log in or register to remove this ad

 

Do We Still Need "Race" in D&D?

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
[h=3]“Race” and Modern Parlance[/h]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."
[h=3]“Race” and Game Design[/h]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.
[h=3]The Last Race[/h]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.
 
Last edited:
Michael Tresca

Comments

Status
Not open for further replies.

Scrivener of Doom

Adventurer
Yes.

If anything, RPGs more accurately use the term "race" than we do in real life.

(I'm known to fill in forms that ask for race with "human".)
 



Rhianni32

Adventurer
"The term "race" is a staple of fantasy that is now out of sync with modern usage"
It was out of sync with the very first game Gygax played.
Personally, I want my game different than a 1951 United Nations declaration. Of course it is out of parlance with reality. Setting aside 67 years of change in our world, here we have 1 human race with many cultures/backgrounds where as most games will have many races. If there is a problem with being accurate with the real world then switch race to species.

When making your average fantasy RPG character you have a series of choices. Some are based on the physical body (racial bonuses like elf longevity, or darkvision) others are learned traits in what you did with your time and the environment you lived in (background). Mechanic wise you still have to make the same choices whatever you want to call them.

Race+background+culture is bad.
Ancestory is ok?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Malshotfirst

Explorer
Theres literally NO sound argument above as to why fantasy RPGs should ditch Race. Especially a quote from the Angry GM, "because I can’t speak for what happened in the Cinnabon or whatever that other book was called". Really? Thanks for your words of wisdom.
 


FaerieGodfather

Aberrant Druid
Supporter
The use of the term is technically incorrect, and that is the worst kind of incorrect. The socjus implications are way below my sensitivity threshold, but the misuse of the word bothers me.

Likewise, its most common replacement, "species". Also wrong.
 

Paraxis

Explorer
Need, no, but should we change to match the whims of a small group of people because it upsets them, also no.

Race is a perfectly fine term, and used the way it is in rpg books is more accurate than modern use when talking about skin coloration.
 

jrowland

First Post
I once had a discussion with a gamer friend of mine about race (in our world). We had just finished playing D&D but (IIRC) the rodney king riots were fresh on our minds. Mind you, I am white, he is not.

I said something to the effect of, "Black people, unlike humans..."

Imagine my embarrassment. We had a good laugh, he knew what I did (thinking D&D race, and in my mind, humans were white, but in his they were black), but it could have been worse. Especially today.

I think Fantasy racial tropes are a nice shorthand. I'd prefer if they went to "specieis" rather than "ancestry". I'd also prefer a cultural layer (nurture) in addition to the racial/species layer (nature).

Ultimately though. I don't care. A rose by any other name smells just as sweet.
 



Morrus

Well, that was fun
Staff member
It's an interesting discussion. Pathfinder now uses "ancestry", I used "heritage" in modern WOIN (but that was because the four choices were human - Augmented, Mutant, Chosen, and Human) but "race" in fantasy WOIN (where it refers to elves, dwarves, orcs, etc.)

D&D uses race. I don't see that changing any time soon.

I think the word has a different connotation when referring to fictional species, as opposed to human ethnicities. The latter speaks to who the actual players are, since they will be one of those ethnicities, while the former does not.
 

Rhianni32

Adventurer
That was quick. Please don't post in this thread again, and please review the rules regarding usage of derogatory terms like "SJW".
My apologies Morrus. I've edited out the comment and won't be posting in this thread apart from admitting I crossed the line.
 

FaerieGodfather

Aberrant Druid
Supporter
I'd prefer 'Culture' to 'Race'.
Seems an odd choice to me. A demihuman's "racial" abilities in Dungeons & Dragons surely aren't the product of cultural differences, are they? They're not learned behavior.

Otherwise, I would dearly love to learn the changeling's shapeshifting "habits", and the sensory "mindset" of the draconic heritage.
 

S

Sunseeker

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

Celebrim

Legend
You still pick a race, even though it is now called your ancestry.
I think this says it all. I don't really care in some sense. You just replaced one word with its synonym. Big deal, right? The problem is why in the heck would they bother to do this in the first place?

