
An essential skill for any writer is depicting people like they’re actually people. This applies not only to individual characters but also to large groups. When we start worldbuilding, we may unintentionally create races, species, and cultures that are less like a real group of people and more like a crowd of caricatures, thereby dehumanizing them. This can reinforce racist messages that are used to do harm in real life.
Does this mean it’s wrong to dehumanize your species of giant cyborg spiders? No, animals and monsters don’t need to come across as people. But we shouldn’t dehumanize humans, and many of the nonhuman groups we create, such as orcs and elves, are simply stand-ins for humans. If you’re not sure whether dehumanizing your fantastical group would be problematic, our articles on problematic groups and ableist monsters should help.
While you don’t have to humanize your giant cyborg spiders, you might want to. If you’re depicting a group of sapient creatures, a humanizing depiction will make them feel more real and complex. This is particularly useful if your protagonist is among them. If their society is a caricature, your audience will notice.
That said, let’s look at six signs your race, species, or culture has lost its humanity.
1. Individuals Are Too Similar

We need to make each species or culture feel unique, but when doing that, it’s easy to venture into stereotyping. We might create a warrior culture where every single individual is a soldier or an artsy culture where every person is a poet who speaks in verse. Misguided writers have created groups where everyone is obedient, everyone is lazy, or everyone is a mobster who wears a hat.
Regardless of why this is done or what the in-universe explanation is, stereotyping removes the individuality of members. When a person is an identical member of a horde instead of someone with their own personality, appearance, and identity, their life is no longer valued. This makes it easy to justify violence against them.
You can still have distinctive group traits; just present those traits in more balanced and realistic ways. To start, avoid making overly broad statements about your group members, especially if those statements are positive or negative. You can do that by:
- Describing the features of the society rather than the personality traits of the people in the society.
- Replacing generalizations with statements about what is “common” among members, “popular” with members, or appears “on average.”
- Swapping out traits for specific activities that some or many (but not all) group members engage in.
For example:
- Instead of “dryads love the earth,” try “the most popular deity among the dryads is the Great Earth Spirit.”
- Instead of “the shadow dwellers are full of bloodlust,” try “the shadow dweller militia is known for killing anyone who crosses their border.”
- Instead of “the utopian citizens are lazy,” try “the utopian citizens work about ten hours a week on average.”
Just like characters, groups should be defined by more than one trait. If you have time to develop a group in detail, consider adding factions that have different lifestyles or oppose each other politically. This demonstrates that members of the group aren’t uniform.
Characters in the group should be unique individuals who are influenced by their group membership in reasonable ways. If they only work ten hours a week, that’s probably because they live in a society that’s post-scarcity or nearly so. In that case, working only ten hours makes sense. While some individuals might complain if they needed to work more, others would jump at the chance to feel helpful by putting in more hours.
2. The Group Acts Irrationally

Another common and troubling pattern is when members of a group do not act like rational human beings. As a general rule, humans are cunning in pursuing their own interests. They do not pick fights they don’t think they can win, and if an action costs them something, they will only do it for tangible return.
Unfortunately, many stories make groups act irrationally to justify why it’s okay to kill members without a thought. This is the “evil horde” problem, in which soldiers in a horde keep attacking and attacking even as the heroes mow them down. In real-world armies, troops will scatter once the situation looks too dire. When soldiers intentionally sacrifice their lives, it is a strategic choice to protect something they care about even more. While it’s possible for a troubled individual to be motivated by bloodlust, that’s not a compelling motivation for a whole group.
Similarly, groups need understandable motivations for whatever they do – whether it’s worshiping a sinister god, waging war, or wandering the world to collect the best seashells they can find. Treating a group’s motivation as strange and unknowable works great for tentacle aliens that are supposed to be scary, but it’s inherently dehumanizing, so don’t do this with a group of humanlike people.
However, this doesn’t mean every group has to make perfect choices. The leadership might declare war on another group because of political pressures at home, not because war benefits the group as a whole. The group may also be operating based on incorrect information.
It’s okay for protagonists to be baffled by a group choice they don’t understand. But that should be presented as a mystery the protagonists need to figure out, not as a sign the group thinks in bizarre ways that humans can’t understand. Then the heroes should solve this mystery by uncovering the group’s rational motive.
