1. If a two creatures can reproduce without any sort of shapechanging (wild shape, polymorph, shapeshift, etc.), then they are of the same species.
2. Technically in real life, there aren’t any racial differences significant enough to be reflected as a change in someone’s stat block. African-Americans, Caucasians, Asians, Russians, etc. would all have the same set of stat blocks.
3. The various types of humanoids are wildly different in regards to traits, and therefore have greater biological differences than real life humans, but less biological differences than chimps vs. humans.
4. You could call them different breeds, but that is inherently dehumanizing, so that doesn’t work well for humanoids.
Under these circumstances, is doesn’t make sense to define orcs and elves as different species, as they CAN reproduce. BUT, defining them as different races also doesn’t necessarily make as much sense, since they are so much more different than real-life racial extremes.
However, it’s a lot easier to simply say “racism” than “ancestorism” or “liniagism”, and orc vs. elf racism functions the same way as real life racism.
So, in my opinion, creatures such as elves/orcs, greens/silvers (dragons), and so on, are different races, to make it simple.
At the same time, creatures such as humanoids/dragons are different species, as they can only reproduce with each other through the aid of magic.
(although males cannot reproduce with males [biological sex, not gender identify], they are still counted as the same species due to their nearly identical genomes)
Two creatures can reproduce without being members of the same species. Donkey+Horse=Mule doesn't make donkeys and horses the same species. It just makes Mules a specific exception to a more general rule. 'Typically', two different species (in real life [or low-magic/fantasy material planes perhaps]) cannot reproduce; however sometimes they can.
That is because the real-life (modern) use of the term race is wrong and a lie. Species won in real-life too, but once upon a time you could talk of eagles, condors, hawks and falcons as being different races of Birds (also as different nations of birds in certain pre-Columbian cultures). Race did basically literally mean species. It didn't mean meaningless cosmetic differences. This older context is how the term is applied in fantasy settings.
Chimps and Humans only have about 1%-4% of biological difference depending on the type of study you read. We are literally sibling clades. The fantasy races are not this or more or similarly closely related. That really isn't how it's meant to work. The majority have no relation at all whatsoever to one another. They are literally products of special creation from different and often competing gods.
Breed, Strain, Variety, Form, et al are all words out of taxonomy. They are used by humans to classify a world full of life amongst which they are unique. None would seem to suit a classification system for a universe/metaverse/polyverse/multiverse/etc. full of, albeit unrelated, sapient beings.
Though I disagree they can actually interbreed (From the lore I am familiar with, their flesh is anathema to one another: though half-elves and half-orcs can interbreed if I am remembering correctly.), Elves and Orcs are a more special case than many of the other creature-types. In some of the lore, from Tolkien to Elder Scrolls, to Exandria, Orcs literally are Elves who have been corrupted by some factor and so really are members of the same species. In other versions of the lore such as from Toril (and greyhawk?), Elves and Orcs each formed from the shed blood of their gods during one particular fight. However, it's also been postulated that Gruumsh and Corellon are actually twin brothers, both formerly formless shapeshifters who were in their favored forms at the time. Elves and Orcs mirror the favored form of their gods that were worn when they were created, and if so, then again, despite appearances, they would literally be not only members of the same species, but actual first cousins too. Again, though this is a rather unique relationship then what are between many other creatures in the setting.
? Are dragons in human form still dragons as far as you are concerned or are they human while in human form?
Consider that as Dragons can take human form; once upon a time another creature-type capable of taking a mortal form took on the form of "elf"; but then got stuck in it. You seem to consider elves to be 'humans', but are they if they are merely bound in that form like calypso in pirates; or are they still the heavenly or Fae beings they once were when their true form was a spirit-form?
yes, I think that people are getting caught up in real world understandings of a fundamentally different universe.
However that is somewhat expected, and part of why they might not want to use certain words, because it has strong real world associations, like using the word species puts people into a scientific classification frame of mind, which as you say doesnt really fit. Likewise, race has different baggage now.
