "race", and aren't offended by someone trying to not offend people, but who do think that the word "race" as used in gaming is a muddled mess, and just for the sake of clarity and content there are other terms that would be more functional?

Mikemical
2017-06-13, 09:05 AM
Because I'm a liberal middle-class white bloke living in a conservative part of my country, I'm not sure if anyone is actually offended by that term, or if I'm just being too cautious.

You sound more like a white guilt apologist to me, mate.

You think "race" is offensive to use for other species
No, because race is the word that has been used for centuries to differentiate ethnicities, cultures, etc. So it makes sense that using "the human race" would include caucasians, asians, africans, aboriginals, mulatos, etc; just like "the dwarven race" would include Sun Dwarves, Mountain Dwarves, etc; and "the elven race" would include Wood Elves, Star Elves, Wild Elves, etc.

You DON'T think "race" is offensive to use that way
It isn't.

You never really thought about it before - but now you think it might be offensive
Never have, and it isn't.

You never really thought about it before - and now you think I'm being over-sensitive
Yes you are being over-sensitive about something nobody has ever raised a fit in over 40+ years except special snowflakes who are on the lookout for something to vicitimize themselves over with or causing controversy just to become relevant(IE: PETA raising a fit about the Space Wolves Chapter in WH40K wearing wolf pelts and furs recently). Heck, the manuals were written to have character class options use "she" and "her" to include females and try to remove the stereotype that RPGs were only for males to play.


If someone makes a racist statement while referring to a race as a race, the offensive part isn't the use of the word "race," it's the actual sentiment expressed by the statement.

My sentiment exactly. If I play a Dwarf who says he doesn't trust Drow, that is justified racism because Drow are known for being schemers who use plot and poison to further their own goals(their very own manual is literally called "Plot and Poison: A Guide to Drows") and are at constant war with dwarves. But if my dwarf calls every elf he comes across "a knife-eared PoS", then that's full-blown KKK racism.

Nifft
2017-06-13, 10:09 AM
What about those of us who aren't offended by just the word "race", and aren't offended by someone trying to not offend people, but who do think that the word "race" as used in gaming is a muddled mess, and just for the sake of clarity and content there are other terms that would be more functional?

So far, nobody has produced a word that actually is more functional.

I tried to get the conversation going on this on an earlier page.

Remember that this word must apply to corner-cases like:
- 3.5e Dragonborn
- Mojh (transformational "race" from Arcana Evolved)
- Warforged
- Liches
- Vampires
- Necropolitans
- Rampant General AIs (for Shadowrun)
- A Human cortical stacks sleeved into an Octomorph body (for Eclipse Phase)

Max_Killjoy
2017-06-13, 10:36 AM
So far, nobody has produced a word that actually is more functional.

I tried to get the conversation going on this on an earlier page.

Remember that this word must apply to corner-cases like:
- 3.5e Dragonborn
- Mojh (transformational "race" from Arcana Evolved)
- Warforged
- Liches
- Vampires
- Necropolitans
- Rampant General AIs (for Shadowrun)
- A Human cortical stacks sleeved into an Octomorph body (for Eclipse Phase)


Don't try to cram all the edge cases into one word.

Don't try to make all the edge cases into one "thing", whatever you call it.

This is the mistake that FFG made with their treating "Correllian" as a "species" separate from "human", because they had crammed "species" and "culture" into a single thing, which is however sadly reflective of the whole EU "planets of hats" silliness.

Liches and vampires aren't, typically, "species" -- though some iterations of vampires in fiction have their own "culture".

Slapping someone's brain or mind into a new body doesn't automatically make them a new unique species.


Overall, this is the problem with splat-based character creation systems... every time someone wants to do something different, they "need" a new splat, and pretty soon you end up with splat-spam and edge cases being crammed into the same box as the original intent.

Psyren
2017-06-13, 10:55 AM
What about those of us who aren't offended by just the word "race", and aren't offended by someone trying to not offend people, but who do think that the word "race" as used in gaming is a muddled mess, and just for the sake of clarity and content there are other terms that would be more functional?

Sure, what about them? Pretty sure I didn't address any of those people.

hamishspence
2017-06-13, 11:05 AM
makes sense that using "the human race" would include caucasians, asians, africans, aboriginals, mulatos, etc; .

I'm pretty sure that one's been considered inappropriate for general conversation for half a century or more.

If someone's at a party for famous actors, wants to be introduced to Halle Berry - and says "I'd like to be introduced to the mulato lady over there" - the average person overhearing would be offended.

Max_Killjoy
2017-06-13, 11:08 AM
Sure, what about them? Pretty sure I didn't address any of those people.

I just thought there were a lot more of us than there were of the offended OR of the offended-by-the-offended.

Nifft
2017-06-13, 11:34 AM
Don't try to cram all the edge cases into one word.

Don't try to make all the edge cases into one "thing", whatever you call it. You're trying to replace a word that is currently used for all those things, and more.

There's no cramming going on here -- that's just the bare minimum that the word has to do, which is to cover all the cases, including the edges and corners.

RPG Race does that -- it doesn't mean "species", which is useless for all non-biological characters. It means both more, and less.


This is the mistake that FFG made with their treating "Correllian" as a "species" separate from "human", because they had crammed "species" and "culture" into a single thing, which is however sadly reflective of the whole EU "planets of hats" silliness.

Liches and vampires aren't, typically, "species" -- though some iterations of vampires in fiction have their own "culture".

