D&D 5E (2014) The word ‘Race’
- Thread starter Yaarel
- Start date
- Status
Goblins, Orcs, Beholders, and plenty of other intelligent creature not associated with supernatural "evil" like devils and undeath are made into cannon fodder for our heroes to butcher and take their stuff.
Halflings....come on that has to be a human or other races term for their people, no group would call themselves "half"-lings, what exactly are they half of.
We make allowances when we play our games, green skinned ugly humanoids can be killed with joy and be bragged about in civilized society.
I guess my point is there are plenty of things in D&D you could call out as not proper but those things are just a part of the game enjoy them and embrace them, don't try and change the game.
Halflings....come on that has to be a human or other races term for their people, no group would call themselves "half"-lings, what exactly are they half of.
We make allowances when we play our games, green skinned ugly humanoids can be killed with joy and be bragged about in civilized society.
I guess my point is there are plenty of things in D&D you could call out as not proper but those things are just a part of the game enjoy them and embrace them, don't try and change the game.
Last edited:
EzekielRaiden
Follower of the Way
One of the more important things to consider, IMO, when discussing "race" in the context of D&D: are there things that the "races" of D&D (or any other game) can do that nobody outside that group can?
Consider in Mass Effect. Asari are monogendered, they're all "biotic" (psionic, in D&D terms) to at least a limited degree, and they can have kids with almost anybody (unless they have a genetic condition which causes them to kill their partners during mind-sexins.) They also typically live to be at least 10x as old as humans today; millennia-old asari are the norm. (It's also not completely clear, but implied that they're mammalian like humans, whereas the other council races definitely aren't.) Then you have salarians, amphibious, extremely short-lived, but with an incredible metabolic rate (which makes them move, think, and speak faster than most other races) and fantastically little need for sleep, just a single hour per (Earth? Standard?) day. An old salarian is in his 40s (and most of them are male because they're haplo-diploid), but in that time he has had, using Earth timekeeping, over 336,000 active hours; compare this to a typical human that sleeps 8 hours per day (slightly under 263,000 hours), and couple it with almost certainly doing more than humans do in the same amount of time, and it's not hard to see why the salarians are not especially worse off for living less than half a human's lifetime (even in ME, where humans typically live to be over 100). Krogan appear to be effectively immortal unless slain, with numerous organ redundancies and, apparently, sufficient genetic adaptability that the Genophage begins to be attacked by gene-repair mechanisms less than 2000 years after it was applied.
But let's circle back to D&D, and particularly the edition I prefer (and thus am the most experienced with): 4th edition. Something actually rather old-school* about 4e is that there are, in fact, particular things which only certain "races" can do. Elves, Ealdrin, and Drow are all considered to be branches of the same phylogenetic tree, yet there are discrete, innate abilities which each can use that the other two cannot. Eladrin can all teleport, innately; it's not weird or special, it's perfectly normal for them. Elves have preternaturally acute senses and accuracy, such that when they really want an attack to land, it's very likely to land. Drow can create temporary supernatural darkness (to which they are immune) or inflict a sort of dark Faerie Fire effect, hampering their enemies and preventing them from hiding. All Dragonborn either can breathe an element or instill terror into their enemies, and become even more driven when the chips are down. Humans are impressively versatile, capable of being "among the best" in any measure of ability, and can also master both more of the fundamentals of their disciplines while maintaining interests in many fields (extra skill). Half-elves, meanwhile, are either able to merge elements of two disciplines into a harmonious blend, or able to find an edge for themselves or their allies in almost any bind. Dwarves aren't just extra-hardy, they're better than any other race at drawing on their internal reserves and bringing the pain back to their enemies, and heavy burdens don't weigh on them as much as they do on others. Devas have ancestral memory. Tieflings can instinctively counterattack--with infernal flames.
