| 16 people marked this as a favorite. |
Meh. I think "Ancestry" covers "physical or cultural collection of like-peoples" reasonably well.
"Being" is also a pretty overloaded term, in general.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not sure if we will find a term sufficiently broad to cover both organic species and non-organic 'living' entities which is also specific enough not to be totally unwieldy. I'm hopeful, but I've also been looking for long enough to be doubtful. I do really like Kind, but while the more archaic uses if that word are very accurate, they also run right up against the modern much broader and more common uses of kind.
People, as in 'people group' also works but in more limited contexts which I feel would be hard to apply to those ancestries which don't tend to form their own societies for whatever reason
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not sure if we will find a term sufficiently broad to cover both organic species and non-organic 'living' entities which is also specific enough not to be totally unwieldy. I'm hopeful, but I've also been looking for long enough to be doubtful. I do really like Kind, but while the more archaic uses if that word are very accurate, they also run right up against the modern much broader and more common uses of kind.
People, as in 'people group' also works but in more limited contexts which I feel would be hard to apply to those ancestries which don't tend to form their own societies for whatever reason
There’s always Kith, but again, it’s a little archaic to the average reader.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, I love kith! I think I misunderstood it to mean kin at one time. As far as archaisms go, it's not that bad, but I do agree "what's your kith" as cross table chatter sounds a bit strange and improbable.
If they can all breed with human then race is a perfectly reasonable word. As is the word breed, as used with dog/cats.
Species and Genus also works if you don't want to be more scientific.
I would think the issue with using a term primarily for (nonhuman) animals to describe the differences between humans and sapient nonhumans would be reasonably evident. Meanwhile the very premise of the thread shows that 'race' is not in all cases a perfectly reasonable word unless one ignores the significant history of that word's harmful misuse. I agree, in the absence of those issues it could have been an accurate and fitting word for 'different sapient peoples' but that is not the history the word has had in recent consciousness, and as we are temprally bound to this moment in the timeline, it s the history we must reckon with.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Species?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If they can all breed with human then race is a perfectly reasonable word. As is the word breed, as used with dog/cats.
Species and Genus also works if you don't want to be more scientific.
There really aren’t that many Ancestries who can reproduce with humans, which kind of undercuts that idea.
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
Isn't Paizo pretty firm that bloodlines and things like Tieflings don't have to come from an actual tryst, but can instead be created by "spending too much time with devils (but not in that way)"?
Like you might end up with the undead bloodline not because great great grandma was a ghoul, but because great great grandma was a necromancer of some renown.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, we can't use heritage or lineage because they have different meanings in 2E and thus would confuse people transitioning from 2E to 3E.
But ancestry does seem to be usable even with creatures who do not reproduce in the normal way because whatever method is used to create them does imply a set of creatures with a common origin, whether they were made at the same factory, made using similar recipes, or made in some other way that identifies them as being of the same origin.
If a PC is so unique that his origin is not shared with numerous other people, then Paizo would have to invent something like D&D 5E's Custom Lineage to describe such characters -- but they would need to rename it so as to avoid using the word "lineage" at least.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Looks at the whole variant ancestry list which can mix with any race, the half-X list that can be expanded whenever Paizo wishes, the sorcerer bloodlines that imply there may have been a trist or two. Yeah sure... My point about the ancestries being extremely mixed still stands.There really aren’t that many Ancestries who can reproduce with humans, which kind of undercuts that idea.If they can all breed with human then race is a perfectly reasonable word. As is the word breed, as used with dog/cats.
Species and Genus also works if you don't want to be more scientific.
The only half-Ancestries we’ve seen are Half-Orcs and Half-Elves. Just in the corebook, Dwarves, Gnomes, Goblins, and Halflings can’t reproduce with Humans, and I don’t know of any other Ancestry published since that can either.
I don’t see how planetouched Versatile Heritages or supernatural Sorcerer bloodlines mean that we can consider a Gnoll or a Kobold a ‘breed’ of Human.
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
If they can all breed with human then race is a perfectly reasonable word.
Race is a social construct, which makes it an awkward and inaccurate term to describe groups of creatures with radically unique biology.
Oh, I love kith! I think I misunderstood it to mean kin at one time. As far as archaisms go, it's not that bad, but I do agree "what's your kith" as cross table chatter sounds a bit strange and improbable.
What's you're kith sounds like something I'd hear someone ask at a world of darkness table.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If they can all breed with human then race is a perfectly reasonable word.Race is a social construct, which makes it an awkward and inaccurate term to describe groups of creatures with radically unique biology.
Oh, I love kith! I think I misunderstood it to mean kin at one time. As far as archaisms go, it's not that bad, but I do agree "what's your kith" as cross table chatter sounds a bit strange and improbable.What's you're kith sounds like something I'd hear someone ask at a world of darkness table.
