D&D FINALLY ends the use of the term "race" in its description of the inhabitants of its worlds in favor of "species"

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

About bloody time, Wizards of the Coast.

 

Moving On From 'Race' in One D&D

WWW.DNDBEYOND.COM

---

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

 

Quote

 

Dungeons & Dragons has a history of evolving to meet the needs of our players and foster an inviting space for everyone.

 

With that in mind, we understand "race" is a problematic term that has had prejudiced links between real world people and the fantasy peoples of D&D worlds. The usage of the term across D&D and other popular IP has evolved over time. Now it’s time for the next evolution.

 

Since the release of the fifth edition of D&D in 2014, we have made the conscious decision to reduce usage of the term “race” to only apply to the game mechanic. We took this a step further with the release of Tasha's Cauldron of Everything in 2020 when we presented an alternative to character creation that untangled ability score improvements from your choice of playable people. We have also evolved the lore of the peoples throughout the D&D multiverse to be more diligent in extracting past prejudices, stereotypes, and unconscious biases.

 

One D&D (the codename for the next generation of D&D) gives us an opportunity to go deeper into every component of Dungeons & Dragons. The immense interest and level of feedback across the first few playtest material releases shows us the value in having an open dialogue with our community about everything related to the game.

 

In the next Unearthed Arcana containing playtest materials for One D&D, we are presenting a replacement for the term "race." That new term is “species.”

 

 

This term NEVER made any sense to me whatsoever within the context of its usage in D&D as it what it was referencing CLEARLY was properly described as "species".

[Bacon]

Totally stupid and I don't know shit, but I just thought they were all kind of the same race since there are plenty of halves. 

 

Like in FFXIV, they are all "humans" or "mankind" despite being elves, cats, lizards, rabbits, hulks, potatoes, and humans. 

[Greatoneshere]

Finally - it has always confused me why they didn't say species - saying races makes no sense.

 

It's the same thing in real life - people confuse race with ethnicity thinking they are the same or similar thing, and they are not. 

[legend]

2 hours ago, Bacon said:

Totally stupid and I don't know shit, but I just thought they were all kind of the same race since there are plenty of halves. 

 

Like in FFXIV, they are all "humans" or "mankind" despite being elves, cats, lizards, rabbits, hulks, potatoes, and humans. 

 

Inter-species reproduction exists in reality, so that's not a reason to rule out "species" being the right term.

 

Very uncommon, but still exists.

[Bacon]

2 minutes ago, legend said:

 

Inter-species reproduction exists in reality, so that's not a reason to rule out "species" being the right term.

 

Very uncommon, but still exists.

I didn't forget about that, but I have this thought in my head that they are infertile while in D&D lore they are just as fertile as their parents. 

[legend]

1 hour ago, Bacon said:

I didn't forget about that, but I have this thought in my head that they are infertile while in D&D lore they are just as fertile as their parents. 

 

Nope, inter-species hybrids can be fertile! It's one of the ways gene exchange happens in evolutionary history.

[Bacon]

5 minutes ago, legend said:

 

Nope, inter-species hybrids can be fertile! It's one of the ways gene exchange happens in evolutionary history.

huh, the more you know 

[Slug]

This is one of those things that ultimately doesn't affect me so whatever, but it still kind of annoys me that it's something that people think needed to be done.

[BloodyHell]

I really don’t care that they use species instead of race, but its like the least important change they need to make. 
 

My problem with D&D is it went to far into epic fantasy, basically turning characters into superheroes. That was never what it was conceived as. Originally it was about regular people taking on extraordinary roles to go adventuring. Characters felt fragile, survival without a Cleric was next to impossible. Paladins were lawful good and had to be played that way, wizards crumbled to any melee and had to be protected.  Currently, by lvl 5 you’re completely overpowered for encounters of the proper level. 

 

we haven’t been playing much lately, but our gaming group has recently gone back to AD&D 2E and another game called Pendragon (obviously set in Arthurian times).

 

I get that the general public is definitely more interested in heroic fantasy over a more gritty experience, but it would be nice to see them make a more grounded modern version of D&D. Although the 3rd party Hardcore Mode supplement is pretty good in that regard.

[Slug]

I've been test running some Zweihander. Might be up your alley.

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

2 hours ago, Slug said:

I've been test running some Zweihander. Might be up your alley.

 

Zweihander is a seriously OSR RPG!

[Kal-El814]

On 12/17/2022 at 7:38 AM, BloodyHell said:

I really don’t care that they use species instead of race, but its like the least important change they need to make. 

 

Bioessentialism is dumb, bad, and easy to purge. And it IS an important change to make.