I think they needed to find a better word, or maybe a new term. Or perhaps they just wanted a baseline neutral term, and expect players, dms, or lores to use terms that fit more for their tables.
To some extent, past lore, and past uses of the terms don't matter. D&D is a cultural product, thus must change to fit into the culture of today or it will be perceived as outdated and lose popularity. New players and new DMs largely aren't going to spend 1000 hours reading the old lore for all the gods and all the species in all the settings. They will adapt things to fit the needs & wants of their players, and those reflect today's cultural trends - and not just those of the USA anymore, I routinely play D&D with people from Lithuania, Hong Kong, the USA, Canada, Germany and the UK. Which IMO means the main problem with "species" is that is connotes the same geographic & cultural separation of the different humanoids that we see in the old lore, rather than the cosmopolitan mixing that I'd argue the majority of players experience in their daily life, which is why the rules for hybrid characters were added.
I just think race rolls of the tongue easyer. Plus species makes me think of the movie "species"
I'm still going to use "race" at my table because I like "racial" as a label for species features. But I'm fine with the printed book and all the content creators saying "species."
I'm fine with "species", and I'll use it happily if I'm around someone who prefers the term. But at my table with my regulars, I think we're all just use to using "race" and we will probably continue to do so.
1. If a two creatures can reproduce without any sort of shapechanging (wild shape, polymorph, shapeshift, etc.), then they are of the same species.
[...]
Two creatures can reproduce without being members of the same species. Donkey+Horse=Mule doesn't make donkeys and horses the same species. It just makes Mules a specific exception to a more general rule. 'Typically', two different species (in real life [or low-magic/fantasy material planes perhaps]) cannot reproduce; however sometimes they can.
[...]
I would like to note that this is not a very good guideline and the definition of species in real life doesn't have a strict criteria like like that. You could probably get away with saying "two different species DON'T reproduce". In fact strict material definitions break down very quickly whenever you get into any sort of interesting situation with it. The current, modern, most used definition of species is from Ernst Mayr, from 1942
groups of actually or potentially interbreeding natural populations, which are reproductively isolated from other such groups
They key here being "reproductively isolated", meaning that even if two populations are compatible, if they are reproductively isolated from each other they comprise different species. There's interesting examples of where older stricter definitions of species break down, stuff like Species Complexes which are made up of up to hundreds of different microspecies, or Ring Species, where a population of individuals exists over a large range and even though they're all compatible with their neighbors, the populations on opposite ends of the range are not compatible with each other. And species changes over time too. Two groups that were once the same species can become different species over time, and there's no defined point at which they stop being the same species.
In real life, the main thing that prevents hybridization from rapidly producing new species or creating ring species is offspring viability. With magic that obstacle becomes trivial, especially when one of the parents is as powerful as an archdevil or a god. You think their magic burns out with one generation? Germline cells stay in the germline. If someone did some magic on you as an embryo, and that magic dissipated slightly each time those cells divided, your grandchildren's embryos would end up with more of that magic than some parts of your own body ever get. And really all you need is for that first generation to get that magical bump. One lil diploid meiosis later and by the time the epigenetic factors kick in for your own offspring and they're good to go.
Meh, use the word you want? Ancestry has connotations of family lines and relatives. So two humans from different towns have different ancestries, even though they are both human. So a word is needed to denote a different species.
As an author of fiction, I believe fantasy would suffer if we couldn’t explore race issues in our fiction.
No one benefits by white washing the ugly things humankind deals with.
But, that doesn’t mean that players should be compelled to deal with them. Leave it up to each table.
I also think “species” is anachronistic in _most_ fantasy settings. “People” (as in “the elven people” or “the orcish people”) would IMHO be a better option.
As an author of fiction, I believe fantasy would suffer if we couldn’t explore race issues in our fiction.
No one benefits by white washing the ugly things humankind deals with.
But, that doesn’t mean that players should be compelled to deal with them. Leave it up to each table.
