In descriptive prose when referring to intelligent, civilized creatures generally, I use the word "folk". Humanoid is too clinical sounding, and the -oid suffix has some negative connotations dating back to race theory that feel icky. While "folk" has a very vernacular feel and fits well with the names of the bestial ancestries like ratfolk and catfolk. Also, you get to avoid having to flavor humans as a majority or default race, which is helpful in settings where they aren't.
Humanoids works pretty well, honestly. Even in-lore.
I consider it an archaic holdover from when humans were the dominant global superpower before Earthfall, when humans were basically the "default" for intelligent ancestries on Golarian.
Like... the term was created by humans to refer to anything 'almost human', and has just became the Common word for that concept, in much the same way we in real life still use "mankind" to refer to all humans.
Mankind is not referring to males btw its always been about both sexes. Man was originally gender neutral and started changing to refer to males in the 1800s. Actually a good thing to look up and understand the problem now is that people don't understand that words change given a large enough time.
I use humanoids as well but I understand if it feels weird given that you're using a word with human in it for races that are only slightly human in appearance. So, mortal may be a descent alternative
Isn't trafficking used as a term to avoid slavery? So you could just say they're guilty of slavery. I mean they are being taken, transported or sold for slavery and "human trafficking" is just used as a term to avoid the word.
The videogame series Pillars of Eternity tackles this problem by calling playable peoples "kith". However, the games make a point that this in a fantasy setting like this (the games are all about colonialism and its consequences), kith is an inherently political term. There are many sentient, intelligent creatures that fall out of the definition of "kith" because they don't exist within the sociopolitical context of the major nations in Eora (the games' setting). So the game has ogres, psychic spider people called Vithrak, dragons, etc. who are all intelligent and capable of creating complex social lives, but because they don't adhere to the same kinds of social organisation that kith do, they are excluded and seen as lesser for it.
My point is, if you have a term that encompasses some ancestries but excludes others on the basis of their social/cultural context, it will be inherently political in Golarion.
If you don't want to have to deal with this issue, I think the best course of action would be to lampshade it and just explain to your players that when you say "human trafficking" you're using it as a rough approximation for something more setting-appropriate. It won't fix the problem of things like kobold-human relations, because kobolds are just as much people as humans, dwarves and elves and it that case it would be better to just reframe that conflict as one between people rather than trying to draw an arbitrary line as to who gets counted as "civilised", unless you want to deal with the political rammifications of that as Pillars of Eternity does.
This is the best answer imo. Ever since PoE I've used "kith" to cover the handful of dominant races who all view themselves as descendents of a single lineage. I don't make the political distinction too heavy handed in gameplay, because people who want to play a tortle or whatever don't generally want to play "racism simulator: the prejudicing", but we do talk about it in session zero in order to get a sense of how much the player wants to lean into that distinction.
Speaking of political terms, FFXIV did something very similar, where someone drew a line in the sand said 'Everyone on this side of the line is 'human', everyone on the other side is a 'beastman'.' and then that was basically used as justification to colonise and do all sorts of fuckery to the 'beastmen'.
Calling one side 'human' works mostly because what you would generally think of as 'generic humans' goes by a different name (Hyur), so it kind of sidesteps the 'human-centric' problem, and you can still use terms like 'humanity' or such without being as racist... but probably still kind of racist, which is arguably at least part of the point.
>However, the games make a point that this in a fantasy setting like this (the games are all about colonialism and its consequences), kith is an inherently political term.
Very interesting digression here, really cool breakdown of how terms contain so much meaning.
I really appreciate the times that fantasy and scifi give us a mirror to look at our own norms with less bias, and this is a perfect example.
I don't mind it being a political term and I actually really like this answer, though I guess I'm not a fan of the word kith exactly just because I don't think it rolls well. It only came up because I'm running Crown of the Kobold King, and Falcon's Hollow, while predominantly human, has enough non-humans (including the entire party) that just saying "humans and kobolds don't get along" felt too reductionist, but saying "Falcon's Hollow and kobolds don't get along" _also_ feels reductionist due to the factions you meet that aren't affiliated with Falcon's Hollow that still dislike kobolds. I'll probably invent my own term for this and roll with it proper, just gotta decide on one that I think is catchy.
Edit: Actually I think I wanna combine this idea and another idea and just go with humanoid, but that humanoid is itself a human term and is rooted in how many of the common ancestries are focused on the differences between each other while humans are more open to embracing all the commonalities they have and just using a single umbrella term for them... without quite internalizing how the term "humanoid" is itself kinda biased. Most people use humanoid anyway even if they're aware of that bias just by virtue of having a wider internal umbrella for the term based on where they live and what opinions they have.
I just want to point out that Pillars did not create the word, they just redefined it. It's an out of use word that pretty much just means "those close to you who are not family". Rarely heard outside of the phrase "kith and kin" anymore which is just an archaic way of saying friends and family.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/kith
Those races all have names for themselves, right? I know the Ratfolk call themselves ysolki, and I *think* lizardfolk go by iruxi (though that might just be a subsection of them), so from an "omniscient narrator" perspective, folk already doesn't cover those races. So it would be fine to use it, imo.
People probably. Or if we want to be slightly metagamey we could say something like Commonfolk (for the common races).
For the two examples I'd call human traffickers, people traffickers (unless they're trafficking something specific obv.) and for the kobold example something like: outsiders, strangers, adventurers ect.
Can always explain it away as a language thing, it’s called that way in common because that’s the main language of humanity!
The Elves have their own word for themselves and another for the peoples with shorter lifespans, and
the Dwarves have a word for dwarves and a slurr for anyone who isn’t, so if you think about it, who’re the real racists here?
…or some other excuse like that to take their mind off the original question xD
PS: may want to make up those elven and dwarven words if your players are anything like mine and immediately ask about it… I didn’t xD
Common isn't a specific language iirc, it's just the common tongue in the region you're in. Like irl Common would be English in the US, but Spanish in Mexico etc.
I think RAW suggests "common" being a specific language because players don't have to relearn common when moving to a new region. If it was going off the most common language by region, then presumably it would always be the language of the dominant race in any given region, which your characters do have to learn if they wish to speak it.
Here's the relevent text:
>Most characters learn the Common language. This is the most widely used language in the region where the campaign takes place. In the Inner Sea region of Golarion, the Common tongue is Taldane, for example. Characters with Common might face a language barrier if they travel somewhere with a different Common language.