Slapping someone's brain or mind into a new body doesn't automatically make them a new unique species. Most of these things don't fit "species" at all -- that's because "species" is a poor word choice.

Do you have anything better, or are you stopped at "species"?

Mikemical
2017-06-13, 11:38 AM
I'm pretty sure that one's been considered inappropriate for general conversation for half a century or more.

If someone's at a party for famous actors, wants to be introduced to Halle Berry - and says "I'd like to be introduced to the mulato lady over there" - the average person overhearing would be offended.

Missed my point. Also, any other of the list could potentially be taken as offensive in the same context. Of course, when it's a minority everyone gets their panties in a knot because "muh political correctness".

And if I wanted to be introduced to someone famous, I would most certainly not ask to be introduced to them describing their skin color. I would ask to be introduced to them by name or profession, which I would know, because it's the reason I want to be introduced to them in the first place.

hamishspence
2017-06-13, 11:44 AM
I'm talking about somebody who has no idea who the other people at the party are - that they're all important, famous, etc - but not their specific identities.

The point I was making was that the term is exceptionally offensive - much more so than "white" or black".

A person asking to be introduced to "the white guy over there" or "the black guy over there" - while they'd probably be greeted with a raised eyebrow, would not produce quite such a strong reaction as someone asking to speak to "the mulatto guy".

Mikemical
2017-06-13, 11:59 AM
I'm talking about somebody who has no idea who the other people at the party are - that they're all important, famous, etc - but not their specific identities.

The point I was making was that the term is exceptionally offensive - much more so than "white" or black".

A person asking to be introduced to "the white guy over there" or "the black guy over there" - while they'd probably be greeted with a raised eyebrow, would not produce quite such a strong reaction as someone asking to speak to "the mulatto guy".

Again, missing my point. I was trying to include as many different skin colors and ethnical physiologies I would think are present in fantasy(D&D, Tolkien, etc). Then again, I'm from Venezuela, where you can call any person with dark skin "negro" to get their attention, or it's their nickname, or it's even an affectionate nickname in their relationship(seen plenty of girls getting called "Mi negra bella" and blushing), just the same that anybody asian is called "chino"(china man for you english speakers) and anyone who resembles an aboriginal is called "indio"(indian) and nobody raises an eyebrow.

And we had slavery just like you guys did, but nobody's still hung up on it.

Edit: Also, china man without the space is censored. Can we all agree that's the least hurtful racial slur ever invented? They are men from China.

Psyren
2017-06-13, 12:21 PM
I just thought there were a lot more of us than there were of the offended OR of the offended-by-the-offended.

I was only comparing those two groups, not stating their prevalence relative to the thread as a whole.

But without going back and doing so, I'd be willing to agree with you - on the internet, the one thing that can outweigh social justice and reactions to social justice any day would be pedantic terminology debates.

Max_Killjoy
2017-06-13, 12:23 PM
You're trying to replace a word that is currently used for all those things, and more.

There's no cramming going on here -- that's just the bare minimum that the word has to do, which is to cover all the cases, including the edges and corners.


RPG Race does that -- it doesn't mean "species", which is useless for all non-biological characters. It means both more, and less.


"Race" doesn't cover all those things, either -- and as noted, one term SHOULDN'T cover all those things.




Most of these things don't fit "species" at all -- that's because "species" is a poor word choice.


For what you're trying to do, "race" is also a poor word choice. There is no good word choice for trying to cover being born human, being made into a vampire, and being "brain transferred" into a different body, under a single heading.




Do you have anything better, or are you stopped at "species"?


I'm not suggesting "species" for AIs, or for a being made into a vampire, or that became a lich or a necropolitan, or has had their "brain transferred".

I am pointing out that trying to cover those instances under the same categorization of types as human, or elf, or dwarf, or vulcan, or wookie, is a mistake in the first place. It's like lumping "apples" and "forensic accounting" into the same scheme.

hamishspence
2017-06-13, 12:25 PM
"Playable MM entries" maybe?

Mikemical
2017-06-13, 12:27 PM
Just to give me two cents without quoting or responding to anyone, fantasy deals tend to use their own definition of 'race' that has no equivalent in the real world.
'Race' is appropriate for elf/human/dwarf becuase they can interbreed and in some lores it's not clear if they could be of the same species(like Shadowrun).
In D&D 'race' is closer to meaning 'group of sentients' than 'species', 'culture', or any other synonim.

CharonsHelper
2017-06-13, 02:08 PM
Olympic athletes all find the term "race" to be horribly offensive when no medals are to be given based upon who is the fastest.

Sorry - the call to pun was too much.

DuctTapeKatar
2017-06-13, 02:11 PM
Ha! It's actually this site that seems to fall on the "Who cares about racism or giving offence?" side of the fence.

...

Oh well, I'll not be coming back to this thread.

That still does not answer the question. What site? Names, dammit!

Aaaand he left.

CharonsHelper
2017-06-13, 02:32 PM
Frankly, I've rather had enough of this. The reaction to this question has been unpleasant. I'm surprised at the majority of attitudes being expressed, especially given the usually inclusive and tolerant behaviour on other threads.

In what way has this thread been unpleasant? I've just finished skimming the thread - and it seems to be surprisingly genteel for such a hot-button topic.

Do you just disagree with the opinions expressed and find them inherently offensive?

Nifft
2017-06-13, 03:02 PM
"Race" doesn't cover all those things, either -- and as noted, one term SHOULDN'T cover all those things. It does, and it should.

