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.

 

[james501]

They can be peoples (as in "free peoples" in LotR). Kin was suggested upthread. Ancestry also seems harmless enough.

"People" wouldnt really work. Just imagine it in real life context where the word is also used.
You have "Irish people" and "Irish nation/ethnic group".

When asking someone for his ethnic identity would you say "what people are you" or "what ethnicity/nationality are you" ?


"Kin" might work. It is uncommon enough that people could adjust to it.

For me, it's not "some people may not like it". As I posted upthread, I have RPG books that I wouldn't want my children to read, because of what those books convey about human identity, status etc.

The reason I don't care about demons and magics in my book is because I think they're fantasies. Whereas reactionary views about human identity are real things that matter to me, my family and my friends.

I know the issue can be deeper than simply "not like it". That is why I gave more egregious examples.

Religions/gods/magic are all important parts in fantasy.
But there are possibly people who have suffered abuse in real life because of religion or magical superstitions.

And they might not enjoy those things beyond simply "not liking them".

 

[Celebrim]

I get the intent and agree with it. There's extremism on both sides (and extremism is generally bad in all situations) but the *general intent* of things labelled as "politically correct" is to be nice to people and try not to upset them.

I fundamentally disagree. But the history and motives of the movement are not something that can be discussed here.

(Plus, the quote was written, what, 5 years ago? There's a chance that modern things dismissed as being "politically correct" are not what he was referring to.)

Sweet mother of Lincoln, that is such an important claim. That's a breakthrough sort of statement. You just hit on one of the huge points that completely undermine Gaimen's claim that it is just about being respectful to others and being nice. I mean, you just literally rendered the claim false on its face.

 

[jasper]

The post I was replying to was mocking Neil Gaiman as an unknown. I was countering that he's not only known, it's hard to be more well known without being Stephen King to Tom Clancy...

.....

Was not mocking. I have read King and Clancy so they are KNOWN TO JASPER. Gaiman is NOT KNOWN TO JASPER. This is a great example on 'HOW FREAKING HUGE THE POPULATION OF D&DERS ARE" that you may know of an author and other people in the thread may have never heard of him. Repeat after me.
D&DERS ENJOY PLAYING D&D. THAT MAYBE THE ONLY CONTACT POINT THEY HAVE WITH OTHER D&DERS.
D&DERS ENJOY PLAYING D&D. THAT MAYBE THE ONLY CONTACT POINT THEY HAVE WITH OTHER D&DERS.
D&DERS ENJOY PLAYING D&D. THAT MAYBE THE ONLY CONTACT POINT THEY HAVE WITH OTHER D&DERS.
D&DERS ENJOY PLAYING D&D. THAT MAYBE THE ONLY CONTACT POINT THEY HAVE WITH OTHER D&DERS.
D&DERS ENJOY PLAYING D&D. THAT MAYBE THE ONLY CONTACT POINT THEY HAVE WITH OTHER D&DERS.
Some of you here are more real than Gaiman, King, or Clancy. Some of you can name all the "important" current D&D designers, celebs, etcs. Some of can not.

 

[Maxperson]

Assertion IS NOT argument. You can say 2+2=3 all you like.

Which is why I reject your assertions that we need to change what race is in D&D.

Why is it relevant? I'll expand:
- People who are negatively stereotyped by race might be reminded of it. Many people on this thread have said they play games for escapism. I know I do. People who have been negatively stereotyped by race need escapism, too. Why remind them of an insult when they just want to game like us?
- People who still think of reality in terms of race might see justification in the continued use of the term in the same manner they use it (to describe groups with functional differences). RPGs should not give racists any justification. Think that's crazy? Read on below.

Here's a real life example of someone confusing the term. Clarity is important.

Aberrational activity doesn't mean anything. I can post 100x more examples of people confusing D&D with Satanic activity. Should D&D be scrapped entirely because of their misinterpretation? Unless you can show that it is a normal mistake(ie, a majority of people make it), this is just you asserting that a change that doesn't need to be made should happen.