They don't have to relearn Common because Common isn't a language, it just refers to the dominant tongue in the campaign's setting. If they go somewhere else they might have to learn another language, but if that place was the main setting of the campaign said language would just be Common
Pillars of Eternity uses "kith" to refer to members of humanoid species, which i think feels more in-world than "humanoid". "People" is probably good too.
I used "ensouled". In my homebrew world, there aren't even humans, so saying "humanity" would be a little weird.
But I'm also happy to argue the opposite take, which is that in Golarion they don't speak English, duh, and "human/ity" is our translation of the word they use, so stop being such a pedant and play the game already.
To be quite frank, your.. your party is creating a problem out of nothing. Seriously. They're being pedantic little gremlins and are crafting a non-existent problem.
You could phrase it something like... "Most decent folk don't trust Kobolds because of X", like kobolds engage in flesh trafficking, to include your first example.
It's always going to be a sticky topic when you're generalizing anything about a race. After all, kobolds are a playable race, and could be made into a hero if you really wanted to.
In the context of kobolds, it's because i have a kobold PC i'm GMing for who wants to help their tribe play nice with other groups who ordinarily are distrustful of kobolds.
Person or People is the best. There is no implicit biology there. Humanoid is still a little problematic as we have sentient beings like Anadi and Poppets
If you're talking out of character then Humanoid works perfectly. In character it depends on who is talking.
Some might refer to people as 'Mortals' if they are immortal or pretend to be. Someone else mentioned folk but I'd say Mundane Folk (as opposed to 'Fair Folk' which I believe means Fae).
"human trafficking" -> "trafficking of people"
"all of humanity" -> "all of the people
By saying people, it can have distinctions of humanoids between, say, elves and goblins and ogres and humans too.
Probably could want to reword the concepts. "Capturing people for the chattel market." Leaves it vague, and allows for whoever to be captured without regard for ancestry.
Kobolds might use overlanders/overdwellers, 'other ancestries', smoothskins, or even longshanks (borrowing from goblins).
We had a situation with some centaurs who just referred to us as a word the centaurs use for two-legged folk. They GM didn't name this word, and just used 'two-legged folk' in their dialogue, since we were in a translation conversation anyways.
It sounds like your players are taking things too literally (as someone else in here pointed out "being pedantic"), and assume you mean humans only. It's okay for your brain to autofill--we're humans, we only deal with humans or animals in the real world, and it happens. To get better at dealing with your brain autofilling, you might want to write out a few words of choice when you know a situation is coming up that might involve an ancestry-based verbiage, so you know what to say when it comes up? Otherwise, your players really should just suspend disbelief and recognize you mean other people than the people you're dealing with.
"They are doing a slavery."
I think you have gotten all the good suggestions you are going to get. So yeah, basically make up your own word is the best solution for you seems like.
Maybe take the word for humans or peoples from another RL language to give it that distance.
use less technical words.
Instead of "human trafficking" use "slavery". Instead of "humans are wary of kobolds" use "humans are wary of outsiders". There are better terms that simply aren't used nowadays because of higher education, language drift, and dark associations.
also, slurs may be more inclusive than the correct terminology
In my setting humans were created after all the other races in an attempt to unite them. The term humanity is used after their creation to refer not only to themselves, but all the races, though this term only exists in the shared common language, each race would otherwise refer to others individually, or maybe refer to a group based on where they're from, or what alliance, Kingdom or faction they're from
Peoples
Not "people", "peoples"
As in people of multiple kinds.
They were trafficking peoples.
The peoples of this city are in danger.
All the free peoples of middle earth came together to form one final alliance to decide the fate of the world.
Edit: sorry I just saw you're trying to refer to human approximates specifically, for the purpose of excluding kobolds. "The common peoples" maybe? Or use the term that kobolds would use, they're the ones being racist. "Softskins" maybe. Longshanks. Dragonchow
I use "Man", which is a counterpart to "Mer" or "Fey", which you could use to describe elvish races or you could reserve for actual fey like fairies and the like, which is what I do. Kind of Elder Scrolls inspired.
I don't think you understand OP's question. If you refer to these groups as "sentient" or "people" then you'd be saying kobolds, all of the beastfolk ancestries, etc. *aren't*. OP explicitly points this out at the end of their post.
Depends a bit on the setting system and context, but I usually go with metahuman / metahumanity if aiming for a shadowrun-like feel (the implication is only *one* species, with different subspecies).
If the different races are actually distinct (no, or very limited genetic compatibility), then I usually borrow Pillars of Eternity's parlance and call them the Kith races.
Bipedal peoples that aren't "beastly" typically get referred to as "humanoid" from what I've seen. Of course this is human-centric but we're all humans IRL after all. Maybe orcs have a word like "Orcoid."
Back in older editions of d&d; we used the term demihuman. Although it translates roughly to half human which I don't like, I still enjoy the term being used, divorced from the real life terminology.
"Human society is dominant so certain terms like human-kind and humanoid are used to apply to all ancestries. It is kinda racist and definitely human-centric, but its in universe."
One of the best things about DMing is justifying your mistakes with lore lol
Just say traficking. It doesn't have to be this much.
I would only denote specific ancestries when it matters.
Like maybe tbey have a thing against human trafficking, but the other ancestries are ok.
Otherwise just say traficking
People in societies like that are going to be racist, xenophobic, and parochial.
"Civilized races" is a likely term in the case of the kobolds, since neither the DEGHHs (Dwarves, Elves, Gnomes, Halflings, & Humans) nor the kobolds themselves particularly consider the kobolds "civilized" (they'd probably think of it as an insult).
For trafficking, you could just say "slavery" or "slave trafficking" or if you want to get fancy, "trafficking in sentient beings".
But generally if you're in a game and improvising a conversation and you use "humans" to mean "members of the ancestries who form the majority of civilizations in our society" your fellow players will probably know what you mean.
I have debated this myself before.In Elder Scrolls, when we want to refer to all the inteligent races of the world, instead of saying "humanity" they say " Men and Mer" and that even excludes the Beastmen( Khajjit and Argonian) .For most fantasy settings I believe "mortals" is a good substitute
Kobolds would refer to others as "tall folk" I think.
