| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've been going through the rules and I dislike the use of Ancestry instead of Race.
It seems to me this was changed for the 'newness' of the word or to be different from most RPGs. This does not work for me. Race is short, and to the point. Race is exactly what it is.
While a Class can be called a Profession, I much prefer the former to the later... Same case here for Race.
So I humbly suggest you do a CTRL-F in your Rules, and simply search/replace Ancestry with the more common work Race !!!
P.S. Fun Fact: Replacing Ancestry with Race saves 4 characters, while replacing Ancestries with Races saves 6 characters!! LESS ink = more ecological = better for the planet, right? :)
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is bait. But I am taking it anyway.
I'm not all that bothered by it, honestly. If anything, I think it should be species, with ancestry being regulated to subtypes. That's just my opinion though.
This is not "bait" - I am no fisherman, but a Tool creator.
I just prefer the simpler word, is all.
Of course everyone have different preferences... If I could, I would post a POLL about it to see what the community thinks of it. Perhaps I am alone in preferring RACE to ANCESTRY...?!
I do prefer Species though... that would have been an interesting choice for the races!
| 34 people marked this as a favorite. |
I dislike "race" and prefer "ancestry". Ancestry is more precise and less problematic.
| 32 people marked this as a favorite. |
And with using "Ancestry" character creation is ABCs!
Ancestry
Background
Class
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If we are talking about precision, wouldn't Species then be the superior choice? Ancestry makes sense when you look at what you came from, half orc, half elf, aasimar, tiefling- they are all human or human based, for example. Orc would be a separate species entirely, cross-compatible though the two are.
I'll admit, I am new to Pathfinder, so the different species are unknown to me.
| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
So what is Chelaxian?
A specific ethnicity to an ancestry, when ancestry literally means the exact same thing as ethnicity, culture, or heritage.
Use "species".
At least that is contextually correct, while Ancestry is not.
If we are talking about precision, wouldn't Species then be the superior choice?
Well, "Species" has implications of "these two things cannot interbreed to create fertile offspring" which mean elves, orcs, and humans are all the same species.
Plus it has more of a sci-fi than fantasy feel. Ancestry is more precise since it's basically the question of "who were your parents/who raised you?"
| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sorry OP. Ancestry is a better term as far as I’m concerned and better fits the stated goal in the book that RPGs are for everyone.
It's contextually incorrect. Omitting the word "race" seems like a play to pander to a specific, notoriously intolerant "of those that do not agree with us" crowd.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wouldn't subspecies make more sense since interbreeding yields fertile offspring?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If we are talking about precision, wouldn't Species then be the superior choice?Well, "Species" has implications of "these two things cannot interbreed to create fertile offspring" which mean elves, orcs, and humans are all the same species.
Plus it has more of a sci-fi than fantasy feel. Ancestry is more precise since it's basically the question of "who were your parents/who raised you?"
If that were true, then humans would not have neanderthal DNA... which we do.
Interbreedability is possible between different species within the same genus.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If we are talking about precision, wouldn't Species then be the superior choice?Well, "Species" has implications of "these two things cannot interbreed to create fertile offspring" which mean elves, orcs, and humans are all the same species.
Plus it has more of a sci-fi than fantasy feel. Ancestry is more precise since it's basically the question of "who were your parents/who raised you?"
Also, who says a dwarf can't raise an orc.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wouldn't subspecies make more sense since interbreeding yields fertile offspring?
Neanderthals and Humans, two different species, yielded fertile offspring.
If we are talking about precision, wouldn't Species then be the superior choice?Well, "Species" has implications of "these two things cannot interbreed to create fertile offspring" which mean elves, orcs, and humans are all the same species.
Plus it has more of a sci-fi than fantasy feel. Ancestry is more precise since it's basically the question of "who were your parents/who raised you?"
If that were true, then humans would not have neanderthal DNA... which we do.
Interbreedability is possible between different species within the same genus.
The definition of species is too loose for this discussion to make any sense/ have clear answers. My understanding is that different groups of birds may or may not be in the same species depending on which biologist you ask.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I dislike "race" and prefer "ancestry". Ancestry is more precise and less problematic.
How is "race" problematic in the context of a fantasy roleplaying game?
I dislike "race" and prefer "ancestry". Ancestry is more precise and less problematic.How is "race" problematic in the context of a fantasy roleplaying game?
Because race in fantasy games is supposed to be innate biology and race in real life is constructed?
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I dislike "race" and prefer "ancestry". Ancestry is more precise and less problematic.How is "race" problematic in the context of a fantasy roleplaying game?
