Mainstream News Discovers D&D's Species Terminology Change

Several mainstream news sites have discovered that Dungeons & Dragons now refers to a character's species instead of race. The New York Times ended 2024 with a profile on Dungeons & Dragons, with a specific focus on the 2024 Player's Handbook's changes on character creation, the in-game terminology change from race to species, and the removal of Ability Score Increases tied to a character's species. The article included quotes by Robert J. Kuntz and John Stavropoulos and also referenced Elon Musk's outrage over Jason Tondro's forward in The Making of Original Dungeons & Dragons.

The piece sparked additional commentary on a variety of sites, including Fox News and The Telegraph, most of which focused on how the changes were "woke." Around the same time, Wargamer.com published a more nuanced piece about the presentation of orcs in the 2024 Player's Handbook, although its headline noted that the changes were "doomed" because players would inevitably replace the orc's traditional role as aggressor against civilization with some other monstrous group whose motivations and sentience would need to be ignored in order for adventurers to properly bash their heads in.

[Update--the Guardian has joined in also, now.]

Generally speaking, the mainstream news pieces failed to address the non-"culture war" reasons for many of these changes - namely that Dungeons & Dragons has gradually evolved from a game that promoted a specific traditional fantasy story to a more generalized system meant to capture any kind of fantasy story. Although some campaign settings and stories certainly have and still do lean into traditional fantasy roles, the kinds that work well with Ability Score Increases tied to a character's species/race, many other D&D campaigns lean away from these aspects or ignore them entirely. From a pragmatic standpoint, uncoupling Ability Score Increases from species not only removes the problematic bioessentialism from the game, it also makes the game more marketable to a wider variety of players.

Of course, the timing of many of these pieces is a bit odd, given that the 2024 Player's Handbook came out months ago and Wizards of the Coast announced plans to make these changes back in 2022. It's likely that mainstream news is slow to pick up on these types of stories. However, it's a bit surprising that some intrepid reporter didn't discover these changes for four months given the increased pervasiveness of Dungeons & Dragons in mainstream culture.

We'll add that EN World has covered the D&D species/race terminology changes as they developed and looks forward to covering new developments and news about Dungeons & Dragons in 2025 and beyond.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

I think it is problematic when we are talking about biological species with culture, societies etc. We get into all sorts of nasty stuff about evil orc babies and stuff, and Gygax himself demonstrated that this goes into something quite similar to the darkest chapters of human history really quickly.

Now I am not fan of simplistic "good and evil" labelling even for other types of creatures either, but it is probably more understandable when we are talking about demons and such, which can be seen as spiritual manifestations of evil. But personally I would not treat even them that way. Creatures can have desires, impulses, beliefs and behaviours that bring them into conflict with other creatures. Like if a mind flayer needs to eat my brains to survive, it is unlikely we reach an amicable compromise on the matter. Is the mind flayer evil? Am I evil for eating cows? (Not that I usually do these days.) That is a philosophical question without an objective answer, and it doesn't really change the nature of the conflict.

Are cows finding us evil for enslaving them for the purpose of eating them? The various alignment thread shows that it's impossible to agree on what is what, and we are all looking at the things with a shared human perspective. I have no doubt another intelligent species would have a very different set of values to determine good and evil.

It's quite self-evident that there is no compromise possible with a mindflayer, but it might not be because they are evil.

 

[Hussar]

As far as orcs go, it's not all that hard to replace them as Generic Baddies without replicating their issues. Those issues arise because orcs live in tribal societies that look an awful lot like human societies, and adventurers heading out to kill them and take their stuff looks an awful lot like real-world genocides.

So what do you replace them with? Anything that isn't just humans in ugly suits. Undead are my personal favorite. Mind flayers and similar aberrations. Fiends. Non-sentient monsters. Take your pick.

That’s the point no?

You don’t replace them with anything. Instead of a “generic bad” species, you have bad individuals who happen to be whatever species.

So we go and stop those raiders because they are raiders. We don’t go and hunt goblins just because they are goblins.

In other words we’re forcing players to actually create some sort of story or plot beyond “those guys are evil and need killing. “

 

[Crimson Longinus]

That’s the point no?

You don’t replace them with anything. Instead of a “generic bad” species, you have bad individuals who happen to be whatever species.

So we go and stop those raiders because they are raiders. We don’t go and hunt goblins just because they are goblins.

In other words we’re forcing players to actually create some sort of story or plot beyond “those guys are evil and need killing. “

Exactly this. Give your enemies motivations. It doesn't even need to be anything deep or complex every time. And there is plenty of inspiration in fiction and in human history.

And this doesn't even mean that there couldn't be conflicts that are delineated by species. If you want classic elves vs dwarves or orcs vs humans, you can have a situation where these species have strained or even hostile relationship, but this doesn't require one side to be "good" and another "evil." This also allows more storytelling opportunities, as it becomes possible to attempt to bring the conflict into a peaceful resolution, if this was this something the players wished to pursue.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Now I am not fan of simplistic "good and evil" labelling even for other types of creatures either, but it is probably more understandable when we are talking about demons and such, which can be seen as spiritual manifestations of evil. But personally I would not treat even them that way. Creatures can have desires, impulses, beliefs and behaviours that bring them into conflict with other creatures. Like if a mind flayer needs to eat my brains to survive, it is unlikely we reach an amicable compromise on the matter. Is the mind flayer evil? Am I evil for eating cows? (Not that I usually do these days.) That is a philosophical question without an objective answer, and it doesn't really change the nature of the conflict.

