D&D 5E The word ‘Race’

[Alzrius]

Because you're looking at the argument as though it is saying D&D is racist. That's not the argument being made. The argument is that D&D draws from racist source material (as many things in our modern world still do).

That's incorrect. The argument is not "D&D draws from racist source material." The argument is "D&D is problematic because it contains elements - whether original or drawn from existing source material - that some people find unpleasant/offensive." This argument contains the premise that there is a moral imperative to remove/change such elements, and that to fail to comply with this imperative is therefore immoral.

It's that last part that I, and a lot of posters here, disagree with. I reject the implicit notion that not finding cause to remove these elements from the game is necessarily a moral failing.

This is a problem with the source material, which D&D has done a lot to overcome, but more could be done.

As noted above, I don't believe that the source material really has anything to do with it. Likewise, the idea that there is still more to do is not, unto itself, an especially compelling argument; more can always be done, without end - taken too far, this makes the perfect into the enemy of the good.

Not seeing the validity of an argument and not agreeing with an argument are two different things.

No disagreement there.

If you're not seeing the validity of an argument, I tend to find that's because you're either reading it wrong, or not really taking the time to consider it.

See, this is where you lose me. It's entirely possible to examine the premise, reasoning, and conclusion of an argument and find at least one of those to be invalid. You can absolutely find something to lack validity after reading it correctly and considering it.

Or it is quite possibly, the worst argument ever put forward, but even simplified down to: D&D retains racist elements because those elements exist in the material it draws from; I don't see how someone can find that as invalid given that you'd either have to be unaware of the racism in the historical material, or not think it was racist.

But again, that is a misstatement of what the argument is (e.g. invalid premise). It's not a question of where the problematic material comes from; it's about whether or not the material in question is in fact problematic and what, if anything, should be done about it.

 

[KarinsDad]

I am becoming increasingly uncomfortable with using the word ‘race’ in D&D.

Unfortunately, it has been a central technical term since the origins of D&D, is a conspicuous part of the D&D tradition, and removing it would be a noticeable departure from ‘tradition’.

Nevertheless, having the game players thinking in terms of ‘race’ relates to problematic reallife implications.

In defense of D&D, all humans belong to the same ‘race’, the Human race. This tradition opposes reallife racism.

On the other hand, the other ‘races’ − such as Elf, Dwarf, Orc, etcetera − are too human. By necessity these options need to be human-like enough in order for players to relate to them. And this is the problem, organizing all these other kinds of humans into categories of ‘race’ is, in fact, the reallife definition of racism. ... Even if it is a weird kind of fantasy racism. Other human-like options like Orc are inherently inferior, intellectually and morally, because of their ‘race’. This way of play has problems.



There is no reallife definition of ‘race’ that justifies the use of this term in D&D.

According to its most problematic definition, a ‘race’ is a now-discredited biological term, which essentially is a synonym for a ‘subspecies’. There are no human subspecies alive today, because any human group today has more genetic diversity within it, than any groups have in comparison to each other. Scientists reject the use of the term ‘race’ with regard to distinctive human communities.

Again, D&D agrees, so there is only one Human race.

Nevertheless, race doesnt mean ‘subspecies’ in D&D. For example, if the Human race is a subspecies, the game lacks mentioning the wider species that the Human is a part of. Moreover, the D&D term ‘subrace’ would be equivalent to a ‘sub-subspecies’, which is moreorless a nonsense category. So, D&D isnt using a reallife definition of ‘race’.



The other reallife definition of ‘race’, is moreorless a synonym of ‘culture’, a ‘people’, or a ‘nation’. But in these contexts, the other terms are clearer, and the term ‘race’ is archaic and unseemly.



Even the in-game definition of a ‘D&D race’, seems inadequate to justify the use of the term ‘race’.

It seems to me, the technical definition of a ‘race’ according to D&D is any distinctive group within the creature ‘type’, ‘Humanoid’, that is typically appropriate for a player character.

It might help to make this technical definition more prominent, in order to help avoid misunderstanding.