What "race" means in RPG terminology is one specific character choice. Frequently it's a type of biological creature, but often it's not. The point is:
- This choice is mutually exclusive -- you can't be a Human and an Elf and an AI.
- This choice is orthogonal to your culture -- you can be an Elf from the Mongolian Elf plains, or you can be an Elf from the island of ancestor worshipers, or you can be an Elf from a big cosmopolitan city. Race and racial bonuses can exist independently from regional ("ethnic") bonuses.


For what you're trying to do, "race" is also a poor word choice. There is no good word choice for trying to cover being born human, being made into a vampire, and being "brain transferred" into a different body, under a single heading. In an RPG there is, and it's "race", and specifically it's "race" due to historical usage in RPGs.

You would not use the word "race" that way in real life. That's fine.

RPG "race" is RPG jargon.


I'm not suggesting "species" for AIs, or for a being made into a vampire, or that became a lich or a necropolitan, or has had their "brain transferred".

I am pointing out that trying to cover those instances under the same categorization of types as human, or elf, or dwarf, or vulcan, or wookie, is a mistake in the first place. It's like lumping "apples" and "forensic accounting" into the same scheme.

You have exactly one slot on the character sheet, and in that one slot must fit "apple golem" or "forensic accountant".

That's RPG "race".

You cannot be both a Wookie and a Droid -- that's the mutually exclusive choice which you must make, to fill in the "race" line of your character sheet.

Droids are not a species, for certain. Species means something, and it's not applicable to robots.

Species is a bad word, and apparently you don't have a better word.

So... what are you arguing in favor of, anyway?

Max_Killjoy
2017-06-13, 03:27 PM
It does, and it should.

What "race" means in RPG terminology is one specific character choice. Frequently it's a type of biological creature, but often it's not. The point is:
- This choice is mutually exclusive -- you can't be a Human and an Elf and an AI.
- This choice is orthogonal to your culture -- you can be an Elf from the Mongolian Elf plains, or you can be an Elf from the island of ancestor worshipers, or you can be an Elf from a big cosmopolitan city. Race and racial bonuses can exist independently from regional ("ethnic") bonuses.

In an RPG there is, and it's "race", and specifically it's "race" due to historical usage in RPGs.

You would not use the word "race" that way in real life. That's fine.

RPG "race" is RPG jargon.



You have exactly one slot on the character sheet, and in that one slot must fit "apple golem" or "forensic accountant".

That's RPG "race".

You cannot be both a Wookie and a Droid -- that's the mutually exclusive choice which you must make, to fill in the "race" line of your character sheet.

Droids are not a species, for certain. Species means something, and it's not applicable to robots.

Species is a bad word, and apparently you don't have a better word.

So... what are you arguing in favor of, anyway?

I'm arguing against cramming things into the same "list of mutually exclusive options" that don't belong in the same category. Take for example the MMO SWTOR -- they made "human" and "cyborg" into separate races, when the two are orthogonal. Being a cyborg is not mutually exclusive with being a human. A human, or a twi'lek, or a sith, or whatever -- in theory, outside the goofy mechanics, a character could be any of those and ALSO could be a cyborg.

Or very old D&D, in which you could be a fighter, or a mage, or a thief... OR you could be an elf. :smallconfused:

To use the comment from above... an "apple golem" could ALSO be a "forensic accountant", baring anti-golem prejudice. :smalltongue:

As for "not having a better word", I'm not looking for a better word for the broken and useless practice of cramming "fighter", "mage", and "elf" into the same list of options. Or "human", "wookie", "sith", and "cyborg".

If someone really thinks those are fine... then maybe they need to try taking a test -- https://www.proprofs.com/quiz-school/story.php?title=which-one-doesnt-belong-game

Nifft
2017-06-13, 03:36 PM
I'm arguing against cramming things into the same "list of mutually exclusive options" that don't belong in the same category. Take for example the MMO SWTOR -- they made "human" and "cyborg" into separate races, when the two are orthogonal. Being a cyborg is not mutually exclusive with being a human. A human, or a twi'lek, or a sith, or whatever -- in theory, outside the goofy mechanics, a character could be any of those and ALSO could be a cyborg. In Shadowrun, you can do that:
- Race: Human; Cyberware: more than none

You can't have Race: Human and Race: AI, though; and you can't be both an AI and a cyborg.

The fact that RPG race is not universal is okay. Each RPG uses that category descriptor in a way that's (hopefully) useful & informative for that specific RPG.


Or very old D&D, in which you could be a fighter, or a mage, or a thief... OR you could be an elf. :smallconfused: Yep! In Basic D&D, there was no orthogonal line category. That's an innovation of 1e (Advanced D&D).


To use the comment from above... an "apple golem" could ALSO be a "forensic accountant", baring anti-golem prejudice. :smalltongue: Nope! In Basic Debt & Derivatives, "apple golem" is both your race and your class. You need to wait for another edition to allow your genre-defying Apple Sue character.


As for "not having a better word", I'm not looking for a better word (...)

If someone really thinks those are fine... then maybe they need to try taking a test -- https://www.proprofs.com/quiz-school/story.php?title=which-one-doesnt-belong-game

Okay... aside from insulting the intelligence of those with whom you disagree, what are you adding to this discussion?

Max_Killjoy
2017-06-13, 03:45 PM
In Shadowrun, you can do that:
- Race: Human; Cyberware: more than none

You can't have Race: Human and Race: AI, though; and you can't be both an AI and a cyborg.

