Since I can't post on the list of woke companies thread but I really think this comment needs adressin I'm starting it's own thread, the comment below:
Quote from: Festus on June 07, 2024, 06:12:31 PMRace, Ancestry, Heritage, Ethnicity, yadda yadda - I couldn't care less. They're all synonyms referring to different variations within a species, or what would be breeds if we were talking about animals.
Species is a scientific term indicating a unique genome with implications for members of different species' ability to produce viable, fertile offspring. I hate when games misapply that scientific term as 2024 DnD appears poised to do.
Personally I find Race vs. Ancestry a strange hill to die on, but hey that's the beauty of America - to each their own.
So much wrong in a few words...
We're not talking about Teh Science, we're talking about elfgames, several people above this comment have said they don't mind the term "Species" in an Sci-Fi setting.
In D&D (and other fantasy games), up till 5 minutes ago the term was race, it wasn't used in a scientific way to signal differences between a given species, since Dwarves, Elfs, Halflings, Orcs, Goblins, etc were all called races.
Up till 5 minutes ago you had only a few races being able to crossbreed. Then the decay started to set in and the number increased until the point that I'm not even sure if warforged/human hybrids are possible or not in official D&D.
The change wasn't done out of some misguided "I love Teh Science" BS, it was made for ideological reasons, because the leftards can't read the description of an Orc without thinking about black people and project their own racism unto those of us who don't share that odious trait.
I fully understood what they were talking about. And I think it's overblown. Of course corporations will do whatever they think will help sales the most or hurt them the least, because that's exactly what corporations are designed to do. And individual creators are free to make the same calculations too, although they don't have to answer to shareholders if they decide their principles conflict with profit. Time always tells whether or not these sort of calculations are right or wrong.
But IMO the notion that using "ancestry" vs. "race" in a TTRPG ruleset is a harbinger of social decay is ridiculous. If our society is indeed that fragile, perhaps we should blow it up and start over. But I don't think it is. The change in terminology also doesn't hurt me or change how I play or think about my games. I run my games how I want, always have and always will. I feel free to change all sorts of things which require far more work and thought than swapping one synonym for another. The authors' motives for the change don't constrain me in any way.
But of course you're free to disagree. That's the cool part. We each get to decide for ourselves.
Greetings!
Yeah, I can see companies changing use of the term "Race" and swapping that for "Ancestry" simply because it is very popular right now--probably with most companies. Embracing such editorial policy does not necessarily mean that the company is entirely corrupted with Commie Woke scum--but it is definitely a sign to take a closer look, in my view. I think many companies specifically embrace such an editorial policy simply to pursue broader profitability and avoid any kind of negative publicity.
I can well imagine some Lawyer guy on staff saying,
"Yeah, just change it. It offends very few and will help us avoid being screeched at by the Woke animals. Conversely, using "Race" will please *some" but likely offend even more, and attract the attention of the Woke mob. So, yeah. Just change it to be on the safe side of things, and well, doing so also broadens that profitability net for the company. I'm looking forward to that trip next quarter with my wife to Cancun!"
There just is not any comparable downside to changing it, compared to the shitstorm that can potentially fly by not changing the term. Exposure and profitability. These are two key concepts that drive companies most of the time.
Still, I would closely look further at the company products to see if such was an isolated editorial move--with exposure and profitability in mind--or if it really demonstrates a "Red Flag" of other Woke BS being piped into the company's products.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
I think that an old Bard said it best.
Quote from: ShakespeareA rose by any other name would smell as sweet.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on June 07, 2024, 07:48:57 PMThe change wasn't done out of some misguided "I love Teh Science" BS, it was made for ideological reasons, because the leftards can't read the description of an Orc without thinking about black people and project their own racism unto those of us who don't share that odious trait.
"It was Gimli the dwarf who broke in suddenly. 'The words of this wizard stand on their heads,' he growled, gripping the handle of his axe. 'In the language of Orthanc help means ruin, and saving means slaying, that is plain. But we do not come here to beg.'"
I wouldn't mind the change so much if I didn't know the underlying rationality of why they are doing it, more or less new-speak type tactics.
In the transition of my homebrew and setting stuff from 3e to 5e, I started using the terms "peoples" or "Spoken" (with the implication that if you can communicate reasonably, you're probably people) for PC races.
"Species" feels a bit too sci-fi for me. My setting has sci-fi elements, but it's not sci-fi at its core.
But it felt a bit weird to refer to literal robots or spaceborne plant people as "races." It strikes me as an anthropocentric term, these days.
I was working on a design a few years back that had an unusual slant on races. Other parts didn't work out, but I kind of liked where the racial part was going. I was going to call it "Heritage" because it was a fairly accurate term. But then I decided that "Bloodlines" was an even better term--with the bonus that anyone that freaked out about using "race" would be doubly offended, and thus I'd never need to deal with such people. :D
Ancestry would make a lot of sense in a fantasy game that was all one species, focused more on culture than biology.
Changing existing games from "Race" to "Ancestry" is a symptom of stupid because the term is less accurate for what is being portrayed, and obviously done for pandering reasons. Anyone that will do that is likely to have other poorly chosen terminology for equally stupid reasons. Games have enough flaws as it is even when authors aren't being deliberately stupid.
I wouldn't automatically avoid a new game that used another term--if the term made sense within the context of what the game was about.
Only reason I even pondered Ancestry was that it would let me refer to character creation as "The ABCs" (Ancestry, Background, Class, subclass).
That said, I ultimately settled on Race with a sidebar discussing the importance of clear terms and that Race has long been the settled RPG term for "options available for PCs" while the term "creature" (as the number of things in the game are too broad even for species) is used for NPC-only options in my system.
For purposes of a game, having a clear term for "you can pick this" and another for "you cannot pick this" is more useful than strict scientific accuracy.
So, serious question here. I'm writing up the rules right now for a human-only scifi game (no intelligent xenos have ever been discovered... yet). Some humans have adapted to their world (some naturally, some via bioengineering), so they have different groupings based on their homeworld or bioengineered design (some adapted to high-G worlds, etc.). What should I call it? "Race" doesn't really fit, nor does "ancestry" or "species." Things like "lineage" imply that their parents were like that (which is not always the case). I'm actually stumped here, because I'm not pandering, but "race" really doesn't work. Any suggestions are welcome!