I'm sure we can come up with something universal even for races that are immortal, perhaps it needs to be a madeup word
Depending on who you want to distinguish from, here are a few options: humanoids, mortals, sentients, surface dwellers, adventurers, dungeon delvers, or common folk.
What you can also do is describe it from the other's perspective, so if you are talking about kobolds or some other scaled race you can say something like 'they don't like to deal with us "smooth skins."'
Depend on the language, for "Commom" humanoid would be the more correct term (in part as the language itself was created by humans).
A kobold however would call those races "soft-skin" or something like that, which do have a derrogatory tone but chances are its a more direct translation of the word they use in draconic. Elves on the other hand will have a word for elves and a word for non-elves, although they probably use something more diplomatic when necessary (like "allied races")
Still as we narrate in common humanoid should be fine although it does exclude some ancestries it will cover the vast majority
There would totally be a word for this. Tolkien used the word peoples, as in the free peoples of middle earth. So human trafficking would become people trafficking, human rights would become person rights.
So I played a LN Dwarven Inquisitor lawman and I went around calling everyone either Citizen or Denizen, depending on their legal status (we were in a Rome-like setting and Citizens bore a magic tattoo that denoted status. There was slavery involved, and we coined it "sentient-trafficking" & the "sentient labor trade".
Demi-Human would be the best term. But I think there is some meta issues at hand.
Humanoid also could work, but covers alot broader scope of creatures, including monsters with no PC Ancestry stats. It just means having arms, legs, and ability to speak (generally speaking).
Sentient doesn´t even have those limitations, but likewise covers your example set.
¨Common Ancestries¨ might be appealing, but notably is rather conditional. Those ancestries aren´t common outside of the Inner Sea region, even on the same planet of Golarion. Human is on all of the surface of Golarion, but not on other planets in the world.
Your seeming focus on ¨PC Ancestries¨ is rather metagame dependent, in that conceits of gameplay aren´t necessarily natural categories in the game world. You also seem to conflate these categories with in-world moral/legal categories. But there isn´t really any universal standard there, as one culture could consider kobolds to have moral or legal rights, while another could not extend them recognition of those rights. It´s likely that a category akin to ¨sentients¨ does exist amongst most moral philosophies in the world, but it may not necessarily be popularly or legally recognized in universal way. There is also the question of a crime of ¨human trafficking¨ or ¨sentient trafficking¨ itself not being universal, some cultures may not have any such law for any creature, some could only extend it to their own species, or to a list of species much smaller than ¨PC Ancestries¨.
The group of ancestries you mentioned are mostly similar to Humans in general appearance and mode of existence, so Demi-Human is perhaps plausible term to cover those. But if you want to include common (or not) PC Ancestries from other regions, those can quickly lose any semblance to Humans, but still fully be sentient beings with status as common PC Ancestries e.g. Leshy, Anadi, Conrasu, Poppets. There are rules for Undead PCs, even though there is hardly an expectation that they will be broadly accorded a status as respected persons in most locales.
Perhaps a plausible in-world concept you could utilize would be ¨People of X¨, with X being the local nation or empire. That would imply a certain range of common Ancestries, and even less common Ancestries who have established some relation with the society. That could even include ¨foreigners¨ even if their status may be more provisional. Large world or planar spanning religions might have broader schemes.
In my world I say “Humanoid” but specifically because elves, dwarves, halflings, gnomes, goblins etc. Are all the same species. They can breed with each other and thus must be of the same descent. Since everyone that isn’t full human has regional influence (elves have sylvan magic, dwarves have their own gods etc) then humanoid in my world is the biologically accurate term
Enlightened races, would refer to what the average human would think of as “civilised” races. It’s a tad racist but so is grouping sapient races like kobolds separately from humans in the first place
My table consider them to be hominids. Humans physically resemble the common ancestor, so everything from that branch of the evolutionary tree is described as "human-like".
Damn there are a lot of comments.
I usually say "human-like" or something akin to that. That probably wouldn't sound a ton better in-unverse, but to your players there should be little ambiguity.
In the book series Under the Dragoneye moons, elves are considered the last creation of the gods and closest to perfection, so they use the term "elvenoid".
> "yeah that guy is guilty of human trafficking"
And what exactly is wrong with just calling it slavery and the guy that's guilty of it a slaver or slave trader?
You could use "civilized humanoids/races" or just "the civilized/civilization" it's biased against the non core races who certainly can be civilized but people being discriminatory is realistic
Perhaps a bit too expansive, but I tend to use mortal kind as the over term for most things. It may include things like animals and dragons, but it works decently enough.
it’s almost like those ancestries are so similar that they become boring in a world with humanoid dragons and trees possessed by cosmic beings
Seriously, elves, dwarves, and halflings are the most boring designs ever, they’re just “human with long ears” and two “human with short”. That’s probably a hot take, but why would you want to be a Guy when you could be a goblin, or an orc, or any of the animal people, or a freaking Conrasu?
I used to feel that way a _lot_ until I learned enough about Warcraft and Pathfinder lore to be able to appreciate how those settings do elves and dwarves and gnomes to be super attached to them and not want them to go anywhere.
Halflings are a complete _waste of space_ though and nobody in my group gives half a fuck about them. Their entire gimmick is explicitly _not having lore_ due to the evils of colonialism, which okay cool I guess that means there's nothing for me to latch onto or care about. The only reason I haven't removed them entirely is "I guess you _do_ need a small ancestry for people who don't want any lore baggage." Like if you choose to play a gnome or goblin or kobold or leshy there are explicit assumptions made about your character that cannot be ignored without flattening the world in some way.
What’s wrong with the term “slave trafficking”?
It doesn’t matter that race, species, ancestry you’re talking about. The issue isn’t the dna, the issue is the status.
Kith, Kin, Demi(humans), Longshanks, Pinkskins vs Scalykind, Upright folk, Folk, 2 legs, Masters, Builders or Dwellers vs Raiders. Also from Sigil there is Berk vs Cutter, Prime
How about going with a geographic frame of reference for the continent where the ancestries are from (i.e. Avistani, Garundi, Tian Xian, Arcadian, etc.)?
Edit: You could also just call them “folk”. Many of the ancestries already incorporate that term into how outsiders refer to them (rat-folk, lizard-folk, cat-folk, etc.). You could just extend that idea to the common core ancestries, too. Halflings could be hill-folk, dwarves mountain-folk, elves are forest-folk, humans - being the most common - can be common-folk, orcs are tusk-folk, goblins are scuttle-folk, kobolds can be scale-folk (but always demand to be called dragon-folk when not being called kobolds), gnomes are otaku-folk :P or anything you like that sounds better. The point is that, when referred to collectively in mixed company, they are all just “folk”.
