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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
"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.
Click to expand...
Here's hoping other role-playing games will follow Pathfinder's lead in how treats its fantasy people in future editions.
 
Click to expand...

log in or register to remove this ad

Michael Tresca
talien

Michael Tresca

Mike "Talien" Tresca is the managing editor of the EN World Columnists Program, author of The Evolution of Fantasy Role-Playing Games, releases daily game-related content on his Patreon, and has over 50 D&D 5E products for sale on DriveThruRPG. He is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to http://amazon.com. If you like what we do here at EN World please consider supporting our Patreon.

log in or register to remove this ad

Hussar

Hussar

Legend
Celebrim said:
I have no idea what you are talking about now. I invite you to go back early in the thread and trace my discussion of elvish archery from the beginning. I have always made it clear that it was a personal choice whether to treat it as nature or nurture, and my point has always been simply that we cannot know whether it is nature or nuture based on whether it would be nature or nurture in humans. I don't see how that suggests anything about how I have internalized my house rules to the point that I don't recognize them as house rules, and it's worth noting further that 'the game' we are talking about is now more than 30 years old and there never was a single set of house rules or single RAW during all that time. Are you confusing "the game" with 5e D&D?

As for what the game actually states, the game states that regardless of the elves background, the elf gets this advantage. What does that suggest to you?
Click to expand...

No, the game states ELVEN WEAPON TRAINING. Plus, Drow, who are also elves, don't get it.

Look, I get that you spend a lot of time on your game. But, we don't play your game. We play D&D. Please stop trying to project your game onto what the game actually states. It has NEVER been stated that elves gain this simply by being an elf. It HAS been stated that it is gained because of training.

In every edition of the game, it's either silent on the issue, or states that it's a trained trait. In no edition of the game is it a natural trait.

Good grief, this is the whole Medusa argument all over again. ((For reference, a poster here [MENTION=957]BryonD[/MENTION] stated that seeing a medusa in D&D automatically turns you to stone and that the saving throw is reflecting being able to close your eyes. This is not true and has never been true in any edition of the game. I know this, because I had to quote every single Medusa writeup from every edition of the game before I could adequately prove my point))

Please stop projecting your game onto what the game actually states.
 

Celebrim

Celebrim

Legend
Pauper said:
I think this is one place where we diverge in our opinions; I remember making a point earlier in the thread about how having orcs get +2 to Strength and elves +2 to Dexterity isn't sufficient to say that these two expressions of characters are distinct enough to comprise a 'racial' difference.
Click to expand...

I agree with your point, and would take it further and say if that is all 'race' means in your game, then really you shouldn't bother, as all you've done is just created a bunch of optional builds where you match race to class to get some sort of mechanical advantage.

But I suspect that if you don't call it 'race', then you wouldn't have as much of a problem statting out different human ethnicities this way;...
Click to expand...

Nope. That's the core of my criticism. Changing the label, but engaging in the same behavior is just as problematic, maybe even more so, because you've confused yourself with the dishonest label.

something as simple as a +2 to Wisdom (Survival) checks in a given terrain type would help to distinguish a human of Inuit-like ancestry from one of Yanomamo-like ancestry and each compared to a human raised in a technologically advanced society that doesn't rely on Survival checks for...err...survival.
Click to expand...

You see, I totally object to this. And, I object to it because I tried it nearly 20 years ago now, and I really disliked the results and dropped it very quickly. First of all, it isn't "Inuit Ancestry" that gives you +5 to Survival (Artic). What gives you that isn't being born Inuit, but being raised in the Artic from birth. It's Inuit culture that builds those skills in the character, and not being born Inuit. Now, I don't neglect the possibility that there might be various adaptations to cold weather common to people of Inuit ancestry, but most of those are likely so minor that D&D at its usual granularity just can't handle them. I mean were talking things like +1 saving throws versus snow blindness or something, and even that might be over quantifying very minor differences. The value of going after those small physical differences between human ethnic groups strikes me as really limited, and the risks it adds socially and the complication it ads to chargen just basically make it not worth it in my opinion.