Quote from: Eirikrautha on June 07, 2024, 10:50:58 PMI'm writing up the rules right now for a human-only scifi game (no intelligent xenos have ever been discovered... yet). Some humans have adapted to their world (some naturally, some via bioengineering), so they have different groupings based on their homeworld or bioengineered design (some adapted to high-G worlds, etc.). What should I call it?
Off the cuff, I'd be tempted to call it something like "DNA/Bio strain", and then say that most people use "strain" for short. You can bet in such a world that someone's got a technical term for it, and then a lot of non-tech people have some shorter variant of whatever that tech term is.
Quote from: Steven Mitchell on June 07, 2024, 11:12:21 PMQuote from: Eirikrautha on June 07, 2024, 10:50:58 PMI'm writing up the rules right now for a human-only scifi game (no intelligent xenos have ever been discovered... yet). Some humans have adapted to their world (some naturally, some via bioengineering), so they have different groupings based on their homeworld or bioengineered design (some adapted to high-G worlds, etc.). What should I call it?
Off the cuff, I'd be tempted to call it something like "DNA/Bio strain", and then say that most people use "strain" for short. You can bet in such a world that someone's got a technical term for it, and then a lot of non-tech people have some shorter variant of whatever that tech term is.
I think "strain" is fine. For a more technical term, you could use "phenotype" -- defined as "the set of observable characteristics of an individual resulting from the interaction of its genotype with the environment". That could include things like being raised in a high-gravity world, which could change an individual even if they have the same DNA as others.
Quote from: Festus on June 07, 2024, 08:08:42 PMI fully understood what they were talking about. And I think it's overblown. Of course corporations will do whatever they think will help sales the most or hurt them the least, because that's exactly what corporations are designed to do. And individual creators are free to make the same calculations too, although they don't have to answer to shareholders if they decide their principles conflict with profit. Time always tells whether or not these sort of calculations are right or wrong.
But IMO the notion that using "ancestry" vs. "race" in a TTRPG ruleset is a harbinger of social decay is ridiculous. If our society is indeed that fragile, perhaps we should blow it up and start over. But I don't think it is. The change in terminology also doesn't hurt me or change how I play or think about my games. I run my games how I want, always have and always will. I feel free to change all sorts of things which require far more work and thought than swapping one synonym for another. The authors' motives for the change don't constrain me in any way.
But of course you're free to disagree. That's the cool part. We each get to decide for ourselves.
Care to point exactly where I talk about social decay?
I'm clearly talking about the games.
The rest is an appeal to irrelevance, it clearly matters enough to those who push for the change, it clearly is because of the reasons I cite, I fail to see why would you jump to defend the honor of the mega-corp (I could hazard a guess but I'd be making assumptions).
Quote from: GnomeWorks on June 07, 2024, 10:07:36 PMIn the transition of my homebrew and setting stuff from 3e to 5e, I started using the terms "peoples" or "Spoken" (with the implication that if you can communicate reasonably, you're probably people) for PC races.
"Species" feels a bit too sci-fi for me. My setting has sci-fi elements, but it's not sci-fi at its core.
But it felt a bit weird to refer to literal robots or spaceborne plant people as "races." It strikes me as an anthropocentric term, these days.
Well, to be precise, people means humans...
Quote from: Chris24601 on June 07, 2024, 10:44:28 PMOnly reason I even pondered Ancestry was that it would let me refer to character creation as "The ABCs" (Ancestry, Background, Class, subclass).
That said, I ultimately settled on Race with a sidebar discussing the importance of clear terms and that Race has long been the settled RPG term for "options available for PCs" while the term "creature" (as the number of things in the game are too broad even for species) is used for NPC-only options in my system.
For purposes of a game, having a clear term for "you can pick this" and another for "you cannot pick this" is more useful than strict scientific accuracy.
Also race is part of the RPG lingua franca, only sub-normals find it offensive.
Quote from: Steven Mitchell on June 07, 2024, 11:12:21 PMQuote from: Eirikrautha on June 07, 2024, 10:50:58 PMI'm writing up the rules right now for a human-only scifi game (no intelligent xenos have ever been discovered... yet). Some humans have adapted to their world (some naturally, some via bioengineering), so they have different groupings based on their homeworld or bioengineered design (some adapted to high-G worlds, etc.). What should I call it?
Off the cuff, I'd be tempted to call it something like "DNA/Bio strain", and then say that most people use "strain" for short. You can bet in such a world that someone's got a technical term for it, and then a lot of non-tech people have some shorter variant of whatever that tech term is.
Strain, as in Human Strain seems fine to me too, unless you want to offend the easily offended then go for sub-race (Terran Human being the normal and the rest a subrace off).
Seriously tho, Homo Sapiens... Sapiens for short and to avoid the inner 13 year old boy we all carry around.
So what type of Sapiens are you?
Terran, Selenite, Martian, Venusian, Belter (the asteroid belt), Jovian, etc. Or choose whatever planets are settled in your setting.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on June 08, 2024, 12:32:04 AMWell, to be precise, people means humans...
Which strikes me as an overly-anthropocentric definition of the word.
I was recently a player in a 5e game where I posed the question, "are goblins people?"
I clearly didn't mean that to imply that goblins were humans.
Quote from: Eirikrautha on June 07, 2024, 10:50:58 PMSo, serious question here. I'm writing up the rules right now for a human-only scifi game (no intelligent xenos have ever been discovered... yet). Some humans have adapted to their world (some naturally, some via bioengineering), so they have different groupings based on their homeworld or bioengineered design (some adapted to high-G worlds, etc.). What should I call it? "Race" doesn't really fit, nor does "ancestry" or "species." Things like "lineage" imply that their parents were like that (which is not always the case). I'm actually stumped here, because I'm not pandering, but "race" really doesn't work. Any suggestions are welcome!
My initial thought is "adapts," short for adaptation. So you have "High G adapts," "low oxy adapts," "rad hard adapts" etc.
Quote from: Festus on June 07, 2024, 08:08:42 PMBut IMO the notion that using "ancestry" vs. "race" in a TTRPG ruleset is a harbinger of social decay is ridiculous.