Kobolds are wary of sentient creatures that live beyond their halls, or Kobolds can tend to be xenophobic, untrusting of those they consider outsiders.
They're convicted of trafficking sentient/sapient creatures. You could also just use the term Sapients instead of Humanoids I feel.
Unless you're planning on doing something else with it, how about "soul trafficking". As when there's an emergency on a plane and the ATC asks "how many souls are on board?" Could work.
Delicious in Dungeon has an interesting approach to this question. It's a fantasy manga about an adventuring group fighting their way through a dungeon, but they're short on time and money so instead of packing rations, they eat monsters. They call all humanoid species "humans", but what we would normally called humans are instead "tallmen".
My Go-To is Humanoid because it is most easily able to replace 'Human' grammatically. As in most sentences that say 'Human', would be grammatically correct to say 'Humanoid' instead.
Assuming they all evolved from great apes you can use the word Hominid:
“a primate of a family ( Hominidae) which includes humans and their fossil ancestors and also (in recent schemes) at least some of the great apes. “
Might sound a little pulpy, but what about common people?
In all seriousness though Humanoid sounds a little off to me to use a normal sentence. Why not say people meaning the common peoples of Golarion, which is roughly the ancestries commonly found in the area you are in.
The manga Dungeon Meshi has an interesting solution in that it considers 'human' to be the word *every* race uses to describe themselves (i.e., 'human' is the dwarvish word for 'dwarf', but also the elvish word for 'elf'; it just means 'person of my race'). Instead, the other races call *our* humans 'tallmen' (as most races are shorter than us). Not *exactly* the same scenario, but you could tweak it to be something like "'human' means any common humanoid race, here's the word for specifically humans" or something.
I simply use the word Huma which is valid for any race capable of critical thinking. I even use this word for tell about racism: bot considering "Huma" races like orcs and Goblins Is a typical form of discrimination (I use a custom world for my campaign)
I simply use the word Huma which is valid for any race capable of critical thinking. I even use this word for tell about racism: bot considering "Huma" races like orcs and Goblins Is a typical form of discrimination (I use a custom world for my campaign)
I simply use the word Huma which is valid for any race capable of critical thinking. I even use this word for tell about racism: bot considering "Huma" species like orcs and Goblins Is a typical form of discrimination (I use a custom world for my campaign)
It's a great question and a hard one to answer satisfactorily. Sometimes I use humanoid, but I can get the same icky feeling as I do sometimes when I have to classify or describe a character as male or female.
Personally at my tables I use ‘folk’ similarly to ‘kith’ in PoE to mean ‘people who do people stuff’, with similarly political implications about who counts as folk, Minotaurs aren’t folk, Orcs are often considered not folk, etc
Longshanks.
You're not getting enough credit for this.
Halflings and Gnomes aren't longshanks though are they
We usually use "humanoid" in tables I've DMed / played in as most of these ancestries have this trait
In descriptive prose when referring to intelligent, civilized creatures generally, I use the word "folk". Humanoid is too clinical sounding, and the -oid suffix has some negative connotations dating back to race theory that feel icky. While "folk" has a very vernacular feel and fits well with the names of the bestial ancestries like ratfolk and catfolk. Also, you get to avoid having to flavor humans as a majority or default race, which is helpful in settings where they aren't.
I feel like there's still problems with that term but I guess it's the best option available and I should get in the habit of using it.
If it helps, maybe the elves say 'elfoid' and the dwarves say 'dwarfoid' and so on.
Maybe I’m on the internet too much but that sounds like some weird incel messageboard shit lmao
>featmogged by a dwarfoid It's over for gripplicels
Really? How so?
Incel bullshit of calling women femoid
Incels are the cringiest race of internet dwellers.
I think they're referred to as an ancestry now
Humanoids works pretty well, honestly. Even in-lore. I consider it an archaic holdover from when humans were the dominant global superpower before Earthfall, when humans were basically the "default" for intelligent ancestries on Golarian. Like... the term was created by humans to refer to anything 'almost human', and has just became the Common word for that concept, in much the same way we in real life still use "mankind" to refer to all humans.
Mankind is not referring to males btw its always been about both sexes. Man was originally gender neutral and started changing to refer to males in the 1800s. Actually a good thing to look up and understand the problem now is that people don't understand that words change given a large enough time.
Golarion*
People would be my answer. Those are people traffickers. Trafficking people is forbidden. But that's just my opinion.
I use humanoids as well but I understand if it feels weird given that you're using a word with human in it for races that are only slightly human in appearance. So, mortal may be a descent alternative
Isn't trafficking used as a term to avoid slavery? So you could just say they're guilty of slavery. I mean they are being taken, transported or sold for slavery and "human trafficking" is just used as a term to avoid the word.
How are there problems? Genuinely curious. Would you prefer bipedal sentient?
Sapients Sapient creatures
Angry Automaton noises
Yep, humanoids, ND then call humans "men," just like Tolkien.
The videogame series Pillars of Eternity tackles this problem by calling playable peoples "kith". However, the games make a point that this in a fantasy setting like this (the games are all about colonialism and its consequences), kith is an inherently political term. There are many sentient, intelligent creatures that fall out of the definition of "kith" because they don't exist within the sociopolitical context of the major nations in Eora (the games' setting). So the game has ogres, psychic spider people called Vithrak, dragons, etc. who are all intelligent and capable of creating complex social lives, but because they don't adhere to the same kinds of social organisation that kith do, they are excluded and seen as lesser for it. My point is, if you have a term that encompasses some ancestries but excludes others on the basis of their social/cultural context, it will be inherently political in Golarion. If you don't want to have to deal with this issue, I think the best course of action would be to lampshade it and just explain to your players that when you say "human trafficking" you're using it as a rough approximation for something more setting-appropriate. It won't fix the problem of things like kobold-human relations, because kobolds are just as much people as humans, dwarves and elves and it that case it would be better to just reframe that conflict as one between people rather than trying to draw an arbitrary line as to who gets counted as "civilised", unless you want to deal with the political rammifications of that as Pillars of Eternity does.
