"Species" would be the best term, as that's what they were illiterately misusing "race" to refer to.
Mules and ligers also exist
Mules and ligers also exist
D&D 5E If not the word "race", what word instead?
AbdulAlhazred
Legend
I think subraces, as most often seen in D&D, are more like cultures, possibly with some element of subspecies in there. Neanderthal are, arguably, homo sapiens, so that fits both Frostburn and reality. In terms of the topic at hand though, it doesn't really matter. Whatever sort of grouping, social or biological, you see D&D 'race' as, it represents specific groups of people as having very distinct characteristics, some of which are positive, and some of which are negative. I think it is also pretty easy to see that the PATTERN of this allocation echoes, deliberately or not, patterns which are present in racist thinking in the real world (IE humanoids are generally depicted as having darker skins, primitive cultures, evil dispositions, violent tendencies, etc.).
What we name these groupings, and whether we consider them social or biological in nature, is not going to change any of this. This is why I think, at least in some sense, WotC is on the right track in saying "we won't dictate these things based on 'race' (whatever they decide to call it)." Only by dissolving these associations can the game stop taking a fundamentally racist stance on human characteristics. Again, this is why in my own game design there are no such thing as traits like these reflected in your choice of PC race. You can pick to be a dwarf with 'Raised by Elves', you won't get the 'Fey' attribute, but you will get the Glammer that elves use. You can depict yourself however you want, your race only provides the most general physical description and a couple of thematic related core traits (speed, vision, possibly some other minor benefit). I suppose there is still some danger there in how this might be interpreted, but I did want species to mean SOMETHING, however minor its game effects, just to remind the players of their PC's nature.
MGibster
Legend
Words may have multiple meanings that change depending on context. Species as we understand it was first used by British naturalist John Ray in the 17th century and doesn't mean the same thing it did in the 14th century. Likewise, most people understand what's mean by race in the context of an RPG. And if most people understand what is meant then it's not really inaccurate.
To me, these kind of arguments sound a lot like the fallacy of origins and the association fallacy. Just because somethib bears a casual resemblence, or even a distant relationship, to some old racist argument from previous centuries does not mean that it is the same thing or should be treated as the same thing.
This! Exactly this! If there is any real problem it is this and this is the problem that they should be fixing!
They need to be more like Warhammer 40000 and make their non-humans actually non-human, to the point where they couldn't possibly be mistaken for a caricature of a real world ethnicity
Yes it does. If they're different species they're supposed to be different. A dog isn't a cat! And neither the dog nor the cat are a pig! (For that matter, a dog isn't even a wolf or a fox either. Nor is the housecat a lion or a tiger nor tiger a lion or the lion a tiger, despite the existence of ligers and tigons).
1.) Orcs and goblins are generally depicted as having green or orange skin. While some real-life ethnicities have been stereotyped as having skin colors they don;t actually have I'm pretty sure that none of them have been stereotyped as being green. And orange skin is associated with white people.
2.) All of the remaining stereotypes have been applied to white people as well (particularly to people from the southern USA, from Appalacia, and from tornado alley). The stereotype of being stupid and violent without necessarily being primitive has been applied even more widely, to the Irish, to Italians, to eastern Europeans, and to everyone from New York and New Jersey regardless of background.
Last edited:
It seems (epistemologically) impossible for any player character to be ‘less human’.
Even if a player roleplays an Ooze. The moment the player internalizes the motivations, actions, and environments, in some comprehensible, relatable way, even that Ooze will become too human. People can anthropomorphize anything.
I am satisfied with the WotC solution to customize the features of any Humanoid, and to emphasize freewill by assigning alignment to individuals.
This allows DMs to have villains to combat, without demonizing an entire ‘race’.
By the way, I believe an organization can be Evil, because of its dehumanizing ideology. Thus its leadership and members tend to be Evil, or at least compromised or suppressed if Good.
I am surprised that you would describe Warhammer as if ethnically neutral. At least judging by its artwork everyone is white. Its imagery is a heavy helping of Germany with side dishes of France and Italy. Essentially, it is the Holy Roman Empire in space. I find Warhammer to be intensely focused on specific reallife ethnicities, and all of them Continental West Europe.
To me, even the Warhammer Orc looks like a white person with an injured, skeletal nose. In green makeup. But it is unfortunate that the only images of persons of color are described as ‘strong’ and ‘primitive’.
Last edited:
I'm pretty sure the empire aren't meant to be the good guys. The overarching philosophy of WH40K seems to be that all the factions are evil and there are no good guys.
Last edited:
Samloyal23
Adventurer
I'm sorry, this is just stupid. We are playing a game. There is no reason to let real world politics change our whole vocabulary. No one is being discriminated against because they play a half-orc or gnome. This is not going to change anything in the game, let alone have an effect on the real world.
Then double the problem if you're playing in 3.5e where all the monsters are technically playable.
Similar Threads
- Poll