The claim that changing race to ancestry indicates some sort of general societal decay would indeed be overblown. I don't recall anyone here making any such claim though. People have said that this change is a red flag for them in a product. There's a reason for this. This sort of change is pushed by a specific sort of race obsessed leftist that conflates the way they use race in discussions of current race politics with the way race has been used in D&D and other fantasy games. They talk about how D&D needs a "racial reckoning" and think the game, the people who made it and the people who play it are evil racists. This change indicates agreement with this mindset or at least an attempt to pander to it. The problem is that people with this mindset are openly and proudly hostile toward me on several levels. They hate me because I'm white. They hate me because I am a man. They hate me because I am heterosexual, They hate me because I am conversative. They would gladly force me out of this hobby entirely if they could. Many would happily have me shot if they had the power to do so. I don't care to do business with such people.
Quote from: yosemitemike on June 08, 2024, 03:11:17 AMQuote from: Festus on June 07, 2024, 08:08:42 PMBut IMO the notion that using "ancestry" vs. "race" in a TTRPG ruleset is a harbinger of social decay is ridiculous.
The claim that changing race to ancestry indicates some sort of general societal decay would indeed be overblown. I don't recall anyone here making any such claim though. People have said that this change is a red flag for them in a product. There's a reason for this. This sort of change is pushed by a specific sort of race obsessed leftist that conflates the way they use race in discussions of current race politics with the way race has been used in D&D and other fantasy games. They talk about how D&D needs a "racial reckoning" and think the game, the people who made it and the people who play it are evil racists. This change indicates agreement with this mindset or at least an attempt to pander to it. The problem is that people with this mindset are openly and proudly hostile toward me on several levels. They hate me because I'm white. They hate me because I am a man. They hate me because I am heterosexual, They hate me because I am conversative. They would gladly force me out of this hobby entirely if they could. Many would happily have me shot if they had the power to do so. I don't care to do business with such people.
Exactly. It's a shibboleth, just the same as "lived experience" versus "experience" is. The words mean the same things, but you can learn a lot about a person's beliefs by just the choice of words.
Quote from: Steven Mitchell on June 07, 2024, 11:12:21 PMQuote from: Eirikrautha on June 07, 2024, 10:50:58 PMI'm writing up the rules right now for a human-only scifi game (no intelligent xenos have ever been discovered... yet). Some humans have adapted to their world (some naturally, some via bioengineering), so they have different groupings based on their homeworld or bioengineered design (some adapted to high-G worlds, etc.). What should I call it?
Off the cuff, I'd be tempted to call it something like "DNA/Bio strain", and then say that most people use "strain" for short. You can bet in such a world that someone's got a technical term for it, and then a lot of non-tech people have some shorter variant of whatever that tech term is.
I'm in a similar situation with a gonzo science-fantasy setting. I've considered "strain" to encompass various mutated humans ... but there are also different species, as well as robots (not even "Bio"). Does "strain" still cover all of that for you?
Regarding the OP -- as others have said, I want the category names to fit the setting preferably. "Ancestry" makes sense in some contexts, and is gross pandering in others.
For my home brew I use Kindred. Not for any social or political reason. But I don't want any half thises and quarter thats. Kindreds are distinct, separate, and unable to breed outside their kindred. Not that as humanoid forms they couldn't have sex, attraction, affection, or love. Despite the dangers of becoming involved with plant based mammalian life forms, humans are notorious for falling in love with elven females.
I limit the player options to human, dwarf, elf, gnome, and halfling. They all have in game benefits and constraints. These were designed to complement the game and setting I wanted to run.
So thumbs up if you change race for in game or design reasons. Thumbs down if you change race for political, social, or hurt feelings.
Quote from: Zalman on June 08, 2024, 06:56:49 AMI'm in a similar situation with a gonzo science-fantasy setting. I've considered "strain" to encompass various mutated humans ... but there are also different species, as well as robots (not even "Bio"). Does "strain" still cover all of that for you?
I can't really answer that, since I'm not in the target audience. My interest is more in the general question, as well as the linguistics/literary aspect of it. That's my point. The word chosen should definitely fit the setting (thematically, if nothing else), but there will be a certain amount of internal definition that doesn't necessarily exactly fit our world. That's where the more technical, precise distinctions used in the setting can help. "Strain" might not be the right choice, but there will be a short, punchy, imprecise word that is a good fit.
Of course, where necessary you can always go the other route. Use a word that has a mechanical definition for the players, that isn't generally used in the setting. That can be a bit of a disconnect when playing, but it is handy when trying to gloss over a bunch of distinctions that matter for internal discussion by characters in the setting, but mechanically don't make any difference. For example, I've got a bunch of weapons listed specifically, such as "dagger/dirk", "claymore/bastard sword", etc. I always use the first one listed when discussing mechanics. So it's both a setting and a mechanical term. The others do matter to the inhabitants, since different cultures favor one or the other, and thus using them has a mild social consequence. But as far as combat stats, there are no distinctions at the level that the mechanics function.
Quote from: Steven Mitchell on June 08, 2024, 07:14:47 AMI can't really answer that, since I'm not in the target audience. My interest is more in the general question, as well as the linguistics/literary aspect of it.
Yes, the linguistic aspect is what I'm interested in as well, no need to be part of the target audience. My point is that as setting varies, the names we pick for a traditional medieval fantasy don't necessary work as described.
Quote"Strain" might not be the right choice, but there will be a short, punchy, imprecise word that is a good fit.
So you say, but I've been hunting for this elusive word in a science-fantasy setting forever. Whatcha got?
Quote from: Eirikrautha on June 07, 2024, 10:50:58 PMSo, serious question here. I'm writing up the rules right now for a human-only scifi game (no intelligent xenos have ever been discovered... yet). Some humans have adapted to their world (some naturally, some via bioengineering), so they have different groupings based on their homeworld or bioengineered design (some adapted to high-G worlds, etc.). What should I call it? "Race" doesn't really fit, nor does "ancestry" or "species." Things like "lineage" imply that their parents were like that (which is not always the case). I'm actually stumped here, because I'm not pandering, but "race" really doesn't work. Any suggestions are welcome!
My vote would be for Phenotype; it's both scientifically accurate and has been used in at least one other human-only sci-fi setting (Battletech/Mechwarrior to refer to the results of the Clans' selective breeding programs to produce their Warrior, Elemental, and Aerospace castes).
Quote from: yosemitemike on June 08, 2024, 03:11:17 AMThe claim that changing race to ancestry indicates some sort of general societal decay would indeed be overblown. I don't recall anyone here making any such claim though. ... They hate me because I'm white. They hate me because I am a man. They hate me because I am heterosexual, They hate me because I am conversative. They would gladly force me out of this hobby entirely if they could. Many would happily have me shot if they had the power to do so.