This topic was done to death. Use the search function and you'll get a throughout explanation as to why the change was made, and why it won't be undone.
The definition of species is too loose for this discussion to make any sense/ have clear answers. My understanding is that different groups of birds may or may not be in the same species depending on which biologist you ask.If we are talking about precision, wouldn't Species then be the superior choice?Well, "Species" has implications of "these two things cannot interbreed to create fertile offspring" which mean elves, orcs, and humans are all the same species.
Plus it has more of a sci-fi than fantasy feel. Ancestry is more precise since it's basically the question of "who were your parents/who raised you?"
If that were true, then humans would not have neanderthal DNA... which we do.
Interbreedability is possible between different species within the same genus.
No, it's not loose at all. Species is the subset of Genus. Genus = Type in Pathfinder... ie Humanoid. Species = Race and Ethnicity = Ancestry, Heritage, Culture, etc.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is the most nonsensical thing to care about
how does it change the way you play in any single factor now that the term in the book is ancestry?
just call it a race when you talk to your group. Who cares?
This.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because race in fantasy games is supposed to be innate biology and race in real life is constructed?I dislike "race" and prefer "ancestry". Ancestry is more precise and less problematic.How is "race" problematic in the context of a fantasy roleplaying game?
In the context of a fantasy roleplaying game, there is no "real life".
So again, why is the use of race in its proper context, in game, a problem?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is so you can have multiple ancestries for a given race.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is so you can have multiple ancestries for a given race.
Race is no longer a thing. It is now Ancestry. So you can have multiple ancestries within an ancestry?
| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sorry OP. Ancestry is a better term as far as I’m concerned and better fits the stated goal in the book that RPGs are for everyone.It's contextually incorrect. Omitting the word "race" seems like a play to pander to a specific, notoriously intolerant "of those that do not agree with us" crowd.
Who are we kidding? That's exactly why it was done.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is the most nonsensical thing to care about
how does it change the way you play in any single factor now that the term in the book is ancestry?
just call it a race when you talk to your group. Who cares?
Because people new to the game will not know what the hell I am talking about when I say race.
I have to change because they fixed something that wasn't broken to begin with.
Fantasy games have always used race in a contextually correct manner, unlike society.
It is so you can have multiple ancestries for a given race.Race is no longer a thing. It is now Ancestry. So you can have multiple ancestries within an ancestry?
No, you just have a list of ancestries.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
No, you just have a list of ancestries.It is so you can have multiple ancestries for a given race.Race is no longer a thing. It is now Ancestry. So you can have multiple ancestries within an ancestry?
So what is the in-game term for species?
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
New edition. New terms. For the better, at that.
So what is the in-game term for species?No, you just have a list of ancestries.It is so you can have multiple ancestries for a given race.Race is no longer a thing. It is now Ancestry. So you can have multiple ancestries within an ancestry?
Whatever you want it to be.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
If we are talking about precision, wouldn't Species then be the superior choice? Ancestry makes sense when you look at what you came from, half orc, half elf, aasimar, tiefling- they are all human or human based, for example. Orc would be a separate species entirely, cross-compatible though the two are.
I'll admit, I am new to Pathfinder, so the different species are unknown to me.
Species would imply that they can't interbreed. In PF many can. They also use types to roughly classify creatures as well.
Calling them race is perfectly in line with fantasy tradition an not wanting to use it because it's "problematic" is silly. If you are scared away from a game or discussion because they use the word race, you are probably not going to like the fact that racism is real in fantasy.
That being said, Ancestry would be a better term now because races now come with a la carte customization that expresses their specific ancestry, rather then a full race pack. It's also better descriptive for The new structure for half-orcs and half-elves who can now we half ANYTHING (in the blog post, not the book atm), rather then simply being human.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
New edition. New terms. For the better, at that.
That implies that something was wrong with using the word "race" in the contextually correct manner. I'm curious as to why the correct usage of a word is a bad thing.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
That being said, Ancestry would be a better term now because races now come with a la carte customization that expresses their specific ancestry, rather then a full race pack. It's also better descriptive for The new structure for half-orcs and half-elves who can now we half ANYTHING (in the blog post, not the book atm), rather then simply being human.
This makes the most sense in regards to adopting a new term. But what do we call someone's culture now?
My ancestors are Cajun. My ancestry is Cajun. That's a distinct thing. My race is human.
If my ancestry is now human, what does this version of Pathfinder call the thing that used to be ancestry?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So is dark-elf going to be an ancestry or something else?
So is dark-elf going to be an ancestry or something else?
