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

Gradine

The Elephant in the Room (she/her)
As an aside, I noted that "Origin" came up as a suggestion, which I rather like. Dragon Age uses it (the video game and the Green Ronin Tabletop RPG derived from it) and it's not caused any issues there that I'm aware of. And the video games (both of them) were incredibly well-received.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


james501

First Post
Then please go ahead and insert the "N word" into your "fantasy, made up stuff" as a term, since no one should have hangups about real world antiquated racial classifications, terms, or likewise.

View attachment 95994


Do I really need to point out the difference in a word with ancient roots describing an ancient concept that has neutral connotations and an insult speicifically created and used against a specific group of people in more recent memory ?
 

james501

First Post
As an aside, I noted that "Origin" came up as a suggestion, which I rather like. Dragon Age uses it (the video game and the Green Ronin Tabletop RPG derived from it) and it's not caused any issues there that I'm aware of. And the video games (both of them) were incredibly well-received.


Dragon age doesnt use "origins", it also uses "Race" in all games.

"Origins" in the first game referred to the race and social class combination that your character could choose, not as a replacement for "race".

How did you miss that ?
 

Celebrim

Legend
That is not what racism is...

Yes, yes it is.

...or what the word "racist" means.

Yes, yes it does.

I get that you want to live in a magical world where race doesn't matter to anyone, and I don't think anyone outside of actual racial supremacists would disagree that that sounds like a nice place to live.

Living in a world free of racism is not a magical world, nor is it wrong to want to work to that.

This whole "talking about race is the true racism!" shtick is a ridiculous argument made by so-called "color-blind" people who interpret "color-blindess" (either consciously or unconsciously) as "everyone should act more white".

What an amazingly intellectually dishonest claim you have just made. Cognitive dissonance hitting you hard? You know that that is not what I said. We have been talking about race this whole time. I have been talking about race this whole time. There is nothing inherently racist about talking about race and I have never heard anyone suggest that, and certainly no one in this thread has pushed such an opinion. Of course your straw man intellectually dishonest nonsense is ridiculous, but you have only yourself to blame for that. What I said is that you have to know the race of the person you are talking to because its that relevant to you, then it's racism. Anywhere on the internet you go that is a den of racism, one marker of that is that you are required to disclose your race to the participants before they will decide how to respond to you. I haven't even a clue what "acting more white" should be, but the last time I heard such an accusation personally, it's when a black youth in my high school walked up to my table and called my friend an oreo and said he was acting "too white" because he was sitting at a table enjoying lunch with me.
 

Obryn

Hero
Living in a world free of racism is not a magical world, nor is it wrong to want to work to that.
It requires conversations like this one, though, which you appear to have an issue with. Because we're not there, and we still won't if everyone just pretends it doesn't exist.
 

Celebrim

Legend
It requires conversations like this one, though, which you appear to have an issue with. Because we're not there, and we still won't if everyone just pretends it doesn't exist.

Again, I have no difficulty talking about race. I've been readily engaged in that. You want to have an open and honest discussion about race, fine. I have no issue with this conversation per se, only its conclusions. Disagreeing with your conclusions is not the same as having an issue discussing it, nor am I in the slightest pretending racism doesn't exist. What you are doing now is called evasion.
 

Gradine

The Elephant in the Room (she/her)
Yes, yes it is.

No, no it is not.

Yes, yes it does.

No, it it does not.

Glad to see we're really stretching the old cognitive muscles here.

Living in a world free of racism is not a magical world, nor is it wrong to want to work to that.

Accusing people of inquiring (not questioning, just inquiring) as to the racial backgrounds of people engaged in the discussion, is not the way to work towards that. Of course, we've already had the conversation that a white person living in a white-dominated society could acknowledge but never truly understand the depth and breadth of the experience of being a non-white person living in a white-dominated society. But what the hey, let's go another round.

What an amazingly intellectually dishonest claim you have just made. Cognitive dissonance hitting you hard? You know that that is not what I said. We have been talking about race this whole time. I have been talking about race this whole time. There is nothing inherently racist about talking about race and I have never heard anyone suggest that, and certainly no one in this thread has pushed such an opinion.

You certainly are not. But I also see you snipped the relevant section of my post. So I'll repeat it: "...and recognizing that, and addressing how it actually affects and impacts people of different races, does not make anyone racist."

Here's you:
What I said is that you have to know the race of the person you are talking to because its that relevant to you, then it's racism.

You are, in fact, saying this. You are saying that stating, or even suggesting, that a white individual cannot possibly begin the understand the impact that racism has on non-white people in a white-dominated society (or in this case, a white-dominated hobby), is racist. I'm saying that is baloney.

Of course your straw man intellectually dishonest nonsense is ridiculous, but you have only yourself to blame for that. Anywhere on the internet you go that is a den of racism, one marker of that is that you are required to disclose your race to the participants before they will decide how to respond to you.

It's not about deciding how to respond to you, it's about gauging your level of personal understanding of the issue. As much as you might like to think that you can perfectly understand the issue, as a white person, you cannot. Not because you haven't experienced individual experiences of discrimination, even based on your race. I'm sure many people can relate to that experience. But because your race doesn't inform every moment of practically every interaction you have with practically every facet of our society. If you are a white person in a white-dominated society, it is a 100% certainty that you've never had to live through it, every day of your life. I never have either.

That doesn't mean we're bad people, or that we can't contribute to the conversation. But it means we both could stand to act less like we're authorities on the subject.

I haven't even a clue what "acting more white" should be, but the last time I heard such an accusation personally, it's when a black youth in my high school walked up to my table and called my friend an oreo and said he was acting "too white" because he was sitting at a table enjoying lunch with me.

I've seen "color-blindness" used as a bludgeon against many of the things that would be considered "black culture", such as hip-hop, baggy clothes, etc. I've seen it used to ask "what's even the point of Kwanzaa?"
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Gradine

The Elephant in the Room (she/her)
Dragon age doesnt use "origins", it also uses "Race" in all games.

"Origins" in the first game referred to the race and social class combination that your character could choose, not as a replacement for "race".

How did you miss that ?

I think I was conflating the video games with the tabletop game. I could in fact be mis-remembering both. I'm pretty sure that at least the first iteration of the Dragon AGE TTRPG used Origin, and again it didn't really present any sort of problem.
 

Obryn

Hero
Again, I have no difficulty talking about race. I've been readily engaged in that. You want to have an open and honest discussion about race, fine. I have no issue with this conversation per se, only its conclusions. Disagreeing with your conclusions is not the same as having an issue discussing it, nor am I in the slightest pretending racism doesn't exist. What you are doing now is called evasion.
Brother, every conversation remotely like this, you take the "everything is fine, please move along" approach.

Transgender phrasing in the PHB? No need for it, you can already be those things. Artwork more representative? No need for it. Anti-harrassment rules at hobby shops? No, iirc, you were of the opinion that anti-harrassment policies deny women the experience of shutting it down (and is therefore the real sexism).

So no, I don't think you're readily engaged in anything beyond maintaining the status quo. I believe that you believe in your own goodness and sincerity, but damned if you don't fight tooth and nail against the idea that what you're doing isn't perfect already. Or for that matter that the hobby should.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top