One point I would make here is that D&D good and evil, isn't real world good and evil, so it gets pretty difficult to answer these questions using the D&D alignment system (some settings approximated real world morality more with it, but I think the default system has never been one that you could easily apply to moral questions the way a philosopher would. The question of whether eating animal is evil in some way is a complex moral question in reality (I eat meat for example, but I would be lying if I said I was troubled by the fact that I am eating something that was alive and and sentient: and I would be lying if I said I didn't understand the arguments for it being evil: and then there is still the argument to be made, if one accepts it as necessary, that is still an evil in the world (perhaps humans must eat meat, but the fact that they must do so at the expense of other beings is an evil, even if you absolve humans from blame for it). I'm not debating the consumption of meat here, I am just using it as example to make the point. Real world morality is complicated and moral arguments about grave matters ought to be taken very seriously, even if you don't think X or Y is a problem, grappling with the arguments that they are is very important to do. But D&D alignment is so much more simplistic and gamey. You are expected to hand wave so many more things than you would if we were having real world conversations about what is moral and what is ethical.

 

[Jaiken]

No matter what anybody says, Dwarves are the master race.

 

[Belen]

That’s the point no?

You don’t replace them with anything. Instead of a “generic bad” species, you have bad individuals who happen to be whatever species.

So we go and stop those raiders because they are raiders. We don’t go and hunt goblins just because they are goblins.

In other words we’re forcing players to actually create some sort of story or plot beyond “those guys are evil and need killing. “

Over 3 decades of D&D and I have never seen any group hunt anything just because it is evil. The conflict has always been “we have to stop the evil actions of the things attacking etc.”

Going out and hunting creatures just to kill is evil which I never allow in my games and I’d walk out of a game that allowed it.

I see no reason for Orcs to be a playable race. I am fine if others want it but it will just not happen in my games.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

One point I would make here is that D&D good and evil, isn't real world good and evil, so it gets pretty difficult to answer these questions using the D&D alignment system (some settings approximated real world morality more with it, but I think the default system has never been one that you could easily apply to moral questions the way a philosopher would. The question of whether eating animal is evil in some way is a complex moral question in reality (I eat meat for example, but I would be lying if I said I was troubled by the fact that I am eating something that was alive and and sentient: and I would be lying if I said I didn't understand the arguments for it being evil: and then there is still the argument to be made, if one accepts it as necessary, that is still an evil in the world (perhaps humans must eat meat, but the fact that they must do so at the expense of other beings is an evil, even if you absolve humans from blame for it). I'm not debating the consumption of meat here, I am just using it as example to make the point. Real world morality is complicated and moral arguments about grave matters ought to be taken very seriously, even if you don't think X or Y is a problem, grappling with the arguments that they are is very important to do. But D&D alignment is so much more simplistic and gamey. You are expected to hand wave so many more things than you would if we were having real world conversations about what is moral and what is ethical.

Yes. Because alignment is crap moral framework. That's why the first thing I do when I run D&D is to remove it. It makes the game better and the world feel more real if I spent couple of minutes thinking about enemy motivations rather than just accepting that they need to be killed because they're "evil."

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Are cows finding us evil for enslaving them for the purpose of eating them

They would if they were capable of understanding what was happening to them.

Which is, or course, an excuse used to justify the enslavement of humans: “their race isn’t capable of understanding or looking after themselves”.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

Exactly this. Give your enemies motivations. It doesn't even need to be anything deep or complex every time. And there is plenty of inspiration in fiction and in human history.

While I am not discounting the experience of anyone, I have never seen orcs being hunted for being orcs. It never happened in my game. All the example I have in mind include orcs, or any other group, being hunted because they raided a village, a caravan, etc. They always have motivation (even if it's as shallow as the real life motivation we have for attacking other species: "we can, and we follow our best interest") outside of "we kill humans because we're eeeee-vil") and I have not seen players who would just go into a random orc village and slaughter them without any sort of provocation -- if it happened, I'd propose a one-shot playing orcs heros trying to kill that mad serial killer. Maybe it was more prevalent in older published products? Or I am blessed with players of higher quality than average (they all tend to bathe, after all).

And this doesn't even mean that there couldn't be conflicts that are delineated by species. If you want classic elves vs dwarves or orcs vs humans, you can have a situation where these species have strained or even hostile relationship, but this doesn't require one side to be "good" and another "evil." This also allows more storytelling opportunities, as it becomes possible to attempt to bring the conflict into a peaceful resolution, if this was this something the players wished to pursue.

Both sides would call the other evil anyway, if we go by real life precedent, especially now that you can't just cast Detect Evil to be sure.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

They would if they were capable of understanding what was happening to them.

Which is, or course, an excuse used to justify the enslavement of humans: “their race isn’t capable of understanding or looking after themselves”.

Exactly. Especially with the added bonus that mindflayers have 19-21 Int depending on their life stage, above the maximum human possible value and far above the 11 human average. They can honestly say that they are better able to make decisions that puny humans. The 19-to-11 difference is that same that the 11-to-3 difference with cows... Your average mindflayer would wonder if humans are really sentient the way we wonder what a cat actually understands... and we have no qualm castrating cats we love.