D&D 5E The word ‘Race’

[Aldarc]

Little changes like changing the word "race" isn't going to change anything. Never heard a person complain about race as a term, though I did get complaints from my buddies on occasion about the lack of black humanoid races, especially elves given the drow are the primary dark-skinned elf in D&D. He did love to play drow. When I was younger I was concerned about ruining verisimilitude by mixing dark-skinned elves into the game given the source material when I was younger (twenty plus years ago) being a Tolkien fan. As I got older I came to see his viewpoint and allowed him to play whatever he enjoyed and found a way to justify it in the context of the world.

I have heard people complain about 'race' as a term in RPG gaming. Most of my gaming group did.

And then there was this that got passed through the internet grapevine, which made those of us in my gaming group far more uncomfortable about D&D's construction of race. One my friends who is a transmale gamer sent me this several months after a discussion I had about some of the socially problematic assumptions of RPG fantasies, particularly around race and violence.

If this attachment proves to be too objectionable, the mods are free to remove it. But it does highlight how certain assumptions of D&D can reinforce real life racism.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I have heard people complain about 'race' as a term in RPG gaming. Most of my gaming group did.

And then there was this that got passed through the internet grapevine, which made those of us in my gaming group far more uncomfortable about D&D's construction of race. One my friends who is a transmale gamer sent me this several months after a discussion I had about some of the socially problematic assumptions of RPG fantasies, particularly around race and violence.

If this attachment proves to be too objectionable, the mods are free to remove it. But it does highlight how certain assumptions of D&D can reinforce real life racism.

View attachment 69985

Trash like that is exactly the thing that gets me.

In the hands of a responsible human being, the fantastic differences between make-believe entities being termed "race" is...an unfortunate archaic term, maybe, but little else.

Unfortunately, there are a lot of irresponsible human beings out there. It honestly makes it harder to enjoy D&D knowing that there's people out there who are like, "Yeah, this totally justifies my racist attitudes." It's not D&D's fault, it's not like WotC is creating this, but it makes me want to go do something else, because my disgust at that mindset is that strong. It's why I wince a little whenever someone - jokingly - says that an elf who doesn't like dwarves is just being a "racist."

It's like discovering half a twitching cockroach in my morning yogurt - makes me just not want to have anything to do with anything that gets close to that for some time.

Hits my Unreasonableness button harder than morale-based-HP.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I'm very rarely impressed with arguments that have, as their central piece evidence, something a random tool on the internet said that was outrageous. That's what random tools on the internet do.

Look, I can follow the argument that you are upset at the social assumptions in an RPG book. I may not agree with you entirely, but I can follow those arguments well enough. I don't need a quote full of hateful stupidity from a random tool on the internet that happens to have co-opt something relatable to the topic. They're already hateful, and they're not representative of the issues under discussion. All including it does is trigger the need to call out the hateful stupidity and side with the aggrieved as part of the social ritual of the internet or face the possibility of ostracism for failing to do so. It's a dog whistle for emotional support, and it's unneeded. I'm not saying you shouldn't be offended by crap like that (I'm offended by it) but it serves no purpose to inject it into a discussion of the issues (unless the issues is specifically 'what random tools say on the internet that is hateful stupidity -- but I may have repeated myself').

Finally, it sets the bar for problems at 'it's a problem if anyone hateful can use it to offend'. That's such a low bar that snails wouldn't trip over it, and it hands power to random tools to bash you around with it.

 

[MG.0]

Wow, you have to be ten kinds of stupid to take differences between dwarves and elves and use it to justify stupid human predjudices.

Cats are more dextrous than humans. That's not racist.
Aligators are stronger than humans. That's not racist either.
The differences between the fantasy races are just like this.

Having differences between races in D&D is NOT RACIST. Good grief some people are thick.

 

[Uller]

Trash like that is exactly the thing that gets me.

In the hands of a responsible human being, the fantastic differences between make-believe entities being termed "race" is...an unfortunate archaic term, maybe, but little else.

Unfortunately, there are a lot of irresponsible human beings out there. It honestly makes it harder to enjoy D&D knowing that there's people out there who are like, "Yeah, this totally justifies my racist attitudes."

This kind of thing used to be said of other aspects of D&D...

In the hands of a responsible human being, the fantastic abilities of make-believe entities being termed "magic" is...an unfortunate archaic term, maybe, but little else.

Unfortunately, there are a lot of irresponsible human beings out there. It honestly makes it harder to enjoy D&D knowing that there's people out there who are being lead into Satanism or towards hurting themselves or others.

Look, people do bad stuff. They find ways to justify it. It's trait common to most humans. Someone using D&D to justify hating black people is literally just as stupid as someone using it to justify attempting to commune with demons. It's a game. It's as connected to the real world as Monopoly is connected to the real estate industry. Enjoy it. No matter what you enjoy I'm certain someone somewhere is using it to do something monumentally stupid.

 

[Sunseeker]

I agree and I disagree.

In part, I think objections to the use of "race" in D&D are a reflection to how society is dealing with race IRL. When race becomes a problem IRL, people fixate on its usage in books and media. When race isn't a problem IRL, people don't mind.

Race is, IMO, probably the best word out of a lot of bad words that could be used. Species? More accurate but not really appropriate to a fantasy game. Genus?

