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

Talien, you make the assessment that "Race" will fall out of favor. D&D dominates this industry and always has. Why do you assume WotC will move away from it because Paizo has?

WotC tried an edition with "no sacred cows" and it wasn't as successful as 3.x or 5.

I believe your assessment to be incorrect, but by the time we see 6E, both of us will have forgotten about this article.

But in my assessment, "Race" isn't going anywhere.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Gradine

The Elephant in the Room (she/her)
I mean, not to align myself with the folks whining about "political correctness" and "social justice", but... as someone else mentioned, this is so far down on the list of things that should probably be addressed that I literally cannot see the purpose of this besides to give folks some low-hanging fruit to rally around and, well, whine about "political correctness" and "social justice". Who does this actually help?

I game and have gamed with some pretty radical people. Prison abolitionists, anti-racist queer activists, literal anarchists, etc. And I have seen a grand total of zero of them bat so much as an eyelash over the fantasy usage of the term "race". It's just not really on the radar. It's not that I can't imagine someone actually being legitimately upset over the term, but it's just... there so many other, way bigger fish to fry, you know?

As has been mentioned before, no, not everyone in the hobby is open and inclusive and welcoming, and yes, there are plenty of bigots and misogynists and other gatekeeper gamers who do care who you are and what you look like, and we would be much better served as a community as a whole to devote our time and energy rooting out and correcting or removing those problems than we would be quibbling over what honestly amounts to little more than semantics.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Just switch to "Identifies as" and the player can write whatever they want in that spot though it will have no mechanical effect on games. Just get rid of mechanical differences between the identities and make them all equal, then players can roll play anything else.
<br>
<br>Testify.&nbsp; If racial bonuses were needed (and I would say they aren't), something like 5e's backgrounds would be a good place for them (even better if there were some more backgrounds), and if "racial powers" are needed (I can buy this), then something like 4e's themes would be good (or give everyone a feat at 1st level and make feats that are similar to the racial powers).<br>


Testify. If racial bonuses were needed (and I would say they aren't), something like 5e's backgrounds would be a good place for them (even better if there were some more backgrounds), and if "racial powers" are needed (I can buy this), then something like 4e's themes would be good (or give everyone a feat at 1st level and make feats that are similar to the racial powers).
 

epithet

Explorer
I think this is an example of an issue that is an issue only to those who are looking for issues to make an issue out of. All of us know perfectly well that "race" in the context of D&D means a combination of genus, species, and culture. Even someone completely new to D&D will get it immediately when they see the list of dwarf, elf, half-orc, human, etc., so changing terminology to try to cushion the brittle spirits of the sensitive twitterati is foolish and futile. Hell, at any moment a pack of rabid 5th graders can seize upon a previously innocuous word and turn it into a terrible insult; there's no point in trying to ride that wave.
 

Arilyn

Hero
Ignoring all the emotional pleas, ancestry works better as soon as all those DnD races/magical beings started getting frisky with each other. Half-elves, half-orcs, tieflings, etc. are far better served with the word ancestry over race. In most of the d20 lore, a half-elf or trifling, for example, can pop up generations after the non-human blood was introduced. This is ancestry, not race.
 

delericho

Legend
It'll be interesting to see if PF2's "Ancestry" sticks with players.

This. If PF2 does turn out to be a massive success, and/or the wider player base latches on to 'ancestry' as the term to use, WotC will probably go with the prevailing wind and make the change.

If PF2 does a bit less well than PF1 has done (which is the most likely result, given the history of multi-edition games), it will remain little more than a blip on 5e's radar, and this whole discussion will have no impact.
 

AmerginLiath

Adventurer
“Race,” in games such as D&D, actually has a proper meaning that can’t be replaced with Species or Culture (or fully with Ancestry). If you read any of background materials on the various worlds that the game has produced or watch the recent D&D Beyond videos talking current multiversal storyline assumptions, the “races” that players use have separate origins, created by different gods or via different processes (thus bearing distinct traits showing up mechanically and culturally in the game). This is quite literally worlds away from “racial” arguments in our actual human history, among populations with a shared genetic heritage deriving from common ancestry (such that even peoples like the Neanderthals shared common ancestors to the H. sapiens they encountered despite distinctions far greater than those any two modern humans might possess today). To use the bracketing terms of Species or Culture for something that is, in the game world, something of non-bracketed order is simply poor use of actual terms. Before about two hundred years ago, the term Nation would actually be useful for these distinctions, but that’s been claimed by geopolitics, so now Race really remains the best term for differentiating the elves split from Corrolan from the dwarves forged by Moradin (Ancestry striking me as a useful metric of “do you have a dragon in your lineage that makes you a potential sorcerer?” but useless when exploded into an end-all category).
 

ShinHakkaider

Adventurer
Race in fantasy TTRPG's (specifically D&D and its offspring) is an easy/lazy shorthand. We all know what it means in reference to the game mechanics so most people are loathe to give it up or even question changing it. And if the level of derision in this thread is any indication maybe it's easier not to question it and let it be, lest youre labeled as a politically correct rabble rouser.

Personally, it's always bothered me even from a young age because I just felt that there could be a better word for what it was trying to describe?
The word "race" felt WRONG. If elves can interbreed with humans, and humans can interbreed with orcs and all of these humanoids can basically interbreed with each other and can share language and even culture to an extent there has to be a better word to describe what they all are in the world right? I mean "race" works becasue like I said it's an easy/lazy shorthand that's been around for decades at this point.
 

DRF

First Post
Wait, so I can just compile a bunch of almost-related citations and write an "article" where the citations take up more words than my own input? Interesting.
 


Status
Not open for further replies.

Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top