[Slug]

On 12/17/2022 at 9:57 PM, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

 

Zweihander is a seriously OSR RPG!

It really is.  Scratches that 'ol "dangerous things should be dangerous" itch. :P

[AbsolutSurgen]

Species -- In general, the most basic level of taxonomic rank, where offspring are generally either not possible or infertile.

Race -- an informal term used by scientists for subspecies, where offspring are generally fertile

 

I had thought in D&D lore, race was used because most of the races could interbreed to create fertile offspring, and more importantly, Tolkien used the word (and D&D was largely based on Tolkien).  That, and race isn't an offensive term.

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

41 minutes ago, AbsolutSurgen said:

Species -- In general, the most basic level of taxonomic rank, where offspring are generally either not possible or infertile.

 

What?

 

Species

WWW.BIOLOGYONLINE.COM

---

Species is the lowest taxonomic rank and the most basic unit or category of biological classification.

 

Quote

 

Biology definition:

Species is the lowest taxonomic rank and the most basic unit or category of biological classification consisting of organisms that share common characteristics and generally are capable of reproducing to produce fertile offspring.

 

 

[AbsolutSurgen]

24 minutes ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

 

What?

 

Species

WWW.BIOLOGYONLINE.COM

---

Species is the lowest taxonomic rank and the most basic unit or category of biological classification.

 

 

I'll blame it on my recent brain trauma.

 

What I meant to say that inter-species mating usually isn't possible, or won't produce fertile offspring.  Inter-racial mating typically does.

 

In D&D lore, for example elves and humans can produce "half-elves" that are fertile.

[Bacon]

On 12/2/2022 at 11:42 AM, Bacon said:

Totally stupid and I don't know shit, but I just thought they were all kind of the same race since there are plenty of halves. 

 

Like in FFXIV, they are all "humans" or "mankind" despite being elves, cats, lizards, rabbits, hulks, potatoes, and humans. 

 

On 12/2/2022 at 2:41 PM, legend said:

 

Inter-species reproduction exists in reality, so that's not a reason to rule out "species" being the right term.

 

Very uncommon, but still exists.

 

On 12/2/2022 at 2:49 PM, Bacon said:

I didn't forget about that, but I have this thought in my head that they are infertile while in D&D lore they are just as fertile as their parents. 

 

On 12/2/2022 at 3:49 PM, legend said:

 

Nope, inter-species hybrids can be fertile! It's one of the ways gene exchange happens in evolutionary history.

 

On 12/2/2022 at 3:55 PM, Bacon said:

huh, the more you know 

 

[AbsolutSurgen]

Biology is complex, and taxonomy is inexact.  While, there are exceptions, biologists have used reproductive barriers (i.e. the inability to produce fertile offspring) as one of the key determiners whether something is a different species.  That's not to say that this is the ONLY way they classify species.

 

It was also how I learned of the concept in my Biology classes (long ago), and since I started to doubt my memory, is still in virtually every definition I can now find (whether it be from National Geographic, Merriam Webster or Wikipedia).

[Moa]

This is kind of a null argument since the way fantasy races work matches neither the common definition for race or species because, well, these are made up worlds that operate different from our own. 

[Kal-El814]

Regardless of what race or species mean in a scientific or academic setting, using the term "race" the way it's traditionally been used in fantasy settings just isn't justifiable anymore. Bioessentialism is lazy and bad in a vacuum and when you saddle it with the notion that many of the "classic" fantasy / D&D races are obvious stand ins for real world peoples, the only reason to keep using the term is because it's always been used and that isn't good enough. You shouldn't have your gold-hoarding, Semitic language using, large nosed dwarves be the way they are just because they're born that way.

 

EDIT - the more I think about this, the more it irritates me. The Drow having the darkest skin in a major D&D setting and them all being INHERENTLY EVIL with the exception of, literally, "some of the good ones..." like what are we even talking about here.

[Jason]

26 minutes ago, Kal-El814 said:

EDIT - the more I think about this, the more it irritates me. The Drow having the darkest skin in a major D&D setting and them all being INHERENTLY EVIL with the exception of, literally, "some of the good ones..." like what are we even talking about here.

 

lolwut

 

As someone who has never really gotten into D&D I was opening this thread thinking it was just some generic humans/dwarves/elves/orc/etc stuff that didn't really seem like it necessarily had a lot of baggage, but that was without knowing about really blatant stuff like this Drow race. Quick Googling about what you meant by bioessentialism (not just that some races are inherently evil but that it used to be that each race could really only be certain classes) also has me a lot more convinced.

[Jason]

 

 

Got it from this article, which seems to do a good job of quickly conveying why this actually does matter.

