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

[Scribe]

So, at 92.7%, it was a close one...

 

[Clint_L]

So, this is a problem with using IRL terminology with fantasy creatures. IRL, even "species" is somewhat loosely defined, and there are plenty of disputes over whether related animals are the same species or not. Subspecies is an even less well defined term that usually describes a geographically and to some degree taxonomically distinct group within a species. They are still capable of interbreeding but with significantly reduced viability. Basically, the subspecies is well on the way to being a distinct species.

But in D&D and a lot of other fantasy, subspecies sometimes seems to denote mostly cultural distinctions, or historical distinctions, or sometimes distinct abilities, or sometimes even distinct origins. It's a mess, really, which is particularly problematic given that subspecies is already a messy term IRL.

So, what is racist? These are fantasy races/species, so you can't really be a racist towards wood elves or orcs or something. However, it can have IRL racist connotations if the the fantasy species is depicted in a way that evokes IRL racist tropes (i.e. black=bad, etc.). It is also problematic, IMO, if fantasy species are depicted in a way that emulates IRL racist thinking, even if no particular IRL racist trope is used. This is why I have a problem with stereotyping, so that all, or virtually all, members of a fantasy species are treated as basically identical (i.e. all dwarves are skilled miners who covet gold, dislike elves, speak "Dwarf," wield hammers or axes, wear heavy armour, and have Scottish accents). And that sets aside them all sharing an alignment, but I think alignment is a ridiculous concept at all levels and don't bother with it. But, aside from dubious connotations, I also think fantasy stereotyping is super boring and unimaginative, and ultimately mostly amounts to copying Tolkien, badly.

So, to the OP, I think "subspecies" is such a vague concept that it could mean almost anything, but as long as it just denotes some minor physiological differences, likely as the result of extended geographical isolation, then I don't think it's a problem. But relying on stereotypes is lazy writing so stay away from it.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I mean, that would put orks, elves, and trolls as closer to humans than neanderthals were to humans. As they're most commonly referred to as Homo neanderthalensis. Though some do still argue that they're in fact Homo sapiens neanderthalensis.

I think the scientific consensus these days is that they are homo sapiens neanderthalensis, and that is why the species in Shadowrun are so named. Homo neanderthalensis is acceptable as a shorter, somewhat less formal, name.

Honestly this has always confused me about elves. In most generic fantasy they're some ancient and dying species who is adapting too slowly to the changing world and the younger species. And yet in most generic fantasy there is also a flavour of elf for every single biome showing that the species can somehow adapt near instantly to live almost anywhere.

Oh no, not anywhere near instantly. Depending on the world, they either are part of why those places are like they are, having grown with the forest, transitioned with the savannah as it became desert, etc., or they adapted in an ancient time when they were still a young folk, and millennia later they are who they are will not be moved.

Like if you want a species which can adapt extremely quickly to have a ton of different environments, surely a short lived one with rapid generation times would make most sense? Like orcs and goblins.

Well that's the thing, compare humans to Turtles. You change the environment dramatically of a population of turtles, a lot of them are going to die. Humans, though, will just cooperate and innovate into being safe and then thriving in this new environment. And that was true when flint knapping was the most advanced technology we had figured out.

So goblins are so adaptable that they have evolved into a set of bodies and minds and instincts and urges that let them thrive in many environment, even though they aren't as heavily adapted as another species might be to a very specific environment. Meanwhile, elves don't change on an individual level in one generation, but they hyper-adapt to a specific environment, becoming eventually perfectly adapted to that environment.

 

[Sepulchrave II]

I think that the use of scientific taxonomic nomenclature ("subspecies") in a fantasy rpg is generally thematically inappropriate.

 

[Clint_L]

I think that the use of scientific taxonomic nomenclature ("subspecies") in a fantasy rpg is generally thematically inappropriate.

There’s already a massive thread on that topic.

 

[Aldarc]

I would like to see more ancestries in-universe openly challenge how humans frame or categorize their peoples as subspecies or the like as being overly simplistic or false understandings.

 

[Sepulchrave II]

There’s already a massive thread on that topic.

Without a link or additional context this comment doesn't strike me as overly helpful, and comes across as a little dismissive.

 

[Mistwell]

I think that the use of scientific taxonomic nomenclature ("subspecies") in a fantasy rpg is generally thematically inappropriate.

I think he's saying that isn't the question posed by this thread, but there is a link in this thread (OP) to the other thread which discusses that. Whether or not it's the right theme to choose (I am not a fan either) this thread is asking if it's racist - not if it's the wrong theme.

 

[TheSword]

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

This question comes from the Half-Race Apperception Thread

i reckon some of the elves in those subspecies are probably pretty racist but not the inherent concept of a subspecies. There’s little material difference between comparing drow with sun elves and comparing humans and dwarves.

Most elven subspecies seem to come about through isolation or magical event. Don’t really see a problem with difference based on those terms.

Adding an extra step of character creation for culture doesn’t really pay off for me. Extra complication for very little payoff. Culture is absolutely mechanically represented in the game - it’s part of background and race. This will become even more pronounced with 5.5. We get to write our own character backgrounds - do with it as you will.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

The concept of subspecies of elves or any other fantasy race is not inherently racist (subspecies exist for real world species), but I would argue that the grouping of human-like fantasy people into distinct subspecies can lead to racist lore or echoings of real world racism. For example, older editions said that Drow/Dark Elves in the Forgotten Realms were cursed with dark skin because they turned on Corellon. This bit of lore echoes the Curse of Ham/Cain, real world Judeochristian beliefs that say that some ethnicities have dark skin because their ancestors sinned against God, and therefore discriminating against them is justified. And obviously having "black skin is a curse for being evil" is unexcusably racist lore, ignoring the real world parallels.

So, no. The mere concept of elven subspecies is not innately racist, but is a potentially problematic bit of lore that can and has lead to racist parallels to real world justifications for racial discrimination. Elven subspecies aren't inherently racist. That doesn't mean that they haven't been racist before, though.