D&D (2024) What new jargon do you want to replace "Race"?

[Yaarel]

sure some of this is inescapable. My point is there is a big difference between endeavoring to imagine different races of beings with the aim of exploring humanity and doing so with the aim of exploring something outside humanity. We are limited by the fact we are human but you are doing as well as you can to imagine beyond that (and the striving, rather than succeeding at it, is what I think makes it rewarding)

By virtue of these D&D species being Humanoid, they have humanlike cultures that we reallife humans can relate to.

Indeed, there will be characters from the D&D Human species who are members of these Nonhuman-founded cultures.

We can imagine what we as humans would be like within the thought experiment of these posited fantasy setting cultures.



Despite the Nonhuman species having traits that Human lacks, such as firebreathing or spectral wings, the CULTURES of these Nonhumans are human.

Likewise, there will be Nonhumans who are born into cultures that Humans founded.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Despite the Nonhuman species having traits that Human lacks, such as firebreathing or spectral wings, the CULTURES of these Nonhumans are human.

Likewise, there will be Nonhumans who are born into cultures that Humans founded.

I think they are a blend. Obviously you are going to adopt human cultural elements, but you are also trying to imagine non-human culture as much as possible. I mean that is the point of science fiction when they imagine alien societies (think the aliens in Childhood's End and how different their civilization is from ours: and many of the differences revolve around them having wings and flight. Now that might not be sufficiently different for you, and if it is not, fair enough. But for me it is certainly more than enough to be persuaded by the author and suspend disbelief (which is the aim here, of creating a culture that is believable enough to the readers or the players to be accepted as a non-human culture). And of course one can always draw on other species as well. But until we meet another advanced species with cultures as varied as humans, we are going to build off what we know.

 

[Bedrockgames]

You're the one bringing up these concerns. I agree they don't contribute to the conversation. Nothing about the existence of many peoples around the globe suggests the inevitability of the kind of extreme ethnic nationalism to which you keep alluding. Why all the handwringing about a word that humanizes rather than others fantasy races?

My point has nothing to do with the existence of many people around the globe. It is a problem with conflating peoples (which is a term we use to designate human groups) with species/races like dwarves, elves, etc. Because I think that gets you much closer to the kinds of ethnonationalist concerns I am talking about (which thought of peoples not just as different ethnic groups but as people with hugely varied physiology, which was used to justify racist policies and violence).

I never made the statement you seem to be thinking I was making. Again though I don't think this is handwringing. If it isn't handwringing for people to express concern about race (and I don't share their conclusions but I think the concern they raise is a fair one), then I think worrying about how describing species in a setting as peoples has stronger parallels to the kind of ethnic nationalism I was talking about is also fair (and frankly that kind of ethnic nationalism is much more of a concern to me personally). My point is if you are worried about the connotations of the term race, peoples seems just as, if not more, prone to issues. Species I think at least clarifies we are speaking about something very different from human groups.

In terms of humanizing or othering fantasy races. I am pretty neutral on that, because they are fictional groups. They don't represent real people, they are mythic beings in a fantasy game and aren't people in the real world. So if you want to humanize them more, I certainly think that can lead to interesting stories. But if you want more monstrous, detached or aloof fantasy races that can also create an interesting feel as well.

 

[Bedrockgames]

By virtue of these D&D species being Humanoid, they have humanlike cultures that we reallife humans can relate to.

I don't know that I can relate to a being that lives for hundreds of years more than a human. Part of what is interesting about elves to me is I have to imagine what they are like because they don't strike me instantly as being like us. Now you can argue but you are just imagining a human who lives for centuries, and fair enough, but a human that lives for 900 years isn't the same as a human as we understand it.

 

[Bedrockgames]

You're the one bringing up these concerns. I agree they don't contribute to the conversation.

Fair enough. I am not trying to beat a dead horse. But because of the nuances involved here, I just wanted to take pains to explain my position so it is not misunderstood

 

[Yaarel]

I don't know that I can relate to a being that lives for hundreds of years more than a human. Part of what is interesting about elves to me is I have to imagine what they are like because they don't strike me instantly as being like us. Now you can argue but you are just imagining a human who lives for centuries, and fair enough, but a human that lives for 900 years isn't the same as a human as we understand it.

In-setting, there are Humans who are members of the High culture founded by Elves. Viceversa, there are Elves who are members of the Waterdeep culture founded by Humans. All of these in-setting cultures are relatable to Humans.

It is especially in this aspect of Culture that the species can be described as Humanoid − even when some are biologically unrelated.

 

[Hriston]

My point has nothing to do with the existence of many people around the globe. It is a problem with conflating peoples (which is a term we use to designate human groups) with species/races like dwarves, elves, etc. Because I think that gets you much closer to the kinds of ethnonationalist concerns I am talking about (which thought of peoples not just as different ethnic groups but as people with hugely varied physiology, which was used to justify racist policies and violence).