And you don't think a society where that kind of hatred is commonplace and tolerated qualifies as being in decay? Just because folks may not have said it in exactly those words in this particular thread doesn't mean they're not saying it, over and over again, in this thread, on this site, and elsewhere. Let's not gaslight each other here. We both know what we're talking about.
As a straight, white, male about to turn 60 I don't think the vast majority of woke/leftist/whatever people hate me. Sure there is always someone but in my experience that's not the norm. I view these feelings of being under attack as overly dramatic. As Shoresy would say "Give your balls a tug!"
Regardless, I'll buy and play the games I want to play. My involvement in the hobby is up to me, not anyone else. As for those who hate the *idea* of me (because they don't know or think about *me* anymore than they know or think about you, don't flatter yourself) fuck 'em!
Quote from: Festus on June 08, 2024, 10:50:54 AMAnd you don't think a society where that kind of hatred is commonplace and tolerated qualifies as being in decay? Just because folks may not have said it in exactly those words in this particular thread doesn't mean they're not saying it, over and over again, in this thread, on this site, and elsewhere. Let's not gaslight each other here. We both know what we're talking about.
Just because they didn't say it doesn't mean they didn't say it. Actually, it does. No one has said it even one time in this thread and don't give me any of that code word dog whistle bullshit.
Quote from: Festus on June 08, 2024, 10:50:54 AMI view these feelings of being under attack as overly dramatic.
I didn't say I was under attack. I said I don't want to do business with people who hate me.
Quote from: Festus on June 08, 2024, 10:50:54 AMRegardless, I'll buy and play the games I want to play. My involvement in the hobby is up to me, not anyone else. As for those who hate the *idea* of me (because they don't know or think about *me* anymore than they know or think about you, don't flatter yourself) fuck 'em!
Who exactly said you couldn't do that? No one.
There are two conversations here, and in my view how one feels about the use or non-use of "race" depends on which conversation you're having.
Game mechanics - I'm fine with either race or ancestry or kindred or... in my fantasy games because they are a) mechanically synonymous, allowing the GM to permit or exclude any mixed-race character option they wish and b) they "fit" - the sound, connotation, vibe of those words don't feel out of place in a fantasy game. I don't like "species" in my fantasy game because a) I must either ignore its scientific meaning or else it is mechanically limiting and b) it doesn't fit with the vibe of a fantasy game. I agree with others who have said "species" is fine in an SF game.
Culture wars - the abandonment of "race" as an indication that the authors/publishers either "hate" people like me or kneel to those who "hate" people like me. I think this concern is a) dramaaaa-aah! omg and b) dumb. I've already wasted too much time on it.
Cheers!
Quote from: Festus on June 08, 2024, 11:14:48 AMCulture wars - the abandonment of "race" as an indication that the authors/publishers either "hate" people like me or kneel to those who "hate" people like me. I think this concern is a) dramaaaa-aah! omg and b) dumb. I've already wasted too much time on it.
This enlightened view should enable you to skip past about 80% of the conversations on this site.
Quote from: Festus on June 08, 2024, 10:50:54 AMQuote from: yosemitemike on June 08, 2024, 03:11:17 AMThe claim that changing race to ancestry indicates some sort of general societal decay would indeed be overblown. I don't recall anyone here making any such claim though. ... They hate me because I'm white. They hate me because I am a man. They hate me because I am heterosexual, They hate me because I am conversative. They would gladly force me out of this hobby entirely if they could. Many would happily have me shot if they had the power to do so.
And you don't think a society where that kind of hatred is commonplace and tolerated qualifies as being in decay? Just because folks may not have said it in exactly those words in this particular thread doesn't mean they're not saying it, over and over again, in this thread, on this site, and elsewhere. Let's not gaslight each other here. We both know what we're talking about.
As a straight, white, male about to turn 60 I don't think the vast majority of woke/leftist/whatever people hate me. Sure there is always someone but in my experience that's not the norm. I view these feelings of being under attack as overly dramatic. As Shoresy would say "Give your balls a tug!"
Regardless, I'll buy and play the games I want to play. My involvement in the hobby is up to me, not anyone else. As for those who hate the *idea* of me (because they don't know or think about *me* anymore than they know or think about you, don't flatter yourself) fuck 'em!
Where does he make a claim about society as a whole hating him? Hint, he doesn't.
Ego te absolvo a peccatis tuis
Quote from: GeekyBugle on June 08, 2024, 11:34:45 AMWhere does he make a claim about society as a whole hating him? Hint, he doesn't.
Where did I make a claim that society as a whole hated him? Hint, I didn't.
In fact, my whole point was exactly the opposite.
See how annoying, disingenuous, and dishonest that cheap semantic trick is?
Quote from: HappyDaze on June 08, 2024, 11:18:23 AMQuote from: Festus on June 08, 2024, 11:14:48 AMCulture wars - the abandonment of "race" as an indication that the authors/publishers either "hate" people like me or kneel to those who "hate" people like me. I think this concern is a) dramaaaa-aah! omg and b) dumb. I've already wasted too much time on it.
This enlightened view should enable you to skip past about 80% of the conversations on this site.
You are correct! I really should know better.
Quote from: Festus on June 08, 2024, 11:52:51 AMQuote from: GeekyBugle on June 08, 2024, 11:34:45 AMWhere does he make a claim about society as a whole hating him? Hint, he doesn't.
Where did I make a claim that society as a whole hated him? Hint, I didn't.
In fact, my whole point was exactly the opposite.
See how annoying, disingenuous, and dishonest that cheap semantic trick is?
Makes claims about society TWICE, gets called out, claims it's the one calling him out the one who's dishonest, disingenuous, annoying and using cheap semantic tricks...
Hmmm, both strain and phenotype have merits, and I hadn't considered either previously. Thanks, folks!
Quote from: Eirikrautha on June 08, 2024, 06:57:44 PMHmmm, both strain and phenotype have merits, and I hadn't considered either previously. Thanks, folks!
Just on the virtue of how it sounds to say out loud I like strain a lot more than phenotype.
Quote from: Festus on June 08, 2024, 11:14:48 AMCulture wars - the abandonment of "race" as an indication that the authors/publishers either "hate" people like me or kneel to those who "hate" people like me. I think this concern is a) dramaaaa-aah! omg and b) dumb. I've already wasted too much time on it.
I have come to that conclusion by reading what they have said publicly. They are not at all shy about saying all of these things.