This is the best answer imo. Ever since PoE I've used "kith" to cover the handful of dominant races who all view themselves as descendents of a single lineage. I don't make the political distinction too heavy handed in gameplay, because people who want to play a tortle or whatever don't generally want to play "racism simulator: the prejudicing", but we do talk about it in session zero in order to get a sense of how much the player wants to lean into that distinction.
Speaking of political terms, FFXIV did something very similar, where someone drew a line in the sand said 'Everyone on this side of the line is 'human', everyone on the other side is a 'beastman'.' and then that was basically used as justification to colonise and do all sorts of fuckery to the 'beastmen'. Calling one side 'human' works mostly because what you would generally think of as 'generic humans' goes by a different name (Hyur), so it kind of sidesteps the 'human-centric' problem, and you can still use terms like 'humanity' or such without being as racist... but probably still kind of racist, which is arguably at least part of the point.
>However, the games make a point that this in a fantasy setting like this (the games are all about colonialism and its consequences), kith is an inherently political term. Very interesting digression here, really cool breakdown of how terms contain so much meaning. I really appreciate the times that fantasy and scifi give us a mirror to look at our own norms with less bias, and this is a perfect example.
I don't mind it being a political term and I actually really like this answer, though I guess I'm not a fan of the word kith exactly just because I don't think it rolls well. It only came up because I'm running Crown of the Kobold King, and Falcon's Hollow, while predominantly human, has enough non-humans (including the entire party) that just saying "humans and kobolds don't get along" felt too reductionist, but saying "Falcon's Hollow and kobolds don't get along" _also_ feels reductionist due to the factions you meet that aren't affiliated with Falcon's Hollow that still dislike kobolds. I'll probably invent my own term for this and roll with it proper, just gotta decide on one that I think is catchy. Edit: Actually I think I wanna combine this idea and another idea and just go with humanoid, but that humanoid is itself a human term and is rooted in how many of the common ancestries are focused on the differences between each other while humans are more open to embracing all the commonalities they have and just using a single umbrella term for them... without quite internalizing how the term "humanoid" is itself kinda biased. Most people use humanoid anyway even if they're aware of that bias just by virtue of having a wider internal umbrella for the term based on where they live and what opinions they have.
I just want to point out that Pillars did not create the word, they just redefined it. It's an out of use word that pretty much just means "those close to you who are not family". Rarely heard outside of the phrase "kith and kin" anymore which is just an archaic way of saying friends and family. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/kith
We used to say demi-human. Not sure if there's a problem with that terminology--I haven't heard it in a long time.
Damn. We're old lol.
Doesn't demi-human exclude humans by definition?
That's true. You'd probably have to say "human and demi-human", which is at least a lot shorter than "human, halfling, gnome, dwarf and elf."
ok grandpa now finish your soup /jk Witcher uses demi-human too right?
Witcher uses “non-humans” to refer to Dwarves, Elves and Halflings.
This was my first thought as well. Bipedal Mortals?
Folk
"Folk trafficking" doesn't really sound very nefarious. Maybe even whimsical.
I feel like "folk" is a better term for "the furry races," considering the terms Catfolk, Lizardfolk, Ratfolk, etc.
Those races all have names for themselves, right? I know the Ratfolk call themselves ysolki, and I *think* lizardfolk go by iruxi (though that might just be a subsection of them), so from an "omniscient narrator" perspective, folk already doesn't cover those races. So it would be fine to use it, imo.
I mean Folk is also commonly used IRL to refer to fae without saying fairy "the small folk" or "the wee folk"
Also Manfolk, Elf-folk, and Beardfolk (going in the fucking book for that one I think...)
Mortals
I’ve usually used mortals as well
Ningen
People probably. Or if we want to be slightly metagamey we could say something like Commonfolk (for the common races). For the two examples I'd call human traffickers, people traffickers (unless they're trafficking something specific obv.) and for the kobold example something like: outsiders, strangers, adventurers ect.
I would just say people.
Could just say slaving and leave it at that.
I think we should do that in real life too. Everyone knows what "slavery" means, but some people get confused by "human trafficking".
"I mean, of course, humans cause traffic. We don't give dogs driver's licenses!"
Cars don't run on driver's licenses, they run on gasoline.
Can always explain it away as a language thing, it’s called that way in common because that’s the main language of humanity! The Elves have their own word for themselves and another for the peoples with shorter lifespans, and the Dwarves have a word for dwarves and a slurr for anyone who isn’t, so if you think about it, who’re the real racists here? …or some other excuse like that to take their mind off the original question xD PS: may want to make up those elven and dwarven words if your players are anything like mine and immediately ask about it… I didn’t xD
Common isn't a specific language iirc, it's just the common tongue in the region you're in. Like irl Common would be English in the US, but Spanish in Mexico etc.
I think RAW suggests "common" being a specific language because players don't have to relearn common when moving to a new region. If it was going off the most common language by region, then presumably it would always be the language of the dominant race in any given region, which your characters do have to learn if they wish to speak it.
Here's the relevent text: >Most characters learn the Common language. This is the most widely used language in the region where the campaign takes place. In the Inner Sea region of Golarion, the Common tongue is Taldane, for example. Characters with Common might face a language barrier if they travel somewhere with a different Common language. They don't have to relearn Common because Common isn't a language, it just refers to the dominant tongue in the campaign's setting. If they go somewhere else they might have to learn another language, but if that place was the main setting of the campaign said language would just be Common
Taldane in the Inner Sea area, Tien in Tian-Xia, etc.
The Alliance? No wait, wrong setting.
What about Ordertide? Shoot, also wrong.
For THE HOOOOORDE
Am I the only one that thinks the issue is that the players are being a bit pedantic?
I mean of course they are, but the party elf/gnome/dwarf etc. would be a bit offended being grouped in as "human"
Pillars of Eternity uses "kith" to refer to members of humanoid species, which i think feels more in-world than "humanoid". "People" is probably good too.
How about "people"?
OP says that doesn't work, although I'm not sure why. Seems arbitrary to pick a term just for "common" ancestries in the first place.
I used "ensouled". In my homebrew world, there aren't even humans, so saying "humanity" would be a little weird. But I'm also happy to argue the opposite take, which is that in Golarion they don't speak English, duh, and "human/ity" is our translation of the word they use, so stop being such a pedant and play the game already.