If your goal is to have lots of faceless enemies for heroes to mow down, those enemies should be mindless machines or monsters. Do not use humanlike groups or animals for that.
3. They’re Inherently Bad or Good

We’ve all seen species that are supposed to be bad in every way. They’re cowardly yet full of aggression that motivates bold attacks. They constantly fight over leadership roles, attacking at the first sign of weakness. They’re ugly, they speak in a harsh tongue, and their society has nothing resembling art.
Obviously, this is racist. Even when the writer tries to justify it by offering a magical reason, it relies on tropes rooted in the belief that some people are inherently inferior. Our stories are better without this.
What’s less obviously racist is when a society is depicted in the opposite manner – wonderful in every way.
- Do you have a tree-loving people who are one with the earth and easily solve all of their problems by talking through their feelings?
- Do you have a group of wise nomads who wander the land offering sage advice and making beautiful art?
- Do you have a small utopian enclave in the flowery countryside, where honest labor enriches the souls more than cold technology ever could?
When a species or culture is shown in such an idealized manner, it’s inherently othering or exotifying. To anyone who feels misrepresented by the group, it can also come off as condescending, as though they’re children in need of praise. Everyone just wants to be treated like a normal person. You’re making it weird.
Just like individuals, every society has strengths and flaws. Whenever you compare one culture to another, there should be trade-offs between them. One culture might offer more individual freedom but leave its members to fend for themselves, whereas another culture might have a strong safety net but also restrict personal choices.
Even if you love your group and want to show your audience how cool they are, include failings. Then be honest about those failings rather than glossing them over to wax poetic about how everyone has the best clothes and the best food. Finally, show how some individuals in the culture are pressing for change. You can even create traditionalist and revolutionary factions to struggle over it.
If your group is inherently evil, don’t worry – you can fix it just by reassigning the blame. Instead of making members inherently evil, focus on unethical systems and villainous individuals. The current leadership of a group can be authoritarian and oppressive. Perhaps they enslave the poor and press them into service as soldiers. However, these cultures must still have positive features, and again, some members will dream of overthrowing their oppressive government to create a fair one.
4. Group Hardships Are Glossed Over

A frequent belittling trend in glorified cultures is the erasure of hardships and suffering. This goes double if the culture isn’t objectively wealthy and powerful. Privileged people today like to idealize low-tech country lifestyles, forgetting that these lifestyles also come with real hardships.
- In the countryside, there are fewer economic opportunities. When a farming community faces a drought, members may flee to the city to avoid starvation.
- If someone gets sick far from an urban area, they may not have a hospital nearby. This can lead to a higher death rate.
- If a culture doesn’t use motorized vehicles, traveling will be more difficult and dangerous. Without technology, good maps may be hard to come by.
- Without fast, long-distance communication, a society will receive news slowly and have more trouble coordinating.
This doesn’t mean there also aren’t upsides like peace and quiet, closer family connections, and a more active lifestyle. If the society has wealthy and powerful neighbors, there should be enough upsides to explain why members willingly take on the hardships rather than moving elsewhere.
You also don’t have to wallow in hardships or make their lives miserable. It’s okay to ease hardships with magic. Perhaps an isolated community has a magic healer or a mage that relays important messages with scrying. If you’re using a historical setting, you’re not required to include detailed descriptions of bloodletting or other less-than-glamorous aspects of the time period.
Just don’t pretend your society doesn’t have the hardships they do. Then remember that hardships are hardships, not enriching food for the soul. Regardless of whether there are benefits to manual labor, it’s still labor. This is particularly important when a group is poor. Generally, poor people don’t choose to be that way,* and every group benefits from additional resources. While a resourceful group may get by or even flourish without much money, being without money won’t make them better or happier.
Finally, never depict a group that doesn’t mind or care about their hardships. Whether it’s being happy as slaves or wanting to be dirty and disheveled, this idea exists to justify oppression and cruel mistreatment.
5. People Speak Whimsically

As storytellers, we’re always looking for ways to add novelty. Unfortunately, when we make cultures into novelties, it can come out terribly wrong. If you have a weird poet character who speaks in rhyme sometimes, the character might get annoying, but they probably won’t be problematic. If you have someone speak in rhyme because their culture does that, you’ve created a cultural caricature.
