D&D (2024) One D&D Permanently Removes The Term 'Race'

In line with many other tabletop roleplaying games, such as Pathfinder or Level Up, One D&D is removing the term 'race'. Where Pathfinder uses 'Ancestry' and Level Up uses 'Heritage', One D&D will be using 'Species'.

Moving On From 'Race' in the 2024 Core Rulebooks

We understand "race" is a problematic term that has had prejudiced links between real world people and the fantasy peoples of D&D worlds.

www.dndbeyond.com

In a blog post, WotC announced that "We have made the decision to move on from using the term "race" everywhere in One D&D, and we do not intend to return to that term."

 

[Micah Sweet]

I think you are overthinking here.

The game term "species" like "race" before it, will be imperfect. But while duergar and dwarves are both dwarves . . . are they simply different cultures or have they biologically evolved a bit apart over the eons? In the real world, where we draw the line between two closely related species is up for debate scientifically, so why not in the fantasy world also? And as others have noted, closely related species in the real world can interbreed, it's not a stretch that the various humanoid species in the fantasy world are closely related enough to produce viable offspring.

Are elves, dwarves, humans, halflings, and even orcs really all that different, physically? Certainly more so than the ethnic differences in the real world, but it's not much of a stretch to view them as biologically distinct species, that are closely related enough to have offspring.

Warforged and dwarves? Thri-kreen and elves? Greater differences for sure . . . but then when you throw crazy wizards into the mix, anything is possible.

In Level Up, culture is where you see the difference between different varieties of elves and dwarves.

 

[Charlaquin]

I mean, is there any reason they couldn't have? (How did they show up in worlds without gods, for example?)

Not for most of them, but anything with Fey ancestry can’t really have a common ancestor with anything that doesn’t. At least not without saying that the common ancestor is Fey in origin, and those without the trait are further removed from it, which… weird, but I guess not completely implausible.

 

[Charlaquin]

I think you are overthinking here.

The game term "species" like "race" before it, will be imperfect. But while duergar and dwarves are both dwarves . . . are they simply different cultures or have they biologically evolved a bit apart over the eons? In the real world, where we draw the line between two closely related species is up for debate scientifically, so why not in the fantasy world also? And as others have noted, closely related species in the real world can interbreed, it's not a stretch that the various humanoid species in the fantasy world are closely related enough to produce viable offspring.

Are elves, dwarves, humans, halflings, and even orcs really all that different, physically? Certainly more so than the ethnic differences in the real world, but it's not much of a stretch to view them as biologically distinct species, that are closely related enough to have offspring.

Warforged and dwarves? Thri-kreen and elves? Greater differences for sure . . . but then when you throw crazy wizards into the mix, anything is possible.

But the term opens the door to all these nonsense arguments over taxonomy in a world of gods and wizards, which a more fitting word like ancestry wouldn’t do.

 

[Dire Bare]

Except all of this is silly because the peoples of D&D didn’t arise through evolution by natural selection and don’t have a common ancestor. Real-life taxonomy makes no sense when applied to them.

Silly? Nah. Evolution or not, species isn't a bad choice and the "sci-fi" tone to the word will fade over time. And . . . D&D has ALWAYS had a healthy dose of sci-fi tropes mixed in with the fantastic. The difference between sci-fi and fantasy is constructed, not real.

Besides, while we certainly have peoples being created by gods, mad wizards, or magical catastrophes in the D&D multiverse, who's to say that we don't also have evolved species? Or that, once created by the gods, different species are subject to natural biological evolution? Or magical evolution?

Regardless of HOW a particular species came into this multiverse, the word "species" works just fine to describe the differences between peoples. It's not perfect, but none of the other presented alternatives work any better (IMO, of course).

 

[Dire Bare]

But the term opens the door to all these nonsense arguments over taxonomy in a world of gods and wizards, which a more fitting word like ancestry wouldn’t do.

Huh?

Can dwarves and elves have kids together? Whether you describe their differences as race, lineage, heritage, or species makes no difference.

Should DM's work up evolutionary trees showing exactly how the various species in their fantasy worlds are related?!?! Well . . . sure, if that sounds fun! Or not, if it doesn't. It certainly isn't necessary.

Star Trek biology works just fine in D&D also . . . if they are humanoid, they can have kids together. If they stray a bit . . . robots/warforged, thri-kreen, whatever . . . then its up to the DM on how that works. No need for WotC to bother with it, or for every DM to feel like it's a necessary part of their world-building.

 

[Lanefan]

I like that they’re discontinuing the use of the term race, but species is a poor alternative. Can duergar no longer have children with dwarves? Svirfneblin with gnomes? What about all the varieties of elf, are we really saying they’re all different species now? No, this doesn’t work. Call them ancestries, or heritages, or lineages, or peoples. Species is just fraught in a different way than race.

Species can interbreed in the real world, no reason not to port that idea over to fantasy and greatly expand upon it.

 

[Dire Bare]

Putting controversies in quotes seemed like they already have their answer.

Or it's a reflection of those players' opinions. Shrug.

 

[Charlaquin]

Species can interbreed in the real world, no reason not to port that idea over to fantasy and greatly expand upon it.

Some closely related species can interbreed. That’s a far cry from all intelligent “species” being able to interbreed, as they can in D&D.

 

[Cadence]

Some closely related species can interbreed. That’s a far cry from all intelligent “species” being able to interbreed, as they can in D&D.

While it might be canonically allowed in One when it comes out, I'm feeling like I'd have trouble with a 1/2 Thri-Kreen 1/2 Aaarakocra.

 

[Lanefan]

Sure, plenty of closely-related species can interbreed, but in 1D&D, all humanoid “species” can do so, which is pretty extreme.

Yes, I agree that's overkill.

They're probably not going to bother taking the time (and it takes a lot of time, says he who has already done it) to sit down and work out exactly what can breed with what out of all the species and creatures and monsters in the game; and it would go far beyond just the PC-playable species as well.

Can a Centaur, for example, breed with a horse? How biologically close are Aarakocra to various types of bird? The existence of Yuan-Ti opens up the whole reptile kingdom. And so on...it's crazy, believe me!

Moreover I think it’s absurd to say that all the variety of elves are different species, but they’re also all elves. Is elf a genus now? Then it’s even weirder that every species within that genus can interbreed with every other humanoid species, which I guess must also be their own genera? Cause like dwarf and duergar are both species of dwarf. Unless we want to start using the term subspecies for the different varieties of elf, dwarf, gnome, etc.

That's exactly what I'd use, and am already.

And that doesn’t really feel any less scientifically racist than using the term race if you ask me.

How-why?