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

james501

First Post
This depends heavily on local custom and how rude you want to be. Likewise asking someone "What race are you?"

I refer to the English terms specifically, not any possible language in the world.
In all my life I have never heard a native English speaker, when asking for ethnic idenity, asking "what people are you?"
In my language as well, it would sound wrong.

Asking someone what "Race" they are would be redundant since most times it is obvious. You dont mistake an orc for a human or a dragonborn for an elf.

But it makes more sense in the case :

-"Aye, your companion that will join us shortly, what race is he/she?"
-"My race can breath underwater"
-" the dwarven race were created out of stone"
-"the dragon race were given the task of protecting the world by the Titans"
-"the night elven race descend from Dark Trolls" (last 3 from warcraft)

than using "heritage/origin/descent"
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
Then how do you explain the change in Pathfinder? If it is of absolutely no issue, then, why is the #2 game changing it and why have a number of other RPG's changed it as well?

The diseases of political correctness spreads. People are absolutely terrified of the few extremists in the vocal minority.

And, frankly [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION], how is it possible to have a conversation with you when you absolutely refuse to acknowledge the other side's point? Whether you agree or not, fair enough. But, you're starting the conversation with "anyone who complains about this is such a tiny minority who shouldn't even be acknowledged". That makes it pretty hard to have any sort of conversation.

You don't converse with extremists on either the right or the left. There's no point.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
If it wasn't an issue, then why is there more than 500 posts on the matter on this thread alone? Stop conflating your individual opinion as some sort of majority accepted truth. And stop taking offence that people may want to discuss change, regardless of your individual opinion.

Why? Some people like to try and persuade extremists. It's a wasted effort, but they do it anyway. And speaking of stopping, stop trying to tell me what to do.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
For me that is conflating commercial success with quality of design. 4th was a good game. It did not sell well.

Good design does not equate to a good game. You can have a game that is well designed, but if it isn't fun, it's a crappy game. 4e falls into that category. Conversely, a game that doesn't have the best design quality that is tons of fun is a good game. 1e and 2e fall into that category.
 

Why? Some people like to try and persuade extremists. It's a wasted effort, but they do it anyway. And speaking of stopping, stop trying to tell me what to do.
I think you've spent an inordinate amount of time on this thread telling others what they should be doing or not doing. What makes you think that you aren't the extremist?
 

LazarusKane

Explorer
You don't converse with extremists on either the right or the left. There's no point.

1.) I think you are wrong - there is always a point in conversation.

2.) But if you don´t want to converse and don´t see the point then please stop. We read your opinion, you done your deed. Maybe it´s better if you keep reading and stop posting?:erm:
 

Celebrim

Legend
This dumpster fire seems to be burning down, so a few closing observations.

1) Regardless of the definition of the word, most of the suggestions fail a test of pragmatism. As soon as you try to actually use the euphemism in lengthy rules passage, the awkwardness of it is revealed. Try using 'kind' or 'type' or 'people' and you'll see what I mean ("I have a people bonus... I'm taking the people feat...") I still think Paizo's use of 'ancestry' is about the best of a bad bunch. Not only is it a near synonym for race, but it has a suitable set of word forms like 'ancestral' and 'ancestor' that will make it sound less awkward in a lengthy passage discussing race. If Paizo can write it in a way that it doesn't sound awkward, and doesn't harm the idea that humanity is of a single race, and doesn't end up resulting in a bunch of cultural essentialism as you choose your ancestry from different pastiche ethnic groups ('the Nord', 'the Oriental', 'the Arab', 'the Inuit', etc.) then as I said at the beginning, it's no big deal but it also doesn't actually gain you much of anything. At best, I already feel it's a bit silly, as they unveil their first "ancestry", and it's a goblin. Just a goblin. Not a 1/4 blooded goblin elf, or a human with a goblin great-great-grandmother or anything of the sort, but just a goblin that is a goblin with no discernible trace of any other ancestry and pretty much is just a goblin. The mechanics are largely conventional for a RPG racial package. So yeah, what they are basically explicitly saying is, "It's a character of the goblin ancestry, and by ancestry I of course mean race. *wink* *wink*" And yes, they are actually saying things like that, one of which is quoted by the OP. If someone says, "What ancestry is your character?", the expectation is going to be "Goblin" and not, "Well, you know ancestry is an artificial social construct. My character could have ancestors from many different cultural groups, and there is fundamentally more variation within a group than between groups." Write that on your character sheet. Costless. Pointless. Highly visible. You do the math.

2) It's been a long standing rule of the internet, than in any discourse you can tell who the racists are by the insistence that they have in learning the skin color or race or ethnicity of everyone in the conversation. This is because racists are so obsessed with racial identity that they literally cannot process a conversation without having skin color as a marker, and without it they feel discomforted. That played out again in this conversation, and I'm sure the next time we have a topic of this sort the usual suspects will once again clamor to know everyone's skin color again.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
I think you've spent an inordinate amount of time on this thread telling others what they should be doing or not doing. What makes you think that you aren't the extremist?

Because stepping up to someone who is acting in an extreme capacity does not make you an extremist.
 

Mercule

Adventurer
I cannot understate how influential Eberron has been to me as a setting. The Khoravar as a self-breeding population with its own distinct set of cultures as opposed to the usual individualized human-elf tragic backstories was a HUGE step forward in my appreciation of half-elves in D&D. In many of my homebrew settings, I have take a cue from Eberron's Khoravar or have designed my own PC half-elf in the same vein.
I absolutely love Eberron. It's the only published setting that I'm actively interested in running. Greyhawk made a great "fallback" for one-shots or when I didn't want baggage from my own home brew. Ravenloft was wonderful for looting, because I've always loved Gothic horror elements and undead. But Eberron is cool as just Eberron and I'd run it just as eagerly as a home brew setting.

That said, there are some elements that I'd prefer to leave in Eberron. I definitely don't want Warforged anywhere else (they're my least-favorite aspect of the setting). And, I'm not sure how I'd do either Dragonmarks or true-breeding half-elves without it feeling derivative in my own head.

(Not knocking, just giving my own concerns in looting.)
 

Mercule

Adventurer
Exactly. That is my interest too.

The original article reminded me, Basic D&D had no distinction between between class and race. You could choose to be either a magic-user or an elf. The same design space was used for both.

There are implications for contemporary D&D. For example, say there is no ‘race’. Characters instead have a choice of three or feats.

Some feats might be ‘origin feats’. So for example, if you choose a feat that grants you Misty Step per rest, it means you are fully or partly an elf. But an other character might use this feat to be a more mobile Rogue. Or whatever.
Fate. Aspects as permission.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Recent & Upcoming Releases

Top