[Jason]

Also reading about this reminded me that this same kind of stuff is heavily baked into World of Warcraft, which I had mostly just forgotten about since it's been ages since I played WoW.

[Kal-El814]

18 minutes ago, Jason said:

Also reading about this reminded me that this same kind of stuff is heavily baked into World of Warcraft, which I had mostly just forgotten about since it's been ages since I played WoW.

This is a big part of it too. Tolkien and the like often come up in these convos and I get why… but this stuff still happens in new games and settings all the time.

 

Isaac Childres (the guy who made Gloomhaven, the number one rated board game on BoardGameGeek for years) pivoted away from this in between Gloomhaven and its sequel, Frosthaven after hiring a cultural consultant upon receiving feedback that some of his language reinforced things like “noble savage” stereotypes for certain classes, among others (Gloomhaven DOES marry class and species for player characters but the lore and text have always made it clear that not just humans can be scoundrels, for example). Gloomhaven came out in 2017, so these things still go on. 

[Moa]

4 minutes ago, Kal-El814 said:

Regardless of what race or species mean in a scientific or academic setting, using the term "race" the way it's traditionally been used in fantasy settings just isn't justifiable anymore. Bioessentialism is lazy and bad in a vacuum and when you saddle it with the notion that many of the "classic" fantasy / D&D races are obvious stand ins for real world peoples, the only reason to keep using the term is because it's always been used and that isn't good enough. You shouldn't have your gold-hoarding, Semitic language using, large nosed dwarves be the way they are just because they're born that way.

 

The problem is this can't be fixed by changing how certain things are worded, it's built into the core of the fantasy genre and I've encountered very few properties that navigate these issues perfectly.

[Bacon]

I am racist towards a lot of the races in WoW. Orcs, Tauren, Undead, Vulpera, Pandaren, Dracthyr, Gnomes, and Worgen. 

[BloodyHell]

12 hours ago, Kal-El814 said:

Regardless of what race or species mean in a scientific or academic setting, using the term "race" the way it's traditionally been used in fantasy settings just isn't justifiable anymore. Bioessentialism is lazy and bad in a vacuum and when you saddle it with the notion that many of the "classic" fantasy / D&D races are obvious stand ins for real world peoples, the only reason to keep using the term is because it's always been used and that isn't good enough. You shouldn't have your gold-hoarding, Semitic language using, large nosed dwarves be the way they are just because they're born that way.

 

EDIT - the more I think about this, the more it irritates me. The Drow having the darkest skin in a major D&D setting and them all being INHERENTLY EVIL with the exception of, literally, "some of the good ones..." like what are we even talking about here.

Drow aren’t inherently evil, their culture is. There are multiple Drow who have been good guys. Its not the race, its the religion. They worship an evil god, much like Christians.

[BloodyHell]

11 hours ago, Jason said:

 

lolwut

 

As someone who has never really gotten into D&D I was opening this thread thinking it was just some generic humans/dwarves/elves/orc/etc stuff that didn't really seem like it necessarily had a lot of baggage, but that was without knowing about really blatant stuff like this Drow race. Quick Googling about what you meant by bioessentialism (not just that some races are inherently evil but that it used to be that each race could really only be certain classes) also has me a lot more convinced.

The reason there were restrictions on races was because when he was creating D&D, Gygax didn’t want to include Tolkien Fantasy races, but they were pushed into it. So he gave each race negatives so that people would be less likely to take them. He was inspired by Vancian fantasy, but forced to add the tolkienish elements. The idea that it was some racist game design was always completely false.

 

Also,Race and Class restrictions made plenty of sense in most cases. There were no racist pinnings to it. Dwarves didn’t use magic, Halflings couldn’t be warriors, Paladins were based in Human Religion, etc. It wasn’t, “Oh, dwarves are too stupid to use magic.”

 

Also, the most important rule of D&D is that the DM makes the rules, and could always allow whatever they wanted. So, Its a lot of mountains out of molehills. 

[Kal-El814]

14 hours ago, Moa said:

 

The problem is this can't be fixed by changing how certain things are worded, it's built into the core of the fantasy genre and I've encountered very few properties that navigate these issues perfectly.

There’s a lot of real estate between where the industry is now and perfect navigation of the issues. Moving from race to species is a small step in the right direction even though, as the link Jason provided discusses, there are issues there too. 
 

Perfect shouldn’t be the enemy of good or even better. 

 

5 hours ago, BloodyHell said:

Drow aren’t inherently evil, their culture is. There are multiple Drow who have been good guys. Its not the race, its the religion. They worship an evil god, much like Christians.

This is a distinction without a difference, and the notion that the dark skinned species all worship an evil god and are by alignment evil with few exceptions is obviously problematic.