RPG Evolution: Do We Still Need "Race" in D&D?

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.
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

Michael Tresca

Michael Tresca

Jacob Lewis

Ye Olde GM
Here's what had bothered me for the longest time, and I am quite serious on this:

"Race" is largely acceptable in fantasy genres where they were once classified in older games as "human" and "demi-human". The connection was the assimption that all human-like races were evolved or created from the same mold in the same world by different deities as different expressions and aspects of the world created. I find this acceptable and meaningful and not overly concerned with modern alertism and hyper-sensitive overreactions.

My only beef, speaking strictly in game terms, is how there is little emphasis on actual cultural differences for humans. Elves have come in all kinds of flavors, complete with significant changes in character packages, options, midifiers, etc. Elves being the primary example, of course, as we see similar treatments for dwarves, halflings, and other fantasy staples. But humans, who traditionally dominate the landscape as the most numerous, most varied, and most adaptable race on nearly every world is left flavorless, untouched, and purely vanilla. Is it caution to err with a conservative approach so as not to offend real-world races with interpretations that might be construed as offensive if viewed in the wrong light? Or something else?

I know Forgotten Realms did make some very compelling sub-cultures based on real world ones, as does Golarion (Pathfinder). I think the latter has more in-game influence of mechanics than the former. Perhaps PF2 may expand this more with their new design.

And for the record, "species" is very appropriate for sci-fi settings where creatures are completely alien.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

lewpuls

Hero
Biologists have settled meanings for these terms, of course. Races (of birds, for example - yes, some have races) can interbreed. Species rarely can interbreed successfully (mules, from horse and donkey, are sterile). Humans, dogs, and cats are three species, not races. All human races are part of one species.

D&D indulges in sloppiness using race where species was usually meant. Humans often indulge in sloppiness with words, to a point that most people use the "new" meaning (such as "gay", which used to mean happy-go-lucky, or "verbal," which used to mean "with words" (written or oral). Now it's frequently used as a substitute for "oral" (spoken word only). The word "silly" meant "touched by god" 500 years ago. And so on.

It's a case of ignorance overcoming standard meanings. Don't say "bi-annual" any more - about half the people think it means twice-yearly (i.e., semi-annual) instead of once every two years (the older meaning).
 

I can't believe that this is even a question. What does it matter? Gamers don't need social justice in their games, for the most part we're one of the most accepting groups there is. We don't care who or what you are, we just want to play.
 

Warpiglet

Adventurer
My understanding is that the dwarves and elves etc are as different from humans as neanderthals or some hominid might have been.

I think it makes sense to in some way make this clear. how you do it I don't entirely care. if you use scientific language matters little me (because fairies and dragons) but let's not dilute the archetypes that have come to be.

humans are of course humans...color and custom changes nothing. I like that the PHB has a list of different ancestries for humans (even though not into FR).

I think it would be cool to have some direction about differences in humanity to consider for making your own races (ahem) ancestries or whatever.
 

mykesfree

Adventurer
In Adventure in Middle-earth, which is D&D 5e based, it is called Cultures. Cultures cover Elves of Mirkwood, Men of Bree, and Hobbits of the Shire.
 

Celebrim

Legend
My only beef, speaking strictly in game terms, is how there is little emphasis on actual cultural differences for humans.

Yes, but I wouldn't touch that with a 31 1/2 foot pole.

I agree that there are cultural differences between humans, and I've even experimented with allowing players to choose "culture" when they choose race. (Unlike most games, all elves in my game belong to the same race. There are no packages for wood elves, snow elves, or high elves.) The problem is that I started listing out culture packages for Concheeri, Averni, Har, Destrian, Tumeesi, and things were fine but as soon as I started working on ethnic groups in the fantasy world with darker shades of skin color, I realized that someone would come along and assume that my fantasy culture packages were in some way commenting on the real world. And to avoid that I'd have to go out of my way to explode expectations and that would put constraints on my fantasy world that were still based on the real world, in the same way that a fantasy writer that goes out of there way consciously to be different than Tolkien is still being influenced by Tolkien.

The writer of the original article seems to hint that the move to the term "ancestry" is good in part because it sets up the ability to differentiate human ethnicities the way that elven or dwarves (or even Halfling) ethnicities are differentiated. I think that's just a huge can of worms we aren't nearly mature enough as a society to actually deal with.

I think I'd be happier with race + background, as in 5e than 'ancestry' + anything. I feel that's a safer ground where our subculture, the culture of gaming, has built up some maturity and capabilities that moving to ancestry is just going to toss out of the window. Maybe nothing will come of it, but change lacking in a rational basis just seems more likely to go wrong than go right.
 


Absolutely yes! There is one human race with multiple ethnicities and cultures in the real world. In the fantasy world, this is still true but I challenge anyone to come up a better descriptor for the differentiation between humans, elves, dwarves, and halflings.

It is total nonsense to be offended by the use of race in this context.

I prefer the convention used in Type III D&D of Type (Humanoid, Dragon, Aberration, etc.) and Subtype (Elf, Human, Orc, Shapechanger, etc.), though it was inconsistently applied.
 

Celebrim

Legend
Biologists have settled meanings for these terms, of course. Races (of birds, for example - yes, some have races) can interbreed. Species rarely can interbreed successfully (mules, from horse and donkey, are sterile). Humans, dogs, and cats are three species, not races. All human races are part of one species.

D&D indulges in sloppiness using race where species was usually meant.

I strongly object. We have no reason to believe that any of the basis of real world science applies to a fantasy world.

Species is a slippery enough term in the real world, and put a dozen Ph.D.'s in biology in a room and ask them what the definition of a species is and you'll probably get more than a half-dozen different answers and a conversation as convulted and impassioned as "Who is better, Kirk or Picard."

Fantasy worlds tend to have science with a basis in the beliefs of the ancient world. In fantasy worlds, DNA doesn't exist and there are generally no barriers to interspecies breeding at all. In a fantasy world, species isn't a term for an isolated breeding population, but if it is a term at all (and it's not likely that it is) then it's a term for groups divided by their phenotype. That is, we know things are cows because they look like cows. But in a fantasy world, nothing prevents any two things despite radically different appearance from hybridizing successfully. Humans and dragons aren't the same fantasy species, but they readily hybridize in many or most fantasy worlds to produce offspring that are not sterile. In the same way that the Merovingian Kings of France could boast to their vassals that one of their ancestors was a Sea Serpent, in a fantasy world the logic of the world is not based on the scientific.

Thus scientific terms like species have no basis in a fantasy game world, and if they appear then they will have no connection to the scientific terms. Pixies, dragons, humans, and elves may all interbreed, but their success in this endeavor doesn't make them scientifically the same species. Chromosome count has nothing to do with it, because chromosomes likely don't exist in the fantasy world.
 

Dualazi

First Post
Unambiguously yes, we still need race. Or rather, stupidly trying to swap various synonyms in place of it is just people trying to eat their narrative cake and have it to, and we really shouldn't be engendering intellectual dishonesty when we have the choice not to. Frankly, a lot of this discussion seems only centered on the fact that many stock fantasy races are superficially similar to humans; trying to sugarcoat the differences between Thri-kreen and humans in Dark Sun as "heritage" is simply ridiculous. Even for the more conventional ones the large number of mechanical differences certainly allude to enough physiological disparities to qualify for racial distinctions.

Simply put, if it isn't broke, don't fix it, and neither the OP nor anyone else has given compelling evidence as to the current nomenclature being broken.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Related Articles

Remove ads

Latest threads

Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Recent & Upcoming Releases

Top