 

[LazarusKane]

Regarding the "nature versus nurture" discussion or

So, why does being an elf grant automatic proficiencies?

When songbirds develope their songs witout learning (and there are other examples for such animal behaviour) then why shouldn´t (wood) elves automatically gain proficiency with bows in D&D?


PS: A link to the birds http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0095746

 

[Eltab]

Kind of like naming your son Sue would be my guess.

Except that you inadvertently turned Sue into a half-orc instead of a half-elf: he has to develop his STR and CON, not his CHR, due to all the schoolyard fistfights he gets into.

 

[Aldarc]

There are a fair number of people claiming that changing the term "race" is "undeeded." If that is the case, then what exactly would be lost (of any real significance) if the term "race" in D&D was indeed changed to something else (e.g., ancestry, origin, heritage, etc.)?

Regarding the "nature versus nurture" discussion or

When songbirds develope their songs witout learning (and there are other examples for such animal behaviour) then why shouldn´t (wood) elves automatically gain proficiency with bows in D&D?

Because the bonus proficiencies are explicitly referred to as "training."

 

[Jester David]

It isnt innacurate when dealing with fantasy races which is the point. Also again, religion/gods/magic could be offensive to many.

There's a big difference between changing the tropes and subject material of fantasy worlds and changing the terms the gamers use. We can remove offensive words without changing the subject matter itself.

Also, we DO change what happens in the fantasy words to avoid offending people. In 2nd Edition they did remove "demons" and "devils" from the game along with assassins.
There's also very little ethnicity, sex, and gender based discrimination on D&D worlds. There's no ethnic or nationally slavery, and slavery itself is only present in "evil" kingdoms. Very little raping, pillaging, and torture occurs in D&D books. There's certain ugly subjects that get in the way of most people's fun that we've decided just don't belong in the game by default.

What's the point of intentionally hampering easy language ?
"Race" in fantasy terms works fine in the same way "nation" and "nationality" do in real life. To censor those terms and adopt long winded phrases seems backwards.

Why you're absolutely right! Let's start referring to orcs as "coloured people" then. After all, they're a fantasy race, so it's not going to harm any real people. And they are coloured compared to humans.

Was "species" used to refer to human classifications or animal ones ?
Not to mention the concept is much older : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_race_concepts#Etymology

Okay, so I said 17th Century when it was really the late-16th Century. Your point? "Species" still pre-dates it by a good century.

No, not really. It's the difference between saying "greek people", "greek nation" and "people of Greek ancestry".
Why use the last one when the first ones are easier ?

If it's okay to use "race" in a different way in the game than we use it in the real world, then why is it not okay to use "people" or "nation" in the exact same slightly different way?

The concept of "race" is older than the European racist construct. It wasnt always a racist negative aspect.
I think we can try to put taht in perspective.

No one is arguing that it is not.
We're arguing that the term "race" is not appropriate in a modern sense. How the term was applies or the historical usage of differentiating people is irrelevant to how it makes people feel today.

"Nation" is a sociopolitical construct as opposed to "race" which is a biological one.

NO!
THAT'S THE WHOLE ING POINT! RACE ISN'T BIOLOGICAL. RACE IS A SOCIETAL CONSTRUCT WE IMAGINE AND PRETEND HAS A BASIS IN BIOLOGY BUT THAT DOESN'T ACTUALLY EXIST AS ALL HUMANS ARE FUNCTIONALLY BIOLOGICALLY IDENTICAL AND MORE DIVERSITY EXISTS WITHIN RACIAL GROUPS THAN BETWEEN THEM! THAT WHAT ARE CONSIDERED DISTINCT "RACES" SHIFTS OVER TIME BASED ON SOCIETAL VALUES! THAT THE ENTIRE CONCEPT OF RACIAL PURITY IS A MYTH!!!

Race is 100% a sociopolitical construct. And pretending otherwise is ignorant. Like believing in phrenology. And saying that races exist in the fantasy world is subtly supporting the idea that races exist in the real world and that there's some basis to the concept of race and racial purity.