The fact that RPG race is not universal is okay. Each RPG uses that category descriptor in a way that's (hopefully) useful & informative for that specific RPG.

Yep! In Basic D&D, there was no orthogonal line category. That's an innovation of 1e (Advanced D&D).

Nope! In Basic Debt & Derivatives, "apple golem" is both your race and your class. You need to wait for another edition to allow your genre-defying Apple Sue character.


That it's been in the rules of some games... doesn't make it a less broken or dysfunctional construct.

( And it's pretty laughable here how you sneakily imply that trying to separate two orthogonal axes of possibility is the same trying to create "genre-defying Sue characters". )




Okay... aside from insulting the intelligence of those with whom you disagree, what are you adding to this discussion?


Evidently some perspective beyond "that's how some RPGs do it, so it must be fine".

Orthogonal options and mutually exclusive options don't belong on the same single-choice list. "False dichotomy" is considered a logical fallacy for a reason.

If we're talking about a list of actually mutually exclusive "types of being", such that a character can only be one of them, and most of them are distinct biological species, then "species", or "sophont type" are functional names for that list of exclusive choices.

But if in a fantasy setting, humans and elves and halflings and dwarves can all become the same sort of intelligent undead, then that intelligent undead is not a "species" or a "sophont type" or whatever -- and it's not a race. To call it a "race" is both to fall back on a broken "term of art", and to falsely establish mutual exclusivity where it does not exist.

Nifft
2017-06-13, 03:54 PM
That it's been in the rules of some games... doesn't make it a less broken or dysfunctional construct. It's been perfectly functional for ~40 years, under a variety of different uses.


Evidently some perspective beyond "that's how some RPGs do it, so it must be fine". Your only visible "perspective" is: you don't like it.

Just so you know, that's usually called an opinion, and opinions are significantly more common & lower value than a new perspective would have been.


Orthogonal options and mutually exclusive options don't belong on the same list of choices. "False dichotomy" is considered a logical fallacy for a reason. Are you joking? They're not on the same list -- they're on lists in different games, which don't conflict with each other because they are different games.

Eberron gnomes being spies does not conflict with Dark Sun gnomes being extinct.

hamishspence
2017-06-13, 03:54 PM
In D&D, undead templates tend to be the rule.

"cyborg" could work well as such a template in a more futuristic game.

Honest Tiefling
2017-06-13, 03:56 PM
Again, missing my point. I was trying to include as many different skin colors and ethnical physiologies I would think are present in fantasy(D&D, Tolkien, etc). Then again, I'm from Venezuela, where you can call any person with dark skin "negro" to get their attention, or it's their nickname, or it's even an affectionate nickname in their relationship(seen plenty of girls getting called "Mi negra bella" and blushing), just the same that anybody asian is called "chino"(china man for you english speakers) and anyone who resembles an aboriginal is called "indio"(indian) and nobody raises an eyebrow.

From my understanding, and this may not really apply to Venezula, but racial categories in South America are often decided not by descent/culture, but by physical appearance. So not so different from calling a person white because you can't be bothered to figure out the different types of white people being offensive, but calling people white because they are white physically is less offensive. At least in my opinion.

Max_Killjoy
2017-06-13, 04:04 PM
It's been perfectly functional for ~40 years, under a variety of different uses.


"That's how we've always done it, and it's fine!"... yes, a very convincing argument. How's treating those imbalanced humors working out for you?




Your only visible "perspective" is: you don't like it.
Just so you know, that's usually called an opinion, and opinions are significantly more common & lower value than a new perspective would have been.


"Well that's just your opinion, man!"... the last rallying cry of people with nothing to support their argument.




Are you joking? They're not on the same list -- they're on lists in different games,


Fighter, mage, thief... or elf... isn't a (false-choice) list in a single specific game? :smallconfused:

Human, rattataki, sith, twi'lek... or cyborg... isn't a (false-choice) list in a single specific game? :smallconfused:

Where exactly are you (falsely) asserting that I've mixed lists from different games into a single example?

Nifft
2017-06-13, 04:14 PM
"That's how we've always done it, and it's fine!"... yes, a very convincing argument. How's treating those imbalanced humors working out for you? You brought up the False Dichotomy fallacy in your last post, and now you're committing one in the first sentence of this post.

My humor is working overtime, thanks to your "arguments".


"Well that's just your opinion, man!"... the last rallying cry of people with nothing to support their argument. You explicitly said you don't actually have a positive argument, so you really shouldn't get upset that someone else also acknowledges that fact.


Fighter, mage, thief... or elf... isn't a (false-choice) list in a single specific game? :smallconfused: For some games, it's a valid choice, and not false at all.

For example, Basic D&D.


Human, wookie, sith, twi'lek... or cyborg... isn't a (false-choice) list in a single specific game? :smallconfused: According to you, that is a valid choice in a different game. I have no reason to doubt your honesty about this fact, even if this fact confuses you.


Where exactly are you (falsely) asserting that I've mixed lists from different games into a single example?

Here:


I'm arguing against cramming things into the same "list of mutually exclusive options" that don't belong in the same category. Take for example the MMO SWTOR -- they made "human" and "cyborg" into separate races, when the two are orthogonal. Being a cyborg is not mutually exclusive with being a human. A human, or a twi'lek, or a sith, or whatever -- in theory, outside the goofy mechanics, a character could be any of those and ALSO could be a cyborg. They're orthogonal in games like Shadowrun. They're (apparently) not orthogonal in the SWTOR MMO. You're getting confused because you want one consistent word to work across two different rules sets.