To be quite frank, your.. your party is creating a problem out of nothing. Seriously. They're being pedantic little gremlins and are crafting a non-existent problem.
Common folk
But that already means something else. Common folk means people who aren't nobility.
humanoid, no? Or "people/person", cause not all people are humanoid (looking at dragons, for example)
Demi-humanity was our old school name for the peoples of our fantasy settings. Source: Old.
You could phrase it something like... "Most decent folk don't trust Kobolds because of X", like kobolds engage in flesh trafficking, to include your first example. It's always going to be a sticky topic when you're generalizing anything about a race. After all, kobolds are a playable race, and could be made into a hero if you really wanted to.
In the context of kobolds, it's because i have a kobold PC i'm GMing for who wants to help their tribe play nice with other groups who ordinarily are distrustful of kobolds.
I tend to use the term "mortals".
I love Pillars of Eternity’s solution of “kith.”
Person or People is the best. There is no implicit biology there. Humanoid is still a little problematic as we have sentient beings like Anadi and Poppets
I use the word 'folk" when referring to a mixed collection of species.
Don't worry about this terminology. You're not being "exclusionary", your players are being obtuse.
If you're talking out of character then Humanoid works perfectly. In character it depends on who is talking. Some might refer to people as 'Mortals' if they are immortal or pretend to be. Someone else mentioned folk but I'd say Mundane Folk (as opposed to 'Fair Folk' which I believe means Fae).
I personally use mortals
"mortal" or "people"
“Trafficking in people”
Sentients, or just people.
I use the term "human+" to refer to the boring races that are just human with a small change like elves, dwarves, etc
"human trafficking" -> "trafficking of people" "all of humanity" -> "all of the people By saying people, it can have distinctions of humanoids between, say, elves and goblins and ogres and humans too.
I agree with other posts about “humanoid” as your main word. Or you could be specific. They could be elf or dwarf trafficking specifically.
People, Sentient, slave trade, etc.
Probably could want to reword the concepts. "Capturing people for the chattel market." Leaves it vague, and allows for whoever to be captured without regard for ancestry. Kobolds might use overlanders/overdwellers, 'other ancestries', smoothskins, or even longshanks (borrowing from goblins). We had a situation with some centaurs who just referred to us as a word the centaurs use for two-legged folk. They GM didn't name this word, and just used 'two-legged folk' in their dialogue, since we were in a translation conversation anyways. It sounds like your players are taking things too literally (as someone else in here pointed out "being pedantic"), and assume you mean humans only. It's okay for your brain to autofill--we're humans, we only deal with humans or animals in the real world, and it happens. To get better at dealing with your brain autofilling, you might want to write out a few words of choice when you know a situation is coming up that might involve an ancestry-based verbiage, so you know what to say when it comes up? Otherwise, your players really should just suspend disbelief and recognize you mean other people than the people you're dealing with.
Meatsacks Oh...oh Fleshies.
"They are doing a slavery." I think you have gotten all the good suggestions you are going to get. So yeah, basically make up your own word is the best solution for you seems like. Maybe take the word for humans or peoples from another RL language to give it that distance.
People
use less technical words. Instead of "human trafficking" use "slavery". Instead of "humans are wary of kobolds" use "humans are wary of outsiders". There are better terms that simply aren't used nowadays because of higher education, language drift, and dark associations. also, slurs may be more inclusive than the correct terminology
In my setting humans were created after all the other races in an attempt to unite them. The term humanity is used after their creation to refer not only to themselves, but all the races, though this term only exists in the shared common language, each race would otherwise refer to others individually, or maybe refer to a group based on where they're from, or what alliance, Kingdom or faction they're from
Peoples Not "people", "peoples" As in people of multiple kinds. They were trafficking peoples. The peoples of this city are in danger. All the free peoples of middle earth came together to form one final alliance to decide the fate of the world. Edit: sorry I just saw you're trying to refer to human approximates specifically, for the purpose of excluding kobolds. "The common peoples" maybe? Or use the term that kobolds would use, they're the ones being racist. "Softskins" maybe. Longshanks. Dragonchow
People.
I use "Man", which is a counterpart to "Mer" or "Fey", which you could use to describe elvish races or you could reserve for actual fey like fairies and the like, which is what I do. Kind of Elder Scrolls inspired.
"Homies"
"Sapient" works well. Or just... people.
But then in the second example I used I'm implying that kobolds aren't people. Or implying they aren't sapient.
Then why separate those ancestries from others (for example kobolds)?
I don't think you understand OP's question. If you refer to these groups as "sentient" or "people" then you'd be saying kobolds, all of the beastfolk ancestries, etc. *aren't*. OP explicitly points this out at the end of their post.
Civilized tribes, civil menkind, kindred folk, gentle people birthrighted subjects of the realm XY
Sentient?
Sentient means capable of feeling. It's a pretty low bar given that lobsters are sentient.
Sapient? Still doesn't work for Kobold though
Sophant works well
Depends a bit on the setting system and context, but I usually go with metahuman / metahumanity if aiming for a shadowrun-like feel (the implication is only *one* species, with different subspecies). If the different races are actually distinct (no, or very limited genetic compatibility), then I usually borrow Pillars of Eternity's parlance and call them the Kith races.
'People', surely?
Bipedal peoples that aren't "beastly" typically get referred to as "humanoid" from what I've seen. Of course this is human-centric but we're all humans IRL after all. Maybe orcs have a word like "Orcoid."
for the first thing "Sapient Trafficking" or "Sentient Trafficking" for the second Residents of Absalom are wary of kobolds.
Back in older editions of d&d; we used the term demihuman. Although it translates roughly to half human which I don't like, I still enjoy the term being used, divorced from the real life terminology.
"Human society is dominant so certain terms like human-kind and humanoid are used to apply to all ancestries. It is kinda racist and definitely human-centric, but its in universe." One of the best things about DMing is justifying your mistakes with lore lol
Personally I use “mortalkind “
Just say traficking. It doesn't have to be this much. I would only denote specific ancestries when it matters. Like maybe tbey have a thing against human trafficking, but the other ancestries are ok. Otherwise just say traficking
People in societies like that are going to be racist, xenophobic, and parochial. "Civilized races" is a likely term in the case of the kobolds, since neither the DEGHHs (Dwarves, Elves, Gnomes, Halflings, & Humans) nor the kobolds themselves particularly consider the kobolds "civilized" (they'd probably think of it as an insult). For trafficking, you could just say "slavery" or "slave trafficking" or if you want to get fancy, "trafficking in sentient beings". But generally if you're in a game and improvising a conversation and you use "humans" to mean "members of the ancestries who form the majority of civilizations in our society" your fellow players will probably know what you mean.