Remember, everyone wants to be treated like they’re a normal person. If group members constantly spout wise sayings or start every sentence with “blessed be that,” they aren’t acting like people. While speech makes this pattern most obvious, you can also take a second look at repeated odd behaviors. Do group members jump up and dance around constantly?
This doesn’t mean that your cultures can’t have their own idioms, sayings, and repeated prayers. However, consider the utility of their speech. How cumbersome would it be for them to always rhyme or repeat a phrase again and again? Give it a try for a day. Do you talk less because it’s too much effort?
If the culture says one phrase a lot, what does it accomplish? Is it a form of emphasis when they’re especially emphatic? Is it a “knock on wood” type prayer to avoid bad luck from speaking about taboo topics? Do they say flowery phrases to authority figures to appease them?
Finally, look at the content of their speech. Are they having normal conversations, or is every word supposed to be whimsical or profound? Sometime, try going about your day spouting nothing but wise sayings, especially when you meet someone new. The stranger in the elevator could be the chosen one, so you’d better give them some sage advice, just in case. When you’re at the dinner table, find a wise way to ask someone to pass the salt.
6. They Revere an Outsider

Part of being cunning in pursuing your own interests is looking after your own interests and not just someone else’s. Everyone has their own lives to care about. In contrast, many problematic depictions treat the protagonist as though they are at the center of the universe.
This can happen on an individual level when a storyteller employs the “magical negro” trope. The trope is named after Black whimsical characters who pop into the story just to tell the protagonist their destiny, educate them about the magical world, or grant them magical favors. Going out of their way to help a random stranger rather than using that magic on their own behalf is irrational.
When applied at the group level, more problematic tropes appear. One is the white savior trope, in which an outsider plays a glorified role helping the group, while the group acts like a cheerleading troop. Every culture has their own heroes and leaders; they do not need or want an outsider to play that role.
If a helpful outsider has special technology that gives them an edge, they should be sharing it and showing group members how to use it. If there is only one device, the outsider can explain what it does. Then group members can decide how it should be used on behalf of the group. An outsider shouldn’t be making choices about what a group needs. Not only is that paternalistic, but also the outsider simply wouldn’t know enough.
In a worst-case scenario, the group may be overly impressed with outsiders just because of how they look or the technology they possess. This makes the entire culture look subservient or worshipful. I don’t care how fancy the outsider spaceship is; a low-tech culture is not going to think they are a god. Being overly fearful or superstitious of outsiders is just another way of portraying the same problematic trope.
Be wary of making broad generalizations about how group members feel about your outsider protagonist. Remember, they’re unique individuals with their own feelings. Then don’t make it weird. If the protagonist assists them, the most common response should be “thanks” rather than “you are our hero.”
Many species won’t be exactly like humans, but treating them like humans is still the best tool we have for making them realistic. It encourages us to imagine ourselves in their shoes and think through their choices. Even non-sapient creatures have reasons for behaving the way they do.
P.S. Our bills are paid by our wonderful patrons. Could you chip in?
I mean, if they’re cyborg spiders, they must be pretty good with technology and should probably be treated like a sentient group instead of just a hoard of monsters…
Now I want to hear more about those cyborg spiders and their spinnerets which can produce different types of webbing depending on what kinds of enhancements they have … sigh.
What if they were created by an evil inventor as machines of War and only act on command of their master…then we can treat them as tools of war and kill them.
I mean a movie came out recently where such a guy even managed to built a copy of earth…that movie was good, how was it called?
If they were created as tools and are no sapient species of their own, you can treat them as tools of war and fight them as mooks.
Editor’s note: I have removed a comment for attempting the “he who smelt it dealt it” defense of the racism in LotR’s orcs. I appreciate that several commenters pointed out what was wrong with that argument, but at this point it’s just not something we want to have on the site.
Thanks for pointing that out. I didn’t even realize that was a thing until I saw that connection through further searching.
No problem, it’s a pretty common deflection tactic. I think Jon Stewart (or the Daily Show writers at least) was where I first heard it called the “he who smelt it dealt it” defense.