Addressing "race" issues in fantasy and sci-fi has never required it to actually be about "race", indeed it is often most effective when it isn't "race" but some other characteristic that is used as an allegory. Even when fiction is explicit, it is wrong for that fiction to present a world where proven falsehoods used to support bigotry in the real world are true facts in the fictional world.
What part of "any one of the groups that humans are often divided into based on physical traits regarded as common among people of shared ancestry" is a proven falsehood? While a hypothetical utopian society might have progressed to the point where the lexicon would not need a term to note those differences, it doesn't really make sense for a pseudo-medieval population to for some reason be so egalitarian on that one point; some general-use term would exist for "those other beings with clearly different characteristics from us". I'm not actively opposed to species, but in a fantasy setting it sounds somewhat artificial and out of place imo. The "using race in spec-fic when describing groupings like humans, elves, and dragonborn is wrong because it tells people the stereotypes held about irl ethnic groups viewed as different races" breaks down because the two comparisons are not congruent; humans and elves and dragonborn are all different races because they objectively possess disparate physiologies of far greater magnitude than varying degrees of skin pigmentation or facial bone structure. The basic premise is not going to teach anyone anything because by the time you're in double digits the flaws in the analogy are obvious.
As an author of fiction, I believe fantasy would suffer if we couldn’t explore race issues in our fiction.
No one benefits by white washing the ugly things humankind deals with.
But, that doesn’t mean that players should be compelled to deal with them. Leave it up to each table.
Addressing "race" issues in fantasy and sci-fi has never required it to actually be about "race", indeed it is often most effective when it isn't "race" but some other characteristic that is used as an allegory. Even when fiction is explicit, it is wrong for that fiction to present a world where proven falsehoods used to support bigotry in the real world are true facts in the fictional world.
I think you misunderstood me. Even when race issues are dressed up in allegory, they are still about race. The marginalized might be robots or witches, but the story is still about race - just race in drag.
Even when race issues are dressed up in allegory, they are still about race. The marginalized might be robots or witches, but the story is still about race - just race in drag.
That's a fair point.
I don't think D&D is trying to remove "race" as a story topic. It's (incrementally) removing the marginalization from the fundamental rules of the game.
So if a DM/storyteller/whatever wants race themes, they can add them as story elements.
Even when race issues are dressed up in allegory, they are still about race. The marginalized might be robots or witches, but the story is still about race - just race in drag.
That's a fair point.
I don't think D&D is trying to remove "race" as a story topic. It's (incrementally) removing the marginalization from the fundamental rules of the game.
So if a DM/storyteller/whatever wants race themes, they can add them as story elements.
Do the fundamental rules of the game marginalize race? In what way?
I don't think D&D is trying to remove "race" as a story topic. It's (incrementally) removing the marginalization from the fundamental rules of the game.
Do the fundamental rules of the game marginalize race? In what way?
A whole lot of forum discussions on that very topic have happened in recent years, and I know for a fact that you were involved in some of them. So I have trouble taking that question at face value.
For the this thread, I'll point you a handful of posts you might not have read: post #6 post #11 post #14
And do remember you've already said "Even when race issues are dressed up in allegory, they are still about race. The marginalized might be robots or witches, but the story is still about race - just race in drag."
Even when race issues are dressed up in allegory, they are still about race. The marginalized might be robots or witches, but the story is still about race - just race in drag.
That's a fair point.
I don't think D&D is trying to remove "race" as a story topic. It's (incrementally) removing the marginalization from the fundamental rules of the game.
So if a DM/storyteller/whatever wants race themes, they can add them as story elements.
Do the fundamental rules of the game marginalize race? In what way?