I mean, Kith was part of your character in both versions of Changeling… because it’s a real word and it fit.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Species?
Yes but even the scientific definition of species is a bit open https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species
Scientists argue and reclassify what is a species and what is not, and where the boundaries lie. It gets blury at the line between can't reproduce, won't reproduce, and can't reproduce because they aren't in the same location. Functionally they are very similar. I would assume we would have to not consider artificial means of cross breeding including magic. Fantasy has lots of cross breeding traditionally because of its basis in myths, and people naturally have an interest in all aspects of breeding.I now think Ancestry is better. I know it has largely cultural and family context more than a biological context. But there is still some biological context there.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ancestry basically means "what were your parents like" and for people for whom traditional models of parentage don't really apply (e.g. you are a construct) you still exist in a cultural context where "having parents" is normal and you're probably mapping something on to the concept (like who assembled you, or who took care of you when you were figuring out the world you're in.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, I love kith! I think I misunderstood it to mean kin at one time. As far as archaisms go, it's not that bad, but I do agree "what's your kith" as cross table chatter sounds a bit strange and improbable.What's you're kith sounds like something I'd hear someone ask at a world of darkness table.
Fair point, though WoD in general does seem to expect its audience to tolerate a lot more tomfoolery with regard to strange or archaic terminology being thrown around in casual parlance. It's got its charm, for sure.
As a bonus, you could replace Ancestry and Heritage with "Kith and Kin" to denote what people you belong to and what family you come from, which is pretty much how those mechanics play out anyway, for greater or lesser broadness on what makes a 'family' line among the created or spontaneously generated ancestries.
... I keep selling myself on this idea the more I protest it wouldn't work. Well, wouldn't be any worse than Kind, anyway, as far as unwieldiness.
---
Incidentally, a couple people have brought up the ABC's of char gen, speculating that this was a motivation behind choosing the word Ancestry. As I recall from the playtest, this is actually not the case. The sheer brilliance of character ABCs was actually noticed after the term Ancestry came about, at least according to reports of one designer whose name I forget. Might it have been Mark Seifter? Either way, I do love character ABC's, so whatever new term comes, it would have to be good enough to undo that excellent mnemonic.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Background" is general enough to cover everything, Skeletons and all. Problem is it's already in use.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
3e? Has Paizo finally announced the creation of Pathfinder Third Edition? If it's true, then I'm so glad to hear that, because while Pathfinder Second Edition is way better than Pathfinder First Edition, some elements are very unsatisfying in fact. And even if it's not true... Paizo will eventually make Third Edition in the not too distant future, perhaps? First Edition was published in 2009, and Second Edition was published in 2019. So logically Third Ediiton will be published in 2029, right?
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
There’s always Kith, but again, it’s a little archaic to the average reader.
I admit, I quite like Kith. Being a little archaic isn't really a problem to me. I tend to think that having a bit of an archaic feel helps get into the mood of things, and it also helps dodge whatever connotations might be out there by being archaic enough to not really *have* much in the way of connotations anymore.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
3e? Has Paizo finally announced the creation of Pathfinder Third Edition? If it's true, then I'm so glad to hear that, because while Pathfinder Second Edition is way better than Pathfinder First Edition, some elements are very unsatisfying in fact. And even if it's not true... Paizo will eventually make Third Edition in the not too distant future, perhaps? First Edition was published in 2009, and Second Edition was published in 2019. So logically Third Ediiton will be published in 2029, right?
Remember that PF1 goes all the way back D&D 3E, published in 2000, so by when PF 2E was announced in May 2018 First Edition had been around for almost two decades. Hence the need for an edition change.
In other words, who's to say when we'll see Pathfinder 3E? Second Edition is doing well, so hopefully no time soon.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
3e? Has Paizo finally announced the creation of Pathfinder Third Edition? If it's true, then I'm so glad to hear that, because while Pathfinder Second Edition is way better than Pathfinder First Edition, some elements are very unsatisfying in fact. And even if it's not true... Paizo will eventually make Third Edition in the not too distant future, perhaps? First Edition was published in 2009, and Second Edition was published in 2019. So logically Third Ediiton will be published in 2029, right?Remember that PF1 goes all the way back D&D 3E, published in 2000, so by when PF 2E was announced in May 2018 First Edition had been around for almost two decades. Hence the need for an edition change.
In other words, who's to say when we'll see Pathfinder 3E? Second Edition is doing well, so hopefully no time soon.
