Dungeons & Dragons is removing “race” from the game. Why this matters

Dungeons & Dragons is removing “race” from the game. Why this matters

Stephen Dashiell

It was once thought of as entertainment for basement “nerds,” Dungeons & Dragons Now it reigns as a cultural epicenter and the original tabletop role-playing game, and as it celebrates its 50th anniversary this year, the famous fantasy role-playing game is making a noteworthy and long-overdue correction to its treatment of scientifically ignorant races.

Though it was accused by religious figures in the 1980s of having links to the Devil (part of a broader trend called the “Satanic Panic” of that decade), the game and its accoutrements now dominate popular culture. Over pizza, dice and friends, you sit down at a table and collectively immerse yourself in a story as a warrior or wizard playing out heroic tales in a world of swords and magic. What’s new is that Wizards of the Coast, the game’s owner, will release a “Player’s Handbook” in September that will change the terminology used to be called “character physiological type.” race, Replace it with the following words: seed.

The company’s actions announced in 2022 include: seed According to Jeremy Crawford, game director for Dungeons & Dragons, “It’s a term that needs no explanation and emphasizes the fantastical nature of the non-human options in the game.”

Supporting science journalism

If you enjoyed this article, please support our award-winning journalism. Subscribe. By purchasing a subscription, you help ensure a future of influential stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping the world today.

Wizards of the Coast should be applauded for this move, both for its stated reasons and for correcting, scientifically speaking, the long-standing error of describing species as races. Kids playing a fun game will no longer pick up the false eugenic concept of race along with the 20-sided die.

Some players welcomed the change, seedBut some felt insulted that Wizards of the Coast was succumbing to the “woke” mentality and being afraid to use the term. RaceOthers appreciated the move but felt it did not go far enough. They recommended the removal of other material that may be deemed offensive. This last group is highly critical of biological essentialism, i.e. what comes with the use of terms such as “biological essentialism,” which parrots scientific and evolutionary language to explain significant social and cultural differences between groups. Race In particular, it can be difficult to distinguish between humans and other races such as elves, dwarves, orcs, due to stereotypical real-world associations that may be made with these fantasy races.

As a social scientist who studies male-dominated subcultures, I’ve conducted research that delves into responses to racial issues in gaming, and a key question is about how emotive the term is. Race So why would a game use this word to discuss a difference that has absolutely nothing to do with the traditional use of the word? Dungeons & Dragons is not the only game to use the word in this way; many other digital and analog fantasy works do as well. But it could be said that this famous game, created in 1973 by Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson, established the standard that other games followed. Gygax and Arneson The game relies heavily on popular fiction and folklore to build its world, and there is an undeniable connection to the works of fantasy author J.R.R. Tolkien, who first wrote during the era of colonial racism. Lord of the Ring Tolkien used this word frequently throughout the trilogy. Race To characterize the differences between all the societies that appear in his novels: humans, elves, hobbits, etc. This was familiar territory for any fan of sword and sorcery, so the creators of Dungeons & Dragons simply used it, as it provided an easy-to-understand reference point for potential gamers.

Biological essentialism was deeply ingrained in the game. In early versions, the author distinguished between humans and other groups, collectively calling them “demihumans.” In particular, players who chose dwarves, elves, halflings, and other demihumans had limitations that humans did not have. They were inferior beings. They could only have certain professions (called “demihumans”) in the game. class) could only progress so far and had built-in limitations (for example, the sturdy but somewhat slow and cranky Dwarves had an advantage in Constitution but limited Dexterity and Charisma). Additionally, all Demihumans had some ability to see in the dark, making them somewhere between humans and animals.

But the element most often cited as biological determinism in early games was a table created in the first edition of the Advanced Dungeons & Dragons game that dictated which half-human cultures would either get along easily or be naturally disliked: Elves and dwarves were naturally antipathetic; neither liked half-orcs, and for some reason gnomes only tolerated half-elves.

This was often discussed in the same breath as “evil races”, whereby various races were assigned an overall cultural and moral standing, with some races, such as orcs, deemed inherently evil. Especially since the influx of new fans with the 4th edition of Dungeons & Dragons, these ideas have been heavily criticized by academics and others for reinforcing a sense of “nature not nature” in terms of morality, reflecting the origins of human genetics in white supremacy, and viewing some groups as inherently “bad”. Scholars such as Benjamin Carpenter of the University of East Anglia have noted that the races labeled “evil” have analogues that can be associated with racial and ethnic minority groups in the real world, essentially smuggling old prejudices and stereotypes through the game.

Over the years, various editions of Dungeons & Dragons have rethought some of these elements of essentialism. Level restrictions for different racial groups have been removed, along with game stat restrictions for non-human races, and different systems have been provided to account for their strengths and weaknesses. Wizards of the Coast has reworked the game’s morality system, called Alignment, in recent editions, eliminating the concept of evil races. In the 5th edition and the 2024 amendment, races such as Orcs and Dark Elves have been reintroduced in a way that pushes back on their historical characterization as evil cultures and inherently “bad” races. Social media voices such as the Slovenly Trulls podcast have discussed other game components that may need to be rethought, such as misogyny and discrimination.

But as a student of social structures, I can say that in the world of gaming, all of this is just the first step in a marathon. Many role-playing game systems continue to distinguish between “humans” and “others” by race. Some gamers still loudly protest the change and continue to use race as before.

Nostalgia and tenacity are powerful things. They’re both responsible for Dungeons & Dragons’ continued success. But they also impede the possibility of change, even for good reasons. Sometimes, even in fantasy games, we should look to a brighter future rather than a glorious past.

This is an opinion and analysis article and the views of the author are not necessarily those of Scientific American.