But the core problem with something like +2 to survival checks even for having Inuit culture, is that it still ends up reinforcing racial essentialism, and the more complex and varied the culture the more of a problem that is. I was wanting to save this example for a different thread, but one of the things the Har people of my homebrew world are known for is a fear of water, so I encapsulated that in my first draft of rules for having an ethnic background as a -1 to swim checks. And the problem with that is that that isn't how real culture actually works. A more realistic take on the Har is that like maybe 40% of them are afraid of water. Now that's a really high number. Amongst the Concheeri maybe similar fear only occurs at a less than 1% rate. So there is a sense that it is true that the Har live up to their stereotype, but in point of fact the majority of them really wouldn't exhibit a noticeable fear of water. There is a cultural trait at play here that is both real and at the same time false. We would expect in this world any Har not afraid of water to raise eyebrows, even though he's not really that uncommon and in fact is even typical amongst the Har.

Likewise, this fear of water is a cultural trait, so that a Har raised outside of it would still very much have Har ancestry, but wouldn't manifest the trait (although, the Har have a valid reason for being afraid of water).

So my initial attempt to define what it meant to be part of an ethnic group turned out to be vastly too simplistic. I eventually decided that realism here wouldn't really be worthwhile, but a closer and more respectful take might be to provide a list of backgrounds typical to the culture including some backgrounds perhaps unique to the culture representing particular professions or lifestyles rare or unknown outside the ethnic group.

Any kind of simplistic "Inuit Heritage" that gave you +5 to Arctic survival checks would strike me as primitive and problematic.

Using actual characteristic bonuses, though, is problematic: I would not be comfortable with a rule that claimed that humans of Japanese or South Korean heritage gain +2 to Intelligence. It's very easy to use such mechanics to reinforce stereotypes about other ethnic human groups, and that's something I think we'd agree is not needed in a game's design
Click to expand...

Yes, obviously, but I'm taking it even further than you do. Not every South Korean actually prefers an arranged marriage. The percent that do is probably vastly higher than the number of Americans that do, but you can't just easily capture the nuances of a whole culture with a single stat block of fixed modifiers and I think if you try that you are quickly going to find yourself in a bad place.

Reluctantly agree -- if you really want to go this way with your magic system, you probably want to play a more narrative/story-type game than D&D.
Click to expand...

No, not necessarily. You could still do it with a simulationist approach. The main point is that to achieve a sense of numinous awe or terror or wonder, you have to hide a bunch of information from the player. But hiding information from the player is expensive in terms of running the game.

but the orc extras in do-rags. *sigh*
Click to expand...

Yeah, totally on board with you there.

To throw a reference way back to early in the thread, you could have cultural mechanics that are distinct from any biological traits as noted by the AngryDM -- this lets you better represent weird cases like the halfling raised by elves, for instance, if the halfling character can take an 'elf cultural' package that contains mechanical benefits that accrue from living in elf society rather than simply being born an elf.
Click to expand...

You can, I just think you have to be really careful even with that, for several different reasons I've tried to explain in this thread. This is particularly true if you are designing human ethnic groups, which invariably are going to be seen as commentary on the real world by somebody. (And hopefully, they aren't correct.)

(Example: elf proficiency with the longbow is sometimes explained by the long elvish lifespan; it takes a long time to become an expert archer, but elves have that time in spades
Click to expand...

Or a deity comes into the daydreams of elvish youths and trains them while they are in their reverie in the ways of archer.

Alternatively, others might argue that elvish proficiency in archery is granted by their deity as part of their very essence and doesn't belong in a cultural package at all; even an elf raised far away from other elves can still pick up a bow and fire it as if he was born to it, because he was. Which camp you fall into determine where you put the archery bonuses in your character creation rules.
Click to expand...

Sure. And in the case of an elf, I'm ok with either way you do it. But you're probably going to get yourself in trouble if you start trying to figure out what is nature or nurture when it comes to humans, because right now we only know in the most obvious and least granular cases.

Even then, though, I think you could call the 'racial' package whatever you want (an 'elf-folk' package?) and most gamers probably wouldn't so much as raise an eyebrow.
Click to expand...

I think 'folk' has to be the worst idea ever, except for 'volk' (that someone actually suggested) which unfortunately like the Swastika is permanently tainted by association. If race is problematic to outrage-mongers, you really don't want to ask players to choose a 'folk'. Raised eyebrows or not, you'd be accused of dog-whistling almost immediately regardless of how innocent your use of the word.
 

