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

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.
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

Michael Tresca

Michael Tresca

Dannyalcatraz

Schmoderator
Staff member
Supporter
Wealthy blacks do fine. It is poor blacks who suffer more injustices. Then again, poor whites also suffer injustices.

Well, we suffer fewer inequities than those farther down the economic scale, yes. But wealth doesn’t insulate you from bigotry, personal or institutional.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Tanin Wulf

First Post
Oh... darn! I was hoping this was a real thing I had missed. Oh well. Thanks. :)

(EDIT: Response was to Obryn. Got lost a bit in the thread.)
 

Gradine

The Elephant in the Room (she/they)
Yep. At the risk of derailing this any further, but it has always bugged me when someone claims it is impossible for them to be racist or have racist thoughts simply because they are not white.

I'll point out that while I completely understand the reasoning behind this argument, and agree with it when using that specific definition of racism, the point that was trying to be made is largely washed out all of the arguments that it seems ludicrous to suggest that people of color can't be racist, or that white people can't be victims of racism, given the colloquial definition. And even the institutional inequity bit gets muddied when you start considering the efforts to counter-balance historical inequities (eg; affirmative action, or race- or gender-based writing competitions, to bring it back to RPGs) and how those are often viewed by the public.

Which goes to show that academics are really terrible at explaining the things they are trying to explain to non-academics. Partially because the things they're trying to explain are genuinely complex, but mostly because of how wedded to their jargon they can be. I consider myself a case in point, honestly.
 

The academic definition (by which I mean the academic definition in those fields dedicated to study of race, race relations, and racial inequity, advanced by those fields which, plainly, do have an agenda, that agenda being to study, confront, and reverse racial inequity) is useful because it moves the concerns centered around racism (and I'll start using racial inequity here, since that's a, perhaps, more accurate, or at least more clear, term) away from the individual actions of individual bad actors (ie; the prejudiced, or "racists") and towards looking at actual systems of racial oppression, which become apparent when you look at basically any and all data showing demonstrably worse outcomes for people of color, even when controlling for all factors besides race (here's one such recent study published in the Upshot, but that's a rabbit hole you can dive into all day long if you'd like).

To be clear, while my biases are clearly predicated towards academia, there is significant concern within grassroots, on-the-ground anti-racist movements that critical race academics don't focus enough on individual outcomes, and to be honest, they aren't wrong. So I think that the individual-based, colloquial definition is still quite useful as well, which is why I included it as well.
I'm not going to touch the broader debate except to mention for full disclosure that my sympathies lie a lot more with the individualist concerns of the grassroots movements. Perhaps you missed it, because my original post read "how is the academic definition useful?", but I realized my mistake and edited it to say "how is the academic definition useful here?"

Regardless, neither of those definitions come anywhere close to whatever the hell Celebrim's definition of "racist" is that caused him to a call a person of color "racist" for wanting to gauge people's background information in a conversation about race (which, because it seems like everyone missed it, culminated in a post that was largely, though not entirely, directed at the arguments I was making earlier in the thread, mind you).
To be honest, it seems like both of you are guilty of attributing nefarious motives to the other, and that's driving a lot of the frustration. Because, of course, once you see someone attributing nefarious motives to you, it's only natural to think they must have nefarious motives for doing so...
 

Gradine

The Elephant in the Room (she/they)
This is going way, way far afield - but Henry Louis Gates would probably beg to differ.

I've got this individual blocked, but that study I posted addressed directly the concerns he raises. When you control for economic status, black individuals still suffer significantly worse outcomes than white individuals of equal economic status.
 

Once of the brilliant aspects of 5e is how they have both managed to capture some of the old-school flavor of the game while at the same time modernizing it--both its mechanics and its flavor. That modernization has including making it a more inclusive game.
Well said.

A lot of the negative reaction to diversity efforts stems from the fact that they seem new and alien to the mainstream. And a lot of them are new and alien, aggressively so -- attacking the everyday with the language of academics and the fervor of revolutionaries. And that's always frustrating to me, because they don't have to be, and they're actively sabotaging their ultimate aims when they are. The real path to progress can be found in 5E's casual diversity, and Black Panther telling a universal coming-of-age story, and a Puerto Rican Alexander Hamilton rapping about the American dream on Broadway.
 

Gradine

The Elephant in the Room (she/they)
I'm not going to touch the broader debate except to mention for full disclosure that my sympathies lie a lot more with the individualist concerns of the grassroots movements. Perhaps you missed it, because my original post read "how is the academic definition useful?", but I realized my mistake and edited it to say "how is the academic definition useful here?"

That's a fair point. I suppose I was just trying to cover my bases?

To be honest, it seems like both of you are guilty of attributing nefarious motives to the other, and that's driving a lot of the frustration. Because, of course, once you see someone attributing nefarious motives to you, it's only natural to think they must have nefarious motives for doing so...

To be perfectly honest, I have a significant amount of respect for [MENTION=4937]Celebrim[/MENTION]; he's intelligent and logical and I genuinely get the sense that his heart is honestly in the right place. He's in fact said as much about me as well (well, the heart-in-the-right place bit, anyway, I'm not sure what he thinks about my intellectual or logical capacities at this point :p). I do have a tendency to let my heart get ahead of my head in discussions such as these, and get heated and say things which I kind of mean but which are unkind and unhelpful and usually apply to other people within the conversation, which tend to come out because I don't tend to reply to those individuals. Which is, I'll admit, pretty awful of me. These are all things I've been working on but clearly haven't mastered yet.

And I can also see how I do try to shoehorn in other subjects that I really feel are really relevant at the time but in hindsight are maybe... relevant-adjacent, I'll say. Relevant from my perspective, sure, but probably way more of interest to me than anyone else in the thread.

But no, I have no reason to assign any nefarious motives to him; I think his motives are pretty clearly for the good, which is more than I say about a lot of the people who've voiced their opinions in this and other threads on the topic. I think, perhaps, that is why I appear (and get, let's be real here) so frustrated; it's a lot easier to write off people who clearly have some biases to work out, at best, than it is someone who wants the same thing you do but has such different (in some ways, completely opposite) ideas about how to get there. And I think they're important conversations to have, even if they don't seem fruitful. I at least feel I get something valuable out of them, if nothing else.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Tonguez

A suffusion of yellow
"species" ?

Maybe but I would imagine it was used to describe animals, right ?
It doesnt sound appropriate for humanoid/sentient creatures.

Aristotle descibed Humans as the Rational Animal, so thats not really a problem.

(Aristotle also used Species as a philosophical subcategory of Genus so its not a great leap)
 

Which goes to show that academics are really terrible at explaining the things they are trying to explain to non-academics. Partially because the things they're trying to explain are genuinely complex, but mostly because of how wedded to their jargon they can be. I consider myself a case in point, honestly.
Oh, I feel you there. Maybe you've already noticed how I write, but I've got academicosis something awful.
 

Gradine

The Elephant in the Room (she/they)
Oh, I feel you there. Maybe you've already noticed how I write, but I've got academicosis something awful.

I was, many years ago (more than I'd like, less than I'd like to think), before I became a stuffy academic, a (hold your laugh) student activist. I feel like sometimes my writing on this board fully encapsulates the worst excesses of both of those points of view :p
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Related Articles

Remove ads

Latest threads

Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Upcoming Releases

Top