RPG Evolution: Do We Still Need "Race" in D&D?

The term "race" is a staple of fantasy that is now out of sync with modern usage. With Pathfinder shifting from "race" to "ancestry" in its latest edition, it raises the question: should fantasy games still use it? “Race” and Modern Parlance We previously discussed the challenges of representing real-life cultures in a fantasy world, with African and Asian countries being just two examples...

Status
Not open for further replies.
The term "race" is a staple of fantasy that is now out of sync with modern usage. With Pathfinder shifting from "race" to "ancestry" in its latest edition, it raises the question: should fantasy games still use it?

DNDSpecies.gif

“Race” and Modern Parlance

We previously discussed the challenges of representing real-life cultures in a fantasy world, with African and Asian countries being just two examples. The discussion becomes more complicated with fantasy "races"—historically, race was believed to be determined by the geographic arrangement of populations. Fantasy gaming, which has its roots in fantasy literature, still uses the term “race” this way.

Co-creator of D&D Gary Gygax cited R.E. Howard's Conan series as an influence on D&D, which combines Lovecraftian elements with sword and sorcery. Howard's perceptions may have been a sign of the times he lived in, but it seems likely they influenced his stories. Robert B. Marks explains just how these stereotypes manifested in Conan's world:
The young, vibrant civilizations of the Hyborian Age, like Aquilonia and Nemedia, are white - the equivalent of Medieval Europe. Around them are older Asiatic civilizations like Stygia and Vendhya, ancient, decrepit, and living on borrowed time. To the northwest and the south are the barbarian lands - but only Asgard and Vanaheim are in any way Viking. The Black Kingdoms are filled with tribesmen evoking the early 20th century vision of darkest Africa, and the Cimmerians and Picts are a strange cross between the ancient Celts and Native Americans - and it is very clear that the barbarians and savages, and not any of the civilized people or races, will be the last ones standing.
Which leads us to the other major fantasy influence, author J.R.R. Tolkien. David M. Perry explains in an interview with Helen Young:
In Middle Earth, unlike reality, race is objectively real rather than socially constructed. There are species (elves, men, dwarves, etc.), but within those species there are races that conform to 19th-century race theory, in that their physical attributes (hair color, etc.) are associated with non-physical attributes that are both personal and cultural. There is also an explicit racial hierarchy which is, again, real in the world of the story.
The Angry GM elaborates on why race and culture were blended in Tolkien's works:
The thing is, in the Tolkienverse, at least, in the Lord of the Rings version of the Tolkienverse (because I can’t speak for what happened in the Cinnabon or whatever that other book was called), the races were all very insular and isolated. They didn’t deal with one another. Race and culture went hand in hand. If you were a wood elf, you were raised by wood elves and lived a thoroughly wood elf lifestyle until that whole One Ring issue made you hang out with humans and dwarves and halflings. That isolation was constantly thrust into the spotlight. Hell, it was a major issue in The Hobbit.
Given the prominence of race in fantasy, it's not surprising that D&D has continued the trend. That trend now seems out of sync with modern parlance; in 1951, the United Nations officially declared that the differences among humans were "insignificant in relation to the anthropological sameness among the peoples who are the human race."

“Race” and Game Design

Chris Van Dyke's essay on race back in 2008 explains how pervasive "race" is in D&D:
Anyone who has played D&D has spent a lot of time talking about race – “Racial Attributes,” “Racial Restrictions,” “Racial Bonuses.” Everyone knows that different races don’t get along – thanks to Tolkien, Dwarves and Elves tend to distrust each other, and even non-gamers know that Orcs and Goblins are, by their very nature, evil creatures. Race is one of the most important aspects of any fantasy role-playing game, and the belief that there are certain inherent genetic and social distinctions between different races is built into every level of most (if not all) Fantasy Role-Playing Games.
Racial characteristics in D&D have changed over time. Basic Dungeons & Dragons didn't distinguish between race and class for non-humans, such that one played a dwarf, elf, or halfling -- or a human fighter or cleric. The characteristics of race were so tightly intertwined that race and profession were considered one.

In Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, the changes became more nuanced, but not without some downsides on character advancement, particularly in allowing “demihumans” to multiclass but with level limits preventing them from exceeding humanity, who had unlimited potential (but could only dual-class).