They have and it's something they're moving away from:
Presenting everyone of a given race as evil (orcs, drow)
Presenting everyone of a given race as stupid (orcs)
Presenting everyone of a given race as weak (kobolds)
Presenting people of mixed parentage as being 'other' from their own heritage (half-orc and half-elf)
Presenting everyone of a given race as having biologically defined social and intellectual characteristics (every single species with a fixed intelligence, charisma, or wisdom ability score improvement)
You can try and argue this is not a depiction of marginalization, but given the fact it exactly parallels a lot of statements made by racists about real world peoples, you'd be arguing for ice in a snow storm. I could (but won't because it's not appropriate) provide literal examples of the above points being levelled like-for-like against real world peoples within the last 100 years, aka within living memory for a lot of people.
Do the fundamental rules of the game marginalize race? In what way?
They have and it's something they're moving away from:
Presenting everyone of a given race as evil (orcs, drow)
Presenting everyone of a given race as stupid (orcs)
Presenting everyone of a given race as weak (kobolds)
Presenting people of mixed parentage as being 'other' from their own heritage (half-orc and half-elf)
Presenting everyone of a given race as having biologically defined social and intellectual characteristics (every single species with a fixed intelligence, charisma, or wisdom ability score improvement)
You can try and argue this is not a depiction of marginalization, but given the fact it exactly parallels a lot of statements made by racists about real world peoples, you'd be arguing for ice in a snow storm. I could (but won't because it's not appropriate) provide literal examples of the above points being levelled like-for-like against real world peoples within the last 100 years, aka within living memory for a lot of people.
I'm bookmarking this post to link to every time this topic comes up now.
As an author of fiction, I believe fantasy would suffer if we couldn’t explore race issues in our fiction.
I would tend to call that "fraught with peril". Yes, it's something that can be usefully addressed in fiction, but it's also something really easy to screw up.
There is a big difference between "exploring themes of racism" and "being racist." Wizards is trying to not be racist; they are not trying to eliminated complex themes, such as racism, from the game.
The changes being made are not to eliminate the ability to explore themes of racism. Those themes are fundamentally baked into large swaths of the game, from the Gith-on-Gith racism, to slavery, etc. DMs are also free to explore whatever themes they want in their games - provided they get buy-in from their players as well.
Gary Gygax was a racist. To anyone who is not a racist themselves, there is no real question about that. Gygax went out of his way to add themes of racism to the game itself and used words like "race" within the context of the game to infect the game's core mechanics with his racism.
Race is a perfectly fine word in most any context - but within the game, it was used by Gygax to further his racism and thus became charged with racism. To draw an analogy, the word "monkey" is a perfectly fine word in 99% of contexts. However, in certain contexts, the history of using that word in a racist manner has stained the use of that word within that context. Exactly the same thing happened with "race" in D&D--just at a more micro scale.
When Wizards is updating their language, they are doing so not to remove racism as a possible theme for games to explore - they are saying "Ah, darn. Stinks that one of our founders turned a perfectly innocent fantasy word into a tool of his hate. You know what, to heck with Gygax. Rather than use this word that has the stain of Gygax all over it, let's just use a new word that particular bigot never infected."
Really not that big of a deal--and it really is not all that hard to see the distinction between removing a theme and removing an active element of racism.
As a liberal, I really, _really_ value the free exchange of information, even when that exchange is, to use your words, “fraught with peril.” It is how we grow. It is how we develop. In fact, any system which fights against that exchange, or tries to set barriers in its path, is a system a liberal would label “dystopian.”
Sure, but nothing prevents a DM from exploring themes of racism if they want to. It's just not being forced on you by the game system.
“Gary Gygax was a racist. To anyone who is not a racist themselves, there is no real question about that. Gygax went out of his way to add themes of racism to the game itself and used words like "race" within the context of the game to infect the game's core mechanics with his racism.”
Could you develop that claim a bit more strongly rather than just call Gygax a “racist”?
I mean, could you offer specific examples where he claimed one race was inherently better than another? Is your claim rooted in the fact that Gygax’ world included humanoids such as lizard men who were at a lower tech level?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
yes, I think that people are getting caught up in real world understandings of a fundamentally different universe.
