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]

...an acknowledged history of being insulting...

I really think you're overplaying your hand here. It's hard to see the term as being historically insulting when it has been and continues to be used as the neutral descriptor of the topic in everything from esoteric academia to the nightly news. Even the books you've been reading that deconstruct this whole thing are still about race theory. Yes, it's a sensitive topic, one under which a lot of people have been badly hurt. But so is "class", "gender", and "religion", and all those terms are on the D&D character sheet uneuphemized.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Species sound too scientific, too impersonal, too dehumanising. Whereas Race still retains the element of humane and personhood.

The word itself goes back at least to the 1500s, which puts it well within the possible lexicon of the people in a typical FRPG.

 

[james501]

The word itself goes back at least to the 1500s, which puts it well within the possible lexicon of the people in a typical FRPG.

"species" ?

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

 

[Evenglare]

Step 1: Examine the suggestion.
Step 2: Decide if the suggestion is simply change for change sake.
Step 3: If yes, garbage. If No, Enjoy!

 

[TheCosmicKid]

The word itself goes back at least to the 1500s, which puts it well within the possible lexicon of the people in a typical FRPG.

Regardless of its origins, it's been hanging out with scientists for long enough for that clinical stench to seep into its pores.

(Setting aside the question of how and why people in a typical FRPG are speaking English of any vintage...)

 

[Shasarak]

Race is a problematic term, that isn’t accurate and we’ve known is inaccurate for a century. People don’t fit into those categories.

If we have known that Race is a problematic term, that is not accurate for a century then I guess a game that is less then a century old would not have used that term.

 

[james501]

The funny thing I noticed is, the suggestions to use "nation,ancestry,origin,people etc" are actually kinda worse.

With "race" you can at least argue that is slowly being phased out of our culture/perception and everyday language and will eventually be relegated to an antiquated word to describe humans. At which point it really isnt weird for fantasy to continue using it.

Whereas using terms like nation that are still very real, very common and more important identity factors for most people, to describe non-human creatures on the basis of biological difference is more inapropriate.

 

[Shasarak]

Edit... aaaaand isn't your post implying that the OP is somehow "in league" with the website?

I thought that the OP was commisioned by the website owner to write articles.

 

[Aldarc]

Political correctness and respect are far flung concepts. And by the way, you aren't given respect, you earn it.

Too bad you often have to work harder to earn basic human respect if you belong to a marginalized group.

And I'm rather disturbed by the people who tout the advantage of "Ancestry" in that it would allow us to have a racial template for different ethnic groups. That just weirds me out to be honest, especially because the proponents of that are all on about how they aren't the racists ones, it's everyone else. Like really, you want have "Mwangi" or "Keleshite" when you choose your race? That sounds like a dumpster fire waiting to happen. So, I guess I like 'People' better than 'Ancestry' despite the awkwardness of the term, just because it helps kill that as an idea.

Of course one safe way to work around that is to not lean so heavily on thinly-disguised real life ethnicities, peoples, and cultures as world-building shorthand when creating worlds. Compare the possible human ancestries of Golarion, for example, with what you would encounter in Eberron with "Brelish," "Karnnathi," "Thranic," or one of the cultures on Sarlona.

Though I do not think that any given term for the design space that "race" currently occupies is perfect, it's growing increasingly clear that the gaming industry - which has long recognized this as a problem - finally has even intra-cultural traction to begin exploring alternative terms with more positive than negative feedback.

I kind of already have that now, in a way.

Taking the idea of half-elves and half-orcs to its logical (if perhaps a bit ridiculous) conclusion, a long time ago I made up a chart of what, in a typical fantasy setting, could in theory breed with what; using the MM, MM2, FF, the "kindred races", and some ideas of my own as fodder. The game already had some of this built in - Giants could breed with Trolls, for example, to create the Giant Troll; and Centaur-Human action is a part of standard Greek mythology - I just wanted to see how far it could go:

I have done something similar. I vaguely recall, for example, having four major groups of humanoids: fey-kin, giant-kin, goblin-kin, and saurian-kin. Elves, "half-elves" (which was a misnomer), and gnomes were fey-kin. Humans (and tieflings), goliaths, orcs, "half-orcs" (also a misnomer), and dwarves were giant-kin. And goblins, hobgoblins, bugbears, and halflings! were goblin-kin. (Halflings were simply a variety of goblins with better PR.) I don't know if I would go with this division in other homebrews, but I still love the idea of halflings being far more closely related to goblins than humans.

Just on a slightly irreverent tangent: where do Half Elves actually inherit their +2 Charisma from? Elves don't get it (Dark Elves only get a +1) and Humans don't have it either. So why do Half Elves?

I don't think it's as simple as half-elves should get half the attributes of either. It could be that a human/elf pairing or half-elf/half-elf pairing results in the phenotypical expression equivalent of a +2 Charisma that is not naturally found in either elves or humans. This sort of thing is known to happen in animals.

 

[Shasarak]

"and to debate the mechanical implications of removing racial packages from the game."

I don't think that's been explored, actually. If we eliminate race, should we also eliminate the elements that make the races different? Should Darkvision, Stonecunning, Trance (or "Keebler Coma" as my group calls it) and all the rest be available to every character in a mix-and-match fashion?

Is the very concept of biological differentiation - not just the terminology - an undesirable relic?

I am sure that the answer to that question must lie within the Canadian Census.