|1 person marked this as a favorite.|
I feel like people are moving away from the real issue.
If we change it to "Race", how are we supposed to make the acronym of Ancestry Background Class work?
Race -> Background -> Class is easy to remember. Just think of The Notorious RBC.*
* Which, now that my liver has mulled it over, sounds like it would also be a good name for a Bourbon and R/C Cola. Oooo, with a MoonPie too...
|2 people marked this as a favorite.|
This is a silly change and I hope in the final product they use race once again. Its so nice that this is just a playtest and we can work out what is and isn't worth changing beforehand.
Agreed, it's a solution in search of a problem.Paizo keeps telling us that real world politics played no part in this change, but that strains credulity, especially considering that their stated reason for using Ancestries (it opening up options that race didn't) doesn't seem to be the case, having read through the Playtest rulebook.
Everything has real world connotations, but this is a fantasy game. If some people playing the game are having difficulty separating fantasy from reality, I hope they are aware enough to recognize this is something that they, as individuals, need to work on, and does not mean there is a problem with the game.
In my experience with 30+ people during Playtest so far, the vast majority are still saying "race".
MerlinCross wrote:Vic Wertz wrote:And killing half races as actual races.
I quoted that as originally written, but the last paragraph should more accurately start:
...Ditching "Race" in favor of "Ancestry" and introducing Backgrounds...
That further muddies the waters as what is the proper term for an elf/orc hybrid?
Don't get me wrong... I am a BIG fan of this particular aspect from a capability standpoint and LOVE that it is included in the core concept of the game...
But we have dwarf ancestry, elf ancestry, human ancestry... what are the proper titles for the hybrids?
I'm going to post a link to this, and hope that someone decides to update it for their table. It was an amazing book for ours, back in the day.
|3 people marked this as a favorite.|
If you tested the DNA of an Elf, Dwarf, Human Orc and Goblin they would be nothing alike. Ancestry is your relation to an near or far ancestor not what race you are. The only way Ancestry is even close to an accurate descriptor would be for a half breed. For a full breed the correct descriptor would be race.
IMO the Ancestry change is Pazio bowing to a small vocal minority of the gaming community that is very left wing and politically correct if race was good enough since the inception of 1st ed D+D it is good enough now.
If you tested the DNA of an Elf, Dwarf, Human Orc and Goblin
Well you can't cause they don't exist. And they might have a common ancestor, they haven't really gone into exact Humanoid origins.
As presented in the book "people of Elf Ancestry" works out just fine for flavor and mechanics, and far less clunkier than I thought it would be.
|6 people marked this as a favorite.|
When I first played D&D in the early 80's, the word "Race" (like many other words we used then) did not seem problematic to me. Due to the circumstances of my upbringing, I was oblivious to the connotations of some of the terms we regularly used.
But our culture has evolved and progressed and, when confronted with the concerns of fellow humans, I have two choices--to accept that some words are loaded/inaccurate/hurtful and adjust my behavior (at no cost to me) or to ignore the needs of my fellow humans. Easy choice.
And, honestly, it isn't necessary for one to fully grok why an aspect of a game might cause pain or feelings of exclusion for many fellow gamers. It is enough that it does. I seriously doubt Paizo is going to go back to using "Race," nor do I think they should. So, let's help them in their mission to make an awesome 2E that welcomes a lot of new and diverse gamers to the table.