I could go on, but that paragraph was getting long. The point is: every 4e race has a clearly discernible, inborn ability, and in general those abilities are intended to be purely a function of biology (Dragonborn, maybe Elves), psychology (Humans, maybe Devas), or....for lack of a better term, "thaumatology," the innate magical nature of a being (Drow, Eladrin, Tieflings). It doesn't matter what culture a Dragonborn is raised in, they'll either have a stare that could kill, or some magically nasty halitosis. In that sense, all of the above-listed races really do have a practical, observable effect which makes them different. Some, like dragonborn, are really biologically distinct, such that it would be very difficult to sell them as the same, but others like Elves/Eladrin/Drow are in theory about as different from each other as human ethnic groups.
So...I can understand why, given the fraught nature of the word "race" when used about real people, someone would be uncomfortable using it in a game. But at the same time, even those who don't like it recognize that (a) the "races" in many editions of D&D really do have some traits which aren't shared, and (b) it's hard to come up with a term that isn't inaccurate, excessively broad/narrow, or just as problematic.
That said, there is one part of it that would be nice, if we could extricate it: separating what is clearly biology (e.g. Dragonborn breath weapon) from what is clearly culture (Dragonborn +2 History and Intimidate). If we can do that--if we can have Human physiological traits be stat flexibility and, I dunno, save bonuses or something, and then have various cultures which are typically but not exclusively Human--I think it would go a long way toward easing the tension some people feel about the word "race." It would emphasize that race is not culture, that it is possible for "an elf" to identify more with the mostly-human-and-tiefling nation they were born in than the mostly-elf-and-eladrin nation their parents emigrated from. The fact of their biology as "an elf" would remain, just as the fact of a dragonborn's biology would remain regardless of where she was hatched, but that biology need not entail other parts of their identity.
*It's sort of a hearkening back to the race-as-class deal, but with more modern sensibilities.
Consider in Mass Effect. Asari are monogendered, they're all "biotic" (psionic, in D&D terms) to at least a limited degree, and they can have kids with almost anybody (unless they have a genetic condition which causes them to kill their partners during mind-sexins.) They also typically live to be at least 10x as old as humans today; millennia-old asari are the norm. (It's also not completely clear, but implied that they're mammalian like humans, whereas the other council races definitely aren't.) Then you have salarians, amphibious, extremely short-lived, but with an incredible metabolic rate (which makes them move, think, and speak faster than most other races) and fantastically little need for sleep, just a single hour per (Earth? Standard?) day. An old salarian is in his 40s (and most of them are male because they're haplo-diploid), but in that time he has had, using Earth timekeeping, over 336,000 active hours; compare this to a typical human that sleeps 8 hours per day (slightly under 263,000 hours), and couple it with almost certainly doing more than humans do in the same amount of time, and it's not hard to see why the salarians are not especially worse off for living less than half a human's lifetime (even in ME, where humans typically live to be over 100). Krogan appear to be effectively immortal unless slain, with numerous organ redundancies and, apparently, sufficient genetic adaptability that the Genophage begins to be attacked by gene-repair mechanisms less than 2000 years after it was applied.
But let's circle back to D&D, and particularly the edition I prefer (and thus am the most experienced with): 4th edition. Something actually rather old-school* about 4e is that there are, in fact, particular things which only certain "races" can do. Elves, Ealdrin, and Drow are all considered to be branches of the same phylogenetic tree, yet there are discrete, innate abilities which each can use that the other two cannot. Eladrin can all teleport, innately; it's not weird or special, it's perfectly normal for them. Elves have preternaturally acute senses and accuracy, such that when they really want an attack to land, it's very likely to land. Drow can create temporary supernatural darkness (to which they are immune) or inflict a sort of dark Faerie Fire effect, hampering their enemies and preventing them from hiding. All Dragonborn either can breathe an element or instill terror into their enemies, and become even more driven when the chips are down. Humans are impressively versatile, capable of being "among the best" in any measure of ability, and can also master both more of the fundamentals of their disciplines while maintaining interests in many fields (extra skill). Half-elves, meanwhile, are either able to merge elements of two disciplines into a harmonious blend, or able to find an edge for themselves or their allies in almost any bind. Dwarves aren't just extra-hardy, they're better than any other race at drawing on their internal reserves and bringing the pain back to their enemies, and heavy burdens don't weigh on them as much as they do on others. Devas have ancestral memory. Tieflings can instinctively counterattack--with infernal flames.