But I find the ‘Humanoid’ type itself to be an unhelpful technical term, because it includes anything from ‘human’ to ‘lizardfolk’ to ‘goblin’ to etcetera, but doesnt include the types ‘construct’, ‘fey’, ‘giant’, etcetera. There are playable races that are construct, fey, giant, undead, plant, etcetera, so by definition they should be Humanoid too, but the definition of Humanoid is inconsistent and less useful.



Personally, I would rather have the term ‘race’ gone.

This has got to be one of the most ridiculous politically correct posts that I think I have ever read.

It's a fricking game. Sheesh.

When will this madness end?

Save these ideas for the real world where they matter.

 

[cmad1977]

Enworld: we make up issues so you don't have to.

 

[MG.0]

I don't think purging Lovecraft is an option either. Lovecraft has become hugely influential. He did good work. It's important to separate the art from the artist.
But, at the same time, it is encouraging people to read and share the work of a pretty racist human being. Thankfully, Lovecraft no longer financially benefits from his work, so we're no longer directly supporting him (unlike, say, Orson Scott Card), so we're not supporting his beliefs through innaction.

Agreed, although Lovecraft barely benefited financially from his work when he was alive.

But that does not mean we shouldn't try to avoid racist imagery and symbolism.
It's important for a balance to be struck and be careful what Lovecraftian elements you permit into the game. And to not be seen as condoning or forgiving his beliefs, which cannot even be argued as being "a product of his times". And when presenting something Lovecraftian, monsters are pretty safe, but when you drift into anything humanoid things get a little more uncomfortable. You need to be careful what aspects you are emphasizing and using to tell your story. And more deliberate action has to be taken to work against racism so as not to condone his racial beliefs.

Also agreed. Avoiding deliberately insulting material is important.

This is completely blaming the victim. "If you didn't like the obvious suggested implications, you should have thought that".

I disagree. If I try to avoid offense, but offense is still taken, I am not at fault. Yes, it is an opportunity to discuss such things, and possibly modify behavior, but people need to take responsibility for things that bother them. I'm sure I carry beliefs that would offend a large number of people. I try not to inflict those on other people or take offense from people who think differently. I expect the same of others. To expect more is to be unreasonable.

The movie creators presented the only dark skinned characters in the film - the only characters played by actors of colour - as brutal cannibalistic savages. Tolkien's accidental racism wasn't unknown prior to filming. This has been pointed out for years and years (as far back as C.S. Lewis, who was a friend of Tolkien). The filmmakers could have done something to counter these negative associations, but did nothing.

Not sure what a movie has to do with whether or not D&D needs changes to avoid perpetuating racial stereotypes. Hollywood does a lot of stupid stuff, but no one is to blame for it except Hollywood.

This is a poor argument. It's claiming that "because elves aren't racist, orcs must also not be racist." (Or "X =/= Z, therefore Y must =/= Z"). That's not logically valid.

Um, there was no argument here. I was just asking why someone would associate elves with a real-world nation. Since then, someone mentioned the elven armada in Spelljammer which is a good example I suppose, although quite old.

Traditional portrayals of elves also don't conform to negative stereotypes of a race. Especially since they're presented pretty positively.

Agreed.

Firstly, subterranean creatures would be pale and albino and not black.

Like Moles? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mole_(animal)

Nothing is universal.

Secondly, it doesn't matter if the exact hues match real world races. If all the heroes of a film are pale lily white and all the villains are darker in colouration it perpetuates the very old stereotype that goodness is equated with skin tone. The movies went out of their way to include token females, attempting to fix the accidental sexism of Tolkien, but they didn't include any black Hobbits or elves or humans.

Again with the movies.

You can still have a shadowy dark evil without colour-coding the protagonists based on skin colouration. The fear of the dark applies because of the shadowy unknown, indistinct and mysterious. So heroes in bright clothes in well lit locations convey the same effect.

Agreed. I've said before I wouldn't have a problem with good dark-skinned elves (distinguised from drow), or light skinned evil ones.

The thing is Western culture is implicitly racist. Racism exists. It's a thing. Especially in movies.

Yes racism is real and exists in movies, although I would draw the line at saying all Western culture is implicitly racist. That's painting a lot of people with a pretty broad brush.

