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.

 

[the_redbeard]

When we use the term "race" in our games, isn't that a reminder?

No.

It's the same word. How would that not be a reminder?

And even if I thought it was, I don't think you can preserve the actual ideas and make any sort of meaningful change by just replacing a word.

Race as currently used in fantasy RPGs is used to represent distinct biological lifeforms with functional differences from each other.
Race in historical terms (which is the origin of the term in fantasy RPGs, from tolkein) was used to divide human people (who are functionally equivalent) into lesser and more superior groups.
Race in modern terms is a social construct, as an identity, and still used by some as a means to stereotype, degrade and oppress.

The actual idea of race was used to create and invent difference where there wasn't any. The actual idea of race in fantasy rpgs is present in-game functional differences.

Those are two very different concepts. Can you see that for clarity we should use a different word?

Or, in the words of the proponent of this theory, "You still choose a race, only it's called an ancestry." Leaving aside the silliness of thinking that a pointer to something is in itself problematic when the idea it represents isn't and is by their own admission basically unchanged, the act of dumbing down the language like that is threatening to the ability of society to think clearly. The last thing we need is more of this Gleichshaltung and EngSoc manipulation of the language to prevent badwrongthink.

I'm advocating nothing of the sort. If we were writing something about the history of eugenics, then we most certainly should use the term 'race' to describe the now disproven ideas of eugenics.

It's not a barrier.

I'll go out on a limb here and say that your assertion is just like a an able bodied person saying that stairs aren't a barrier to someone with crutches. How would you know?

If you think the word "race" is in and of itself derogatory and problematic, I just have no words.

Oh, come on. You know the history of the word. You know the how the meaning of the word as used in RPGs is different than how it is used in the rest of society. Why wouldn't we want to use a different word?

But even if I conceded it was problematic, then it would be problematic not as a pointer but because of the idea it pointed to. So if it really was problematic, just changing the word out wouldn't help.

The idea being presented (imaginary groupings of beings with functional differences) is a different idea (actual human beings with imagined differences). So let's not use the wrong word for the wrong thing.

I mean, among the things that really bothers me about this is that the people pushing for "ancestry" actually are making it part of there justification that once you did that, then it would be just peachy keen to mechanically divide humanity into different races.

No, what I see is people advocating for separating bonuses between creature type (origin, people, ancestry, "nature") and background (culture, training, life path, "nurture"). So you could have humans (same creature type, same stats) with different background packages (plains, sea-farers, etc.)

LOL. Oh dear. So you are going to argue that "race" as a word is actually equivalent to gender-based ability score caps, but you aren't actually even slightly concerned about the fact that multiple posters in this thread are using this term shift as a cover for bringing actual mechanical race based packages to the hobby,

If I saw that, I would argue against it.


Meanwhile, up-thread someone posted testimony from someone who moved to a position of white supremacy because of the use of racial divisions in DnD. I'll edit this post to show the link when I find it again.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Blood.

Blood is the word everyone is grasping for. We are talking about something to define "genetics" in a non-anachronistic sounding way.

The word "Ancestry" is almost already a dogwhistle for the word "Race" right now anyway.

I'd say "blood" has more troubling dogwhistley connotations than "race" or "ancestry". The word is used a lot by... well, by precisely the sort of people and ideologies that we're supposedly trying to steer the game away from.

It also has the same problem as "ancestry" in that it's just not quite the right word. In natural English, it sounds weird to say that Legolas has "elvish blood" or "elvish ancestry" when he's actually an elf.

 

[TrippyHippy]

Personally, I cannot see how 'Ancestry' has any dogwhistle component at all.

 

[the_redbeard]

Personally, I cannot see how 'Ancestry' has any dogwhistle component at all.

Ancestry was used by the upper classes of Europe to justify their power over the lower classes; 'good breeding'. They're just descendants of barbarian chiefs and bandit lords, and inherited what their ancestors took by theft and murder. So they tried to dress it up with theories that justified their position.


Other terms more fantasy appropriate:

Peoples (it's actually what I wrote in my house rules document, 2015)
Kin (suggested in this thread, I like it too)
Folk (suggested in this thread, not bad either)
Type


Getting more monster manual-ish: Creature type

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Race as currently used in fantasy RPGs is used to represent distinct biological lifeforms with functional differences from each other.
Race in historical terms (which is the origin of the term in fantasy RPGs, from tolkein) was used to divide human people (who are functionally equivalent) into lesser and more superior groups.
Race in modern terms is a social construct, as an identity, and still used by some as a means to stereotype, degrade and oppress.

