D&D 5E The word ‘Race’

[Yaarel]

The word ‘Race’

I am becoming increasingly uncomfortable with using the word ‘race’ in D&D.

Unfortunately, it has been a central technical term since the origins of D&D, is a conspicuous part of the D&D tradition, and removing it would be a noticeable departure from ‘tradition’.

Nevertheless, having the game players thinking in terms of ‘race’ relates to problematic reallife implications.

In defense of D&D, all humans belong to the same ‘race’, the Human race. This tradition opposes reallife racism.

On the other hand, the other ‘races’ − such as Elf, Dwarf, Orc, etcetera − are too human. By necessity these options need to be human-like enough in order for players to relate to them. And this is the problem, organizing all these other kinds of humans into categories of ‘race’ is, in fact, the reallife definition of racism. ... Even if it is a weird kind of fantasy racism. Other human-like options like Orc are inherently inferior, intellectually and morally, because of their ‘race’. This way of play has problems.



There is no reallife definition of ‘race’ that justifies the use of this term in D&D.

According to its most problematic definition, a ‘race’ is a now-discredited biological term, which essentially is a synonym for a ‘subspecies’. There are no human subspecies alive today, because any human group today has more genetic diversity within it, than any groups have in comparison to each other. Scientists reject the use of the term ‘race’ with regard to distinctive human communities.

Again, D&D agrees, so there is only one Human race.

Nevertheless, race doesnt mean ‘subspecies’ in D&D. For example, if the Human race is a subspecies, the game lacks mentioning the wider species that the Human is a part of. Moreover, the D&D term ‘subrace’ would be equivalent to a ‘sub-subspecies’, which is moreorless a nonsense category. So, D&D isnt using a reallife definition of ‘race’.



The other reallife definition of ‘race’, is moreorless a synonym of ‘culture’, a ‘people’, or a ‘nation’. But in these contexts, the other terms are clearer, and the term ‘race’ is archaic and unseemly.



Even the in-game definition of a ‘D&D race’, seems inadequate to justify the use of the term ‘race’.

It seems to me, the technical definition of a ‘race’ according to D&D is any distinctive group within the creature ‘type’, ‘Humanoid’, that is typically appropriate for a player character.

It might help to make this technical definition more prominent, in order to help avoid misunderstanding.

But I find the ‘Humanoid’ type itself to be an unhelpful technical term, because it includes anything from ‘human’ to ‘lizardfolk’ to ‘goblin’ to etcetera, but doesnt include the types ‘construct’, ‘fey’, ‘giant’, etcetera. There are playable races that are construct, fey, giant, undead, plant, etcetera, so by definition they should be Humanoid too, but the definition of Humanoid is inconsistent and less useful.



Personally, I would rather have the term ‘race’ gone.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

first, I think that there is only 1 race in the real world too, human...

I wouldn't mind if they wrote species, but I doubt it would matter.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Cristian Andreu]

I like the use of the term "race" within the context of D&D; it has become an imprecise and informal term in mainstream sciences, and thus flexible enough to work well with the traditionally inconsistent, but otherwise well-established, smorgasbord of species, subspecies, phenotypes, and "other stuff" that constitute the "racial options" of D&D.

The alternatives would be, in my opinion, unnecessarily confusing, and would be compartmentalizing something that doesn't seem to benefit from further compartmentalization: Humans and Elves are apparently subspecies of the same overarching species, as they can produce offsprings; Giants sometimes seem to belong to an entirely different species, and sometimes they seem to be compatible subspecies; subraces are sometimes merely variant phenotypes of the same subspecies, but in some cases it would appear they are subspecies of their own. Add magic to the mix, start listing Centaurs, Minotaurs, sentient jellyfishes, and adventurous space hippos, and the efforts required to classify everything start to suffer from severe diminishing returns.

Using the umbrella term "race" for all those options seems much better, easier, and since already everyone seems used to it, practical.

 

[jgsugden]

Race is a game term, just like spell and monster. They are all words that have other meaning(s) outside the game - in some cases related meanings, but within the confines of the game they have a game specific meaning. Further, the term race is culturally acceptable to refer to groups of people - it is a foundation term within the US legal system. There are negative connotations with the use of the word in certain situations, but that pollution does not spoil the term as a whole.

In the end, the use of these terms within D&D is no more offensive than the name of a challenge in which opponents seek to move fastest through a course - also a race.

If the only use of the word race outside the game was offensive, I'd share your concerns. I disagree with the Washington DC football team name. However, as there are several culturally appropriate ways to use the word race to refer to a variety of things, including in reference to people, I do not have that concern for the use of the word race in D&D.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

I'm fine with using race in D&D and can't say any of your concerns about it would ever be an issue at my game table. Different races have different attribute bonuses, some are smarter, some are faster, some are stronger, etc. Don't see the issue with that but its your game if it really bothers you stop using the term race, change attribute mods, etc.

If they removed it from the game I'm pretty sure we would be using it still when referring to different races with the game world. I've never encountered anyone who was confused by the use of the term in the game.

 

[LandOfConfusion]

On the other hand, the other ‘races’ − such as Elf, Dwarf, Orc, etcetera − are too human. By necessity these options need to be human-like enough in order for players to relate to them. And this is the problem, organizing all these other kinds of humans into categories of ‘race’ is, in fact, the reallife definition of racism. ... Even if it is a weird kind of fantasy racism. Other human-like options like Orc are inherently inferior, intellectually and morally, because of their ‘race’. This way of play has problems..

As others have pointed out there truly are different "races" of humanoids in D&D as opposed to the real world. Due to this there are indeed differences between these intelligent humanoids that are classified in some way. However just because these differences are classified doesn't mean the term is inherently racist. Even the fact, in the game world, that orcs are less intelligent is not racist. This is because there are classifications of humanoids that are plainly not as cognitively developed as other humanoids. That's what the ability modifiers are really for. Showing average differences between races. Notice 5E doesn't have negatives to ability modifiers anymore. So your half orc could be as smart as some of the smartest humans in the world. However his/her strength will probably not be below average.

Of course you could have someone in the game world who is racist because they say ALL orcs are stupid. And that is the real difference. We don't have a real world comparison for two fully self aware humanoid "races" which can communicate with each other. We do however fully understand the concept of judging and mistreating people based on perceived differences. I can't walk up to a person on the street and ask "what are you" and expect an answer other than "human". I could do that in a D&D world. Therefore the term "race" has actual meaning in D&D as opposed to the real world. If people within that D&D world make judgments of individuals based on their race, that's where racism comes in.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

The alternatives would be, in my opinion, unnecessarily confusing, and would be compartmentalizing something that doesn't seem to benefit from further compartmentalization: Humans and Elves are apparently subspecies of the same overarching species, as they can produce offsprings; Giants sometimes seem to belong to an entirely different species, and sometimes they seem to be compatible subspecies;

Nitpick: "species" in real life can sometimes interbreed, because nobody can really agree on what a "species" is. For example, I'm told that polar bears and brown bears can mate and produce fertile offspring (even though they usually don't), and yet they're still considered different species because it's convenient for biologists to consider them so. I think you could legitimately consider humans and elves as separate species for the same reason: humans are short-lived and large, elves are long-lived and short-ish.

 

[Minigiant]

I think your issue is that your elves and dwarves act too human that you see them as such.

Elves in my games start wars over missing violins and embarrassing dancing at a party.

You could get banished for a century by my dwarves for wasting beer and throwing a stone and not collecting it. They envy petrified people and ban the act in fear of self imposed extinction.

No one has trouble calling those people other races at my table.

 

[MoonSong]

Well, you could use "Kin" or "Kind" as synonyms...??