I could go on, but that paragraph was getting long. The point is: every 4e race has a clearly discernible, inborn ability, and in general those abilities are intended to be purely a function of biology (Dragonborn, maybe Elves), psychology (Humans, maybe Devas), or....for lack of a better term, "thaumatology," the innate magical nature of a being (Drow, Eladrin, Tieflings). It doesn't matter what culture a Dragonborn is raised in, they'll either have a stare that could kill, or some magically nasty halitosis. In that sense, all of the above-listed races really do have a practical, observable effect which makes them different. Some, like dragonborn, are really biologically distinct, such that it would be very difficult to sell them as the same, but others like Elves/Eladrin/Drow are in theory about as different from each other as human ethnic groups.
So...I can understand why, given the fraught nature of the word "race" when used about real people, someone would be uncomfortable using it in a game. But at the same time, even those who don't like it recognize that (a) the "races" in many editions of D&D really do have some traits which aren't shared, and (b) it's hard to come up with a term that isn't inaccurate, excessively broad/narrow, or just as problematic.
That said, there is one part of it that would be nice, if we could extricate it: separating what is clearly biology (e.g. Dragonborn breath weapon) from what is clearly culture (Dragonborn +2 History and Intimidate). If we can do that--if we can have Human physiological traits be stat flexibility and, I dunno, save bonuses or something, and then have various cultures which are typically but not exclusively Human--I think it would go a long way toward easing the tension some people feel about the word "race." It would emphasize that race is not culture, that it is possible for "an elf" to identify more with the mostly-human-and-tiefling nation they were born in than the mostly-elf-and-eladrin nation their parents emigrated from. The fact of their biology as "an elf" would remain, just as the fact of a dragonborn's biology would remain regardless of where she was hatched, but that biology need not entail other parts of their identity.
*It's sort of a hearkening back to the race-as-class deal, but with more modern sensibilities.
Jester David
Hero
There's a lot of stuff in the history of D&D that is not what I would call politically correct. A lot of stuff that makes people uncomfortable. And, generally I'm in favour of changing it. It's easy to add other human ethnicities and include male medusas and call them "lizardfolk" instead of "lizardmen".
I can see the issue with " race". But I can't think of a good replacement term. Species sounds too scientific, and doesn't seem accurate as some can interbreed (elves and humans, orcs and humnans). And "breed" doesn't sound much better. Heck, even "type" can be said negatively.
Really, this is a case of "euphamism treadmill" where a usable term is rendered unusable because of how we view the term and the negative connotations we're bringing rather than what the term actually says. The problem isn't with the term or game but with people being dicks to each other .
An example. Breed is a perfectly fine term for describing dogs and cats. Everyone knows you're not being biased by commenting on a particular breed as there are differences in appearance, physical abilities, and even inhtelligence between a St. Bernard and a pug and a border collie. But saying that about people crosses a line (and rightly so). However, different fantasy peoples can be as different as dog breeds, with the average member being tougher or faster or smarter. They can be as different from humans as Vulcans.
D&D races can be a bit funky as they include a cultural and physiological component. Dwarves aren't genetically superior with axes, but you can't have a dwarf raised by elves that's good with a bow. But stuff like that is easy enough to change and custimize. It's easier to adjust the baseline when you know what the baseline is. I mean, Vulcan logic is cultural and not innate but any Star Trek RPG would default to logical Vulcans knowing that will cover 95% of characters rather than presenting a complicated choice to accommodate the minority that want to be emotional Vulcans (or dwarves with a longbow).
I can see the issue with " race". But I can't think of a good replacement term. Species sounds too scientific, and doesn't seem accurate as some can interbreed (elves and humans, orcs and humnans). And "breed" doesn't sound much better. Heck, even "type" can be said negatively.
