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

Yaarel

He Mage
I just see racism as race-based prejudice, no institutional power required. I have too many white-, Hispanic-, Korean-, Jew- Indian-, ________-hating people in my (mostly black) family* who have little or no such power.

Put differently, institutional power makes racism easier to inflict/observe, but it isn’t a necessary prerequisite. An impotent racist is still a racist, in my book.



* this, despite many of those adjectives being part of the family ancestry. Which further illustrates that racism is fundamentally irrational.

"An impotent racist is still a racist."

I appreciate the sensitive way of describing this.

I agree 101%.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Yaarel

He Mage
In America, whites, blacks, native nations, latinos, asians, and others are a normal part of what makes America America.

With regard the US, I agree with the school of thought that characterizes the main injustices as economic.

Wealthy blacks do fine. It is poor blacks who suffer more injustices. Then again, poor whites also suffer injustices.

That said, blacks have disproportionately less money. Poor blacks tend to have less money than poor whites. Rich blacks tend to have less money than rich whites. And so on.

But the problem is economics, and in the US, the solution is economic equality. For everyone.



That said, economics doesnt explain everything. Much of the time, things go well because a culture has good values. And things go poorly because a culture has bad values.

There are many places in the world that are extremely poor − and peaceful − and compassionate. And it is because these cultures value nonviolence. We really need to think more about these poor but healthy cultures, to figure out values that make the world a better place.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Gradine

The Elephant in the Room (she/her)
If you can understand and use the colloquial definition with ease, how is the academic definition useful here?

The academic definition (by which I mean the academic definition in those fields dedicated to study of race, race relations, and racial inequity, advanced by those fields which, plainly, do have an agenda, that agenda being to study, confront, and reverse racial inequity) is useful because it moves the concerns centered around racism (and I'll start using racial inequity here, since that's a, perhaps, more accurate, or at least more clear, term) away from the individual actions of individual bad actors (ie; the prejudiced, or "racists") and towards looking at actual systems of racial oppression, which become apparent when you look at basically any and all data showing demonstrably worse outcomes for people of color, even when controlling for all factors besides race (here's one such recent study published in the Upshot, but that's a rabbit hole you can dive into all day long if you'd like).

To be clear, while my biases are clearly predicated towards academia, there is significant concern within grassroots, on-the-ground anti-racist movements that critical race academics don't focus enough on individual outcomes, and to be honest, they aren't wrong. So I think that the individual-based, colloquial definition is still quite useful as well, which is why I included it as well.

Regardless, neither of those definitions come anywhere close to whatever the hell Celebrim's definition of "racist" is that caused him to a call a person of color "racist" for wanting to gauge people's background information in a conversation about race (which, because it seems like everyone missed it, culminated in a post that was largely, though not entirely, directed at the arguments I was making earlier in the thread, mind you).
 

Obryn

Hero
I just see racism as race-based prejudice, no institutional power required. I have too many white-, Hispanic-, Korean-, Jew- Indian-, ________-hating people in my (mostly black) family* who have little or no such power.

Put differently, institutional power makes racism easier to inflict/observe, but it isn’t a necessary prerequisite. An impotent racist is still a racist, in my book.
About a decade ago, Ta-Nehisi Coates (who is, by the by, a giant D&D and comic book nerd) said, "America has lots of racism, but very few racists." That has stuck with me. The idea is that the bar for personal racism has been raised unrealistically high - so high that in 2017, many or most of the nazis marching in Charlottesville would have told you with a straight face they're not at all racist (...and that they have friends from all cultures and that you're the real racist for even bringing it up).

Anyway. I think it's important to remember that the term has a lot of meanings. The institutional definition (which requires the power to enforce beliefs about racial supremacy) is what you'll find in most books on the subject. But sooooo many people use it in the colloquial sense, it's just a dumb fight to have.

I prefer RPGs to use as much the same terminology as the worlds they take place in as possible, so if Mordenkainen calls them races and WotC calls them ancestries or whatever, that's a minus for me.
Oh crud, Mordenkainen called them Ancestries in his seminal work on the topic.
 

Obryn

Hero
In America, whites, latinos, blacks, and others are a normal part of what makes America America.

I agree with the school of thought that characterizes the main injustices as economic.

Wealthy blacks do fine. It is poor blacks who suffer more injustices. Then again, poor whites also suffer injustices.
This is going way, way far afield - but Henry Louis Gates would probably beg to differ.
 


MNblockhead

A Title Much Cooler Than Anything on the Old Site
The reason I XPed [MENTION=6816042]Arilyn[/MENTION]'s reply to Rygar is this: I don't see how including women, or people of colour, in RPGing is a "left-wing push". It's not a socialist conspiracy to have created a world with people in it who aren't white men.

I agree wholeheartedly. But it is, unfortunately, how these things get lumped together in the shallow name calling you see so often in today's culture wars--in the USA at least.

Personally, I prefer to avoid the terms "left" and "right." For one, they are increasingly used as pejoratives that raise hackles and derail discussions. Secondly, the terms do not necessarily have the same meaning internationally. Neither does "conservative" or "liberal" for that matter.
 

Obryn

Hero
What book is this in? (I genuinely don't know.) :)
I'm poking some gentle fun. :cool:

(The book doesn't exist, and even if it did exist, the excerpts would be written by whatever real-Earth authors bothered to write it, because Mordenkainen isn't a real person with an independent capacity to write anything at all. So over in PF2, you might see fake excerpts from scholarly works by some sage or another that refer to 'ancestries.')
 

Shadowfell is the realm of the dead. A spirit realm of ghosts. They obviously have no bodies, because the bodies are back in the material decomposing in the ground. The shadowfell is completely devoid of matter. It is spirit only.

When your character ‘visits’ the spirit realm of the shadowfell − where physicality is nonexistent − what do you think is happening?

No place has matter except the material plane. (And the elemental planes.) The spirit worlds of shadowfell and feywild, the ether, the spirit worlds of the celestial and infernal, the dreaming, and so on, are modes of existence without matter.
Where are you getting this from? I've never played any version of D&D where other planes of existence didn't have matter, unless you're specifically talking about the AD&D quasi-elemental plane of vacuum (at the intersection between the elemental plane of air and the negative energy plane).

If there was no matter, then you wouldn't be able to swing your sword, and D&D-style adventures would be impossible. The easiest way to travel between planes is with the Plane Shift spell, which physically moves your body to another plane.

According to the Forgotten Realms wiki, the Shadowfell and Feywild were (respectively) the darkest and brightest parts of the Prime Material, which were physically separated from the Prime by Primordials. Both the Shadowfell and Feywild have geography, and are populated by numerous intelligent races, who walk around with their physical feet on physical ground which is very much made of matter. If someone walked through a portal from the Shadowfell to the Prime Material and continued on to the Feywild, they would noticethe local flora becoming brighter and more lively at each transition. They wouldn't notice that suddenly matter started existing where previously there was none.
 

MNblockhead

A Title Much Cooler Than Anything on the Old Site
I do think we really quickly need to establish that 5e is doing well because it's a good game, not because of any significant changes relating to it being more inclusive.

Why?

Yes, first and foremost it is a good game.

But I think the inclusive artwork and wording has had a positive effect. I'm the first to admit that the only evidence I have for this is anecdotal. Yet, I've read and have heard discussed from many sources that people have been attracted to by the efforts WotC have made to make the game's art and language more inclusive.

Once of the brilliant aspects of 5e is how they have both managed to capture some of the old-school flavor of the game while at the same time modernizing it--both its mechanics and its flavor. That modernization has including making it a more inclusive game.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top