D&D (2024) One D&D Permanently Removes The Term 'Race'

In line with many other tabletop roleplaying games, such as Pathfinder or Level Up, One D&D is removing the term 'race'. Where Pathfinder uses 'Ancestry' and Level Up uses 'Heritage', One D&D will be using 'Species'.

Moving On From 'Race' in the 2024 Core Rulebooks

We understand "race" is a problematic term that has had prejudiced links between real world people and the fantasy peoples of D&D worlds.

www.dndbeyond.com

In a blog post, WotC announced that "We have made the decision to move on from using the term "race" everywhere in One D&D, and we do not intend to return to that term."

 

[Xamnam]

I personally want absolutely zero deity level influence/mandate/control over the entirety of a player schmorp, unless it is a schmorp that specifically hails from some sort of celestial or infernal plane. I hate that a degree of that was added to Dwarves in the playtest.

 

[Yaarel]

Maybe the Creature Type of Humanoid specifically means surviving by free will, learning, and inventing cultures, in the same way humans do.

 

[Yaarel]

Consider Nordic traditions.

All of the nature beings are members of the same Nordic cultures that humans are members of. They speak the same Nordic languages that humans do.

Icelandic nature beings including humans are Icelandic. Norwegian nature beings including humans are Norwegian. Finish nature beings including humans are Finish. And so on.

The culture is separate from the modality of the nature being.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

Birds and fish also have the blessing to be fruitful and multiply, to become a numerous species.

Indeed, this isn't something specific to Humans, but they are the only sentient/free-willed one.

The species of humanity is numerous, especially in modern times.

With regard to humans, there is a "commandment" and learning, rather than an instinct. To be fruitful and multiply, includes teaching and adopting, and helping the next generation survive and be well. It doesnt necessarily mean having children oneself.

I don't agree with your analysis (on this point, I agree that the goal of having a surviving species and numerous one (because being numerous is a good way not to be wiped out at the first fluke) is served by several things you mentionned, as well as having an interest in reproduction). There is an instinct to try to get your genes out. And in order to make it happen, it is pleasurable to have sex. Given his goal of having a surviving (and numerous) population, the creator god of humans made it so humans are actually enjoying trying to reproduce. When they can't get laid, they often emulate reproductive behaviour. Despite being sentient. They consciously choose, more often than not, to seek this pleasurable activity.

If I were Moradin, I'd copy the evolutionary god and, since I wouldn't be focusing to making a lot of dwarves (in the classical representation of them, they don't seem to have many more children than humans despite their century-long existence, and I don't have an example of the son of a dwarf being born at the same time as the great-great-great-grandson of one. Multiplication wasn't a strong design goal apparently). I would make them rely on few food, would make them feel ever so slightly ill-at-ease when it's too hot, so they seek underground habitat (to maximize their comfort) and I'll make them have orgasm while forging swords instead of making babies. The longer and the more intense as the quality of the sword increase. Even sentient and free-willed, you'd be seeing a lot of forging dwarves. Teenagers dwarves would exchange prints of virile dwarves swinging their tool (to forge swords, keep focused) and they'd massively undertake forging activity. Old dwarves would lament their younger days, when they could forge three or four swords in a single evening... Some would because it has a social utility (providing goods for the city to trade or weapons to use in war), some because "it's what everyone does", and most would do it because they just enjoy doing it. Non-forging dwarves would exist, of course, much like asexual humans do exist, but they'd be the exception. There would be many dwarven culture, much like ours, united by a few commonalities (tend to eat soberly, tend to live in underground cities, tend to engage in forging activies a lot). Much like IRL humans are diverse, united by a few commonalities (tend to be overweight as soon as food abound, tend to live in overground cities, tend to engage in sexual activities a lot). There is no reason to consider our pecularities as "baseline".

 

[Umbran]

With regard to humans, there is a "commandment" and learning, rather than an instinct.

Mod Note:
Please leave real-world religion out of this discussion.

 

[Cthulhugh]

There is nothing wrong at all with using race in D&D. Why the change? It's suited the game for years. The group pushing these changes can't be criticised on this forum.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

There is nothing wrong at all with using race in D&D. Why the change? It's suited the game for years. The group pushing these changes can't be criticised on this forum.

I mean just becuse it works for the 90's doesn't mean it shouldnt be changed

 

[Jahydin]

There is nothing wrong at all with using race in D&D. Why the change? It's suited the game for years.

Let me see if I can get this right... I'm learning with you...

