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

[Mistwell]

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.

That was kinda my point in making this poll. It's not even an issue for the vast overwhelming majority of those online either. '

I don't think there's any there, there.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

That was kinda my point in making this poll. It's not even an issue for the vast overwhelming majority of those online either. '

I don't think there's any there, there.

I don't want to go back into the other thread if I can avoid it. Is someone arguing that it's racist to have known variation along lineages within what is generally called a species? Like, having elves have the equivelent of homo sapiens sapiens and homo sapiens neanderthalensis?

like...seemingly in earnest? I just assumed you were curious about a random thing or someone posited that someone might make such a claim or something.

Like we lived alongside homo sapiens denisova (Denisovans) and even shared space and such as recently as 14,500 years ago. There isn't anything even weird to have wood elves and drow in the same world, much less racist. Like humans are odd, because of our fairly extreme genetic bottleneck. Most species are more diverse than us.

It's just a silly idea from any angle I can try to look at it from.

 

[Tonguez]

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)

 

[Deset Gled]

I think very few people have a problem with the concept of elves, tree elves, drow, etc. Or even with the concept of fantasy species in general, like orcs, dwarves, or whatever. It's the details about how they are presented that more people care about. The language, the history, the symbolism, etc.

I could be wrong.

 

[Mistwell]

I don't want to go back into the other thread if I can avoid it. Is someone arguing that it's racist to have known variation along lineages within what is generally called a species? Like, having elves have the equivelent of homo sapiens sapiens and homo sapiens neanderthalensis?

like...seemingly in earnest? I just assumed you were curious about a random thing or someone posited that someone might make such a claim or something.

Like we lived alongside homo sapiens denisova (Denisovans) and even shared space and such as recently as 14,500 years ago. There isn't anything even weird to have wood elves and drow in the same world, much less racist. Like humans are odd, because of our fairly extreme genetic bottleneck. Most species are more diverse than us.

It's just a silly idea from any angle I can try to look at it from.

Yes, they want any variation to be described as cultural and think having subspecies is itself racist. They want it to be culture behind even things like wings and water breathing and darkvision and such. They have the majority of replies in this very thread defending that take as well. No shade on them - it's their stance and they honestly believe it and good on them for believing what they believe despite peer pressure.

 

[Micah Sweet]

No but I am not sure that this question has any meaning out of context.
In my opinion, the issue with race in D&D has been that all races have been defined by a couple of characteristics that universally apply.
Some of these characteristics could be, of the type "in the nature of the beast" like Darkvision.
There is nothing racially problematic about a race having darkvision or pointy ears.
On the other hand, the entire race being of a single alignment and/or being a blacksmith or some other feature that is most likely an outcome of culture rather than breeding is problematic.

One of the issues though, is that many heritages are primarily defined by their cultures. You need a cultural component to character creation to use that (and it ain't background, let's get that out of the way), and WotC is far too frightened of the public to make use of culture in a mechanical way. Hence the garbage "explanation" that was the Giff.

If only there was a version of 5e that had culture built in as an origin component...

 

[Micah Sweet]

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'm not convinced these debates occur outside of internet gaming forums. I've never heard anything like this at any table I've seen or been a part of.

 

[Divine2021]

This is a non-issue.

Further proof that internet “culture” is simultaneously inane and boring.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Yes, they want any variation to be described as cultural and think having subspecies is itself racist. They want it to be culture behind even things like wings and water breathing and darkvision and such. They have the majority of replies in this very thread defending that take as well. No shade on them - it's their stance and they honestly believe it and good on them for believing what they believe despite peer pressure.

Oof. I salute your patience.

Just don’t let the discussion drift into anything relating to animism or how groups of blond Europeans are categorized in the figurative space between continental and national descriptors.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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

Eh, you’re seeing a very strange and unusual discussion on a forum full of deeply idiosyncratic over-thinkers, and extrapolating beyond that forum, and I’m not sure that’s a useful thing to do.

We’re all gaming or not totally irrespective of these discussions.

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.

It isn’t racist, it’s literally just not the best word choice, nor is lineage. If species is the term, the writeups need to treat each type of elf as a species of elf, just like there are species of crow, and ditch lineage for anything but Goliaths, Genasi, and Dragonborn.

I think very few people have a problem with the concept of elves, tree elves, drow, etc. Or even with the concept of fantasy species in general, like orcs, dwarves, or whatever. It's the details about how they are presented that more people care about. The language, the history, the symbolism, etc.

I could be wrong.

You’re 100% right.