Really, this is a case of "euphamism treadmill" where a usable term is rendered unusable because of how we view the term and the negative connotations we're bringing rather than what the term actually says. The problem isn't with the term or game but with people being dicks to each other .
An example. Breed is a perfectly fine term for describing dogs and cats. Everyone knows you're not being biased by commenting on a particular breed as there are differences in appearance, physical abilities, and even inhtelligence between a St. Bernard and a pug and a border collie. But saying that about people crosses a line (and rightly so). However, different fantasy peoples can be as different as dog breeds, with the average member being tougher or faster or smarter. They can be as different from humans as Vulcans.
D&D races can be a bit funky as they include a cultural and physiological component. Dwarves aren't genetically superior with axes, but you can't have a dwarf raised by elves that's good with a bow. But stuff like that is easy enough to change and custimize. It's easier to adjust the baseline when you know what the baseline is. I mean, Vulcan logic is cultural and not innate but any Star Trek RPG would default to logical Vulcans knowing that will cover 95% of characters rather than presenting a complicated choice to accommodate the minority that want to be emotional Vulcans (or dwarves with a longbow).
I think you just did.
And you're right! Orcs? BAD! Kill them! Elves? Wait, what color is their skin? Pale? GOOD! Frolic in the woods with them! Dark? Is it a dude wielding two scimitars with a pet cat? No? EVIL! KILL THEM!
Overstated of course, and certain D&D stories bring much more nuance than this, but . . .
While it's easy to forget for those of us steeped in the genre, this is a problematic way of looking at sentient beings . . . at least for us "Social Justice Warrior" types and all.
Heh, I've always toyed with the idea of creating a D&D variant that removes a lot of the embedded racism and other such legacy issues from the literature . . . but MY GOD I don't have that kind of time!
And you're right! Get rid of the word "race" and replace it with, what? Drop "barbarian" and call the savage warrior a . . . what? If you were thorough, not sure how recognizable the game would be when you're done!It is interesting to me to see how WotC (and TSR before them) have shifted on how they deal with some of this stuff. Was I the only one to notice in late 2nd and all of 3rd edition that traditionally evil races such as orcs shifted towards "not inherently evil, but raised in evil culture"? And now, with 5th edition, we're back to "Orcs? Yep, inherently evil." It's messed with some of the themes in R.A. Salvatore's Dark Elf novels!
EzekielRaiden
Follower of the Way
I think you just did.
And you're right! Orcs? BAD! Kill them! Elves? Wait, what color is their skin? Pale? GOOD! Frolic in the woods with them! Dark? Is it a dude wielding two scimitars with a pet cat? No? EVIL! KILL THEM!
Overstated of course, and certain D&D stories bring much more nuance than this, but . . .
While it's easy to forget for those of us steeped in the genre, this is a problematic way of looking at sentient beings . . . at least for us "Social Justice Warrior" types and all.
And at the same time, this is a perspective that both D&D as a game all by itself, and the RPG hobby as a whole, has been constantly moving away from ever since its inception. In ye olden dayse, it was considered perfectly fine to categorize races as "human" (Us), "demi-human" (Not-Us But Generally Okay), and...whatever Orcs were classified as, "humanoids" or the like (Not-Us, Kill On Sight). Now, it's considered not only normal, but often required that every race, even "traditionally evil" races like Orcs, Minotaurs, and Drow, get clear representation among the PC races and be shown to be something other than purely evil. The Warcraft games are a perfect mirror for this; prior to WC3, Orcs were unambiguously evil, which WC3 changed (whether you consider this a retcon or a deeper backstory is a matter of taste, but most people like it). World of Warcraft turned this up to 11, making nearly every race "complex" in some sense (except maybe the Forsaken, the game treats them as pretty much capital-E Evil; they joined the Horde because they needed allies at first, and now they're too integrated to be able to just leave). Even the peace-loving, vegetarian Tauren have the Grimtotem Tribe screwing things up for them.