Mikemical
2017-06-13, 04:25 PM
That still does not answer the question. What site? Names, dammit!

Aaaand he left.


In what way has this thread been unpleasant? I've just finished skimming the thread - and it seems to be surprisingly genteel for such a hot-button topic.

Do you just disagree with the opinions expressed and find them inherently offensive?

I don't want to be banned by bringing up politics into the thread, so I'm just gonna say this:

People who ask if something is considered offensive by the group they hang out with often consider it offensive themselves. They just hope their group will also consider it offensive, therefore, "proving them right". When they don't get the response they want, they often leave the discussion saying something that gives them the feeling that they are the adults then walking out of the conversation having "the last word".

Of course, that's not how it works. It's like thinking that conceding a game of chess means you put the other player in checkmate because the other player doesn't get to make any more moves because the game is over(because you quit).

JadedDM
2017-06-13, 04:34 PM
Edit: Also, china man without the space is censored. Can we all agree that's the least hurtful racial slur ever invented? They are men from China.

I don't think you understand what makes slurs offensive. It has nothing to do with their accuracy. It is the way they are used to oppress people. In the same way that 'idiot' and 'moron' used to be scientific words for people with low IQs, but they were used as insults so often that they are now just that and nothing else.

Max_Killjoy
2017-06-13, 04:42 PM
You brought up the False Dichotomy fallacy in your last post, and now you're committing one in the first sentence of this post.


Pointing out your appeal to tradition (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition) ("it's been done this way for 40 years") is not "committing a false dichotomy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma)".




You explicitly said you don't actually have a positive argument, so you really shouldn't get upset that someone else also acknowledges that fact.


So according to you, "not having a positive argument" is the same as "just stating an opinion"? :smallconfused: No one can argue against something unless they have an alternative to argue in favor of?

Really?




For some games, it's a valid choice, and not false at all.

For example, Basic D&D.


Again... that it was in a game, doesn't make it a "valid choice". Rules can be wrong. And conflating the species someone was born into (elf in this case) with the focus of their skillset (fight, mage, thief, cleric, whatever) is an instance of a game being wrong about something.




According to you, that is a valid choice in a different game. I have no reason to doubt your honesty about this fact, even if this fact confuses you.


That is purely you attempting to put words in my mouth.

I said that another game's rules do it -- which has absolutely zero bearing on whether or not it's a "valid choice".

If you read what I actually posted, it's quite clear that I'm pointing out a mistake that said other game is making as an example of that mistake, not claiming that it's a valid choice in one game and not a valid choice in another game.




Here:


I'm arguing against cramming things into the same "list of mutually exclusive options" that don't belong in the same category. Take for example the MMO SWTOR -- they made "human" and "cyborg" into separate races, when the two are orthogonal. Being a cyborg is not mutually exclusive with being a human. A human, or a twi'lek, or a sith, or whatever -- in theory, outside the goofy mechanics, a character could be any of those and ALSO could be a cyborg.

They're orthogonal in games like Shadowrun. They're (apparently) not orthogonal in the SWTOR MMO. You're getting confused because you want one consistent word to work across two different rules sets.


First, that list is from a single game, I said nothing about Shadowrun in that list.

Second, again, what the game rules do or don't do is meaningless in determining whether a false choice has been imposed in any particular instance. "Human" and "cyborg" are orthogonal because they're orthogonal, because they're not mutually exclusive, because they sit on different axes of choice, regardless of any conflation or mistakes written into the rules of a particular game.

RPG rules exist to map the landscape, not define it. If the "map" doesn't show a bridge at a particular spot, but I'm standing at that spot and there's a bridge right there in front of me, and I can put my foot on it, and walk across, and get to the other side of the river or chasm or whatever... then it's the map that's wrong.

If a game setting (the landscape) shows me people who are clearly human beings but happen to have some cyborg parts, but the rules (the map) say "humans and cyborgs are mutually exclusive "races"", then the map is wrong. The rules are wrong. A false choice has been presented.


E: just so we avoid going around this roundabout any more, let me make this plainly clear -- it wouldn't matter if every RPG ever, from every edition of D&D to the most obscure indy press boutique games ever made to every homebrew that never saw the light of PDF, all had committed the error in question. It would still be an error.

hamishspence
2017-06-13, 04:51 PM
If a game setting (the landscape) shows me people who are clearly human beings but happen to have some cyborg parts, but the rules (the map) say "humans and cyborgs are mutually exclusive "races"", then the map is wrong. The rules are wrong. A false choice has been presented.

Star Munchkin D20 (parodic, but still basically D20 and futuristic) had "cyborgs" as close to human, but not completely human - they're vat-grown rather than born the usual way, their bodies are much better at receiving Cyborgnetic Implants (the game's spelling) than those of other PC types (take less CON damage for implants and modifications) - etc.

Nifft
2017-06-13, 04:59 PM
Pointing out your appeal to tradition (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition) ("it's been done this way for 40 years") is not "committing a false dichotomy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma)". Your claim was actually that "it still works" was somehow comparable to the medieval medical practice of humours.

That's a false dichotomy -- the choice is not between your way vs. medieval medicine.

You're wrong about RPG race, and at the same time modern medicine is unthreatened.