I’ve genuinely never heard of that phrase. What’s it supposed to mean?
It’s a typical schoolyard/childhood thing. You smell something bad in the air, you ask “Who farted?”, then you get accused because, you know, “He who smelt it dealt it”. Typically followed by “Whoever made the rhyme did the crime”, and “He who denied it supplied it”.
In this context, it’s more generally “If you see the Bad Thing in the work, that means it’s within you”.
Glad to see we grew up with the same fart-related sayings!
When I read the caption below the picture in point 3, I already felt a disturbance in the force, as if thousands of Silmarillion fans groaned in indignation.
It can be worth thinking about WHY a culture is conducive to certain traits. For example, living by the ocean might lead a culture to focus heavily on trade and fishing. Living in an area where sustenance is hard to find (like a desert or tundra) might lead a culture to develop clever ways of gathering what they can and making a little food and water go a long way. A recent population boom might encourage people to seek more resources through technological innovation, plunder, or again, trade.
Guess this means Amazon “adding color” to Rings of Power didn’t solve anything.
Elves were perfect, Arondir or no Arondir. Dwarves were gruff, Disa or no Disa. And orcs were still evil, even if they were all white now.
If you want to make the setting more diverse, then go ahead, but don’t subject said diversity to the same dehumanization.
Wait wait wait. There’s a Disa? I need to watch this show.
“If a helpful outsider has special technology that gives them an edge, they should be sharing it and showing group members how to use it.”
The plot that could be conjured from that! What if an outsider shows a group how to use a piece of tech, and that group decides, by themselves, to use it in a way so that the outsider completely regrets their actions?
Example: a space alien teaches us humans how to clone, and our less than ethical leaders decide to use it for slave labor.
Or, inversely: a bad guy gives a bunch of doctors some vampire blood-which in this enables super healing-and those doctors decide to try and isolate the healing properties of said blood for medicine, while taking away the parts that require vampirism or domination by a vampire.
As opposed to what the bad guy wanted, which was for them to use it irresponsibly to create a mind-controlled group of obedient servants?
It’s not perfect; I’m sure it could still end up being racist if done a certain way.
Adrian Tchaikovsky’s “Children of Time” did a great job of humanizing giant spiders. I don’t think they were cyborgs, though.
There’s plenty of imperfect elves in the Silmarillion, but I guess that doesn’t count since it’s technically backstory and barely anyone reads it because it’s so dense.
I think that usually happens when an author focuses on a specific race/species. Some stories in the Silmarillion have only (or almost only) elf characters, and then they quite naturally develop in different directions, or there would be no conflict. It’s when it’s mostly humans/hobbits plus a few elves that they end up being cast in the same perfect mold.
“Sometime, try going about your day spouting nothing but wise sayings.”
I think I might, just for fun.
Nice article!
I have one gripe with this article, namely with “Just like individuals, every society has strengths and flaws. Whenever you compare one culture to another, there should be trade-offs between them.”
I think talking about societies in terms of (comparative) upsides and downsides is not a good way to do it.
For one, it leads to this kind of paternalism described in point 4, but on a societal, not an environmental level. “Oh, their social customs are cruel, but it’s good for them, because *checks the pros column* they are also honourable and communal”.
For another, I believe this leads to ascribing deeper value to societal aspects than there really exist. There’s this misconception that fascism is a brutal but efficient style of government (and I don’t mean among fascists), because people seem to think that when you subtract “civilization points” from liberties and human rights, they have to go somewhere, or else why would anybody choose to be fascist?
Sometimes, societies just suck. Sometimes, there are no societal benefits to some culture elements. Usually, that’s because it helps the upper class stay in power for a time, even if everything burns around them.
But cultures also evolve, and if one sucks at a given point, it doesn’t mean than it always sucked, or that it always will. I think this is a more important point about not portraying societies as inherently good or bad, than trying to find balance in “civilization points” trade-offs. Especially since it’s so much easier, and unfortunately common, in worldbuilding to portray cultures as separate and unchanging, thus essentializing their traits.
I hope I’m making sense here.
I agree with this point. For a Mediterranean example:
Sparta as a society absolutely sucked, not just for the ruling class that was indoctrinated since they were six, but especially for the “helot” slaves that outnumbered them eight to one.