With Fifth Edition, ability penalties and level caps have been removed, but racial bonuses and proficiencies still apply. The Angry GM explains why this is a problem:
In 5E, you choose a race and a class, but you also choose a background. And the background represents your formative education and socio-economic standing and all that other stuff that basically represents the environment in which you were raised. The racial abilities still haven’t changed even though there is now a really good place for “cultural racial abilities” to live. So, here’s where the oddity arises. An elf urchin will automatically be proficient with a longsword and longbow, two weapons that requires years of training to even become remotely talent with, but a human soldier does not get any automatic martial training. Obviously, in both cases, class will modify that. But in the life of your character, race happens first, then background, and only later on do you end up a member of a class. It’s very quirky.
Perhaps this is why Pathfinder decided to take a different approach to race by shifting to the term “ancestry”:
Beyond the narrative, there are many things that have changed, but mostly in the details of how the game works. You still pick a race, even though it is now called your ancestry. You still decide on your class—the rulebook includes all of the core classes from the First Edition Core Rulebook, plus the alchemist. You still select feats, but these now come from a greater variety of sources, such as your ancestry, your class, and your skills.
"Ancestry" is not just a replacement for the word “race.” It’s a fluid term that requires the player to make choices at character creation and as the character advances. This gives an opportunity to express human ethnicities in game terms, including half-elves and half-orcs, without forcing the “subrace” construct.

The Last Race

It seems likely that, from both a modern parlance and game design perspective, “race” as it is used today will fall out of favor in fantasy games. It’s just going to take time. Indigo Boock sums up the challenge:
Fantasy is a doubled edged sword. Every human culture has some form of fantasy, we all have some sort of immortal ethereal realm where our elven creatures dwell. There’s always this realm that transcends culture. Tolkien said, distinct from science fiction (which looks to the future), fantasy is to feel like one with the entire universe. Fantasy is real, deep human yearning. We look to it as escapism, whether we play D&D, or Skyrim, or you are like myself and write fantasy. There are unfortunately some old cultural tropes that need to be discarded, and it can be frustratingly slow to see those things phased out.
Here's hoping other role-playing games will follow Pathfinder's lead in how treats its fantasy people in future editions.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Michael Tresca

Michael Tresca

Gradine

The Elephant in the Room (she/her)
Do what you must, people hide behind the anonymity of the internet all the time. I have no way of validating his statements nor he mine. It's not a crime to be skeptical.

And I find myself increasingly skeptical of your reasons for your reasons for being skeptical of this specific individual. Especially given your cries of "reverse racism", and your condescending passive-aggressive tone, which as been pointed out are moves right out of the white supremacist playbook.

And perhaps you are just someone who simply distrusts everyone's experiences when they don't perfectly line up with their own worldview. There's a term for people like that, and it's not that much more flattering.

Regardless, don't fool yourself into thinking you've taken any kind of "high road". Regardless of your reasons, you have definitely descended into the low road here.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Gradine

The Elephant in the Room (she/her)
Did it?

It's trivial for a group of political activists to create a wide range of shill accounts to make it look like 1 person is 10 people, or 100 people, or 1000 people. It's also trivial to drive it with AI, especially on limited text platforms like Twitter, or to utilize bot networks to produce a scripted response that mimics thousands or tens of thousands of people.

It's also trivial to skew things to make herd mentality and group think turn to outrage. Purposefully leaving out information to make something meaningless sound outrageous for example. The average person isn't going to research something their cousin said on Facebook, they're going to believe it and post it for their 200 friends, who'll repeat the process without researching it. Leveraging that, you can outrage large groups of people who'll never take the 30 seconds to get the 2/3 of the story that was left out to make it sound like some heinous event.

So I'm not convinced that Social Media has done anything other than give ready examples of extreme forms of public manipulation by special interest groups and the psychology of manipulating large populations of people to produce desired output.

This is all true, and I didn't think of it in the moment. It's also true that internet echo chambers are not always the best things to subject oneself to.

Still, I'll argue that it's hard to discount the power of connecting large groups of people able to share their experiences across huge swaths of physical distance within moments.

I just think it's clear that that power has been leveraged more for ill than for good.
 

Brogga

First Post
Stop this silliness. This has no place in a roll playing game. Each table will play how they please. We don't need social justice police dictating how this game should read or play. Just stop it.
 