I don't think we can really ignore the real world. On Earth 20 thousand years ago, we had Cro-Magnon, Neanderthal, Denisovans, and Floresiensis, all different species yet all able to interbreed. Indeed, unless you solely have sub-Saharan ancestry, you have Neanderthal and Denisovan DNA in you (though I believe mainland China views their ancestry as coming entirely from Homo Erectus, Peking Man)
On a similar lines, while they aren't that smart now, what if chimps, orangutans, gorillas, and so forth became intelligent, a la Planet of the Apes. That's not a stretch, it could very well happen in the future with genetic engineering. You'd have intelligent species that would not be able to breed with humans or each other.
So I think species makes sense, but among those that can interbreed, you'd probably have very few pure members of it, so ancestry makes sense there for the most dominant species in a person.
Quote from: JeremyR on June 09, 2024, 02:52:51 AMI don't think we can really ignore the real world.
When I play a fantasy game, I can and do ignore the real world.
I was never a big fan of using "race" as a term for elves, dwarves etc. not for the political reasons, but only due to it appearing unscientific (elves, dwarves etc. seems too different to humans to be "races" instead of "species"). Yeah, I know, fantasy world with magic, dragons and the such, but I always liked biology so I tend to prefer things following the biological taxonomy. But in many old sci-fi books, even by authors who are against racism as Arthur Clarke, the word "race" is used in the same neutral way as D&D uses, meaning "species" (as "Human race", or "Martian race").
"Ancestries" or "kindred" seem way worse than both "races" and "species". I think "race" is too few to state the differences between elf, dwarf and man, so "ancestry" is even worse, meaning even less, let's say, "genetic separation" between these, well, "races". "Kindred" is simply cringe and even more meaningless.
Anyway, we all know science is the last preoccupation of these RPG companies when doing this change. And while by itself that change is not too much, it is just one of lots and lots of other changes like that (well documented in this forum and other parts of the internet), when they change traditional words or game aspects that for any normal person it is not offensive because of their position in the widespread ideological conflict that occurs in our society, a thing way larger than our small world of nerdish games.
So, yeah, not a "hill to die on" by itself, and of course I could not care if the word "race" is not being used in a new game, or in a sci-fi setting (Star Wars d20 was based on D&D 3.X and used "species" instead of "races", and I personally think it fits the scenario way better that way). But if a company changes the wording in a game they already published with the word "race", or if they published an obvious D&D retroclone in a fantasy world where "races" are not classes, then it is a possible sign that either they caved to the woke mob, or they are part of it.
Maybe I'm overreacting, maybe it's just a personal preference of the writers, maybe that means nothing regarding the content of their products or the political affinities of the writers, but for now unfortunately the well is poisoned, so even small, silly things as that can mean something bad, and I'm not too hopeful to don't expect the worst possibility.
(First post btw, but I lurked the forum for a while)
Quote from: Eirikrautha on June 07, 2024, 10:50:58 PMSo, serious question here. I'm writing up the rules right now for a human-only scifi game (no intelligent xenos have ever been discovered... yet). Some humans have adapted to their world (some naturally, some via bioengineering), so they have different groupings based on their homeworld or bioengineered design (some adapted to high-G worlds, etc.). What should I call it? "Race" doesn't really fit, nor does "ancestry" or "species." Things like "lineage" imply that their parents were like that (which is not always the case). I'm actually stumped here, because I'm not pandering, but "race" really doesn't work. Any suggestions are welcome!
GURPS Space used "variant", I think it could be a good wording for this case (maybe "human variant" or something like that).
Quote from: JeremyR on June 09, 2024, 02:52:51 AMI don't think we can really ignore the real world. On Earth 20 thousand years ago, we had Cro-Magnon, Neanderthal, Denisovans, and Floresiensis, all different species yet all able to interbreed. Indeed, unless you solely have sub-Saharan ancestry, you have Neanderthal and Denisovan DNA in you (though I believe mainland China views their ancestry as coming entirely from Homo Erectus, Peking Man)
Not quite.
As humans (or what will eventually become humans) migrate out of Africa, they encounter Neanderthal and interbreed. This interbreeding is to such an extent that only African groups who never interacted lack Neanderthal DNA. Humans then migrate east and west.
Denisovan DNA, on the other hand, is really only found east of about Pakistan-ish and is more concentrated among the Pacific islands than mainland Asia. Although it does stretch far enough east that it shows up among Amerindians. Meanwhile, the groups who migrated west and north through Turkey and Ukraine don't pick it up. To the extent that you see Denisovan DNA in Europe, the British Empire appears to be the primary cause.
Species is a terrible term, so it's not surprising WOTC is using it.
Ancestry isn't bad, but I won't ever use this term in my products because
(1) it's adopted purely out of political reasons, not because people organically started using it
(2) it's not as general as "race" because it inaccurately characterizes many character types
e.g.
A race of magical or technological constructs isn't an "ancestry" because these beings are manufactured. This can be splitting hairs depending on the setting, but "race" actually is the better term here
Race has become a generic term, like Kleenex or Xerox, for any group of people that are different enough in form and culture from another. I'll even use Race for artificial beings like robots or androids.
Good enough for TTRPGs.
I've been using species for the term in my own RPG. But if we ever do a reprint I am switching it to race just so I am not associated with these moral guardians.
Quote from: Zelen on June 09, 2024, 08:29:19 PMSpecies is a terrible term, so it's not surprising WOTC is using it.
Ancestry isn't bad, but I won't ever use this term in my products because
(1) it's adopted purely out of political reasons, not because people organically started using it
(2) it's not as general as "race" because it inaccurately characterizes many character types
e.g.
A race of magical or technological constructs isn't an "ancestry" because these beings are manufactured. This can be splitting hairs depending on the setting, but "race" actually is the better term here
Shadow of the Demon Lord has been using Ancestry since 2015. Can you say for certain it did it purely out of political reasons?
As stated, I use race mainly because of its ubiquity in the field and because I can give it a clear in-game meaning (i.e. option available to PCs) that is unlikely to come up anywhere else in the setting (post-post-apocalyptic science fantasy means human populations are as mixed as today and compared to the other sapients out there even dwarves count as humans).
The related reason is just that the PC options are related more by capacity for sapience and free will than anything biological. Humans, genetically engineered Beastmen, AIs glitched into the physical world by the global nanocloud, nature spirits banished into mortal forms, robots, mutants, and human/fallen nature spirit half-breeds all count.
