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. 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.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

So, ignorance makes it okay? If he didn't know this (and, he certainly didn't mean it that way) then it's the other folk's fault for taking offense? I disagree.

I thought I was sufficiently clear in saying that it's not the other folk's fault. Their interpretation is reasonable given the context. If the Newfoundlander is truly ignorant, then it's nobody's fault, just one of those unfortunate cultural misunderstandings. In theory, if you had to assign blame, you could say the onus is on him as a visitor to understand the culture and dialect of the place he's visiting, and thus he has committed a sin of negligence as it were.

But I think the situation changes rather dramatically if a Detroiter were to go to Newfoundland and say, "You all should stop using 'boy' in your dialect".

 

[TheCosmicKid]

We in this thread may know/believe the designers aren’t racists. But someone new to the game or hobby won’t necessarily be able to figure that out. At least, not before having their initial gut reaction. By then, the damage may have already been done. Perhaps too much to overcome.

What does this hypothetical person think about critical race theory? Or news reports on race relations? Or the US Civil Rights Act declaring race a protected class?

I'm sorry, but given how widespread the use of the term "race" is outside of racist theories, I have a hard time buying "this writer uses 'race', so they're racist" as a reasonable reaction. In sharp contrast to a black man's reaction to being addressed as "boy" by a white southerner, because that can really only mean one thing.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

When people whose culture has used a symbol for generations, are willing to drop that symbol, *because of how it's been used, elsewhere* in the previous decade, that raises the bar for my willingness to drop Gygax's terminology. If the 45th can let go of the one, then I can give up on the other.

You have very persuasively argued that WotC should immediately cease to print the swastika symbol in all their books.

But then you just sort of waved your hands and said, "the word 'race' is like that". When it... isn't.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

What does this hypothetical person think about critical race theory? Or news reports on race relations? Or the US Civil Rights Act declaring race a protected class?

I'm sorry, but given how widespread the use of the term "race" is outside of racist theories, I have a hard time buying "this writer uses 'race', so they're racist" as a reasonable reaction. In sharp contrast to a black man's reaction to being addressed as "boy" by a white southerner, because that can really only mean one thing.

Do Native Americans offended by the name of Washington’s NFL team need to accept that there are also potatoes called redskins? Was the term originally translated from native tongues to English? Does either fact mean they shouldn’t be offended?

“Race” has a very shady history that has been somewhat sanitized and rehabilitated. Far better than the attempted normalization of the “N-word”.

But while the obviously problematic passages in D&D have mostly been eradicated, some of the the context still exists. Half Elves generally get positive press, but it is noted that they still face societal stumbling blocks. The other major sentient species, in contrast, get fuller, broader treatment.

But Half-orcs and the Orcish half of their ancestry are not described in positive ways...almost ever. Is it coincidental that their attribute adjustments- bonuses to strength, deficits to intelligence and charisma map neatly with old descriptions of Africans and American slaves? Probably, but that doesn’t make it any less problematic. And why did the first evil elves havevto be black?

That the context still exists unchanged in conjunction with the term with the checkered past just plays right into the dreams of racists and nightmares of minorities.

Again, most veteran gamers get it: there was no (known) racist intent. New blood? Maybe it isn’t so obvious.

 

[Aldarc]

What does this hypothetical person think about critical race theory? Or news reports on race relations? Or the US Civil Rights Act declaring race a protected class?

Regardless of whether "god" exists or not, we use the term "theology" for discussing the langue and parole humans use about "god." Chicago University, Oxford, and a number of other schools have Oriental Institutes. That doesn't make their use of the term "orient" or "oriental" appropriate. And the term does make a number of their professors and students squeamish. Its largely preserved because of the longevity of "tradition," its use in publications, and financial backing by donors.

Likewise "race" exists in so far as society must continually grapple with how this social construct continues to be treated as meaningfully real and as long as this concept negatively impacts the lives of other. If we deem our fellow people as belonging to different "races," then people of all "races" must be protected as equal regardless of any supposed legitimacy of the division. Ideally, the term "race" would not be needed at all. But our society continues to discriminate others on the basis of "race," so even if "race" does not exist outside of its social construction, there are people for whom are negatively (and also positively) affected by constructions of "race." So in that regard, the Civil Rights Act seeks to protect "race" as a class. Do you honestly think that critical race theory or the US Civil Rights Act are seeking to preserve the use of the term "race" in society, much less in D&D? Do you think that D&D's use of "race" is equally as magnanimous in its use of the term "race" as Critical Race Studies or the US Civil Rights Act?

I'm sorry, but given how widespread the use of the term "race" is outside of racist theories, I have a hard time buying "this writer uses 'race', so they're racist" as a reasonable reaction. In sharp contrast to a black man's reaction to being addressed as "boy" by a white southerner, because that can really only mean one thing.

