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. 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.

 

[Zarithar]

Just call the various humanoids "species" instead of race and it'll be fine. Within each species, break it down into cultures (in the case of humans) or even "sub-species" (in the case of elves for example with drow, sea elves, etc). I agree though... the term "race" could be replaced with species. Ancestry is a little to vague in my opinion and suggests the same species if that makes sense.

 

[Tonguez]

I've always taken a species aproach to race anyway and striped out 'cultural elements' long ago - so swords and bows have nothing to do with race, although things like magical afinity, keen senses and even trances do.

Orcs Humans and Elves are a ring species with Humans at the center - Orcs are more Robust Hominids whereas Halflings are more Gracile form, as a related species Humans can cross with Orcs (only one step removed), I suspect they can cross with halflings too but they're just short humans anyway.

Elfs and gnomes are fae species. Elfs evolved in high magic conditions which has affected there morphic nature to the extent that Elfs wil mutate as enviroments change (they have many subraces) they can also crossbreed with humans due to some weird morphic resonance.

 

[Dualazi]

- People who are negatively stereotyped by race might be reminded of it. Many people on this thread have said they play games for escapism. I know I do. People who have been negatively stereotyped by race need escapism, too. Why remind them of an insult when they just want to game like us?

Because if you remove every little thing that someone/some group is bothered by then there is nothing left. Virtually every 'evil' race would be gone for one, since here on enworld and elsewhere there's always the occasional attempt to link the drow or orcs or what have you to a real world race or ethnicity. You could likewise see any number of cultures object to D&D's take on elements of their legends, creatures, or way of life, and if you cater to one you cater to all. So if someone complains that the fae aren't handled with respect to say, common European conventions, then you would also have to remove anything that offended any other cultural group.

Frankly, you're not entitled to have creative works bend over backwards just to make sure you or anyone else aren't reminded of anything negative in life.

- People who still think of reality in terms of race might see justification in the continued use of the term in the same manner they use it (to describe groups with functional differences). RPGs should not give racists any justification. Think that's crazy? Read on below.

Did you just seriously quote an anecdotal story from an anonymous poster on a supremacist website and expect us to believe that this is indicative of widespread cultural effect with regards to race relations and/or perceptions? Get real. When you can come back with a peer reviewed study that shows conclusively that D&D's verbiage trains people to look down on others or really negatively affects racial interactions at all, then you can spout off about that. Till then it's nothing more than idle scare-mongering, something D&D has had to endure for too long.

Oh, and crack-pot racists like the one you quoted can justify any part of their insanity, changing 'race' to 'ancestry' or 'origin' certainly isn't going to deter them.[/QUOTE]

The problem is, though, that it's rather sadly becoming less and less possible to include everybody as it seems more and more people (of ALL political/religious/social persuasions without exception) are finding more and more things to take offense to. Then someone gets offended by the fact of someone else taking offense to something, and the spiral is on.

Quoted for truth, probably a more succinct form of what I was getting at above.

You really think it is that hard to not be insulting? What's amazing to me is that we have a single, concrete term with an acknowledged history of being insulting and people are resisting changing it for no other reason than "it's what's been done." Nobody is going to take away your elfs, alright?

Yeah, when the ever-shifting list of demands expands to include generic classifications, with no real substitutes of value, then yeah, it is too hard. Mostly because there's nothing 'insulting' about it, that's something you are choosing to be insulted by.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

We've had at least a few posters that didn't like the association. Why wouldn't we try to make rpgs more inclusive?

There exist "at least a few" people who don't like the associations of "magic" and "demons" and "devils" because it seems like an attack on deeply held beliefs tied to a socially constructed personal identity. In the most literal sense of the word, the game is failing to be "inclusive" by keeping these terms and concepts in play. But I don't think we need to try to be more "inclusive" in that sense by changing the game, and I suspect you don't either.

I say this not to try and draw an absolute equivalence between the "demons" case and the "race" case. Hopefully, you can think of differences to justify caring about one more than the other. The differences are my point. We can, must, and do exercise some sort of critical judgment over whether to heed objections from people claiming exclusion. Merely invoking inclusivity is not the final word.

We've got other terms we can use.

I think my position boils down to: we really don't. "Race" is the natural English word that means what we're referring to. "Species" is the only other word I've seen that comes close. I'd happily write a SF game with "species", but it's just not quite the right fit for elves and dwarves.

I really do appreciate that you and others are offering alternatives. But they have so far amounted to (borrowing a metaphor from Twain) literary flat and sharp notes: you hear the word that was not said, and you hear the gap in meaning between that and what was.

 

[Hussar]

What amuses and bemuses me the most in these types of topics is just how much people have internalized their own interpretations to the point where they can no longer distinguish their own idiosyncratic takes from what is actually stated in the game.

For example, angryDM talks about the elf raised in a human city not being proficient in longswords and bows. [MENTION=4937]Celebrim[/MENTION] then claims that such proficiencies are the result of the nature of elves. Elves innately know how to use swords and bows. Only problem with that is that it's not true. It's certainly not true in 5e where, while high and wood elves get it, drow do not. They are all elves after all. If it was innate to being an elf, then everyone would have the same thing. Drow aren't proficient in any bows.

Plus, it's specifically called out as Elf Weapon Training. Kinda says it right there in the title.