Others like demons (fallen nature spirits), unfallen nature spirits, undead, non-sapient robots, beasts, etc. aren't "races" because they fail one or both of the sapience and free will tests (and a few fail because they lack corporeal forms... i.e. indestructible incorruptible immortal spirit who wears physical forms the way humans wear hats isn't a good PC option).
So when robots, exiled spirits, and humans are all PC options... even something as broad as species isn't actually broad enough to cover all the bases.
I considered "kind" for a while too, but "kind" popped up so often in general descriptions and fluff text that it would have led to confusion barring something pretentious like always capitalizing or White Wolf renaming (i.e. Kynd because WW loves replacing I's with Y's).
So race for PCs was just the best fit I could find (and creature covers everything else... it covers PCs too technically but "choose creature type" vs. "choose race" is so bad I might as well use Kynd.
Quote from: Socratic-DM on June 07, 2024, 09:22:06 PMI wouldn't mind the change so much if I didn't know the underlying rationality of why they are doing it, more or less new-speak type tactics.
I am 100% with you on that. Changing the name of what you call it has no true effect. It is the 'why' behind the change that is worrisome. Rgr on it being a new-speak item.
Quote from: Eirikrautha on June 07, 2024, 10:50:58 PMSo, serious question here. I'm writing up the rules right now for a human-only scifi game (no intelligent xenos have ever been discovered... yet). Some humans have adapted to their world (some naturally, some via bioengineering), so they have different groupings based on their homeworld or bioengineered design (some adapted to high-G worlds, etc.). What should I call it? "Race" doesn't really fit, nor does "ancestry" or "species." Things like "lineage" imply that their parents were like that (which is not always the case). I'm actually stumped here, because I'm not pandering, but "race" really doesn't work. Any suggestions are welcome!
I know Traveller 2300 has something like that. I can't remember what they call it.
I have been kicking around an idea for a HB setting that is very Traveller 2300/Expanse (without the blue goo from Traveller) styled. With importance on home planet gravity etc. So, if I go further, I'd have to be asking that myself
There have been some great options here so far.
I like SM's Strain, or adding to GB's comment - Sapien-Strain (if/when other species are encountered or genetic manipulation results in 'enlightened animals), but Mish's Adapt (for adaptation) is a good one too!
Origin?
I'm running into similar terminology issues with my urban fantasy multiverse concept. I'm using a toolkit approach to archetypal magical beings, similar to All Flesh Must Be Eaten or GURPS Whatever.
If you want to use different strains in the same game, then you need to have some kind of universal guidelines for sorting. So something like a vampire or lycanthrope can be quantified according to multiple criteria, such as "how did they become what they are?" "what powers and curses do they have?" "what are the limitations?" etc.
Even if you're using the same rules for a magical race, anything that isn't strictly a matter of rules is open to interpretation. For example, the reproductive process or transmission method of your vampires or lycanthropes is the sort of thing that doesn't necessarily need additional rules. Was your vampire or lycanthrope cursed, born or bitten? Do those origins need distinct rules or can they be summarized in less than a sentence?
Quote from: SHARK on June 07, 2024, 08:53:57 PMGreetings!
Hello, SHARK! Long time no see! I haven't been foruming much in years. Anyhoo...
Quote from: SHARKYeah, I can see companies changing use of the term "Race" and swapping that for "Ancestry" simply because it is very popular right now--probably with most companies. Embracing such editorial policy does not necessarily mean that the company is entirely corrupted with Commie Woke scum--but it is definitely a sign to take a closer look, in my view. I think many companies specifically embrace such an editorial policy simply to pursue broader profitability and avoid any kind of negative publicity.
Companies are run by people, and people have political opinions. Most larger corporations in particular are run by a caste of Cloud People who live in a bubble completely disconnected with the regular lives of regular Dirt People, and their beliefs about Dirt People are hostile, condescending, and cult-like in their ability to completely ignore reality no matter how hard it's hitting them in the face. Not only that, the people running them from the C suite are toxic narcissists who will gladly throw their entire corporation under the bus if it allows them to virtue-signal in such a way that they can fail upward, give themselves a big bonus, and move on to devour some other poor corporation like a locust.
It may be true during the Reagan years that corporations cared about profit--personally I doubt it, but I admit I wasn't paying that much attention to what was going on in the corporate world that long ago--but it certainly isn't true now. You can't tell me that the executives at WotC, Bob Iger (and Kevin Feige, Kathleen Kennedy, etc.), whoever the morons are that run Anheiser-Busch, etc, (and that's just a tiny sampling) care about profit.
Smaller corporations aren't run by c suite automatons, but they are often run by people in just as ridiculous a bubble as the Cloud People bubble who's whole identity is based around their hatred of normal Dirt People America--plus many of them are obviously strivers who emulate the Cloud People in the hopes that they can be mistaken for one of them someday.
Quote from: Hobo on June 11, 2024, 11:10:53 PMQuote from: SHARK on June 07, 2024, 08:53:57 PMGreetings!
Hello, SHARK! Long time no see! I haven't been foruming much in years. Anyhoo...
Quote from: SHARKYeah, I can see companies changing use of the term "Race" and swapping that for "Ancestry" simply because it is very popular right now--probably with most companies. Embracing such editorial policy does not necessarily mean that the company is entirely corrupted with Commie Woke scum--but it is definitely a sign to take a closer look, in my view. I think many companies specifically embrace such an editorial policy simply to pursue broader profitability and avoid any kind of negative publicity.
Companies are run by people, and people have political opinions. Most larger corporations in particular are run by a caste of Cloud People who live in a bubble completely disconnected with the regular lives of regular Dirt People, and their beliefs about Dirt People are hostile, condescending, and cult-like in their ability to completely ignore reality no matter how hard it's hitting them in the face. Not only that, the people running them from the C suite are toxic narcissists who will gladly throw their entire corporation under the bus if it allows them to virtue-signal in such a way that they can fail upward, give themselves a big bonus, and move on to devour some other poor corporation like a locust.
It may be true during the Reagan years that corporations cared about profit--personally I doubt it, but I admit I wasn't paying that much attention to what was going on in the corporate world that long ago--but it certainly isn't true now. You can't tell me that the executives at WotC, Bob Iger (and Kevin Feige, Kathleen Kennedy, etc.), whoever the morons are that run Anheiser-Busch, etc, (and that's just a tiny sampling) care about profit.
