Why do we keep using the same races and would people be willing to accept new ones?

[Hainted]

Though come to think of it, if you decide to modify these races in any way as is routinely done with elves and orcs, would people perceive that as cultural appropriation?

When I brought up the idea of Ethnically, and Culturally diverse fantasy races.(i.e. Elves would have multiple civilizations, and diverse looks so that, much like Human, a Liosaelfa, a Mannegishi, and a Quinametzin, while all Elves, are as different as a Viking, a Cree Indian, and an Aztec. I was accused of everything from cultural appropriation to colonialism.

 

[Devor]

I could be wrong, or maybe it's just me, but I think our propensity towards those familiar races stems a lot from the artwork we see in places like D&D. We've seen those races "made real" in some way, and so have our readers. They've become familiar in ways that we can take advantage of in a story.

There's also the whole, "Why reinvent the wheel?"

I do wonder, though. Most of the stock races stem from mythology. Is there an author besides Tolkein that's added to the grand list of stock fantasy races?

 

[Feo Takahari]

I do wonder, though. Most of the stock races stem from mythology. Is there an author besides Tolkein that's added to the grand list of stock fantasy races?

Dungeons and Dragons definitely made some additions (like beholders.) Gnolls come from a book by Lord Dunsany, and I think the modern idea of lizardfolk stems back to Robert E. Howard (though I've had a little difficulty determining the first example of that.) Also, catfolk don't stem from any mythology I know of, so they must have an inventor somewhere.

Of course, a big issue with new additions to "stock races" is copyright. Catfolk and lizardfolk are general enough to be modified into all sorts of technically "distinct" races, but beholders are still under copyright. Most works that use beholders are fancomics, freeware games, and other works that just plain don't care about copyright law.

 

[Shreddies]

Also, catfolk don't stem from any mythology I know of, so they must have an inventor somewhere.

I always assumed cat-folk had their roots in Cait Sidhe or Bakeneko or something similar (Or Bast for that matter. ). But I don't know if those would constitute a race.

 

[SeverinR]

What ever your world is filled with, make it yours.
Do not make carbon copies of anyone elses work.

If you make elves, make them your elves, not D&D,Tolken or Santa Clauses.

If you have orcs, make them your orcs.

But just making a pointy eared long lived humanoid that loves art and good with a bow, and calling them "Agloids" as an example, is really just calling an elf a Agloid. People would more receptive to see how your "elf" differs from the traditional then to take a hundred pages to figure out Agloids are just elves by a different name.

As I said at the start, anything in your world needs to be yours. But it can still be called traditional names.

I believe a writer can use any race of creature they want. I tried to write a story about centaurs. It was a tough story to write. whole town built for Centaurs, not humans. It was like trying to think in a different number system. Our world is built for our comfort, horse people would have everything built for them. I figured they would build stick homes and have large doors. (honey! the colt is eating the walls again) Being grazing animals they would spend most of the time outside. (omnivoure but need alot of fiber)

If your race is much different then biped humanoids, you will have to consider how to change our world to make them comfortable in it, and show the reader how it is different then ours.

 

[Bortasz]

Just little notice. You can use all race that are not under Copy Right Protection. Beholders Ilithids does where invented by D&D and are of limit.

 

[WooHooMan]

So, can I use Vikings?

I got a race based on Vikings. Can I just go ahead and call them "Vikings"?
Nowadays, Vikings are as much an archetype as a historic subgroup of Norse culture. And people use "paladins" and "templars" and "elves" outside of their original context.

Sorry if this question doesn't fit in this thread but I didn't think this query called for a separate thread.

 

[D. Gray Warrior]

I have a couple of questions. In my fantasy story, there are three human ethnicities: A Caucasian people called the Fair People, and Asian people called the Yellow People, and Caucasian/Asian blend called the Mixed People. I am afraid these names sound too racist. I don't want to use names like Asian or European since those don't exist in my world. Any suggestions for alternatives?

