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

There are several advantages of the change:

You get rid of the problematic terminology.

-> the words race is being used as defined (check dictionaries) and all humans get the same package. So the word is correct and there is equality for all people. That is problematic?

You get rid of problematic historical baggage associated with the class

-> if you try and bring in the race theory that exists outside the game rules (which primary components are not in the rules as all humans are treated equally) or you just are very sensitive to the word race, then maybe, but there seems to be a lot of people that find it problematic to change it.

You open design space.

-> what design space is opened? You want to vary humans based on what? Different stats for different ethnicities? Isn’t that worse? Doesn’t backgrounds and feats give you tons of room for this without changing the base stock?

But I guess if you just want to ignore the advantages with claims of "fake outrage" then that is your prerogative.

Hopefully I got the quote tags right ...
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Remathilis

Legend
I always thought that the point of the Force Awakens was to prove that you really can ruin a perfectly good franchise if you put enough money into it.

See also: Star Trek Discovery.

(I actually think it'd be an interesting, if off-topic and highly flammable debate, to argue if the Sequel Trilogy or ST-D did more to alienate their core fanbases. But its not one I'm willing to have here and now).
 

Hussar

Legend
It is a classic example of cultural misappropriation.

Now normally I would just remember that DnD is a game and on the other hand if we are fixing problematic terminology then yeah sorry Paladin just has to go.

Ok, I'm still pretty sure you're having a laugh here.

But, what culture is being misappropriated? Considering that baseline D&D is pretty heavily grounded in European myth and legend, and, since last I check Charlegmagne was from Europe, umm, huh?
 

Hussar

Legend
/snip
I am mature enough to know that companies and small publishing houses making money means more new stories and ideas. If people from different backgrounds bring their stories in too, then more and different material for me to run.

As I said earlier, I'm selfish enough to think that this is a pretty darn good reason for the change. If it brings in new people and new material, that means a wider variety of stuff that I can use at my table. Win!
 

Riley37

First Post
A kilobyte is 1000 bytes

1024 bytes is a kibibyte

Maybe I'm a prescriptive a-hole, but I'd like to think words mean something.

If you buy a USB drive at a chain retail store, and the label says 4KB, will it store 4 kilobytes or 4 kibibytes?

If you are counting on that drive to store a 4-kibibyte file, because you expect all of the 7 billion humans who aren't you to follow your usage prescriptions, then there may be an unpleasant surprise in your future. If you are also counting on everyone in this thread to use the terms race, ancestry, and ethnicity, with the same precision you bring to kilobytes and kibibytes...
 

As I said earlier, I'm selfish enough to think that this is a pretty darn good reason for the change. If it brings in new people and new material, that means a wider variety of stuff that I can use at my table. Win!

There is absolutely no evidence that the use of the word race in the way it is used keeps anyone away.
 

Riley37

First Post
I don’t think it is going out on much of a limb to say that the majority of the current 5e players are both white and male.

So you say. Are you *ignoring* those of us in this forum and thread who say otherwise? Disagree with them, sure, but let's not pretend they and their arguments don't exist.

Is it predominantly white? Yes it used to be.

Pretending that this perspective does not exist, isn't the path to a better conversation on race than we had in the 1970s, when Gygax laid down rules heavily influenced by Tolkien's "Lord of the Rings".

Don't get me wrong, in general I love LotR, but I also cannot in good conscience turn a blind eye to passages such as this one:

In one of the windows he caught a glimpse of a sallow face with sly, slanting eyes; but it vanished at once. 'So that's where that southerner is hiding!' he thought. 'He looks more than half like a goblin."
 

So you say. Are you *ignoring* those of us in this forum and thread who say otherwise? Disagree with them, sure, but let's not pretend they and their arguments don't exist.

I don’t have access to WoTC actual sales data, and I have seen nothing in this thread saying that either white players or male players are now not a majority. I presented my quick eyeball way of checking.

Now, I just came back from Japan and the Japanese translations have been in stores for about a month, so one major barrier is certainly going down (language), but where can I see any evidence that my theory is wrong?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Riley37

First Post
A person who is actually offended will not read Twain or Dickens or Dostoevsky or Tolkien or Martin

So you say. I question how well you understand people who are actually offended.

I am actually offended by some things Tolkien said. I have read and re-read LOTR. I am actually offended by Kipling's passages about Kimball O'Hara's "white blood", and I consider "Kim" a great novel. If I were a literature teacher, I'd assign it as required reading for students... and I'd praise its use of foreshadowing, and its descriptions of scene and character... while recognizing that those passages imply that some of my students have racial superiorities over their fellow students. I have used some of Kipling's "Just So Stories" as bedtime stories. I would not use others.

I love "Game of Thrones", and look forwards to future chapters. I love how GRRM responded to the Sad Puppies and Rabid Puppies. That doesn't mean I accept his portrayals of the Unsullied and the Dothraki without any qualms or reservations, nor does that mean I have to re-watch every minute of all of the rape scenes if and when I do a start-to-finish run-through of the screen version.

I agree with Dickens that London in the Industrial Revolution had some cruel aspects. Doesn't mean I agree with him about whether Fagin is a fair and reasonable portrayal of Jewish people. Certainly doesn't mean I would ever support anyone who wants to erase his works from libraries, or publish bowderlized versions. I absolutely don't want anyone to ever change a word of "Huck Finn"; it includes a word I don't speak aloud, and that's interwoven with a message about a white boy willing to go to Hell for the sake of his loyalty to a black friend... and at the same time, I notice that Huck's perspective, with Jim as a supporting character, is the story that Twain wrote, rather than vice versa.

I'm not interested in burning the 1E PHB, to erase its table of level maximums by race and class, nor Gygax's rants on dwarven women with beards. 1E was what it was. I don't want the D&D community to forget or deny it. At the same time, I like some things 5E has chosen to handle differently, and I'm curious about Pathfinder 2.

Would life be simpler for you, if everyone who took offense at different things than you do, were all knee-jerk extremist book-burners, without exception?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Riley37

First Post
where can I see any evidence that my theory is wrong?

Could you please answer the question I asked? I'm not disagreeing with you on percentages. "It's not going out on a limb" is the theory I'm contesting, and I provided a specific counter-example to that theory.

I raise that question, because one of the early commenters said a bit about his personal experience of playing D&D while black, and it wasn't all happy rainbows. That person *was* going out on a limb, against a previous assertion that the D&D player base is universally inclusive. The question of percentages then arose, as part of ongoing discussion of that disagreement.

The response was... well... I quoted the most specific line. If you'd like to read the full post in all its glory, you can find it at http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?630103-Do-We-Still-Need-quot-Race-quot-in-D-amp-D/page13

So I do not think that racists are refusing to allow non-whites to play, but segregation and different earnings levels separate both the ability (able to afford) and interest (shared cultural values).

Those are factors. More than one factor is present, and picking out one factor as THE factor, is a strong claim, requiring strong evidence. I have seen a counter-example, to your assertion about allowing non-white people to play. The guy didn't actually turn anyone *away*... but there was an ongoing group with six players, and he invited five of those players to a one-shot playtest of a convention adventure, and guess what, the sixth player, the one not invited, was black. Coincidence? Maybe. I can't prove anything. It's harder to establish causality than to observe outcome.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top