RPGs are small enough that they can be different. They can be better. It is literally about fantasy, so we don't have to accept the broken, damaged, unpleasant world as it is. We don't need to use the same tired old, lazy tropes or condone the racism of our world. Just saying "well, we're not racist so it's not our problem" does nothing to fix the problem and makes the D&D/RPG community complicit through inaction.

Agreed.

It is obvious D&D draws on material that includes racism, but that is a lot different than saying D&D perpetutes racism as has been suggested by a number of posters. I don't think it does. A lot of what is being said amounts to "This vegetable grew in fertilizer, so eating it is like eating crap." I think the people suggesting D&D promotes racist behavior have failed to point to anything substantial in the game that could or needs to be fixed. As I've said before, variety and differences between the in-game races IS NOT RACIST. Having differences isn't racist. Exploiting those differences to insult or demean someone is.

 

[Minigiant]

You see the problem is many settings and DM make the other races act like humans.

Elves are humaniods who like for centuries and are treated as children for a whole century or more, have super senses, and above average dexterity.

In my setting, the heirs of the elven crown choose sucession via a musical contest and it broke into a civil war as after the 20 year preparation phrase, someelf accused the judges of cheating by insisting of the use of violins. Literally world changing civil war over the use of violins over clarinets.

No need to worry about racism when the other races are clearly not human.

 

[Uchawi]

The biggest advantage of a game versus real life is you can change it, and through the role playing experience specific topics can explored and you can influence the outcome as a character. It is rare you have a game that can be both fun, with an underlying layer of serious considerations on how the world may change by direct action. If you find certain concepts offensive, you may want to find a better way to entertain yourself.

 

[Sunseeker]

You see the problem is many settings and DM make the other races act like humans.

Elves are humaniods who like for centuries and are treated as children for a whole century or more, have super senses, and above average dexterity.

In my setting, the heirs of the elven crown choose sucession via a musical contest and it broke into a civil war as after the 20 year preparation phrase, someelf accused the judges of cheating by insisting of the use of violins. Literally world changing civil war over the use of violins over clarinets.

No need to worry about racism when the other races are clearly not human.

I wrote a long article on this ages ago about "outside the box" thinking.

Non-humans act like humans for two reasons:
1: For the viewer to connect with. You can't care about the problems of a person, race or planet when you cannot connect with them. If the problems in question are too inscrutable, too silly, or too weird for the players to connect with, they simply won't care. Or worse, they'll react negatively.
2: Because they are written by humans. Humans can only write what they know, or think they know. Even writing what you think you don't know ends up giving off a vibe of "I wrote this to purposefully be strange and confusing." And that's fine...within a certain set of bounds.

If you get too far out of the box, too far beyond what a human player/reader can connect with, you're basically wasting your time writing. The lack of connection will cause the brain to effectively shut down, the eyes to gloss over and the viewer to lose interest.

Ostensibly your example seems silly because it looks to the reader as though elves are fighting over the choice in instrument. But you've got the underlying tones that allow the reader to connect with the elves: the war of succession. Arguing over what instrument should be played is a symptom of the disagreement over who should lead and how they should do it and what measure we should judge them on. These are all very connectable elements to a reader.

Take the dwarves in Dragon Age: they generally don't go above the surface because they have lived underground for so long, their brains literally cannot comprehend the open emptiness of the sky, resulting in a culturally, possibly biologically ingrained fear of open spaces. Much the same way the human brain cannot comprehend the vastness of outer-space, resulting in a breakdown in rational thinking and an expression of fear and terror over something their mind simply cannot comprehend.

There's a very connectable element there that is both very human, but when given to an entire race is enough to cause the reader to go "wow, that's really different" even though its not really different, the wide-spread nature of it makes it feel as such.

So, it's not so much that other species need to act inhumanly. It's that they need to act like humans, but in a manner that humans don't expect. Attempting to write non-humans as completely inhuman is simply a wasted effort.

 

[Remathilis]

I wrote a long article on this ages ago about "outside the box" thinking.