Makes me want to make an overly specific prediction, like:
There won't be an official third edition. PF2 will continue strong for another five years, before the pressure from artificial intelligence reaches a tipping point with the creation of multi-AI dungeons (MAIDs) where every NPC is being run by its own mini-AI. Paizo will pivot to producing content with the Pathfinder and Starfinder settings to be run in a more expansive freeform manner, which will be colloquially known as PF3, but can't be marketed as such for legal reasons as the AIs are providing a portion of the "rules". When the tabletop renaissance occurs and there is a move back towards human-run systems because the post-scarcity society under Our Benevolent Computational Overlords allows people to schedule games consistently, Pathfinder will be designed under a new name that no longer turns up a bunch of cars when you search for it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
3e? Has Paizo finally announced the creation of Pathfinder Third Edition? If it's true, then I'm so glad to hear that, because while Pathfinder Second Edition is way better than Pathfinder First Edition, some elements are very unsatisfying in fact. And even if it's not true... Paizo will eventually make Third Edition in the not too distant future, perhaps? First Edition was published in 2009, and Second Edition was published in 2019. So logically Third Ediiton will be published in 2029, right?Remember that PF1 goes all the way back D&D 3E, published in 2000, so by when PF 2E was announced in May 2018 First Edition had been around for almost two decades. Hence the need for an edition change.
In other words, who's to say when we'll see Pathfinder 3E? Second Edition is doing well, so hopefully no time soon.
Makes me want to make an overly specific prediction, like:
There won't be an official third edition. PF2 will continue strong for another five years, before the pressure from artificial intelligence reaches a tipping point with the creation of multi-AI dungeons (MAIDs) where every NPC is being run by its own mini-AI. Paizo will pivot to producing content with the Pathfinder and Starfinder settings to be run in a more expansive freeform manner, which will be colloquially known as PF3, but can't be marketed as such for legal reasons as the AIs are providing a portion of the "rules". When the tabletop renaissance occurs and there is a move back towards human-run systems because the post-scarcity society under Our Benevolent Computational Overlords allows people to schedule games consistently, Pathfinder will be designed under a new name that no longer turns up a bunch of cars when you search for it.
I'd say QuidEst has nailed it.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not running any game that I can't play when the power is out or we're all locked in a Faraday cage for some reason.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Kind" could work.
"Kith" is better. Fewer other meanings to conflict with, and fewer connotations. "Your kind" has a fair bit of history, much of it not so hot.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I see why Race was abandoned, I don't exactly think it was in any way a necessary switch at all but IMO it is far more accurate to the idea of the mechanic/concept and it sidesteps the kind of conversations that aren't appropriate or allowed with regard to Paizo products.
Ancestry is the right balance of understandable, accurate to the idea, and avoids the sensitivities of folks who want the game to be as inclusive and respectful as possible without delving into nonsense anachronistic fluffy terms that particularly progressive edge-lord/edge-guard "high romance" storytelling games use, I would add, to the continued detriment of them if only for the sake of remaining unique and/or interesting to their rapidly aging and increasingly disinvested demographic they've been milking for thrity years.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
"What is your being?"
"What being will you be playing?"
"Are you excited about the new being that just got released?"
Nah, doesn't work for me. I much prefer "race" or "ancestry." Makes for better, more sensible sentence structure that rolls off the tongue better.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I just never understood the idea that a fantasy species say Orcs, mapped to a real-life skin tone in the first place. I also find it suspicious that only negative connotations seemed to map while positive ones are ignored. I know race is a complex issue, especially in the US, but a lot of this seems like manufactured offense.These two blog posts are a lovely start, though I’m deeply skeptical you’re asking in good faith.
Thanks for the links.
But its not really discussible on this forum.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"What is your being?"
"What being will you be playing?"
"Are you excited about the new being that just got released?"
Nah, doesn't work for me. I much prefer "race" or "ancestry." Makes for better, more sensible sentence structure that rolls off the tongue better.
I think Paizo should go with "Species" for Starfinder 2E. I know it's Linnaean, but that controversy has much less public awareness than "Race", plus Species would set the system apart from either Edition of Pathfinder, and at the same time sounds more futuristic.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
One of the reasons to avoid "Species" in a fantasy game is that that's a word that sounds Sci-Fi, not Fantasy. So I imagine that's what they're going with for Starfinder.
But they'll probably do something like PF2 where you separate morphology (heritage) from culture (class feats). So you can be a Ysoki who grew up in the Veskarium or whatever.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Unexpected but humorous consequence of 'Kind'--endless clarification when a xenophobic villager glares down adventurers and tells them that they, "Don't like your kind around here" that they mean kind as in adventurers or outsiders, not Kind as in the 4-5 different kinds that make up the party, possibly including members of the villages own species.
Incidentally, when talking in-universe or generally not about game terms I do tend to use species a lot. I know that just because something is historically accurate doesn't mean it 'feels' right for fantasy (see firearms and the Tiffany paradox, compare the improbability of finding the standard weapons list within the same century), but it also seems like the most accurate term... At least as long as we're willing to concede some species aren't organic, which seems only logical in a fantasy world where talking dolls, aliens from another planet, and reanimated bones might all meet in a market square for business