Smaller corporations aren't run by c suite automatons, but they are often run by people in just as ridiculous a bubble as the Cloud People bubble who's whole identity is based around their hatred of normal Dirt People America--plus many of them are obviously strivers who emulate the Cloud People in the hopes that they can be mistaken for one of them someday.
Greetings!
Hobo! My old friend! Wow! Yes, it has been far too long! So good to see you here!
And yes, companies are run by Cloud People. *Laughing* Yeah, man, it's all about Marxism now. The big grab for power, riding on race baiting, rainbow degeneracy, feminism, and Marxism. All straight out of Saul Alinsky's book, "Rules For Radicals". The Soviet defector, a KGB official and diplomat, who escaped from Communism, laid out in detail over 40 years ago the Communist's plans for overthrowing America and the West. Everything he said has come true, right down to every method, plan, and program. All designed to sow division, destroy the family, our economy, and corrupt the culture entirely. We have people right now celebrating Communism, hate Capitalism, and are on their knees for a new, all-powerful Commie Mommy State. Just like companies lining up, and flexing, all designed to spread the message, and corrupt the society to the abyss of collapse and Chaos. Profits be damned. This is all about the total corruption of American society--and the ultimate power grab for tyranny once the firestorm really gets going, and the cesspools are flooding the society.
So good to see you here, Hobo!
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
The reason I use the word "race" in ACKS is because it's the only word in English that can simultaneously mean everything I might need it to mean -- ancestry, breed, ethnicity, and species -- without in any way implying or negating the possibility of shared genetic reproductive capacity and without suggesting modern biological science. Any other word I could choose would cause either an over-fit or under-fit in meaning.
Merriam Webster definitions of Race:
1) any one of the groups that humans are often divided into based on physical traits regarded as common among people of shared ancestry - "race relations between blacks and whites..."
2) a group of people sharing a common cultural, geographical, linguistic, or religious origin or background - "the Norwegian and the Dane were a different race from the Saxon" (Henry Adams)
3) a group of living things considered as a category - "the whole race of yellow flowers" (Henry David Thoreau) or "the race of man" (Bronte)
4) a group within a species that is distinguishable (as morphologically, genetically, or behaviorally) from others of the same species - "This quail species is diverse and can be classified into 21 recognized geographic races in North America..."
The ambiguity of race, across its four definitions, is its virtue. For instance, Just because the elven race can breed with the human race doesn't mean that the wookie race can breed with the ewok race. But if you say "can the wookie species breed with the ewok species" the implied answer is "no they can't" and if you say "can persons of wookie ancestry breed with persons of ewok ancestry" the implied answer is "yes". Race doesn't imply an answer, which enables us as designers to have lots of different "things" be races mechanically in the game.
Edain is a race of humans under definition 1, 2 and 4.
Dunlending or Norwegian is a race of humans under definition 2 and possibly 4.
Dwarf is a race of creatures under definition 3.
Duergar is a race of dwarves under definition 4.
Elf is a race of creatures under definition 3.
Noldor is a race of elves under definition 4.
Corellian is a race of human under definition 2.
Wookie is a race of hairy ship mechanics under definition 3.
Ewok is a race of short warrior-hunters under definition 3.
In my own game ACKS, the mechanical concept of Race includes Dwarves and Elves, which are different species from humans and cannot always fertile interbreed; Zaharans, which are the same species as humans but cursed by dark magic; Nobirans, which are the same species as humans but uplifted by virtue of a heroic soul; Katripol, which are a highly different ethnicity from the other groups in the game world with a distinct culture that provides mechanical advantages; Nosferatu, which are members of other races turned into vampires; and on and on. Mechanically, though, they're all just "clusters of classes with special powers"; and no one other word would work.
If there were a better word, I'd happily use it, but there isn't. This isn't like "dick" vs "penis" where they mean the same thing but one is polite and the other isn't. One word means the things I need, and the others don't.
All of the words that replace race aren't as good. Species has no fantasy resonance, sounds too modern and clinical, and if you get pedantic, we actually have a harder time delineating what is and isn't a species these days. If you're at all interested in biological sciences these days, you've probably heard all kinds of debate about what is and isn't a species and a lot of the "common knowledge" that "everyone knows" about the term is factually incorrect. Ancestry sounds like your family history. I have mostly Anglo-Saxon ancestry, with a generous helping of Scottish and a less generous but still significant percentage of Portuguese ancestry. That's the proper use of ancestry, and saying that my character has Dwarvish ancestry suggests implicitly that his great-grandpa was of the Dwarf race, not that my character is.
I can't think off-hand what other alternatives have been floated for fantasy at least, but none of them really work like race does. Not only that, the reason that these companies are abandoning the perfectly functional term race for awkward and less functional alternatives is irritating, so as a stubborn, ornery, crotchety old fart, I'm inclined to be irritated and push back rather than accept them anyway.
What about "genos"?
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on June 12, 2024, 02:02:14 PMWhat about "genos"?
Not sure if that was directed at my post, but genos sorta works, other than sounding a bit pretentious, maybe. It depends on your group. If you have to explain the etymology of the word, then it's not worth doing, but if everyone already knows it, then whatever--it's fine.
Quote from: amacris on June 12, 2024, 03:40:49 AMThe reason I use the word "race" in ACKS is because it's the only word in English that can simultaneously mean everything I might need it to mean -- ancestry, breed, ethnicity, and species -- without in any way implying or negating the possibility of shared genetic reproductive capacity and without suggesting modern biological science. Any other word I could choose would cause either an over-fit or under-fit in meaning.
Well said.
Mega dittos.
The alternatives to the term "race" were introduced at a time when the woke crowd felt they had an absolute quorum to make the unilateral decision to do so and in a way to fully demonstrate that they were "owning the chuds." In article after article, statement after statement, we were told that it was wrong to have ever used the term and it was proof that the early hobby was full of bigots.
The modern "what does it matter?" and "it's just a term change for clarity" BS is gaslighting to make it look like they didn't do it with the accompanying messaging. Anyone echoing these arguments is either suffering early dementia, very new to the hobby, or a first order lair. Most of the early "hur, hur, we're owning the chuds" articles and statements bout this term change push are still up on twitter, on reddit, and in articles posted on news sites that cover the hobby.