The actual idea of race was used to create and invent difference where there wasn't any. The actual idea of race in fantasy rpgs is present in-game functional differences.

Those are two very different concepts. Can you see that for clarity we should use a different word?

Firstly, clarity can be adequately provided by context. If I'm talking about my computer with you and mention my "mouse", there is no serious risk of confusion, even though I can walk into a pet store and use the word "mouse" to mean something entirely different. So mere homonymy is poor grounds for making a terminology change.

Secondly, what you're saying can interpreted to mean that real life and D&D are using "race" to refer to the same concept, that of groups of people with functional differences, but real life is erroneous in its application and D&D is not. Much as if someone who believed that that David Copperfield performs real "magic" would be mistaken, but "magic" is very real in the D&D universe.

And thirdly, the argument you make against the term "race" applies equally well to the other contenders I've seen in this thread -- certainly it does to "ancestry", which means something very different than "distinct biological lifeforms with functional differences from each other". It seems like you're aiming for a term like "species", but that doesn't quite hit the nail on the head either: biologically speaking, it is unlikely that elves and humans, who are very similar and can interbreed, are separate species. But a common biological term for a division of that sort below the species level is... "race". (EDIT: Written before your post immediately above. Yeah, "people", "kin", and "folk" all have this problem. "Type" is just too vague.)

No, what I see is people advocating for separating bonuses between creature type (origin, people, ancestry, "nature") and background (culture, training, life path, "nurture"). So you could have humans (same creature type, same stats) with different background packages (plains, sea-farers, etc.)

That seems reasonable. The OP is absolutely right that the difference between an elf urchin and a human soldier in 5E is weird, and that a sharper distinction between nature and nurture is in order. But I think "race" and "background" are perfectly fine terms for that distinction.

 

[Afrodyte]

Other terms more fantasy appropriate:

Peoples (it's actually what I wrote in my house rules document, 2015)
Kin (suggested in this thread, I like it too)
Folk (suggested in this thread, not bad either)
Type

This sounds very similar to some things I remember from World of Darkness. Like, in Changeling: The Lost, the different types of changelings are called kiths, and they are even more different from each than elves and dwarves and halflings. It'd be pretty easy to import something similar into D&D. I'm fond of Folk and Kin myself, though.

 

[TrippyHippy]

Ancestry was used by the upper classes of Europe to justify their power over the lower classes; 'good breeding'. They're just descendants of barbarian chiefs and bandit lords, and inherited what their ancestors took by theft and murder. So they tried to dress it up with theories that justified their position.

Hold on. You're committing a fallacy of definition here insofar that you are criticising 'ancestry' by inserting and conflating it as being the same as 'good breeding' and then attacking this new term. I have 'ancestry' as do you - but that doesn't qualify the term as having any value placed upon it. Having 'ancestors' is a universal thing - which suggests nothing about social class or the value of one's breeding whatsoever.

The problem with the term 'Race' on the other hand, is that - by definition - you are asserting a pseudo-scientific term that has, historically, ascribed value and worth in an oppressive way.

 

[the_redbeard]

Firstly, clarity can be adequately provided by context. If I'm talking about my computer with you and mention my "mouse", there is no serious risk of confusion, even though I can walk into a pet store and use the word "mouse" to mean something entirely different. So mere homonymy is poor grounds for making a terminology change.

The context makes that one very easy to tell the difference. (Though I have fond memories of juvenile hilarity in deliberately taking mouse out of context in regards to mechanical mice that used balls.)

Secondly, what you're saying can interpreted to mean that real life and D&D are using "race" to refer to the same concept, that of groups of people with functional differences, but real life is erroneous in its application and D&D is not. Much as if someone who believed that that David Copperfield performs real "magic" would be mistaken, but "magic" is very real in the D&D universe.

I don't think that's an argument to use it. Because while it is "true" in the imagined world, it is false in the real. So it is using the same word for a false (and insulting) concept on one hand and an imagined true concept on the other.

Worse, there are people in the real world who imagine the false to be true.

Why would we want to be associated with that?

I'm not saying we shouldn't play old games that use the term. But if we're going to be making new games, shouldn't avoid the connotation?

We've had at least a few posters that didn't like the association. Why wouldn't we try to make rpgs more inclusive?