Would we have a Genus of elves, and each type would be a species? Or would we have a species of elves and subspecies of elves? I always dislike the use of "sub-races" it makes sense, but both feels too technical and can lead to the impression, especially in some editions where there is a "generic" elf, that those other elves are "lesser races". Though I generally come to the conclusion that I'm overthinking things.

Perhaps, both biologically accurate and avoiding more sensitive terms, we should use variety?

Across the world, you find that elves, humans, dwarves and most races come in many varieties, sometimes physically distinct from each other and sometimes almost indistinguishable from others of their race."

Or perhaps, a little more clunky, "ancestry"?

Though all elves hail from some unified point in their history today we find elves of many ancestries, each shaped by their culture, religions, and location."

I think that works, and also allows us to talk around the word "race" or "species". Which is really what we're trying to do here, is talk around either the inappropriate biological classifications or potentially socially offensive terms.

I apologize for not reading 11 pages of posting and perhaps this has been posted before, but here's how the biology breaks down: (I love this diagram fyi)

So biologically speaking, it's possible that elves, dwarves, humans, even perhaps orcs and any other fleshy, two-armed, bipedal humanoid are all derivatives of the same "genus humanoid". Unfortunately biology falls apart a bit at this point in a multi-species setting where they are capable of interbreeding since one of the hallmarks of a species is considered their inability to reproduce and create fertile children. Although perhaps that would explain why half-breeds haven't overflowed the world, perhaps half-elves and half-orcs are infertile? It would certainly solve a lot of problems biologically in D&D. However, the inability to create fertile children is not universally accepted as a differentiation between species.

So I'll reiterate what I said at the beginning of my post: biology and fantasy don't mix well. This is one of those situations IMO.

So I think some of the other suggestions I've seen in this thread are appropriate.

"Ancestry", "heritage", "kin/kind", "varieties". If you want to replace "race" without delving into science, that's where you're going to find your answers.

 

[Sunseeker]

Having differences between races in D&D is NOT RACIST. Good grief some people are thick.

I get it, I do, but I see the other side, and I think failing to see that makes the problems worse, not better.

The races are not different against each other. They're different against humans. All the races are set up to show how different they are from humans, the "base" race and several of the races carry some historical prejudices with them. Almost all of them stem from western medieval legends and representations of "others" in their culture. So it can be, without stretching, argued that the "races" are set up to show how different they are from a traditional white euro-centric perspective. Especially when you consider that dwarves, halflings and gnomes have roots in european perceptions of minority groups in the region.

D&D isn't trying to be racist, but I think they're attempting to overlook problems that have existed for decades in the game and centuries in the lore.

Personally we could remove racial modifiers entirely and leave "racial differentiation" entirely in the hands of special features. I think that would go a long way to presenting the races as equal options in all respects. Sure, maybe grey elves are sneakier, maybe high elves more studious, dwarves more stout, but wouldn't resistance to poison, an extra skill proficiency, or advantage on stealth checks also represent that well enough? Further, these elements could be attributed to culture instead of biology moving us even further from presenting each race as "naturally" good at something, which I think would both be a boon to the game from a mechanical perspective (giving everyone a better ability to make their character their own) and from a social-justice perspective.

Again, I don't think D&D is trying to be racist. But I do think they're ignoring some of the lingering racist elements in the lore their works are based on.

 

[Mistwell]

Is it me, or did the original poster basically throw this bomb of a thread down and then walk away? Has he posted since the first post and engaged anyone who has taken the time to respond to him?

 

[I'm A Banana]

This kind of thing used to be said of other aspects of D&D...

Pretty irrelevant.

Look, people do bad stuff. They find ways to justify it. It's trait common to most humans. Someone using D&D to justify hating black people is literally just as stupid as someone using it to justify attempting to commune with demons. It's a game. It's as connected to the real world as Monopoly is connected to the real estate industry. Enjoy it. No matter what you enjoy I'm certain someone somewhere is using it to do something monumentally stupid.

Everyone has their own personal threshold for BS in what they enjoy. I find the idea of that racism repellent enough that it kills my happy fun times gaming buzz, similar to a range of issues (rape, detailed sex scenes, slavery, child abuse, torture, various war crimes, genocide, homophobia, hard gender divides in humans, etc.). It is not happy fun times gaming thoughts. I wanna drop the d20 because suddenly I can't talk in funny voices and pretend to be a magical gnome anymore - it's very clear just how absurd it all is.

To the extent that I can, I ignore it, but it's a luxury for me to be able to ignore it, to at least consider it in context and know what it's meant to convey. Some of my close friends and loved ones don't have that luxury. That's part of why I think we can get a better term than "race" for this game mechanic that has anyway always been kind of an indistinct and awkward archetype/stereotype mechanic at best. It's a barrier to entry we don't really need and would do fine without. The only real arguments against it are either politically motivated or general "Meh, doesn't bother me" apathy. The former I can't do much against, they're already convinced of their correctness. The latter group could maybe see that some people do care about it, though, and might not object to the idea of change if it'll help some folks have more fun in D&D.

It would help me. It would help some people I care about. It's not just an abstract idea, there are people this would improve the game for.

 

[Sunseeker]

Is it me, or did the original poster basically throw this bomb of a thread down and then walk away? Has he posted since the first post and engaged anyone who has taken the time to respond to him?

Based on his activity statistics, I don't even see that he's been online since the 24th. That's not an attack on potentially forum bombing, just to say I don't think there's enough evidence to suggest one way or the other, since I don't see he's posted on anything at all since.