But the word people, especially in a fantasy context, doesn't confer a human identity. Fantasy invites us to imagine people who are not human. This in itself is the problem, but I don't think the solution is to get rid of the fantasy. I don't think the fantasy is inherently racist. Would you agree that an elf or a dwarf, as they are imagined, is a person? I don't think the solution is to deny their personhood. That looks to me like the worst kind of racism, where we are designating a class of non-people. It was just over 150 years ago that it was still the law in my country, the USA, that an enslaved person counted as only three-fifths of a person for the purposes of representation and taxation. Is that the kind of language that should be used in D&D, that a member of this or that PC species is not a person?

I never made the statement you seem to be thinking I was making. Again though I don't think this is handwringing. If it isn't handwringing for people to express concern about race (and I don't share their conclusions but I think the concern they raise is a fair one), then I think worrying about how describing species in a setting as peoples has stronger parallels to the kind of ethnic nationalism I was talking about is also fair (and frankly that kind of ethnic nationalism is much more of a concern to me personally). My point is if you are worried about the connotations of the term race, peoples seems just as, if not more, prone to issues. Species I think at least clarifies we are speaking about something very different from human groups.

The word race is being removed because of its ties to racist discourse. The basis of racism is the division of people into different races. These categories are then used to justify racist ideologies and practices. D&D has a problem because the division of people into such categories is a staple of the fantasy D&D tries to facilitate, and D&D has fallen into the trap of mirroring real-world stereotypes and hurtful language that have been used to justify racism. The solution, if D&D is going to continue to be a purveyor of this type of fantasy, is to be conscientious about what you say and to not fall into the trap.

During the time I've been alive which is the late 20th and early 21st century, I've heard the word people (in the singular sense) used respectfully in public discourse in the USA to refer to this or that community. To me, it's a term that recognizes the dignity and personhood of the members of the group. Although the concept of "a people" is central to ethnic nationalism, I don't think it necessarily entails the ethnocentrism that can lead to ethnic nationalism. It also forms a conceptual basis for human rights law, international law, constitutional law, and claims of popular sovereignty.

I don't think species does the work you say it does here, or that it's the work that's needed for D&D to avoid racist content. I don't think anyone needs clarification about whether PC races are meant to represent human groups. The problem is that D&D has used racist language to describe fictional non-human groups, so to clarify that the non-humans are different species from the humans doesn't help if racist content is still included. Also, in the past there have been other real-world species of humans such as Homo habilis and Homo erectus, so just because a group is stated to be a separate species doesn't mean it's not human.

In terms of humanizing or othering fantasy races. I am pretty neutral on that, because they are fictional groups. They don't represent real people, they are mythic beings in a fantasy game and aren't people in the real world. So if you want to humanize them more, I certainly think that can lead to interesting stories. But if you want more monstrous, detached or aloof fantasy races that can also create an interesting feel as well.

This is the problem that's being addressed by removing race. The othering of fantasy races in D&D mirrors the real-life othering of real-life out-groups. D&D doesn't need to participate in that and shouldn't.

 

[Yaarel]

But the word people, especially in a fantasy context, doesn't confer a human identity. Fantasy invites us to imagine people who are not human. This in itself is the problem, but I don't think the solution is to get rid of the fantasy. I don't think the fantasy is inherently racist. Would you agree that an elf or a dwarf, as they are imagined, is a person? I don't think the solution is to deny their personhood. That looks to me like the worst kind of racism, where we are designating a class of non-people. It was just over 150 years ago that it was still the law in my country, the USA, that an enslaved person counted as only three-fifths of a person for the purposes of representation and taxation. Is that the kind of language that should be used in D&D, that a member of this or that PC species is not a person?

Of course, an Elf is a person.

The awkwardness is because the Elf species comprises many "peoples": High, Wood, Uda, Loren, Aeven, Grugach, Valley, Summer, Winter, etcetera. Very many peoples! The Grugach Elves are a people.

Humans too comprise very, very, very, many, many peoples.

This sense of "a people" means the citizens of a government, whence citizenry and nation, the same meaning as a sense of "folk".

 

[Scott Christian]

D&D has a problem because the division of people into such categories is a staple of the fantasy

This. This is what everyone is struggling with.

 

[Hriston]

Of course, an Elf is a person.

The awkwardness is because the Elf species comprises many "peoples": High, Wood, Uda, Loren, Aeven, Grugach, Valley, Summer, Winter, etcetera. Very many peoples! The Grugach Elves are a people.

Yes, and I would go so far as to say that among the High Elves, the Elves of Nargothrond are a people and the Elves of Gondolin are a people, and yet you can also speak of the Elven People and still be correct.

Humans too comprise very, very, very, many, many peoples.

Sure, but you could also say that humans are one people.

This sense of "a people" means the citizens of a government, whence citizenry and nation, the same meaning as a sense of "folk".

I'm using a singular definition of people meaning "a plurality of persons considered as a whole". Folk, on the other hand, is never singular in English. It always refers to multiple people or people in general.