However that is somewhat expected, and part of why they might not want to use certain words, because it has strong real world associations, like using the word species puts people into a scientific classification frame of mind, which as you say doesnt really fit. Likewise, race has different baggage now.
I think they needed to find a better word, or maybe a new term. Or perhaps they just wanted a baseline neutral term, and expect players, dms, or lores to use terms that fit more for their tables.
To some extent, past lore, and past uses of the terms don't matter. D&D is a cultural product, thus must change to fit into the culture of today or it will be perceived as outdated and lose popularity. New players and new DMs largely aren't going to spend 1000 hours reading the old lore for all the gods and all the species in all the settings. They will adapt things to fit the needs & wants of their players, and those reflect today's cultural trends - and not just those of the USA anymore, I routinely play D&D with people from Lithuania, Hong Kong, the USA, Canada, Germany and the UK. Which IMO means the main problem with "species" is that is connotes the same geographic & cultural separation of the different humanoids that we see in the old lore, rather than the cosmopolitan mixing that I'd argue the majority of players experience in their daily life, which is why the rules for hybrid characters were added.
I just think race rolls of the tongue easyer. Plus species makes me think of the movie "species"
I'm still going to use "race" at my table because I like "racial" as a label for species features. But I'm fine with the printed book and all the content creators saying "species."
I'm fine with "species", and I'll use it happily if I'm around someone who prefers the term. But at my table with my regulars, I think we're all just use to using "race" and we will probably continue to do so.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
I would like to note that this is not a very good guideline and the definition of species in real life doesn't have a strict criteria like like that. You could probably get away with saying "two different species DON'T reproduce". In fact strict material definitions break down very quickly whenever you get into any sort of interesting situation with it. The current, modern, most used definition of species is from Ernst Mayr, from 1942
They key here being "reproductively isolated", meaning that even if two populations are compatible, if they are reproductively isolated from each other they comprise different species. There's interesting examples of where older stricter definitions of species break down, stuff like Species Complexes which are made up of up to hundreds of different microspecies, or Ring Species, where a population of individuals exists over a large range and even though they're all compatible with their neighbors, the populations on opposite ends of the range are not compatible with each other. And species changes over time too. Two groups that were once the same species can become different species over time, and there's no defined point at which they stop being the same species.
In real life, the main thing that prevents hybridization from rapidly producing new species or creating ring species is offspring viability. With magic that obstacle becomes trivial, especially when one of the parents is as powerful as an archdevil or a god. You think their magic burns out with one generation? Germline cells stay in the germline. If someone did some magic on you as an embryo, and that magic dissipated slightly each time those cells divided, your grandchildren's embryos would end up with more of that magic than some parts of your own body ever get. And really all you need is for that first generation to get that magical bump. One lil diploid meiosis later and by the time the epigenetic factors kick in for your own offspring and they're good to go.
Meh, use the word you want? Ancestry has connotations of family lines and relatives. So two humans from different towns have different ancestries, even though they are both human. So a word is needed to denote a different species.
As an author of fiction, I believe fantasy would suffer if we couldn’t explore race issues in our fiction.
No one benefits by white washing the ugly things humankind deals with.
But, that doesn’t mean that players should be compelled to deal with them. Leave it up to each table.
I also think “species” is anachronistic in _most_ fantasy settings. “People” (as in “the elven people” or “the orcish people”) would IMHO be a better option.
Addressing "race" issues in fantasy and sci-fi has never required it to actually be about "race", indeed it is often most effective when it isn't "race" but some other characteristic that is used as an allegory. Even when fiction is explicit, it is wrong for that fiction to present a world where proven falsehoods used to support bigotry in the real world are true facts in the fictional world.