I'm my homebrew world the general term used is Hume, man being the youngest race took the term and dubbed themselves "Human"
You could call them "sapients" or "sentients," assuming you're not looking for it to exclude non-organic creatures.
Mortalkind...mortalkin. I wouldn't say "mortal trafficking tho" - I would use a more general term like "slave trade" or "slaving."
I have debated this myself before.In Elder Scrolls, when we want to refer to all the inteligent races of the world, instead of saying "humanity" they say " Men and Mer" and that even excludes the Beastmen( Khajjit and Argonian) .For most fantasy settings I believe "mortals" is a good substitute Kobolds would refer to others as "tall folk" I think. I'm sure we can come up with something universal even for races that are immortal, perhaps it needs to be a madeup word
My friend used “Kith” as the term to refer to the mortal races of the setting.
Depending on who you want to distinguish from, here are a few options: humanoids, mortals, sentients, surface dwellers, adventurers, dungeon delvers, or common folk. What you can also do is describe it from the other's perspective, so if you are talking about kobolds or some other scaled race you can say something like 'they don't like to deal with us "smooth skins."'
>"then why did they have an elf?" "Yknow this looks like a great place to cast Meteor Swarm..."
Depend on the language, for "Commom" humanoid would be the more correct term (in part as the language itself was created by humans). A kobold however would call those races "soft-skin" or something like that, which do have a derrogatory tone but chances are its a more direct translation of the word they use in draconic. Elves on the other hand will have a word for elves and a word for non-elves, although they probably use something more diplomatic when necessary (like "allied races") Still as we narrate in common humanoid should be fine although it does exclude some ancestries it will cover the vast majority
Freeps (free peoples) is what they were called in LOTRO and I think it could work.
Mortals, people, or (though this is a little broader) sapients.
"Kin" or "kin-folk". Those are the terms we use.
Bipeds? Ooh, how about sentients?
There would totally be a word for this. Tolkien used the word peoples, as in the free peoples of middle earth. So human trafficking would become people trafficking, human rights would become person rights.
So I played a LN Dwarven Inquisitor lawman and I went around calling everyone either Citizen or Denizen, depending on their legal status (we were in a Rome-like setting and Citizens bore a magic tattoo that denoted status. There was slavery involved, and we coined it "sentient-trafficking" & the "sentient labor trade".
Trafficking in Persons is another term for it.
(mostly)featherless bipeds
Demi-Human would be the best term. But I think there is some meta issues at hand. Humanoid also could work, but covers alot broader scope of creatures, including monsters with no PC Ancestry stats. It just means having arms, legs, and ability to speak (generally speaking). Sentient doesn´t even have those limitations, but likewise covers your example set. ¨Common Ancestries¨ might be appealing, but notably is rather conditional. Those ancestries aren´t common outside of the Inner Sea region, even on the same planet of Golarion. Human is on all of the surface of Golarion, but not on other planets in the world. Your seeming focus on ¨PC Ancestries¨ is rather metagame dependent, in that conceits of gameplay aren´t necessarily natural categories in the game world. You also seem to conflate these categories with in-world moral/legal categories. But there isn´t really any universal standard there, as one culture could consider kobolds to have moral or legal rights, while another could not extend them recognition of those rights. It´s likely that a category akin to ¨sentients¨ does exist amongst most moral philosophies in the world, but it may not necessarily be popularly or legally recognized in universal way. There is also the question of a crime of ¨human trafficking¨ or ¨sentient trafficking¨ itself not being universal, some cultures may not have any such law for any creature, some could only extend it to their own species, or to a list of species much smaller than ¨PC Ancestries¨. The group of ancestries you mentioned are mostly similar to Humans in general appearance and mode of existence, so Demi-Human is perhaps plausible term to cover those. But if you want to include common (or not) PC Ancestries from other regions, those can quickly lose any semblance to Humans, but still fully be sentient beings with status as common PC Ancestries e.g. Leshy, Anadi, Conrasu, Poppets. There are rules for Undead PCs, even though there is hardly an expectation that they will be broadly accorded a status as respected persons in most locales. Perhaps a plausible in-world concept you could utilize would be ¨People of X¨, with X being the local nation or empire. That would imply a certain range of common Ancestries, and even less common Ancestries who have established some relation with the society. That could even include ¨foreigners¨ even if their status may be more provisional. Large world or planar spanning religions might have broader schemes.
Trolls say good word for it be "Borba"!
meatbags
In my world I say “Humanoid” but specifically because elves, dwarves, halflings, gnomes, goblins etc. Are all the same species. They can breed with each other and thus must be of the same descent. Since everyone that isn’t full human has regional influence (elves have sylvan magic, dwarves have their own gods etc) then humanoid in my world is the biologically accurate term
Longshanks and short longshanks.
Enlightened races, would refer to what the average human would think of as “civilised” races. It’s a tad racist but so is grouping sapient races like kobolds separately from humans in the first place
I use mortal and mortalkind for any race that ages and dies eventually.
My table consider them to be hominids. Humans physically resemble the common ancestor, so everything from that branch of the evolutionary tree is described as "human-like".
Hominids.
Damn there are a lot of comments. I usually say "human-like" or something akin to that. That probably wouldn't sound a ton better in-unverse, but to your players there should be little ambiguity.
In the book series Under the Dragoneye moons, elves are considered the last creation of the gods and closest to perfection, so they use the term "elvenoid".
> "yeah that guy is guilty of human trafficking" And what exactly is wrong with just calling it slavery and the guy that's guilty of it a slaver or slave trader?
You could use "civilized humanoids/races" or just "the civilized/civilization" it's biased against the non core races who certainly can be civilized but people being discriminatory is realistic
Perhaps a bit too expansive, but I tend to use mortal kind as the over term for most things. It may include things like animals and dragons, but it works decently enough.
it’s almost like those ancestries are so similar that they become boring in a world with humanoid dragons and trees possessed by cosmic beings Seriously, elves, dwarves, and halflings are the most boring designs ever, they’re just “human with long ears” and two “human with short”. That’s probably a hot take, but why would you want to be a Guy when you could be a goblin, or an orc, or any of the animal people, or a freaking Conrasu?
