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...

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.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Michael Tresca

Michael Tresca


log in or register to remove this ad

Legatus Legionis

< BWAH HA Ha ha >
I recall back in OD&D, we had an Elven Ranger, or a Dwarven Fighter, as race/class were the same thing for playing this type of character.

Then AD&D expanded this so that we had races and they can pick classes.

Then AD&D2e added non-classical races to those being playable.
If we remove the term "Race", shouldn't we also remove the terms Elf, Dwarf, Halfling etc? What would those terms even be referring to without the concept of race?
...
Should all characters simply be referred to as "People" with no further differentiation?

What do we lose by that approach? And what do we gain?
I would say alot, I'll explain below;
...
Let people take X number of "ancestry" traits and it would literally define their biological ancestry. Perhaps they're just a mutt and thanks to that they've got darkvision, stonecunning and trance-sleep. Or something.
One of the things I disliked with 3ed came out was how they treated classes (or lack there of), and made everything into a skill/point based system.

Even though you did not specifically say, if we take it a step further, this idea of eliminating "elven", or "dwarven", etc. and taking it to their lowest common denomination; traits that makes a being or "race" unique, where those that share alot in common of the same traits can be considered a "tribe/people".
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.
...
I am afraid doing all the above would make the RPG into a:

Humanoid/creature with the following skills, following heritage, following ethos, following...

I am a fan of classical fantasy and novels.

I always enjoy wanting to role play a knight of the round table, or a ranger like Robin Hood, or a Dwarf from DragonLance, or a Barbarian like Conan, or a Sinbad the Sailor.

For me, that is what Fantasy RPG's are.

A chance to role play such great characters, or to create my own great characters.

I am not bothered by the use of the term "Race" in an RPG, nor class, nor social status, nor any of the other terms.

Do we still need the word "race"...
if we are going to be using distinct people types/traits, then yes.
if we are going to be using traits/point to explain everything (I have nightvision, you have wings, they have claws, etc), then no.
 

LazarusKane

Explorer
I just so happen to have a hyper-intelligent bee as a major NPC in my campaign. And I make liberal use of the "talking animals" trope in general.

My approach to the problem is to lean into it. Talking animals in fairy tales and beast fables have surprisingly human perspectives not simply because they were written by human authors and have to be relatable to human audiences, but because they comment on the human condition. That may sound over-pretentious. I don't have any grand literary designs for my long-suffering but loyal bee. But I'd rather embrace the humanness of the character than worry about whether it's realistic.

And one of the things I love - if the GM and/or the other players are ok with it - is playing my nonhuman PC´s and NPC´s with a hearty piece of alieness.

So to each its own. :D

And yes, more than one time the players were shocked when my characters done something unreasonable - from a strictly human perspective.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Thomas Bowman

First Post
So an elf wouldn't have a different ancestry?

Yes, but so would a dog or a cat! You can have different ancestries within the same race, and different races have different ancestries. To have the same ancestry means you are in the same family, as in brother and sister, that is not a race.
 

Lord Rasputin

Explorer
I recall back in OD&D, we had an Elven Ranger, or a Dwarven Fighter, as race/class were the same thing for playing this type of character.
While avoiding the whole issue of the thread, in OD&D, race and class are separate. It's only in the BX/BEMCI/RC versions of D&D that they're unified. Of course, since Dwarves and Hobbits could only be Fighting-Men in the original OD&D boxed set, this wasn't a big limitation when it was added to the Moldvay book.
 

Caliburn101

Explorer
So one mainstream fantasy rpg keeps the Tolkienesque clichés intact in it's various editions and suddenly all fantasy based rpg's have to ditch race as a term?

How about NO.

It should be quite clear that all kinds of fantasy games have ejected the Tolkien model - like Earthdawn, or Talislanta. D&D continues it because of the tradition of it's roots.

The term 'race' isn't racist when you are talking about races that are physiologically massively distinct. It isn't even racist unless used in such a context between humans of different ancestries. I can see the point of having ancestries within a fantasy race (including human), but it is pandering to one of the crassly overblown internet credos that if a term can be misused by the bias few, then it should be banned for everyone.

No thanks. Racist supremacy is bad, racial harmony is good. Both use the word. Nobody uses the phrases 'ancestral supremacist' or 'ancestral harmony'.

Take it from an old archaeologist, culture is NOT race, and indeed visa versa. It can seem like it when a race and culture are uniquely associated (such as with elves in Middle Earth), but it's wrong to think they are entirely interdependent, and we shouldn't confuse the facts with the lobbyist fiction, nor change our terms of reference for no good reason.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Thomas Bowman

First Post
That is a good point. DnD has already tried to change the words they use to describe DnD creatures which is why you will never see the terms such as Demon or Devil used in any official DnD book since the 80's.

Actually I have seen it used. Devils rule the Nine Hells, and Demons live in the 666 layers of the Abyss.
 

Obryn

Hero
Yes, but so would a dog or a cat! You can have different ancestries within the same race, and different races have different ancestries. To have the same ancestry means you are in the same family, as in brother and sister, that is not a race.
This would be like arguing that "race" is a bad term because there's no finish line. Or that "class" is a bad term because there's no students.

Cherry picking one definition of an ambiguous word is a seriously terrible argument, particularly when RPGs are already known for using words in novel ways.
 

Thomas Bowman

First Post
So one mainstream fantasy rpg keeps the Tolkienesque clichés intact in it's various editions and suddenly all fantasy based rpg's have to ditch race as a term?

How about NO.

It should be quite clear that all kinds of fantasy games have ejected the Tolkien model - like Earthdawn, or Talislanta. D&D does it because of the tradition of it's roots.

The term 'race' isn't racist when you are talking about races that are physiologically massively distinct. It isn't even racist unless used in such a context between humans of different ancestries. I can see the point of having ancestries within a fantasy race (including human), but it is pandering to one of the crassly overblown internet credos that if a term can be misused by the bias few, then it should be banned for everyone.

No thanks.

Take it from an old archaeologist, culture is NOT race, and indeed visa versa. It can seem like it when a race and culture are uniquely associated (such as with elves in Middle Earth), but it's wrong to think they are entirely interdependent, and we shouldn't confuse the fact, nor change our terms of reference for no good reason.

I don't believe in banning old words, just because the Millennial generation have decided to label those old words as "racist" and think it is hip to ban old words so they can keep on churning the English language by replacing old words with awkward sentences so as not to offend the "easily offended"! I am not going to give people who are offended by everything total control over the English language so they get to decide what words we can and cannot use!
 


Status
Not open for further replies.

Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top