What part of "any one of the groups that humans are often divided into based on physical traits regarded as common among people of shared ancestry" is a proven falsehood? While a hypothetical utopian society might have progressed to the point where the lexicon would not need a term to note those differences, it doesn't really make sense for a pseudo-medieval population to for some reason be so egalitarian on that one point; some general-use term would exist for "those other beings with clearly different characteristics from us". I'm not actively opposed to species, but in a fantasy setting it sounds somewhat artificial and out of place imo. The "using race in spec-fic when describing groupings like humans, elves, and dragonborn is wrong because it tells people the stereotypes held about irl ethnic groups viewed as different races" breaks down because the two comparisons are not congruent; humans and elves and dragonborn are all different races because they objectively possess disparate physiologies of far greater magnitude than varying degrees of skin pigmentation or facial bone structure. The basic premise is not going to teach anyone anything because by the time you're in double digits the flaws in the analogy are obvious.
I think you misunderstood me. Even when race issues are dressed up in allegory, they are still about race. The marginalized might be robots or witches, but the story is still about race - just race in drag.
That's a fair point.
I don't think D&D is trying to remove "race" as a story topic. It's (incrementally) removing the marginalization from the fundamental rules of the game.
So if a DM/storyteller/whatever wants race themes, they can add them as story elements.
Do the fundamental rules of the game marginalize race? In what way?
A whole lot of forum discussions on that very topic have happened in recent years, and I know for a fact that you were involved in some of them. So I have trouble taking that question at face value.
For the this thread, I'll point you a handful of posts you might not have read:
post #6
post #11
post #14
And do remember you've already said "Even when race issues are dressed up in allegory, they are still about race. The marginalized might be robots or witches, but the story is still about race - just race in drag."
They have and it's something they're moving away from:
You can try and argue this is not a depiction of marginalization, but given the fact it exactly parallels a lot of statements made by racists about real world peoples, you'd be arguing for ice in a snow storm. I could (but won't because it's not appropriate) provide literal examples of the above points being levelled like-for-like against real world peoples within the last 100 years, aka within living memory for a lot of people.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
I'm bookmarking this post to link to every time this topic comes up now.
I would tend to call that "fraught with peril". Yes, it's something that can be usefully addressed in fiction, but it's also something really easy to screw up.
There is a big difference between "exploring themes of racism" and "being racist." Wizards is trying to not be racist; they are not trying to eliminated complex themes, such as racism, from the game.
The changes being made are not to eliminate the ability to explore themes of racism. Those themes are fundamentally baked into large swaths of the game, from the Gith-on-Gith racism, to slavery, etc. DMs are also free to explore whatever themes they want in their games - provided they get buy-in from their players as well.
Gary Gygax was a racist. To anyone who is not a racist themselves, there is no real question about that. Gygax went out of his way to add themes of racism to the game itself and used words like "race" within the context of the game to infect the game's core mechanics with his racism.
Race is a perfectly fine word in most any context - but within the game, it was used by Gygax to further his racism and thus became charged with racism. To draw an analogy, the word "monkey" is a perfectly fine word in 99% of contexts. However, in certain contexts, the history of using that word in a racist manner has stained the use of that word within that context. Exactly the same thing happened with "race" in D&D--just at a more micro scale.
When Wizards is updating their language, they are doing so not to remove racism as a possible theme for games to explore - they are saying "Ah, darn. Stinks that one of our founders turned a perfectly innocent fantasy word into a tool of his hate. You know what, to heck with Gygax. Rather than use this word that has the stain of Gygax all over it, let's just use a new word that particular bigot never infected."
Really not that big of a deal--and it really is not all that hard to see the distinction between removing a theme and removing an active element of racism.
Sure, but nothing prevents a DM from exploring themes of racism if they want to. It's just not being forced on you by the game system.
“Gary Gygax was a racist. To anyone who is not a racist themselves, there is no real question about that. Gygax went out of his way to add themes of racism to the game itself and used words like "race" within the context of the game to infect the game's core mechanics with his racism.”
Could you develop that claim a bit more strongly rather than just call Gygax a “racist”?
I mean, could you offer specific examples where he claimed one race was inherently better than another? Is your claim rooted in the fact that Gygax’ world included humanoids such as lizard men who were at a lower tech level?