To give you an idea of how badly they were treated: Life as a helot was so awful that it shook the conscience of ancient slave holders, even without taking into account that each of the ruling class had to murder at least one of them as a ritual of passage.
It’s true that it did have some good qualities… But these were few, and applied only to around 6% of the population. It was basically what a Collection of Unmitigated Pedantry described as an “ancient North Korea”. And like you said, it benefited the upper class even if everything burned around them.
The problem with Sparta as analogy is that most of what we know came from their enemies the Athenians who all didn’t look up to them as a model civilization, some of them did, but not all. So we have to be careful here when dealing with Sparta.
Another problem is that as I mentioned, not all viewed Sparta as regressive with their education programs for instance, Aristotle and many others looked up to them as the builders of a real model civilization and the Agoge was revered by some as the greatest education system of all time, after all they did not live during our time with our understanding of parenting.
Still the Spartans are not good guys by any stretch and did awful things such as slavery, invasions, imperialism and despite their better view on women than Athens, they were no paragons even with their role as defender of Greece from the corrupt Athens, as the Spartans were also very corrupt.
I think history is difficult to tackle due to the context of each society, but I view it similairly like mythcreants and I think it’s better to not dehumanize them. A better evil group would be demons, Machines and monsters, depending on how you wrote them.
Cursa from the most recent Mario game has only mind-controlled Minions of Bowser and her corrupted Rabbids she herself created without any free will to oppose her (there was one exception but that would be a spoiler), which serves as pure evil group better than Fire Emblem making an evil Dragon cult or Human supremacists with their most recent games.
An entire people cannot be truly evil, there must be good people in there, All Tomorrows even has Gravitals (A Race of Post-Human machines) warming up to Organic life and falling in love with it…why not do something like this?
A better story can write an evil faction without making it look like all people are horrible and even so, give good reasosn why they would follow them or make the story more comedic and thus we have not to ask that question.
I think people need to be more open to other cultures or we get badly written stories.
Ironically, most of the Spartans’ good press originated with the Athenians’ equivalent of MAGA.
I totally understand what you’re saying about cultural elements like fascism just being bad.
However, when I discuss tradeoffs, I’m not talking about cultural elements, I’m talking about entire cultures. A culture can have bad aspects like fascism, and good aspects like art. If you create a culture that is bad in every respect, that’s racist.
“Sometimes, societies just suck. Sometimes, there are no societal benefits to some culture elements. Usually, that’s because it helps the upper class stay in power for a time, even if everything burns around them.”
If the criteria for a sucky society is being centered around upper class at the expense of everything else, then there are no good societies whatsoever.
I don’t see why generalizations would be such a problem when considering different species and such: It’d be hard not to say that, for example, a group of rock-eating troglodytes would naturally understand the value of moderation, or that a purely pelagic group wouldn’t really understand walls
These are all really great for avoiding easy undignified failure!
One that isn’t explicitly said but many fantasy writers need to hear is that it’s generally a good idea to somewhat decouple race/species from nations. Far too often a fantasy world will just have Elf Kingdom populated exclusively by elves who we only see there, and Dwarf Kingdom populated exclusively by dwarves who we only see there, and so on. This erases boundaries between culture, government and biology in a way that both wastes opportunities for rich worldbuilding and makes it easy for very unpleasant implications to arise.
But also, while just not making traits inherent to some people may be just safer, biological differences is one of the core cool things of fantasy, and something people will write anyway, so I think it’s better to tell how to do it well rather than do not do it at all.
I think the key to doing it well is to make the differences morally neutral, make them experiences to which individuals form different responces, and humanize the group so they are not defined by the trait.
For example, dryads are likely described as loving the earth not just because of religion, but because they are tree people and physically feel the processes of soil and roots in a way other people do not.
For a good portrayal, this obviously needs to not be written as some inherent spiritual superiority, but also a good idea is to show dryad characters having relatable human problems not related or much influenced by their gimmick from time to time, and also show at least briefly different dryad characters being affected by the gimmick in different ways: for some the pulse of the earth is a divine voice, for some it’s an artistic muse, for some it’s a tool of their trade, for some it’s a distraction from their not-earth-related life passion.