It's not for nothing that there have been long and involved discussions about (to use the trivializing terms) "orc babies" and the like. If anything, D&D is now pushing for better awareness of this issue, what with presenting a race, Tieflings, as being completely normal, not responsible for their 'genetics,' and capable of leading whatever kind of life they choose, but having to deal with the prejudice and hate of a world that cannot see the person beneath the skin.
So...yes, as I said, I can understand why people might feel uncomfortable with the term "race" used in D&D. But as far as continuing prejudice goes, D&D and other RPGs really aren't the greatest place to start raising battle standards. 5e's inclusion of a trans* deity, for example, seems like a pretty good reason to say "hey, these guys are really trying." That doesn't erase the uncomfortableness some people will feel, but at this point, I really don't see any "solution" for that. Few people have any new terms they really like for the concept, the concept is clearly meaningful within the game, and the game as a whole is clearly trying to address these issues frankly and openly rather than ignoring them.
I guess all I'm really trying to say is, "I'm sorry that you feel that way, but I don't really think it's going to change, at least not any time soon."
Li Shenron
Legend
[MENTION=58172]Yaarel[/MENTION]
Well you can't change the written text in the books, but you don't have to use the word in your games (more than just when you need to direct a player to something in the book).
There is absolutely no need for an overarching theory of the origin of species in a game! There can be just humans, elves, dwarves and halflings, all of which are creatures.
Also, I don't know if the 5e MM still has explanations on monsters categories, but I think mostly they are nothing more than labels to adjudicate limitations on spells and special abilities (such as "works on humanoids, doesn't work on undead...").
As you say, "humanoid" can be a natural term in your games. At the same time, it can also be a technical term in spell/abilities description.
Just say that in the case of mechanical descriptions, "humanoid" is merely a shorthand for "this spell works on humans, elves, dwarves, lizardfolks, goblins, orcs... <insert 100+ more creatures here>, but doesn't work on giants, undead... <insert 1000+ more creatures here>".
Outside mechanical descriptions, feel free to use the terms and forget about deeper discussions that wanna be scientific but are mostly pathetic
That's because it is a (useful) convenient term, but as everything else in real life, there are no categories and no boundaries between. There is only continuity.
Well you can't change the written text in the books, but you don't have to use the word in your games (more than just when you need to direct a player to something in the book).
There is absolutely no need for an overarching theory of the origin of species in a game! There can be just humans, elves, dwarves and halflings, all of which are creatures.
Also, I don't know if the 5e MM still has explanations on monsters categories, but I think mostly they are nothing more than labels to adjudicate limitations on spells and special abilities (such as "works on humanoids, doesn't work on undead...").
As you say, "humanoid" can be a natural term in your games. At the same time, it can also be a technical term in spell/abilities description.
Just say that in the case of mechanical descriptions, "humanoid" is merely a shorthand for "this spell works on humans, elves, dwarves, lizardfolks, goblins, orcs... <insert 100+ more creatures here>, but doesn't work on giants, undead... <insert 1000+ more creatures here>".
Outside mechanical descriptions, feel free to use the terms and forget about deeper discussions that wanna be scientific but are mostly pathetic
That's because it is a (useful) convenient term, but as everything else in real life, there are no categories and no boundaries between. There is only continuity.
transtemporal
Explorer
You've gotta remember you're playing (and the DM is playing) fictional characters in a fictional world. If the DM has a racist
NPC, it doesn't mean the DM is racist, he's probably setting that NPC up to be a villain.- Status
Similar Threads
D&D General
Gods, huh, what are they good for?
D&D 5E (2014)
5.0 Retrospective. Races Most/Least Popular (anecdotes).
Recent & Upcoming Releases
-
June 16 2026 -
June 16 2026 -
September 16 2026 
Arcana Unleashed(Dungeons & Dragons)
Rulebook featuring "high magic" options, including a host of new spells.
Replies (250) -
September 16 2026 -
October 1 2026 -
October 6 2026 -
January 1 2027 -
January 1 2027
