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

Lylandra

Adventurer
@Aldarc
The original question to which you refer is too far back for me to find but to address your reiteration of "What would be lost?":

The answer is sovereignty.

Should the works of literature be altered in their vocabulary due to the propaganda of politically motivated societal manipulation? No.

A person who is actually offended will not read Twain or Dickens or Dostoevsky or Tolkien or Martin, but their works, or future works in the case of Martin, should not be altered. This creates a grander issue of promoting prejudice as written works such as Slaughterhouse Five, Lolita, The brothers Karmonov, The Bible, and The Quran have all, before, been targeted for destruction by those 'offended' by their existence.

You're talking about works that stem from a time when such words had different meaning. While one can debate on how to deal with literature like that (and I'd go with a disclaimer/foreword/comment in any case!), what we're discussing here is how we'd like to go forward in terms of RPG terminology.

As language is always changing and words switch their meaning over time, I don't think we lose anything here.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Shadow Demon

Explorer
The people it describes find it offensive. Isn’t that enough for you?

Nope. it is history from a previous age. I think most of the Asian people of the time we’re more concened that their countries were turned into subjects of the British Empire. The Orient descriptor became synonymous with that occupation. i don’t use it use in modern language because it is archaic. This made it perfect for D&D instead of Asian which is in modern usage.
 


LazarusKane

Explorer
You *might* need to do more reading:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orientalism_(book)

The people it describes find it offensive. Isn’t that enough for you?


The concept exists solely to present the false idea that there are different types of people who are notably distinct. Which is false.
It is a term with incredible racist baggage that we should be excising from the game

But "Orientalism" is not "Orient/Oriental" and "Race" doesn´t equals "Racism"

And here´s someone who answers (for her) the question:"The term 'Oriental' is outdated, but is it racist?"http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-tsuchiyama-oriental-insult-20160601-snap-story.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Nope. it is history from a previous age. I think most of the Asian people of the time we’re more concened that their countries were turned into subjects of the British Empire. The Orient descriptor became synonymous with that occupation. i don’t use it use in modern language because it is archaic. This made it perfect for D&D instead of Asian which is in modern usage.
Huh? Were the settings of Kara-Tur and Rokugan also occupied by the British Empire?
 

ShinHakkaider

Adventurer
@Aldarc
The original question to which you refer is too far back for me to find but to address your reiteration of "What would be lost?":

The answer is sovereignty.

Should the works of literature be altered in their vocabulary due to the propaganda of politically motivated societal manipulation? No.

A person who is actually offended will not read Twain or Dickens or Dostoevsky or Tolkien or Martin, but their works, or future works in the case of Martin, should not be altered. This creates a grander issue of promoting prejudice as written works such as Slaughterhouse Five, Lolita, The brothers Karmonov, The Bible, and The Quran have all, before, been targeted for destruction by those 'offended' by their existence.

The D&D Player's Handbook is not a work of literature. It's a reference book. There are people who DO read it cover to cover, anal retentive pedantry of geeks none withstanding it's not meant to be read cover to cover as a novel. My point being it's not exactly a great comparison especially since reference books/ text books are updated all of the time.

It's funny that you should mention the bible here along with the alteration of text. The bibles that were given to American slaves "Slave bibles" were based off of the King James Version but had the entirety of Exodus removed along with any references to themes of "freedom".
 


LazarusKane

Explorer
If making the hobby more inclusive and welcoming to people of color is not relevant to you, this post isn't for you. Your priorities are different, and that's fine. You do you and leave me alone.

For the people who do care about making the hobby more inclusive and welcoming to people of color, this thread and similar discussions raise a few concerns for me. Before someone gets it twisted and puts words in my mouth, I need to say that none of what follows is me accusing anyone of anything or judging anyone who feels differently than I do about the issue at hand. I'm just expressing concerns. If that's valuable information to you, great. If not, please ignore.

While I'm glad that there are white people who are advocating for a more inclusive and welcoming hobby, I do have concerns about:
  1. white people deciding on behalf of people of color what race-related issues in the hobby should take priority at any given time (as opposed to asking people of color what would make us feel more included and welcome in the hobby)
  2. white people emphasizing symbolic gestures made on behalf of people of color over addressing structural and behavioral issues that make people of color flat-out state make us feel excluded and unwelcome in the hobby
  3. white people spending more time fighting white people who don't want to learn or change than listening to people of color and working out ways to make the hobby more inclusive and welcoming.
That's just where I'm at right now.

Really?
You told james501 he shouldn´t
"projecting harmful motives onto other people who haven't flat-out said anything"
as he told you
"I know where this is going and is terible reasoning."

The he elaborated where he thinks this is going:
"But this question is part of the logic : 'You are not [insert group] therefore you cant have an opinion or your opinion is biased and doesnt count'.

And then you go there and apply this logic *facepalm*
 

It's funny that you should mention the bible here along with the alteration of text. The bibles that were given to American slaves "Slave bibles" were based off of the King James Version but had the entirety of Exodus removed along with any references to themes of "freedom".
Since I assume you both agree that the alteration was a bad thing, I think you're just making MacConnell's point for him.
 


Status
Not open for further replies.

Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top