Andor

First Post
Wow. This slid downhill, although I suppose it was doomed to.

Here is my 2¢.

Race is a lousy term.

There is no better term.

Race in D&D sometimes means ethnicity, sometimes it means species, sometimes it means culture, sometimes it refers to supernatural qualities. It doesn't always mean quite the same thing from table to table, edition to edition, setting to setting.

In the end it refers to a set of specific mechanical changes to a character, with (maybe) some accompanying RP fluff baggage. It is a game term that has held roughly the same meaning for 40 years, I can't think of a different term that wouldn't have issues of its own.

And just because this thread made me think of it, this: View attachment 95958
 


jib916

Explorer
I don't see what the big deal is.

Paizo has the right idea. Ancestry leads to more options and customization. Humans can be more distinguished from there regions . Elfs can have many subtypes etc.

The fact people are making this a political thing is absolutely ridiculous.
 

Stop this silliness. This has no place in a roll playing game. Each table will play how they please. We don't need social justice police dictating how this game should read or play. Just stop it.
Nobody is dictating how the game should read or play. They are simply discussing the best words to describe things in a game. If we had a spell that seemed outmoded in anyway, would it really be an offence to change it to capture a different effect or description? It doesn't have to be political in intent, it's just a way of allowing the game to adapt and change. 'Race' (and 'Class'), to me, just seem a little loaded but more pertinently a little archaic as terms, regardless. This thread is merely a discussion of that point.

To me, the silliness is taking offence at something to the extent that you stop discussing ideas or thoughts - but isn't that what is happening when you say 'Just stop it'?
 

Mercule

Adventurer
Fair enough, if you make the further assumption that elves are some sort of inhuman alien species, rather than basically just humans with pointy ears.

Personally, I go with the assumption that the different races are all basically human, from the pragmatic perspective that all players are human and it would be nigh-impossible for a human to successfully role-play as a wholly alien fantastic species. If elves don't learn to use a bow through practice, then the elven brain is so far different from anything a human can pretend to be, that there's no point in even trying.
This may be the source of some of the issue. Personally, if an elf isn't essentially alien -- at least in some way -- then don't include them in the game. Dwarves aren't just short Scotsmen -- they're a completely different species of being that, despite appearance, has less biology in common with humans than a chimpanzee does. I'd actually like to do away with half-elves and half-orcs. They only make sense in a Tolkien-verse that holds the elves are magical enough to make it work and orcs are... well, actually, I'm not sure why orcs work.

Now, that doesn't mean that they should be wholly alien. They have to be playable. But, I specifically want to avoid "lithe, pretty humans with pointy ears". If nothing else, the extreme life-span should color who an elf is. The was an extremely good article on it in one of the old Dragon Magazines. I have it in a "Best of the Dragon" collection; volume 3, IIRC.
 

Brogga

First Post
Then the question is, would we have a thread 8 pages long if all we were discussing was a simple name change for a spell? No. In today's political environment, RACE IS HUGE. So much so, that companies who produce table top roll playing games have to sit down and have a serious conversation as to whether it is a good idea to use the work race in their game. Just silly. And the fact that anything political would have any influence on a game that I love and have played for over 30 years makes my head hurt. Seriously, just stop it.
 

Lylandra

Adventurer
I like Ancestry as an amalgamation of your type of humanoid (mh, we could call it that, couldn't we?) and your cultural background.

I always thought what was called "race" to be purely biological and so a "hatred for orcs" and "elven weapon proficiency" made no sense if your dwarf was raised by gnomes or your elf was raised by nymphs. Pathfinder already acknowledged that and allowed for different racial traits which you could choose at character creation.

Also, and this is a language thing, I am very reluctant to use the term "race" in my mother tongue as it is *always* a very problematic term. Unless you use it to describe different breeds of animals. Our versions of D&D and PF used the word "peoples" which is... not really correct as usually these guys don't share a common ancestry.

As a scientist, I would have used the term "species" for the biological part (as there was a book calles Savage Species which discussed "other PC races" and how to build them), even if they could all interbreed, because, let's be honest, we don't call outsiders or dragons "races" just because they can interbreed with humanoids (or animals or monsters). Cultural heritage or background would be the other part.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top