Non-humans act like humans for two reasons:
1: For the viewer to connect with. You can't care about the problems of a person, race or planet when you cannot connect with them. If the problems in question are too inscrutable, too silly, or too weird for the players to connect with, they simply won't care. Or worse, they'll react negatively.
2: Because they are written by humans. Humans can only write what they know, or think they know. Even writing what you think you don't know ends up giving off a vibe of "I wrote this to purposefully be strange and confusing." And that's fine...within a certain set of bounds

This.

Study the habits of other animals (even our closest cousins like mammals) and you'll see a lot of behavior that is unfathomable to humans; dolphins who use sex to assert dominance, mother cats who let a sickly kitten starve, ducks who will engage in necrophilia. If we created fantasy races with similar traits (dwarves use sex to assert dominance, elves let a sickly child starve, or gnomes who engage in necrophilia) we wouldn't be able to identify with or accept these as acceptable traits, even though such traits do exist in those animals and it hasn't stopped people from loving dolphins, cats, or ducks.

 

[aramis erak]

Tanar'ri or the name for devils never got much traction with the people I game with. "What's a tanar'ri? A demon. Oh why not call it a demon?" is the response.

I really have a hard time understanding how the stats representing biological differences between fantasy races somehow reinforcing racism in real life.

For the alternate names for demons and devils, Tanar'ri and Baatezu, everyone I ever mentioned it to laughed at the idea, and considered the names themselves stupid.

As for the stats... Reality itself is racist. Different ethnicities have different average levels of ability in various regimes. Society isn't wiping that out. Educational testing shows notable trends - trends which can be countered by ethnicly adapted instruction - which is something unlawful to do in the US, except for aboriginal peoples.

The classic fantasies which Gygax et al based D&D upon are all racist... Tolkien - tho' not denigrating any but Uruk and Uruk-hai - has very clear differences in the races he puts into his worlds. Vance has open racism and xenophobia in his Dying Earth works. Lieber has some, too. And Howard... Conan and Kull stories are both rife with racism. And Borroughs - John Carter overcomes a lot of racism on Mars...

 

[I'm A Banana]

Did the guy with the word "Midget" in his handle...an incredibly offensive term that went out of vogue decades ago now...just claim there is "no harm" in asking that people who have used a term for decades and decades to communicate a common meaning in their hobby, to change it to protect an extremely small minority of the offended?

OK, you first.

Yeah, fair enough. A name I chose when I was 18 would not be the name I'd choose for myself today.

Consider it changed! Thanks.

It is to illustrate a) there is nothing to "absolve D&D of" and b) if there were, changing the word would not do it.

It doesn't illustrate either of those points. These past noun-changes have nothing to do with the current discussion of the term "race."

You are contending that it is the word itself that is the problem. Someone who has issues with the concept of identifying groups of people based on hereditary traits is not hung up on the word itself but the concept. Call it People, species, bioform, whatever you still have the same issue and, while I do think people tend to be rather foolish, I don't think they are foolish enough to be fooled by using a euphemism.

Incorrect - it is very much a language-based issue. Change the word and nothing else, and you no longer have that particular issue.

It was the concept that some races are on average better at some things than others. No matter how you represent that mechanically (racial bonuses, dark vision, speed, proficiency, immunities, resistances, vulnerabilites, what have you) it will still be the same.

If you don't have a thing called "race" in D&D, you don't have some races that are better on average at some things than other races.

Therefore the only way to solve this (non)problem is to remove the very concept and I strenuously object to that notion because I _like_ including a variety of races in the game and even having some racial strife.

Not the case. Keep elves and dwarves and halflings and whatnot. I'm not saying that we should get rid of them.

You are trying to make us change.

No, I'm trying to show you why you might want to not object to a change. No one - especially not some yobbo on the internet - can make you change. I've got zero interest in even trying.

If you aren't making us out to be villains you are at the very least treating us like we have committed some sort of sin and I reject that utterly.

You've committed no sin in my eyes, but you do have an opportunity to not object to something that I think can help the game we both care about. I'm not sure why you would object.

Do I want more people to play? Of course and I've introduced scores of people to the game. But not if it means changing the core concepts of the game.

Then you shouldn't have a problem with changing the term "race."