So according to you, "not having a positive argument" is the same as "just stating an opinion"? :smallconfused: No one can argue against something unless they have an alternative to argue in favor of? Oh look, it's another false dichotomy.

No, what I'm saying is that all ~you~ are doing is posting an opinion. (Which is fine. You're free to have those.)

The conflict is when you try to pass off your opinion as anything else.

(And when you insult those who disagree with you.)



Again... that it was in a game, doesn't make it a "valid choice". Rules can be wrong. The rules of an RPG are correct for that RPG, unless they contradict themselves.

Shadowrun says cyborgs are a gear choice; SW MMO BLURP says cyborgs are a race choice. Both are correct within their own games.



Second, again, what the game rules do or don't do is meaningless in determining whether a false choice has been imposed in any particular instance. "Human" and "cyborg" are orthogonal because they're orthogonal, because they're not mutually exclusive, because they sit on different axes of choice, regardless of any conflation or mistakes written into the rules of a particular game.

RPG rules exist to map the landscape, not define it. If the "map" doesn't show a bridge at a particular spot, but I'm standing at that spot and there's a bridge right there in front of me, and I can put my foot on it, and walk across, and get to the other side of the river or chasm or whatever... then it's the map that's wrong.

If a game setting (the landscape) shows me people who are clearly human beings but happen to have some cyborg parts, but the rules (the map) say "humans and cyborgs are mutually exclusive "races"", then the map is wrong. The rules are wrong. A false choice has been presented.

I think we're finally at the basic disconnect.

To me, an RPG is a game.

Games are allowed to use abstractions & arbitrary distinctions in order to create a viable playing environment.

There is no universal truth that each game is required to embody -- some will have "cyborg" as a race or class or equipment choice, some games will have no cyborgs at all, and none of them are wrong.

If a game says that you must choose between being smarter or stronger, it's not a false choice -- even though IRL there are probably people who are smarter and stronger than me. Real life isn't subject to game balance, more's the pity.

Max_Killjoy
2017-06-13, 06:08 PM
Your claim was actually that "it still works" was somehow comparable to the medieval medical practice of humours.

That's a false dichotomy -- the choice is not between your way vs. medieval medicine.


Analogy (http://www.dictionary.com/browse/analogy). It was an analogy, to illustrate how you were committing the appeal to tradition fallacy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition).

Saying "games have done this for a long time, so there's nothing wrong with it" is like saying "we've treated illness by balancing humors for a long time, so there's nothing wrong with it." My statement made no assertion as to there being choices, two or otherwise -- it only made a comparison. A comparison between your argument and a known false position is not a "false dichotomy".




Oh look, it's another false dichotomy.


"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." — Inigo Montoya

False dichotomy. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma)





No, what I'm saying is that all ~you~ are doing is posting an opinion. (Which is fine. You're free to have those.)


Ah... so what are you doing, other than posting your opinion?

"That's just your opinion, man" is a non-argument, a vapid rhetorical nothing, which immediately applies to the person throwing it as much as the person they're trying to hit with it.




(And when you insult those who disagree with you.)


Something about a log... (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_7:5)




The rules of an RPG are correct for that RPG, unless they contradict themselves.

Shadowrun says cyborgs are a gear choice; SW MMO BLURP says cyborgs are a race choice. Both are correct within their own games.


The rules of an RPG are correct or incorrect in that they accurately represent the setting, details, and tone that they are intended to represent.





I think we're finally at the basic disconnect.

To me, an RPG is a game.

Games are allowed to use abstractions & arbitrary distinctions in order to create a viable playing environment.


An RPG that fixates too heavily on the G... is a board-game dressed up in the clothing of an RPG.




There is no universal truth that each game is required to embody -- some will have "cyborg" as a race or class or equipment choice, some games will have no cyborgs at all, and none of them are wrong.


Who said anything about "universal truth"? I certainly didn't -- was there a post I missed by someone else?

Each games rules succeed or fail in whether they accurately present the specific "truth" of the setting where that game occurs.




If a game says that you must choose between being smarter or stronger, it's not a false choice -- even though IRL there are probably people who are smarter and stronger than me. Real life isn't subject to game balance, more's the pity.


If the game claims to represent the real world, and yet has no way within the rules to represent someone who is both smart and strong, then the rules of that game have failed.

Guizonde
2017-06-13, 06:27 PM
In D&D, undead templates tend to be the rule.

"cyborg" could work well as such a template in a more futuristic game.

is it common to talk about just "necropolitans", "liches", "cyborgs/augmenteds"? i've rarely had discussions when the base profile/build/race was not specified openly. it's a world of difference between a combat-oriented necropolitan half-elf, a casting-oriented halfling liche, or even a cybernetically augmented human. undead isn't a race, it's a state of fact, just like cybernetics. unless you're heartless by default, like lawyers, accountants, or your average player...

fun fact: if you know someone with a contraceptive implant or a pacemaker, they're cyborgs, according to the traditional definition. sometimes, i forget we live in the future.

... although technically we're getting into meta-humans and transhumanism by that point, so it's more relevant to shadowrun than to dnd.

Nifft
2017-06-13, 07:03 PM
Analogy (http://www.dictionary.com/browse/analogy). It was an analogy, to illustrate how you were committing the appeal to tradition fallacy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition).

Saying "games have done this for a long time, so there's nothing wrong with it" is like saying "we've treated illness by balancing humors for a long time, so there's nothing wrong with it." My statement made no assertion as to there being choices, two or otherwise -- it only made a comparison. A comparison between your argument and a known false position is not a "false dichotomy". Actually I'm saying that it appears to have worked for a lot of people over the last ~40 years, so it's demonstrably not broken.