"Drow" could be a heritage feat that Elves are eligible to select. I imagine "Aquatic elves" will be handled the same way- spend a feat at 1st level to have gills.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
It really doesn't matter to me since I keep catching myself saying race anyway. I've been trained to say the word for so long by the time I start saying ancestry pathfinder 3rd edition will be out, and maybe then they'll decide to change it back.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ancestry is more precise since it's basically the question of "who were your parents/who raised you?"
But a gnome cannot take a elf ancestry feat...Ancestry is intimately tied to your biological ancestors, not simply the people who raised you.
What do people find so problematic about race? How can recognizing that there are different distinct biological groups be a problem?
So is dark-elf going to be an ancestry or something else?"Drow" could be a heritage feat that Elves are eligible to select. I imagine "Aquatic elves" will be handled the same way.
So is that how they are quantifying sub-races now or does it happen in other ways as well?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It fits their A,B,C character gen which is supposed to make it easier for new players to draw up characters.
Myself I don't like it due to the fact my mind can easily swap Ancestry and Heritage. Which wouldn't be too bad outside of the fact both have feats to pull from.
Side note and this is because I wasn't a part of that..., did DnD 5 get flak for still having "Race"?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ancestry is more precise since it's basically the question of "who were your parents/who raised you?"But a gnome cannot take a elf ancestry feat...Ancestry is intimately tied to your biological ancestors, not simply the people who raised you.
What do people find so problematic about race? How can recognizing that there are different distinct biological groups be a problem?
See the "Adopted Ancestry" feat on page 162. A gnome can start out with a keen sense of smell from their gnome genes, choose "Adopted Ancestry" at level 3 to represent that they were adopted by elves, then choose an elf feat at level 5. Easier for humans, since they can spend their ancestry feat on a general feat to take adopted ancestry to get a gnome feat at level 3 with a general feat.
Also, the "Race is problematic" discussion has been done to death, but the long and short of it is that IRL the concept of "Race" is biologically and sociologically meaningless, and has historically been used solely to discriminate against "those people who are not like us". Giving IRL pseudoscience in-game meaning is poor practice.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
And with using "Ancestry" character creation is ABCs!
Ancestry
Background
Class
Personally, I'm convinced that this is quite literally the only reason they opted for the name change, and the rest of the reasons came after.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also, the "Race is problematic" discussion has been done to death, but the long and short of it is that IRL the concept of "Race" is biologically and sociologically meaningless, and has historically been used solely to discriminate against "those people who are not like us". Giving IRL pseudoscience in-game meaning is poor practice.
Historically, race has been misrepresented as paraded around in lieu of ethnicity.
Race is not pseudoscience.
Society used the term incorrectly.
There were, last I checked, three different homid races that have existed on Earth. Calling scientific fact pseudoscience because society is too stupid to correctly use terminology is poor practice.
How does this impact the game?
Well, we now have terms that are more confusing. Ancestry and Heritage mean the same thing, but now in game, they are different.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I'm convinced that this is quite literally the only reason they opted for the name change, and the rest of the reasons came after.And with using "Ancestry" character creation is ABCs!
Ancestry
Background
Class
I'm quite convinced its the opposite, unfortunately.
This topic was done to death. Use the search function and you'll get a throughout explanation as to why the change was made, and why it won't be undone.I dislike "race" and prefer "ancestry". Ancestry is more precise and less problematic.How is "race" problematic in the context of a fantasy roleplaying game?
I've used the search function and cannot find the specific reasoning for the change. I remember reading it but would like to review it again.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
See the "Adopted Ancestry" feat on page 162. A gnome can start out with a keen sense of smell from their gnome genes, choose "Adopted Ancestry" at level 3 to represent that they were adopted by elves, then choose an elf feat at level 5. Easier for humans, since they can spend their ancestry feat on a general feat to take adopted ancestry to get a gnome feat at level 3 with a general feat.
I agree with the current transition for Ancestry for that reason. I just wanted to point out that ancestry it not unlinked from biology. Although they now call this "heritage" to refer to things you are biologically shut into.
[quot] Also, the "Race is problematic" discussion has been done to death, but the long and short of it is that IRL the concept of "Race" is biologically and sociologically meaningless
Speaking as a biologist, you are dead wrong. And even if it was meaningless. In a fantasy world where races are tangible things with different characteristics it's use would still applicable unrelated to IRL race discussion. It seems like people are afraid to call a spade a spade. Especially in light of humans finding all manner or ways to kill other humans beside their ancestry.
But I will not elaborate further on that since this discussion has been done to death.