Arilyn

Arilyn

Hero
TheCosmicKid said:
Firstly, you're repeating lines that exaggerate their theoretical underpinnings in order to be provocative, rather than explain and contextualize them in order to be productive. When Person A says stuff like this, Person B will often note that (e.g.) Barack Obama and Queen Elizabeth look physically different, and come to the conclusion that Person A is just nonsensically wrong. From that point, no conversation or education is possible, because trust in the reasonableness of the other party has been broken.

But secondly, even if the nature of race is... debatable, there are other categories that are uncontentiously and purely social constructs, like "nationality" and "religion". And yet we don't go around saying that nationality and religion do not exist or that it's problematic to even mention them in a tabletop roleplaying game. So what's going on here?
Click to expand...

What is going on, is race has been treated as a scientific term, when it's a social construct full of inaccuracies. It's also a loaded term, linked to racism. It doesn't pertain to fantasy beings because race was used to divide humans into groups. This is why there is no good reason to keep the term.
 

Shasarak

Shasarak

Banned
Banned
So if Race is changed to Ancestry, then do we still get to kill some fools, take their stuff and drink their life force in the form of XP to fuel our characters personal power as long as they had an Orc in their Ancestry? Or is that still Ancestrism?
 

TheCosmicKid

TheCosmicKid

Hero
Arilyn said:
What is going on, is race has been treated as a scientific term, when it's a social construct full of inaccuracies.
Click to expand...
It is a scientific term, albeit an informal one. Even if this were not the case, a term by itself cannot be inaccurate. You're conflating term with referent. Religion the thing is a social construct full of inaccuracies (no matter what you believe, you gotta believe a lot of other people are inaccurate), but "religion" the term is an accurate and neutral way of describing that thing.

Arilyn said:
It's also a loaded term, linked to racism.
Click to expand...
Sex and gender are linked to sexism and transphobia. Nationality is linked to nationalism. Religion is linked to religious persecution.

Arilyn said:
It doesn't pertain to fantasy beings because race was used to divide humans into groups.
Click to expand...
Again: religion, nationality, gender...

Arilyn said:
This is why there is no good reason to keep the term.
Click to expand...
Even if those are reasons to discard the term, it does not follow that there are not also good reasons to keep it.
 

P

pemerton

Legend
james501 said:
When asking someone for his ethnic identity would you say "what people are you" or "what ethnicity/nationality are you" ?
Click to expand...
This depends heavily on local custom and how rude you want to be. Likewise asking someone "What race are you?"

james501 said:
Calling elves,dwarves orcs as "races" has no bearing and no relation to the real life "race" and its negative associations.
Click to expand...
I believe this claim to be false. Hence my posts in this thread.
 


Yaarel

Yaarel

He Mage
Fore Shame said:
Where are you drawing the line here between race and species?
Click to expand...

In my academic experience, ‘race’ and ‘species’ mean the same thing. By extension, in some circles, the term ‘race’ was preferred if that other species was humanlike. In that sense, ‘race’ was used for creatures like giants, elves, or so on, who are clearly nonhuman yet humanlike.

Recently, I noticed wikipedia scientific articles using the term ‘race’ to mean something like a sub-sub-species, sort of like a ‘breed’. Not only does that sound unfamiliar, it may well be reallife racists trying to stealth in racist crap into the collective memory networks.

Ultimately, ‘race’ is a useless word that causes confusion, being either false or archaic.
 

Shasarak

Shasarak

Banned
Banned
Celebrim said:
For example, ancient Greeks developed a transnational identity of being 'Greek' that united them as a people group. They were as racist as anything you could ever point out, but this xenophobia was a step less xenophobic than the "us against everyone from over the hill" level that preceded it.
Click to expand...

I always thought that the people that the Greeks hated the most were the other Greeks. I mean even when the Persians turned up they still did not want to work together.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar Threads

GobHag
What Games do you think are Neotrad?
23 24 25 26 27
Replies
263
Views
14K
clearstream
C
R
D&Disms Outside D&D
2
Replies
15
Views
2K
Blue Orange
B
A
Help query looking for data on the following!
Replies
2
Views
630
AnimeSniper
A
talien
RPG Evolution: Ratioed
Replies
1
Views
5K
Vincent55
Vincent55
R
Hypothetical Fun: What If A Different Genre Was The RPG Foundation?
2 3 4 5
Replies
44
Views
3K
Wofano Wotanto
W

Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top