Another question, what purpose could wyverns serve? I want my MC to fight one, but I want wyverns to exist for other reasons than just for my protagonist to have something to fight.

 

[Bortasz]

So, can I use Vikings?

I got a race based on Vikings. Can I just go ahead and call them "Vikings"?
Nowadays, Vikings are as much an archetype as a historic subgroup of Norse culture. And people use "paladins" and "templars" and "elves" outside of their original context.

Sorry if this question doesn't fit in this thread but I didn't think this query called for a separate thread.

Vikings are are okey in terms of using it. Nobody have right to them

 

[Bortasz]

I have a couple of questions. In my fantasy story, there are three human ethnicities: A Caucasian people called the Fair People, and Asian people called the Yellow People, and Caucasian/Asian blend called the Mixed People. I am afraid these names sound too racist. I don't want to use names like Asian or European since those don't exist in my world. Any suggestions for alternatives?

Another question, what purpose could wyverns serve? I want my MC to fight one, but I want wyverns to exist for other reasons than just for my protagonist to have something to fight.

They are

Kaitan - For asia.
Caucasian are white because they live in place where is not many sunlight. North in the most cases. Maybe Northmen?

 

[Steerpike]

Of course, a big issue with new additions to "stock races" is copyright. Catfolk and lizardfolk are general enough to be modified into all sorts of technically "distinct" races, but beholders are still under copyright. Most works that use beholders are fancomics, freeware games, and other works that just plain don't care about copyright law.

The enforceability of copyright claims to those creatures, at least in any broad sense, is highly suspect. If you have a beholder-like monster in a book, or something like a mind-flayer, it may be that Wizards of the Coast has a hard time making this claim. In fact, WotC seems to recognize this, because in their Open Game License, they specifically go out of the way to have the licensee acknowledge certain creatures like Illithids as "Product Identity," and to agree not to use them, which wouldn't be necessary if WotC had strong non-contractual claims to the creatures.

 

[T.Allen.Smith]

They are Kaitan - For asia.
Caucasian are white because they live in place where is not many sunlight. North in the most cases. Maybe Northmen?

The way I understand it, skin pigmentation (not tanning of the skin) is regulated by the pineal hormone melatonin.

Purportedly, this has a racial effect as well as an aged-based effect. The reduction of active melatonin as we age, accounts for the pale skin tones of the elderly.

Yes, lack of direct sunlight can impact skin tone. However, it is not the primary factor.

 

[Bortasz]

The way I understand it, skin pigmentation (not tanning of the skin) is regulated by the pineal hormone melatonin.

Purportedly, this has a racial effect as well as an aged-based effect. The reduction of active melatonin as we age, accounts for the pale skin tones of the elderly.

Yes, lack of direct sunlight can impact skin tone. However, it is not the primary factor.

You are correct to certain degree.

All homo Sapiens Sapiens come from Africa. But European are White, and African are Black. And the reason is Sunlight Vitamin D and Melatonin.

Since Ancestors of European move away from equator they have access to less sunlight through the year than people that stay Africa.

But we need sunlight to be healthy. Sunlight produce vitamin D in our skin. So people with whiter skin, who can more fully use the sunlight are more healthy than people who have darker skin.

In Africa the opposite was true. There was too many sunlight. And since overdoes of water can kill you, overdoes of vitamin D is not good for you. The darker skin people were more healthy than people with white skin collor.

Now Our bodies can adapt to certain degree that's way white people can take sun bath and go bronze with there skin.

Also notice. Europe White people. Middle East Brown People. Africa Black people. more closer to equator darker the skin tone.

 

[Mythopoet]

I have a couple of questions. In my fantasy story, there are three human ethnicities: A Caucasian people called the Fair People, and Asian people called the Yellow People, and Caucasian/Asian blend called the Mixed People. I am afraid these names sound too racist. I don't want to use names like Asian or European since those don't exist in my world. Any suggestions for alternatives?

