D&D (2024) What new jargon do you want to replace "Race"?

[Xamnam]

But the point is they aren't human. (Well except the humans obviously)

I imagine they're using that term to mean: the intrinsic value of a sapient being in a shared world. That's definitely a perk of that term, and part of why I've come around to it as this discussion has gone on.

 

[Scribe]

But the point is they aren't human. (Well except the humans obviously)

The point many make however, is that they want all the non-humans, humanized in terms of how players view them, so they are not seen as 'monsters' to be killed.

Orcs can no longer be just raiders.
Goblins can no longer be just "goblin like" (hilarious with the rise of "Goblin Mode" as a term!)

Instead, everything and everyone is maybe just your neighbor who you meet at the pub later and they help you mend your fence that was broken by totally not bad kobolds, last weekend.

Thats how some anyway, prefer it.

 

[Bagpuss]

The point many make however, is that they want all the non-humans, humanized in terms of how players view them, so they are not seen as 'monsters' to be killed.

Don't see the point when in real world we seem to so good at dehumanizing actual humans.

 

[Scribe]

Don't see the point when in real world we seem to so good at dehumanizing actual humans.

That's why.

 

[Bedrockgames]

That's why.

I've never believed that depictions of orcs and elves have an impact on our ability to dehumanize other people (which we are certainly capable of unfortunately). To me this has always been apples and oranges.

 

[Bagpuss]

That's why.

So we humanize these orcs and goblins, so we can then dehumanize them for to kill them, seems you could skip a step.

 

[Irlo]

I've never believed that depictions of orcs and elves have an impact on our ability to dehumanize other people (which we are certainly capable of unfortunately). To me this has always been apples and oranges.

Depictions of orcs and elves can reflect the way we dehumanize other people. We lose nothing by changing those depictions so that people playing the game don't have to look at reflections of their own dehumanization.

 

[Scribe]

So we humanize these orcs and goblins, so we can then dehumanize them for to kill them, seems you could skip a step.

Well, the folks who would want to humanize them, would also not default to put them in roles where they are killed and dehumanized, would be the path here.

 

[Hriston]

Depictions of orcs and elves can reflect the way we dehumanize other people. We lose nothing by changing those depictions so that people playing the game don't have to look at reflections of their own dehumanization.

We lose out on the convenience of painting with broad strokes. It's more work to depict D&D races as diverse groups. It takes a nuanced approach that's sensitive to how real-world ethnic groups are stereotyped to promote racist thinking and agendas. However, I think it's worth it. Removing the word race doesn't solve the problem by itself, but it's a start.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Depictions of orcs and elves can reflect the way we dehumanize other people. We lose nothing by changing those depictions so that people playing the game don't have to look at reflections of their own dehumanization.

I've just never seen orcs as stand-ins for real races. I just think you can have evil races in an RPG, or orcs, and it isn't going to contribute to dehumanization unless people are looking for. Just my opinion. We never needed orc depictions to commit racial atrocities: plenty of real world dehumanizing language and stereotypes do that already. But I think terms like peoples, ethnicities, heritage and ancestry get us much closer to it because those are ways we can dehumanize actual human groups. I would say if they want to avoid the issues that a term like race can create, they are better off going with type or species, but I don't think we need to completely retool the underlying mechanics of demihumans.