This is not an appeal to tradition fallacy because I'm not saying "older is better than newer" -- there is no newer, since nobody has put forward a viable alternative.

So all I'm saying is that a lot of people have been able to use the term correctly, and your personal confusion about it is not a general concern. It's just you.



"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." — Inigo Montoya

False dichotomy. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma) Ah yes, disagreeing with you ~must~ imply that I'm uninformed.

Such brilliant rhetoric.



Ah... so what are you doing, other than posting your opinion?

"That's just your opinion, man" is a non-argument, a vapid rhetorical nothing, which immediately applies to the person throwing it as much as the person they're trying to hit with it. Great question, thanks for asking. What I'm posting are facts and reasoned arguments. What I'm trying to evoke from other posters are ideas for new terms which can be used as a replacement -- I'm actively searching for this, instead of merely posting an opinion.

You may consider your own opinion to be "a vapid, rhetorical nothing" -- but do not put words in someone else's mouth, please.

That would be uncivil.



Who said anything about "universal truth"? I certainly didn't -- was there a post I missed by someone else?

Each games rules succeed or fail in whether they accurately present the specific "truth" of the setting where that game occurs.

I'd like you to square that with this:



Second, again, what the game rules do or don't do is meaningless in determining whether a false choice has been imposed in any particular instance. "Human" and "cyborg" are orthogonal because they're orthogonal, because they're not mutually exclusive, because they sit on different axes of choice, regardless of any conflation or mistakes written into the rules of a particular game.


It sure looks like you're claiming that the rules of any game are "incorrect" if they don't match your specific opinions about what choices should be allowed.

Honest Tiefling
2017-06-13, 07:14 PM
I don't think you understand what makes slurs offensive. It has nothing to do with their accuracy. It is the way they are used to oppress people. In the same way that 'idiot' and 'moron' used to be scientific words for people with low IQs, but they were used as insults so often that they are now just that and nothing else.

Historical basis has a lot to do with it as well. Since that term got used a lot in the days of 'Yellow Peril', it's kinda fallen out of favor even if it is technically accurate.

Bohandas
2017-06-13, 08:04 PM
I never found it offensive but I found the fact that the word is being definitely misused to be bothersome

Bohandas
2017-06-13, 08:12 PM
Edit: Also, china man without the space is censored. Can we all agree that's the least hurtful racial slur ever invented? They are men from China.

Also IIRC it's a literal translation of a chinese phrase.

That said, I think the issue is when it is used to refer to people from Japan or Korea (etc), and also when it is applied to women.

Max_Killjoy
2017-06-13, 08:33 PM
Actually I'm saying that it appears to have worked for a lot of people over the last ~40 years, so it's demonstrably not broken.

This is not an appeal to tradition fallacy because I'm not saying "older is better than newer" -- there is no newer, since nobody has put forward a viable alternative.

So all I'm saying is that a lot of people have been able to use the term correctly, and your personal confusion about it is not a general concern. It's just you.


Huh...

Appeal to Tradition -- Appeal to tradition (also known as argumentum ad antiquitatem, appeal to antiquity, or appeal to common practice) is a common fallacy in which a thesis is deemed correct on the basis that it is correlated with some past or present tradition. The appeal takes the form of "this is right because we've always done it this way".



It's been perfectly functional for ~40 years, under a variety of different uses.



And actually, plenty of other games have NOT used the term "race" to mean something it doesn't mean, have not used it as a stand-in for "species", have not used it as a catchall conflation of orthogonal aspects of setting or character, and thus have not made the mistake that D&D and various copy-cat games have made with that word or with that conflation.

Viable alternatives abound. In fact, so many games have avoided it... that one has conclude that anyone with a broad knowledge of RPGs would be well aware of all the examples...

It is ironic that you continue to insult those who disagree with you as "confused", and then feign aggrievement as follows.




Ah yes, disagreeing with you ~must~ imply that I'm uninformed.


Your repeated misuse the term "false dichotomy" demonstrates that you do not know what what "false dichotomy" means -- thus the links to the actual meaning that have been repeatedly posted in response. Whether you disagree with me on the particular matter or not is irrelevant.




Great question, thanks for asking. What I'm posting are facts and reasoned arguments.


You may every well believe that.

Oh well.





You may consider your own opinion to be "a vapid, rhetorical nothing" -- but do not put words in someone else's mouth, please.


And yet you just did. Put words in someone else's mouth. Again. It's getting hard to see where you ever had anything like an argument to begin with, what with all the strawmen and ad hom and distortion.

Clearly, I do not consider my own position "a vapid rhetorical nothing". Here's what I actually said:



"That's just your opinion, man" is a non-argument, a vapid rhetorical nothing, which immediately applies to the person throwing it as much as the person they're trying to hit with it.


That is, every time you say "that's just your opinion", you are making a statement that applies to your own position just as much as it does to anyone you're trying to avoid actually having to present an actual argument against.




I'd like you to square that with this:

It sure looks like you're claiming that the rules of any game are "incorrect" if they don't match your specific opinions about what choices should be allowed.


Again, you're putting words in my mouth. Again. I never said that the rules had to match my opinion about what choices should be allowed.