Probably because its your strawman reaction.

 

[Riley37]

(video on racism)

As humor, it's quite well done. As commentary, I must disagree with the assertion that no one benefits from racism. White plantation owners in the 1840s, for example, made profits hand over fist, using methods which relied on racism. Enumerating the contemporary aspects is beyond the scope of this thread; those interested can research elsewhere.

 

[pemerton]

I'm sorry, but given how widespread the use of the term "race" is outside of racist theories, I have a hard time buying "this writer uses 'race', so they're racist" as a reasonable reaction.

We in this thread may know/believe the designers aren’t racists. But someone new to the game or hobby won’t necessarily be able to figure that out. At least, not before having their initial gut reaction. By then, the damage may have already been done. Perhaps too much to overcome.

Just to say a little more about my own view: I don't know, and don't really care, if the authors a racist or not. I'm not interested in their morals; my interest is in the cultural artefacts - the books, pictures etc - that they produce.

Those books currently ask players, in the course of building a character, to choose a race. And it is clear that the choice of race isn't primarily to locate the character within a social structure - this isn't sociology of race: the RPG. The point of that choice is to establish a total (essential, if you like) package that establishes, all at once, biology, heredity, culture, capabilities and (elements of) worth. This is not a use of race that falls "outside" of racist theories; it's a use that emulates those theories.

It doesn't mitigate the emulation to say "But in the gameworld all that's true, so the use is accurate". That's just doubling down on the emulation!

the problematic elements [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] was identifying were not language based. Change the word "race" in Howard's or Gygax's writing, and it doesn't get any better.

But take away the word "race" and you at least loose the conceptual pressure towards the current features that I identified. As I posted upthread,

there are ways of loosening this connection between "species" and capability, and also of loosening the connection between "species" and culture. I think changing the way the rulebooks talk about "race" might be one part of such a loosening. While the language of "race" is retained, I don't think it is going to happen.

EDIT: I think this is an instance of [MENTION=6786839]Riley37[/MENTION]'s point about necessity and sufficiency.

 

[Lanefan]

... even though Pedant is my primary class. Most of my skill points are in Pedant-related skills, but it's just my class, not my *origin*.

It's not? Are you sure you're not descended from Pedants whose lineage can be traced back to Roman times?

Lan-"I jest, of course"-efan

 

[Riley37]

...shame them into a corner. That's pretty much how society works.

There's a theory in which some culture rely more on guilt, and other cultures rely more on shame. That's beyond the scope of this thread, so check it out elsewhere if you're interested. Also, how that process plays out face-to-face, versus online, is not quite the same in my experience.

"Are the current creators truly ignorant of the subject?" and "If they are not, how do we deal with that?" and "If they are, how can we help them change?" and "What do we do if they are not ignorant, and refuse to change?"

In the 5E PHB, the Paladin illustration is clearly a half-orc. A half-orc who cannot even pass for human, who is also a paladin, is an implicit rejection of old-school racial superiority. In 1E, that was flat-out against the rules; that particular half-orc would not be a PC of *any* class, and even the "superior 10%" (or "Talented Tenth") of half-orcs could not be paladins. So over the long term, I see change. I see it as change for the better. For others, it's change for the worse. I'm confident that game designer Theodore Beale, for example, would disapprove. It's a controversial topic. (Rygar, you wanna throw in your $.02 on that illustration, PHB p.82? Not to exclude MaxPerson, TheCosmicKid, Myrdin Potter, LordNightwinter or other fine people on both sides.)

As for tieflings: "To be greeted with stares and whispers, to suffer violence and insult on the street, to see mistrust and fear in every eye: this is the lot of the tieflings. And to twist the knife..."

Yeah, that description rings a bell, if you know what I mean, with real-world race-related experiences. Whoever wrote *that* passage was not ignorant, nor turning a blind eye.

 

[Aldarc]

Those books currently ask players, in the course of building a character, to choose a race. And it is clear that the choice of race isn't primarily to locate the character within a social structure - this isn't sociology of race: the RPG. The point of that choice is to establish a total (essential, if you like) package that establishes, all at once, biology, heredity, culture, capabilities and (elements of) worth. This is not a use of race that falls "outside" of racist theories; it's a use that emulates those theories.

It doesn't mitigate the emulation to say "But in the gameworld all that's true, so the use is accurate". That's just doubling down on the emulation!

But take away the word "race" and you at least loose the conceptual pressure towards the current features that I identified.

Agreed. Things you are likely to hear in both the context of D&D and racist discourse: "Some races are more intelligent or stronger than others." And that's the thing about "race" in D&D. It's presented as real biological and cultural differences between sentient humanoids that quantifies their abilities.