1. The term is no longer accurate. It comes from Tolkien's works, but has since changed meanings. u/qjones1955 sums it up pretty good here:

The definition of “race” that you are thinking of is sociological concept of race that we’ve all come to understand now, as a group of individuals WITHIN a species that exhibit similar practices, have similar qualities, etc.

The word “race” in the context of the 1940’s and 1950’s was different, and generally ran parallel to our current understanding of the word “species” and “sub-species”. This is the primary reason you have the men, elves, hobbits, and dwarves being referred to as “races”, as they are all similar in overall biological function, but have distinct characteristics and behaviors that would qualify them, in modern terms, as species, not races. However, the comparison of, for example, the men of Gondor, Rohan, Harrad, and Rhun would be considered different races while all being the same species in a modern context.

2. "Race" is a sensitive word for some, so WotC is willing to sacrifice legacy terminology if it means less people are offended.
A few fans in this Gizmoda article explains it well:

“But the fact is,” said cosplayer and TTRPG fan Isa, “D&D still uses the word ‘race.’ While it might not have the exact meaning in the context of the world of Dungeons & Dragons as it does in our own... [we] are the ones who read this product and play this game. So, obviously people bring their own real-world baggage and connotations and understandings to that word.”

Kimchi said he was disappointed to see the word ‘race’ used, especially since it’s something that a lot of people have complained about and sought to remedy. “It seemed like the most basic change they could have done so that everyone could move on, but they didn’t go that far,” he said, describing the shift from ‘race’ to ‘species’ as “low-hanging fruit.”

For what its worth, I think they were just going to change it quietly, but since they just had a few major PR disasters involving insensitive racial stereotypes (involving both D&D and Magic), they announced it a bit heavy handedly (IMO) as a way to show their commitment to doing better going forward.

Bonus commentary: Although those bothered by the word see this as a step in the right direction, some are still upset that not enough steps are being taken towards solving the "bioessentialism problem" they see in the game.

From the same article:

And even if WotC did change from the word race to the word species, Isa said, that would still be a problem, “because there would still be a lot of racial coding.”

Racial coding is when language used to describe something that is seemingly race-neutral (in this case, literal fantasy) imitates stereotypes associated with racism without a direct one-to-one association. Racial coding allows for subtle racism because it allows people to be racist in ‘safe’ ways that can be dismissed by pointing at the race-neutral stand-in. There are many ways in which Dungeons & Dragons unintentionally encourages racism through racial coding.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

For what its worth, I think they were just going to change it quietly, but since they just had a few major PR disasters involving insensitive racial stereotypes (involving both D&D and Magic), they announced it a bit heavy handedly (IMO) as a way to show their commitment to doing better going forward.

Yes, and that's why I expect them to make a big change, and consider them as species and not as races-under-the-species name. The latter wouldn't warrant a big announcement resonating on Internet board (and would be enough to remove the uneasiness of people bothered by the word race), but the former would. So, while I welcome the new concept of playable shlorps being now different species I want them to behave like different species. Much like if they changed fireball to waterball, I'd expect waterball not to ignite flamable materials (though I'd have lived without an announcement about that).

I hear that many people think they'll just change the word and not consider the implication, but I give them the benefit of the doubt before saying they did a bad job about it. The next non-edition is around the corner, so they have the exact right time to correct the game to take that into account.

Bonus commentary: Although those bothered by the word see this as a step in the right direction, some are still upset that not enough steps are being taken towards solving the "bioessentialism problem" they see in the game.

If they just change the name, nothing will have changed on the bioessentialism front, irrespective of the side one is (pro- saying that a fantasy species can be blessed by their creator god with innate knowledge of dwarvish, anti- saying that you can't "tend" to do something if you've free will).

Also, I don't think the argument quoted, which I understand isn't necessarily yours, is right:

There are many ways in which Dungeons & Dragons unintentionally encourages racism through racial coding.

To be unintentional, they'd need to do it without knowing it. With the care they display to avoid racism, it is very unlikely they didn't know about this argument. If it continues, it is voluntary, not unintentional. They might not agree with the quoted person's position, but I don't think they can, having in Internet connection and probably reading D&D reddit or boards, be ignorant of this argument at this point.

 

[Remathilis]

There is nothing wrong at all with using race in D&D. Why the change? It's suited the game for years. The group pushing these changes can't be criticised on this forum.

There is nothing wrong at all with Thac0 in D&D. Why the change? It's suited the game for years.

There is nothing wrong at all with non-human level limits in D&D. Why the change? It's suited the game for years.

There is nothing wrong at all with "elf" as a character class in D&D. Why the change? It's suited the game for years.

Shall I go on?