I said that the rules had to match the choices put forward by the setting. If the setting for a game shows us that humans can become cyborgs, then "human" and "cyborg" are not two separate choices -- a character can be BOTH human AND a cyborg. If the rules for the same game insist that a character is EITHER human OR a cyborg, and never both, then those rules have failed to represent the setting.

tedcahill2
2017-06-13, 08:48 PM
In 5 pages this has probably been said, but species isn't accurate.

Humanoid is the species; elf, human, and dwarf are all breeds or races, depending on genetics.

All members of a species shares a similar genetic make up, whereas breeds will have more distinct genetics.

D&D obviously doesn't delve into that, so I can't say for sure if they're referred to races for convenience or because it's implied that all humanoids are genetically similar.

In a world full of magic it's hard to argue that race isn't accurate.

Max_Killjoy
2017-06-13, 08:58 PM
In 5 pages this has probably been said, but species isn't accurate.

Humanoid is the species; elf, human, and dwarf are all breeds or races, depending on genetics.

All members of a species shares a similar genetic make up, whereas breeds will have more distinct genetics.

D&D obviously doesn't delve into that, so I can't say for sure if they're referred to races for convenience or because it's implied that all humanoids are genetically similar.

In a world full of magic it's hard to argue that race isn't accurate.

So, to be clear -- are you saying that humans, elves, dwarves, halflings, orcs, etc, are all one species? Or am I misunderstanding?

If so, then "breed" would probably be more accurate than "race", because clearly a dwarf and an orc (for example) are not just "different races" -- "race" is a very superficial set of distinctions related mainly to minor differences in appearance that fall far short of all the differences between orcs and dwarves... with more sociological impact than real impact, in the world we have to deal with.

Or perhaps "subspecies"?

Funny thought... if they were plants, then maybe they'd be different cultivars... consider that cabbage, Brussels sprouts, cauliflower, broccoli, and several other "different" vegetables are all cultivars of one single species of plant (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brassica_oleracea).

Mechalich
2017-06-13, 10:15 PM
One thing people in this thread seem to have trouble understanding is the nature of reproductive isolation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproductive_isolation). When Ernst Mayr proposed the biological species concept he referred to populations in reproductive isolation - which means that they do not interbreed, which is not the same as that they cannot interbreed. There are a great many separate species that, if you push them together in a lab, or go further and start engaging in artificial insemination, will successfully produce fertile hybrids, but that will never or almost never do this in the wild due to barriers of space, time, mating cues, mechanical difficulties, and so forth.

So humans and dwarves, for instance, which only produce offspring together when forced to do so in Dark Sun, seem to stand solidly as pre-zygotically isolated species. Humans and halflings (and potentially gnomes as well) are probably mechanically isolated, and the same is probably true of most medium/small humanoid pairings in D&D and many other systems (considering that people tend to consider this squicky anyway, that's probably a good thing). Humans and orcs and humans and elves are a case of it depends where and when you are looking at. Half-elves used to be rare - back in the 80s they were rare enough on Krynn that having a character named 'Tanis Half-Elven' was a thing. Humans and elves might occasionally find each other attractive, but the general case was that they kept apart. The same was largely true of orcs, which were initially considered hideous monsters and half-orcs were based in a 'horrible thing happened to mom' sort of origin. And then orcs were gradually shifted into something much more aesthetically appealing in other settings (Warcraft, Elder Scrolls, etc.) and that changed.

So this sort of thing is regrettably subject to change over time due to alterations in the opinion of the general public and also due to lack of proper planning by authors who may be totally ignorant of evolutionary biology (like the time that Star Wars suddenly made Human-Twi'lek hybridization (http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Shaeeah_Lawquane) possible when it had been ruled impossible for 30 years). As a result we're left with weirdness. Species as a term for D&D 'races' is actually more appropriate for the 1e and 2e, when hybrids were much less common, while 'breeds' might be better for 3e onwards since everyone seems to be mating with each other like crazy at that point.

Coidzor
2017-06-14, 12:04 AM
Glad we finally had an argument put forward to express something of where this thread came from in the first place, even if it did take until Page 4 to manage it.


Edit: on the other hand, that would be breeds in English. Sometimes I'm about half as clever as I'd like to be.

Now, using breeds would have some racist overtones and/or undertones. Probably some dehumanization connotations too. ...Animalization? :smallconfused:


In what way has this thread been unpleasant? I've just finished skimming the thread - and it seems to be surprisingly genteel for such a hot-button topic.

Do you just disagree with the opinions expressed and find them inherently offensive?

It's not even a hot-button topic. This is literally just out of left field, unlike, say, current political events involving race in various Western nations or racial profiling or affirmative action or differing standards about how bad it is to assault or kill someone based upon the color of their skin.


Evidently some perspective beyond "that's how some RPGs do it, so it must be fine".

Maybe you should take a step back and take some perspective about how you began in this thread arguing that we should completely ignore D&D, because talking about it is somehow magically illegitimate when it's brought up as an example of a prominent lineage of game systems.


Historical basis has a lot to do with it as well. Since that term got used a lot in the days of 'Yellow Peril', it's kinda fallen out of favor even if it is technically accurate.

It's also just offensively bad grammar. :smallyuk:

Roland St. Jude
2017-06-14, 12:43 AM
...Because I'm a liberal middle-class white bloke living in a conservative part of my country, I'm not sure if anyone is actually offended by that term, or if I'm just being too cautious....
Sheriff: Thread locked for being inherently political. The rest of it is going to have to be reviewed for individual rules violations.