I think it does sound racist. Fair can mean "not dark", but this is actually the ninth definition on M-W. So by calling them the Fair People the connotation is not just that they are light skinned, but also that they are pleasant to look at, honest in their dealings, and so on. Compare that to Yellow People, which will bring to mind the racist "yellow devils" and such and consider that "yellow" is often associated with cowardice. Your Yellow People are coming off a lot worse. Furthermore, I've never understood the "Asian=yellow" thing anyway. I mean, look at Asian people. They aren't yellow anymore than I am actually white. (I always tell my daughter we are "peach". That was the crayon color I used for people when I was little.) They are just a lighter brown than other ethnicities.

 

[D. Gray Warrior]

Okay, I renamed by Fair People the North People and the Yellow People are now called the Shinzu (it is the only Asian sounding name I could think of that I like)

 

[Jabrosky]

Technically almost all of the conventional color names for the various "races" of humanity are inaccurate to one degree or another. Most Africans are really shades of brown, most Europeans are pinkish-beige or maybe tan, and so forth. It does seem strange that White and Black are conventionally acceptable whereas Yellow and Red have acquired offensive connotations.

Personally I would advise using continental, regional, or maybe ethnic labels to address different "races" of humanity in a fantasy world if you must.

 

[Trick]

It does seem strange that White and Black are conventionally acceptable whereas Yellow and Red have acquired offensive connotations.

I think it's like Mythopoet said, Yellow has the connotation of cowardice. I also think of Red as the color of violence. White and Black are more universal, I think; it almost like they apply too broadly to so many different things that they are more casually accepted even when they're technically innaccurate. Though, I have to say, I hate checking the White box to identify my race on paperwork. There's this long list of unique, culturally identified races and then 'WHITE.' How boring! I wish there was a box that said 'IRISH AMERICAN.' That is a box I'd be proud to check.

 

[EJWrites]

One way to be original is to take traditional fantasy races and mix it up. Desert Elves, Elves that live in a desert and maybe are similar to a Persian, or Arabic culture, for example. Maybe Sea Dwarves, Dwarves who've taken to the sea, and perhaps they are marauding pirates. Just a few ideas.

 

[WooHooMan]

One way to be original is to take traditional fantasy races and mix it up. Desert Elves, Elves that live in a desert and maybe are similar to a Persian, or Arabic culture, for example. Maybe Sea Dwarves, Dwarves who've taken to the sea, and perhaps they are marauding pirates. Just a few ideas.

But then you get the purist who say "these aren't TRUE elves/dwarves, you should call them something else!"
But then if you play too close to convention, you get the "fiction savvy" crowd who say "this is cliche and therefore bad!"

You can't please everyone, the best course of action is to just not care about appearing cliche or original and just do what's good for the story. That's my opinion.

Coincidentally, I'm doing Desert Elves. But they're more based on Native Americans.

 

[FatCat]

I think this is the major problem that any genre finds, when does accepting the norms that make that genre what it is clash with ingenuity and creation? Though fantasy seems so prone to this enigma, what is the established culture versus what the individual writer attempts to create. With any conformity to these norms, you have to balance actual meaning to interpretation. You can have desert elves, as long as they're xenophobic, arrogant, in-tune with their enviroment and have pointed ears. Then again, you can go completely against those ideas and make a race of thick-skinned warriors more interested in displaying the teeth of their opponents in a set of armor.

But then, if you go the later route, why use the term elves? I think modern fantasy is experiencing a divergent away from the traditional norms and is going the path of the ironic use of those terms or just throwing them away all-together.

Though, to be honest, fantasy should be just that in my opinion; an idea expressed through the terms of a completely fictional world that hints at real-world issues without addressing them head-on. Though the tropes exist, I see fantasy progressing away from the DnD character sheets into a world of metaphorical value and substance.