First, it's the same thing, but they are giving it a new name. They even say that. That shifting language in order to attempt to be more sensitive never works, because the meaning follows the term and quite soon all the things attached to the old word are also part of the baggage of the new term. "Moron" was invented in an attempt to be clinical and sensitive to a difficult and challenging problem. It's not sensitive anymore. "Mentally Retarded" was invented in an attempt to be clinical sensitive. It's not sensitive anymore. Now we are using the new term "intellectual disability", and I have to wonder how many years will go by before elementary kids are hurling that as an insult across playgrounds. I appreciate the sentiment, but so often it feels like running from a problem rather than confronting it head on.

Ancestry is at least an actual synonym for race, so things could have been a lot worse. They could have used things like 'Culture' which don't mean the same thing at all. I'm also a bit worried because the article seems to assume what is nature and what is nuture based on assumptions about what is nature and nurture in humans, despite the fact that we are using race precisely because the other here is not human. Is it really the case that an elf knows how to use a bow because of his upbringing? Are you sure that it works that way? Why would it have to work that way?

I'm worried that this is going to create more problems rather than less. Switching to the term 'ancestry' opens up the designer to the idea that different human ethnicities should get different racial modifiers because they have different 'ancestry'. I doubt the designer would ever think that way if the more loaded term 'race' was still employed, but give it a nice softer sounding synonym like 'ancestry' and suddenly the unthinkable becomes thinkable. The article seems to even call this out as a good thing.

Fundamentally, I think what we are seeing here is complete discomfort with the idea of inhuman or even with the idea of diversity. We want things to be 'diverse' as long as they are all exactly the same as we are, and any suggestion that diversity really means diversity of thought, beliefs, desire, and culture tends to frighten us. So we hide that fear behind softer sounding words like 'ancestry' thinking that it is going to go away if we blind ourselves to it, like a kid hiding under a blanket. And behind all of that I think is we've lost the reasons why we think all people are of equal worth, or deserve to be equal before the law. Instead, we tend to think of equality as being based on weaker ideas like equality of ability and so forth, instead of a stronger and unshakable basis. My equality of worth better not be based on equality of ability. There are certainly people who are stronger, faster, and smarter than I am.

"In Middle Earth, unlike reality, race is objectively real rather than socially constructed."
If it turns out that we humans are not actually alone in the universe, then we are going to have to deal with the reality of diversity in a mature manner. Yet we seem to lack the ability to do this even with the most minor diversity seen amongst humanity. Likewise, if it turns out that we really are different, if we are only basing our respect, compassion, and valuation of others on the idea that there are no objective differences from each other, then we are in big trouble. If on the other hand we actually value diversity and actually value people of diverse backgrounds, then regardless of whether there are objective differences between us - or maybe even because there are objective differences between us - then we will continue to have respect, compassion and valuation for others. I feel this whole construction is just a house built on sand, and the first hard test of it will blow it all down.

The fact that we are now afraid of the term 'race' even in an RPG where there are different sentient beings objectively lacking in a common ancestry and common origin and so fully justify the term, makes me worry about our ability to think rationally even in a situation where we as humans all objectively have a common ancestry and common origin. If anything, in an RPG we ought to be least worried about this, because we will probably demand for game reasons if nothing else for the 'races' to be balanced with each other in terms of potential and ability. Out in the real world, if we were to really meet something inhuman visiting us from beyond the world, we couldn't guarantee this was the case.

"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.
I can't recall the last time the "subrace" construct was forced. But I guess based on this statement we can "look forward" or the writer is looking forward to humans in fantasy given the same sort of "many races" treatment that elves and dwarves get. I'm certainly not.

I guess I will answer the question the article asks with, "Yes." And my reason for that is that race in the game world is objectively real. Moreover, even the switch to the term "ancestry" isn't actually denying the idea that the word "race" represents in the game. It's just trying to hide it. There is a certain lack of courage in that which bothers me far more than the new word "ancestry" does.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Shadow Demon

Explorer
Absolutely yes! There is one human race with multiple ethnicities and cultures in the real world. In the fantasy world, this is still true but I challenge anyone to come up a better descriptor for the differentiation between humans, elves, dwarves, and halflings.

It is total nonsense to be offended by the use of race in this context.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
Yes, keep race. There's no need for political correctness to interject itself into gaming where race isn't a problem.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Mythological Figures & Maleficent Monsters

Advertisement1

Latest threads

Mythological Figures & Maleficent Monsters

Advertisement2

Advertisement4

Top