All elves are of the same race but not necessarily of the same nation. That is true for many fantasy settings from Lotr to Warcraft and many others. it wouldnt be useful.

Which would be where some customisation of Ancestry would come in. What D&D refers to as "subrace".

But we arent talking about the real-world conception of race but a fantasy one in which these groups are different biologically.
Since race is already a debunked antiquated term it is fitting for a fantasy setting.

It's not an antiquated term though. It's still one in use by some world governments. Like the US, which includes it in its census.

IF it were an antiquated term I would agree with you. And we could maybe find an antiquated term to replaced it. Which would work because then it wouldn't be emotionally loaded. But because it IS a term that is still in use, and is more in use than ever with the resurgence of the idea of keeping the "white race pure", marking with Tiki torches and holding rallies.
There is STILL a lot of BS about race occurring in the world. That makes it a deeply inappropriate term to use. It is a term with strong, strong ties to the white supremacy movement and racism. Do you think that is okay? Do you want to tie D&D in any way with white supremacy?

1) Realistically ? The majority I would say for good or worse.

So if the majority believes 1+1=3 then it's true.
Should I quote you the long litany of horrors than the majority of people once though was okay?

2) But does it matter ? In the context of religion, you couldnt make anything that wouldnt offend some. I am not talking about purposefully pissing them off, just doing your own thing inspired by myhts/legends and suddenly some religious people declare them satanic and offensive.

You're never going to not offend anyone. But that doesn't mean you should stop trying.
I'm a Star Trek fan. I believe in Roddenberry's dream and the human potential. I don't think we should stop trying to better ourselves and improve humanity.

And with that in mind I do think we can improve gaming and the language of RPGs to make it more inclusive and welcoming for other groups. Maybe not all groups (like fundamentalist Christians), but we shouldn't try to make changes with the extremists in mind. But that's not the case in this instance.

3) No, but we as people can look at things logically, put them in context compare them with similar situations and make a judgement.

Right. That seems fair. And the people in this thread have looked at the term "race", looked at it's historical and modern context, and made the judgement that we can do better.

Again, those terms dont sound fitting. I had explained my reasoning in the earlier post.

Are you offended by them, though? Do they cause you emotional distress or remind you of people who do not think you are fully human or are a lesser person? Do they have strong ties to white supremacy and generations of dehumanisation?

No? Okay, then they're imperfect and awkward and poor fits but better than "race".

 

[Jester David]

Was not mocking. I have read King and Clancy so they are KNOWN TO JASPER. Gaiman is NOT KNOWN TO JASPER.

If you quoted Tom Clancy to me and I replied:
"Tom Clancy who? Oh the author of Hunt for the Red October. I saw the movie. You going to quote something from an author who I never hear of to make a point. Yawn. Yes I google his quote."
What would your reaction be?

 

[Maxperson]

There are a fair number of people claiming that changing the term "race" is "undeeded." If that is the case, then what exactly would be lost (of any real significance) if the term "race" in D&D was indeed changed to something else (e.g., ancestry, origin, heritage, etc.)?

Everything. The "issues" with race are the among the smallest of all the "issues" with D&D. If we change race, we need to change the following greater issues. Fighters, because far more people dislike violence in the real world than there are white supremacists. Clerics, because there are far more religious people in the world than white supremacists. Druids, for the same reason as clerics, but in addition you will have druids running around claiming climate change, and others who say that they are crazy. Rogues, because a great many people in the real world dislike crime. Wizard, sorcerer, and warlock(pacts with evil anyone), because religion. Paladin, see cleric and druid. Monk, see cleric and druid due to their mysticism. I'm sure if I tried I could find an issue with ranger. Monsters(especially demons and angels) run afoul of religion.

All of those are greater issues than [MENTION=22644]the_redbeard[/MENTION]'s example of a fraction of the population(racists), who play D&D(fraction of a fraction), and who are too stupid to understand race and confuse it(fraction of a fraction of a fraction).