We also have a link (gah - somewhere in those 20 pages) of some Stormfront poster that said they came to their white supremacist realization through the racial differences as presented in D&D. Now, obviously that Stormfront poster had some problems and I wouldn't blame D&D for people that thought their katana could cut through a police car.
Edit. I couldn't find it in this thread because it wasn't here, but where this was being discussed elsewhere. Link below.

We've got other terms we can use.

And thirdly, the argument you make against the term "race" applies equally well to the other contenders I've seen in this thread -- certainly it does to "ancestry", which means something very different than "distinct biological lifeforms with functional differences from each other". It seems like you're aiming for a term like "species", but that doesn't quite hit the nail on the head either: biologically speaking, it is unlikely that elves and humans, who are very similar and can interbreed, are separate species. But a common biological term for a division of that sort below the species level is... "race". (EDIT: Written before your post immediately above. Yeah, "people", "kin", and "folk" all have this problem. "Type" is just too vague.)

I agree that 'type' is vague. I was reaching. What I'm not doing is critiquing without offering alternatives.

"People", "kin" don't have near the baggage of usage that "race" does. Certainly not now and not in what I've read of the history of race theory (theory of race as a social construct). I'm not a sociologist or a historian, but I have read more than a couple of books of the history of racism as an activist.

Link of a racist using D&D's use of the term "race" to rationalize their racism:

While doing research for this talk, I came across the Stormfront web-site. For those of you who are unfamiliar with this vile-corner of the internet, it is the world’s largest discussion forum for white-supremacists. One of the most popular topics is “Culture and Customs,” with one of the most active forums being “High Fantasy and Lord of the Rings.” …Others yield such laughably offensive as the thread: “Drizzt Do’Urden fans, do you find the books blatantly pro-Negro?”

…I came across “Learn All You Need to Know About Race from Dungeons & Dragons,” posted by Holy Roman Empire. I quote here liberally…

“I completely understood how there could be smart blacks and yet blacks be less intelligent than whites as a whole when I was a child. When was the first time I thought about an idea like that? When I got into Dungeons and Dragons at the age of nine or ten. I knew that elves were more agile than humans. I knew that because they had a +1 bonus (back when I started playing, now its +2) to Dexterity…

“And this point may seem a bit silly, but it introduces an important idea that most white people are conditioned not to believe in – racial essentialism…

“D&D also has a lot about racial loyalty. Elves band together in protection of their forests…

“…I think that some of those ideas I was exposed to as a child were good lessons that maybe helped me come to terms with ideas that are part of being a White Nationalist.”

 

[the_redbeard]

Hold on. You're committing a fallacy of definition here insofar that you are criticising 'ancestry' by inserting and conflating it as being the same as 'good breeding' and then attacking this new term. I have 'ancestry' as do you - but that doesn't qualify the term as having any value placed upon it. Having 'ancestors' is a universal thing - which suggests nothing about social class whatsoever.

The problem with the term 'Race' on the other hand, is that - by definition - you are asserting a pseudo-scientific term that has, historically, ascribed value and worth in an oppressive way.

My semicolon was meant as an elaboration. I would agree that 'ancestry' is not as bad as race in its modern connotations, but it most certainly does have historical baggage in that some "ancestry" was deemed superior than others and was codified by law. I don't disagree that it is an improvement over race due to modern usage.

 

[Maxperson]

Race as currently used in fantasy RPGs is used to represent distinct biological lifeforms with functional differences from each other.

Bingo.

Race in historical terms (which is the origin of the term in fantasy RPGs, from tolkein) was used to divide human people (who are functionally equivalent) into lesser and more superior groups.

The origin is irrelevant. All that matters is how it is used in RPGs, which is the above.

Race in modern terms is a social construct, as an identity, and still used by some as a means to stereotype, degrade and oppress.

Even less relevant. This has absolutely nothing to do with RPGs and how race is used.

The actual idea of race was used to create and invent difference where there wasn't any.

So what. This has nothing to do with RPGs.

The actual idea of race in fantasy rpgs is present in-game functional differences.

Called race. Yes.

Those are two very different concepts. Can you see that for clarity we should use a different word?

No. There is no need for clarity that doesn't actually clarify anything. Every single one of your examples that doesn't pertain to RPGs, causes no lack of clarity since they do not pertain to RPGs. We don't need to change a word that is already clearly defined and used in RPGs.