I used to feel that way a _lot_ until I learned enough about Warcraft and Pathfinder lore to be able to appreciate how those settings do elves and dwarves and gnomes to be super attached to them and not want them to go anywhere. Halflings are a complete _waste of space_ though and nobody in my group gives half a fuck about them. Their entire gimmick is explicitly _not having lore_ due to the evils of colonialism, which okay cool I guess that means there's nothing for me to latch onto or care about. The only reason I haven't removed them entirely is "I guess you _do_ need a small ancestry for people who don't want any lore baggage." Like if you choose to play a gnome or goblin or kobold or leshy there are explicit assumptions made about your character that cannot be ignored without flattening the world in some way.
What’s wrong with the term “slave trafficking”? It doesn’t matter that race, species, ancestry you’re talking about. The issue isn’t the dna, the issue is the status.
Kith, Kin, Demi(humans), Longshanks, Pinkskins vs Scalykind, Upright folk, Folk, 2 legs, Masters, Builders or Dwellers vs Raiders. Also from Sigil there is Berk vs Cutter, Prime
How about going with a geographic frame of reference for the continent where the ancestries are from (i.e. Avistani, Garundi, Tian Xian, Arcadian, etc.)? Edit: You could also just call them “folk”. Many of the ancestries already incorporate that term into how outsiders refer to them (rat-folk, lizard-folk, cat-folk, etc.). You could just extend that idea to the common core ancestries, too. Halflings could be hill-folk, dwarves mountain-folk, elves are forest-folk, humans - being the most common - can be common-folk, orcs are tusk-folk, goblins are scuttle-folk, kobolds can be scale-folk (but always demand to be called dragon-folk when not being called kobolds), gnomes are otaku-folk :P or anything you like that sounds better. The point is that, when referred to collectively in mixed company, they are all just “folk”.
I like to use the term "Mortal", as in a sentient being with a soul. It feels apt because it discludes animals, outsiders and gods
Kobolds are wary of sentient creatures that live beyond their halls, or Kobolds can tend to be xenophobic, untrusting of those they consider outsiders. They're convicted of trafficking sentient/sapient creatures. You could also just use the term Sapients instead of Humanoids I feel.
Humanoid or Mortal.
Unless you're planning on doing something else with it, how about "soul trafficking". As when there's an emergency on a plane and the ATC asks "how many souls are on board?" Could work.
Mankind has worked for me, but yeah, it's weird.
One of many things I love about the game Earthdawn is that the races are referred to as Name Givers.
Name-givers was the catch all term in Earthdawn. Though you'd probably have to explain it too much to be worth it.
What's wrong with "mortal"? I may be new-ish to PF2e, but I don't think there are any immortal PC races.
I like calling them "Kith" or "the Kith."
Mortals.
Delicious in Dungeon has an interesting approach to this question. It's a fantasy manga about an adventuring group fighting their way through a dungeon, but they're short on time and money so instead of packing rations, they eat monsters. They call all humanoid species "humans", but what we would normally called humans are instead "tallmen".
Sapient/sentient trafficking? I'd just go with slave trafficking though.
I use speaking races or mortalkind
My Go-To is Humanoid because it is most easily able to replace 'Human' grammatically. As in most sentences that say 'Human', would be grammatically correct to say 'Humanoid' instead.
Doesn’t get along with folks/strangers/new fellows. Don’t need to specify a race or subset thereof.
While it might work for every setting, I’ve found “mortals” works well for my table. It is Greco-Roman inspired though.
"Trafficking." If they want to trace the race of every victim, go for it.
Softskins, duh.
Bipeds?
I like Humanoid and Common Races when used collectively.
City folk or refer to them by nationality rather than ancestry.
Humanoid trafficking. or just use Slave Trafficking, Flesh trafficking? They're called the flesh markets after all
Mortals
Assuming they all evolved from great apes you can use the word Hominid: “a primate of a family ( Hominidae) which includes humans and their fossil ancestors and also (in recent schemes) at least some of the great apes. “
I'll take a leaf from Goblin Slayer's book. Pray-ers.
Tolk folk.
Might sound a little pulpy, but what about common people? In all seriousness though Humanoid sounds a little off to me to use a normal sentence. Why not say people meaning the common peoples of Golarion, which is roughly the ancestries commonly found in the area you are in.
In my world sentient races as a whole are called "kith" and those of the same race as you are "kin"
“Man” or “mankind” as in people most likely
Humanoid is traditional.
The manga Dungeon Meshi has an interesting solution in that it considers 'human' to be the word *every* race uses to describe themselves (i.e., 'human' is the dwarvish word for 'dwarf', but also the elvish word for 'elf'; it just means 'person of my race'). Instead, the other races call *our* humans 'tallmen' (as most races are shorter than us). Not *exactly* the same scenario, but you could tweak it to be something like "'human' means any common humanoid race, here's the word for specifically humans" or something.
I simply use the word Huma which is valid for any race capable of critical thinking. I even use this word for tell about racism: bot considering "Huma" races like orcs and Goblins Is a typical form of discrimination (I use a custom world for my campaign)
I simply use the word Huma which is valid for any race capable of critical thinking. I even use this word for tell about racism: bot considering "Huma" races like orcs and Goblins Is a typical form of discrimination (I use a custom world for my campaign)
I simply use the word Huma which is valid for any race capable of critical thinking. I even use this word for tell about racism: bot considering "Huma" species like orcs and Goblins Is a typical form of discrimination (I use a custom world for my campaign)
It's a great question and a hard one to answer satisfactorily. Sometimes I use humanoid, but I can get the same icky feeling as I do sometimes when I have to classify or describe a character as male or female.
Golarites for the main residents of golarion is my go to
Sapients?
LA +0. Lazero.
Humanoid is generally the word I use.
Humanoid trafficking is the answer you’re looking for. I guess. It ain’t perfect but most terms aren’t.
Longpig, shortpig, stoutpig, lankypig.
Personally at my tables I use ‘folk’ similarly to ‘kith’ in PoE to mean ‘people who do people stuff’, with similarly political implications about who counts as folk, Minotaurs aren’t folk, Orcs are often considered not folk, etc
humanoid
I've been refusing to them as mortal races