D&D (2024) Does the concept of subspecies of Elves come across as racist to you

[Mistwell]

The following can all be true.

• The concept of a fantasy race that has subspecies that are notable but not quite as extreme or on the nose as those of Genasi is fine
• The concept of it being a famously long lived species rather than a short lived fast breeding one is weird unless we use biomancy
• The underground black-skinned subspecies being evil does come across as racist.

I think the question of "is this particular subspecies of elf racist" is a different question than "Does the concept of subspecies of Elves come across as racist to you?" This question is asking just in general if the concept of subspecies itself strike you as racist.

 

[The Myopic Sniper]

It's racist, but I can live with it unless it becomes such an issue in the community that it is actively impeding people's enjoyment of the game or entering the hobby. We could always be one Polygon thinkpiece and subsequent Twitterstorm away from that point or it may never come up. Given that it hasn't rung any alarms with WOTC's sensitivity readers/inclusion consultants, they are probably on safe ground for a while.

 

[Scribe]

Given that it hasn't rung any alarms with WOTC's sensitivity readers/inclusion consultants, they are probably on safe ground for a while.

This is...unfathomably the state of the world. If one person gets hired as a sensitivity reader, suddenly its true, but if I get hired it isnt? Oh and it can change on a whim?

 

[Reynard]

EDIT: You know what, never mind. This is one of those conversations that is destined to turn bad and I really don't care to argue abouy this thing yet again.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I think the question of "is this particular subspecies of elf racist" is a different question than "Does the concept of subspecies of Elves come across as racist to you?" This question is asking just in general if the concept of subspecies itself strike you as racist.

Which is precisely why I separated them out

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Does the concept of subspecies of Elves come across as racist to you?

This question comes from the Half-Race Apperception Thread

Nope. The term isn't great, though, and doesn't necessarily/hopefully match what they're doing. (see end of the post)

Not in the least, because it isnt.

In before the lock.

Agreed.

All elves share the same traits for age, size, speed, Darkvision, Trance and Fey Ancestry. The only traits that do differ are cultural traits.

I quoted this before seeing that you replied to someone whose posts I can't see who apparently pointed out that this isn't true in actual DnD. Still quoting it to say, this is partly true about them all having some traits in common, and that's important as I'll explain at the end of the post.

In Level Up, Culture as a rules concept does exist. But you are right, it doesn't exist in 5e or One D&D.

Yeah and people keep trying to make background into that, and just no. If 5e ever adopts culture as such, it needs to add it, not replace backgrounds which speak to how you grew up or what you do or what was your catalyst to become an adventurer.

However, One D&D is 5e. I point that out not to be pedantic, but because part of why I'm confident in how species will work in the PHB after next year is that we've seen a preview in Monsters of The Multiverse, and the relevant bits have been carried over into the PHB UA so far, but not in a super clear way.

So, in answer to the OP, again, no, but "subspecies" isn't a great term for it. Instead, there are either multiple species of Elf if they work in the style of the MoTM elves like Shadar-Kai and Eladrin, or they are each a lineage of elves, which in a modern sense would still use language like "drow and wood elf are two species of elf".

Personally, I'd prefer them to go with the MoTM model completely for elves, dwarves, gnomes, etc, but for dragonborn or goliaths where it is just who your specific draconic ancestor is just use the UA model.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

No, I do not think that having different flavors of mythical faerie persons existing in the same made up magical world to be an expression of racism in the real world. I mean, it could be, I suppose, if the people making up the made up faerie people intentionally projected their racism onto the faerie people, but I thought NuTSR was bankrupt.

I doubt anyone intentionally projected any racism onto the description of orcs and half-orcs in Volo's. That has no impact whatsoever on whether those paragraphs were racist.

 

[Reynard]

I doubt anyone intentionally projected any racism onto the description of orcs and half-orcs in Volo's. That has no impact whatsoever on whether those paragraphs were racist.

I changed my mind. I don't want to be a part of this discussion. Absolutely nothing good will come of it.

 

[kigmatzomat]

I figure if an Arabian horse can have one less vertebra than all other horse breeds, then a wood elf can have a stealth aura and move fast while high elves have an innate spell and facility for languages. Biology doesn't care a fig for our artificial categories.

I also don't have an issue with races being innately good or evil. There are literal angels and demons in this game. Imo, if an angel turns evil, they become a demon. If a demon acquires compassion it becomes an angel. Because game system full of magic.

Now racism can exist. I don't think the subclass mechanic itself is racist. When a real-world group is recast with the thinnest veneer, that can be racism. (Imagine if Drow were all green-eyed with a skintone of carerra marble)

 

[MGibster]

Well, I was against changing to species because a lot of the linguistic arguments that would follow. But I read threads like this and I really wonder how people are even able to game anymore when this is where these debates get dragged to

I have a sneaking suspicion this isn't an issue at all for the vast majority of D&D players. It's mostly just a problem online.