The use of new terms in and of itself wouldn't even be a discussion if it hadn't be part of a very overt campaign to politicize gaming as a whole and drive out undesirables. I don't think I would have even noticed or cared if I had. Frankly, it's sad to see that these evil fucks have us arguing over the terms rather than denouncing them for their lies and bigotry towards us gamers. I say torch every book that has "race" intentionally removed, not for the reason of the term changes but because it's one more effort to shove their world view down our throats.
All of this is just more reasons why I will die a counter revolutionary before I embrace any of the Marxist garbage. The deep dishonesty of it all just pisses me off.
I'm as much of an anti-woke crotchety grognard as anyone here, and I actually prefer Ancestry. It has a fantasy resonance to it, and describes the subject perfectly well. Combined with Background (culture), and Class it works well.
A, B, C
Ancestry, Background, Class.
Quote from: Thor's Nads on June 13, 2024, 04:06:24 AMI'm as much of an anti-woke crotchety grognard as anyone here, and I actually prefer Ancestry. It has a fantasy resonance to it, and describes the subject perfectly well. Combined with Background (culture), and Class it works well.
A, B, C
Ancestry, Background, Class.
That was also the reason I had considered Ancestry as I mentioned upthread... "the ABCs of character creation" is a pithy way of explaining the process to a new player.
The only reason I didn't pull the trigger is that Ancestry felt like a woefully inadequate term when the category wasn't just demihumans, but included manufactured robots and androids along with elemental spirits inhabiting bodies of stone or plants.
Sure, even my use of Race came with a caveat related to longstanding use for "PC options" but that only because my inner etymologist demanded at least a fig leaf justification for why I wasn't using something broad enough to cover sapience across all three kingdoms (animal, plant, mineral and technically energy/spirit all exist).
Race had history as "PC options" in a way Ancestry just didn't even though neither actually fit the bill.
I'm open to be persuaded otherwise, but that's my feeling at the moment (of course I'm also *this* close to renaming my Mystic class to Charismatic because the latter better describes how they obtain the gifts/charisms).
Quote from: SHARK on June 12, 2024, 12:26:59 AMAnd yes, companies are run by Cloud People. *Laughing* Yeah, man, it's all about Marxism now. The big grab for power, riding on race baiting, rainbow degeneracy, feminism, and Marxism. All straight out of Saul Alinsky's book, "Rules For Radicals". The Soviet defector, a KGB official and diplomat, who escaped from Communism, laid out in detail over 40 years ago the Communist's plans for overthrowing America and the West. Everything he said has come true, right down to every method, plan, and program. All designed to sow division, destroy the family, our economy, and corrupt the culture entirely. We have people right now celebrating Communism, hate Capitalism, and are on their knees for a new, all-powerful Commie Mommy State. Just like companies lining up, and flexing, all designed to spread the message, and corrupt the society to the abyss of collapse and Chaos. Profits be damned. This is all about the total corruption of American society--and the ultimate power grab for tyranny once the firestorm really gets going, and the cesspools are flooding the society.
Evil has leveled up several times since Herbert Marcuse and Saul Alinsky. That's what they were doing in the 60s and 70s. They wish they could have done what Clown World routinely does now. Although most people are incapable of imagining the end result of the trends that have already been put into place and already rolled out quite a ways, in the long run, as evil as communism is, the countries that suffered through its rule are observably in a better position than those of the West who have suffered the rule of Clown World. The inevitable near future is going to be very ugly for us, and there's no way to avoid it. It's like standing on the beach saying nothing's wrong while a gigantic tsunami is poised to hit us within minutes.
But anyhow, its indicative of how insidious and ubiquitous the evil of Clown World is that they even come for our hobbies and try to turn gaming against normal people too. It literally burns them up that we're sitting at a table with a few friends talking about normal things and imagining normal fantasies to amuse ourselves in the privacy of our own homes, so they are doing their best to destroy even that.
Quote from: Eirikrautha on June 07, 2024, 10:50:58 PMSo, serious question here. I'm writing up the rules right now for a human-only scifi game (no intelligent xenos have ever been discovered... yet). Some humans have adapted to their world (some naturally, some via bioengineering), so they have different groupings based on their homeworld or bioengineered design (some adapted to high-G worlds, etc.). What should I call it? "Race" doesn't really fit, nor does "ancestry" or "species." Things like "lineage" imply that their parents were like that (which is not always the case). I'm actually stumped here, because I'm not pandering, but "race" really doesn't work. Any suggestions are welcome!
Strain. Unmodified humans are pure strain, modified ones are heavy strain (2G worlds) etc.
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on June 13, 2024, 11:40:12 PMQuote from: Eirikrautha on June 07, 2024, 10:50:58 PMSo, serious question here. I'm writing up the rules right now for a human-only scifi game (no intelligent xenos have ever been discovered... yet). Some humans have adapted to their world (some naturally, some via bioengineering), so they have different groupings based on their homeworld or bioengineered design (some adapted to high-G worlds, etc.). What should I call it? "Race" doesn't really fit, nor does "ancestry" or "species." Things like "lineage" imply that their parents were like that (which is not always the case). I'm actually stumped here, because I'm not pandering, but "race" really doesn't work. Any suggestions are welcome!
Strain. Unmodified humans are pure strain, modified ones are heavy strain (2G worlds) etc.
I'd say Phenotype or Genotype would be better. Strain has too many negative connotations with diseases/viruses to the point its been used to distinguish types of zombies and vampires.
Phenotype (if the physical differences are more due to environmental factors; ex. a human who grew up in high gravity) or Genotype (if the physical differences are a result of differences in the subject's genetic code; ex. a human bio-engineered for higher gravity) are both scientifically accurate and in generally even sound more sci-fi than Strain does (ex. High Gravity Phenotype).
Another related bit is that you could actually use both to represent the differences between someone who naturally adapted to an environment (ex. a human with the Heavy World Phenotype) and one who is bio-engineered (a Titan Genotype; since they're engineered it means someone's going to brand name the process).
That can set up all sort of interesting elements in a sci-fi setting... perhaps Phenotypes aren't AS adapted as Genotypes, but also don't suffer nearly so severe side-effects from different environments. By contrast Genotypes are so adapted to their environment they have real problems in other environments.
None of it matters unless you want to use whatever term for 1) flavor for genre aesthetics. 2) you want to discriminate against ideologically driven signaling language in your hobby.
I suggest you do both.
I like "race." Ever since I was little the term "human race" bugged me. Why have that term if there are no other races? D&D made sense of that for me.