In 3e, it's also called out as training - "Elves esteem the arts of swordplay and archery , so all elves are familiar with these weapons" (3e PHB p 16).

2e is silent on the issue - elves simply gain +1 to hit with bows and swords. There is no background given whatsoever.

So, angryDM's point is pretty valid. For a good chunk of the game's history, elves do not gain any innate understanding of swords or bows. So, why does being an elf grant automatic proficiencies?

 

[the_redbeard]

Because if you remove every little thing that someone/some group is bothered by then there is nothing left. Virtually every 'evil' race would be gone for one, since here on enworld and elsewhere there's always the occasional attempt to link the drow or orcs or what have you to a real world race or ethnicity. You could likewise see any number of cultures object to D&D's take on elements of their legends, creatures, or way of life, and if you cater to one you cater to all. So if someone complains that the fae aren't handled with respect to say, common European conventions, then you would also have to remove anything that offended any other cultural group.

Frankly, you're not entitled to have creative works bend over backwards just to make sure you or anyone else aren't reminded of anything negative in life.

Just examine your biases (which Tolkien didn't) and don't be lazy enough to base your fantasies on real world stereotypes. It's also still possible to like problematic things.

Did you just seriously quote an anecdotal story from an anonymous poster on a supremacist website and expect us to believe that this is indicative of widespread cultural effect with regards to race relations and/or perceptions? Get real. When you can come back with a peer reviewed study that shows conclusively that D&D's verbiage trains people to look down on others or really negatively affects racial interactions at all, then you can spout off about that. Till then it's nothing more than idle scare-mongering, something D&D has had to endure for too long.

Oh, and crack-pot racists like the one you quoted can justify any part of their insanity, changing 'race' to 'ancestry' or 'origin' certainly isn't going to deter them.

Did I say it was widespread? Did I say that D&D was training people? You're putting words into my mouth. But folks have said there's NO connection and yet there one is.

The classification of humans by race is something that persists and continues to be an ugly thing. RPG rules are a small, tiny part of culture. But they're reflective of the world. This terminology is a product of its time, its embarrassing and there's no good reason to keep it. Do you have one? I haven't seen one in this thread.

Keeping the term won't keep me from gaming and I'm not going to spend as much energy on it as say, supporting the Oklahoma teachers. But I'll have this conversation if I can make the gaming community better for it.

I'll note that you didn't quote this part of my post for another reason to change it:

- People who are negatively stereotyped by race might be reminded of it. Many people on this thread have said they play games for escapism. I know I do. People who have been negatively stereotyped by race need escapism, too. Why remind them of an insult when they just want to game like us?

So you just don't give a damn about them or what?

Why are you so attached to a term that means something twisted (not just different, but twisted) from its use in game when you could use something else?

Yeah, when the ever-shifting list of demands expands to include generic classifications, with no real substitutes of value, then yeah, it is too hard. Mostly because there's nothing 'insulting' about it, that's something you are choosing to be insulted by.

Ever-shifting lists of demands? Treating others with respect is that hard for you?

 

[cbwjm]

The term race is fine, there's no need to change it.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

What amuses and bemuses me the most in these types of topics is just how much people have internalized their own interpretations to the point where they can no longer distinguish their own idiosyncratic takes from what is actually stated in the game.

For example, angryDM talks about the elf raised in a human city not being proficient in longswords and bows. [MENTION=4937]Celebrim[/MENTION] then claims that such proficiencies are the result of the nature of elves. Elves innately know how to use swords and bows. Only problem with that is that it's not true. It's certainly not true in 5e where, while high and wood elves get it, drow do not. They are all elves after all. If it was innate to being an elf, then everyone would have the same thing. Drow aren't proficient in any bows.

Plus, it's specifically called out as Elf Weapon Training. Kinda says it right there in the title.

In 3e, it's also called out as training - "Elves esteem the arts of swordplay and archery , so all elves are familiar with these weapons" (3e PHB p 16).

2e is silent on the issue - elves simply gain +1 to hit with bows and swords. There is no background given whatsoever.

So, angryDM's point is pretty valid. For a good chunk of the game's history, elves do not gain any innate understanding of swords or bows. So, why does being an elf grant automatic proficiencies?

It IS a valid point, and one I feel is entirely within the DM’s purview to change...along with dwarven fighting techniques, alignment and other cultural or habituated traits. Drow who primarily live on the surface might not have light blindness. A human raised by dwarves might have stonecunning.

Because the MM & PHB entries describe typical members of a creature’s type or subtype, not all of them.

But some things probably shouldn’t be touched regardless of background absent extreme justification (like som kind of magical intercession). The changelings, cuckoos, adoptees, foundlings, etc. of fiction were different, but still retained their core species attributes. Tarzan learned much living with apes, but he was never to become as strong or large as one. Captain Carrot was more culturally dwarven than most dwarves, even though he was a human standing well over 6’ in height. Despite being adopted by dwarven parents, he grew to full human size.

Which is why I don’t think the stuff we see in the creature writeups should be officially divorced from their underpinnings and made into another laundry list of character building options like Feats or Spells. Homebrewing those changes is fine, OTOH, given proper context.

 

[Ravenheart87]

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.

Despite what a lot of people think, the BD&D race-as-classes weren't the original way of handling races and classes, but a simplified version designed for an entry product. Original Dungeons & Dragons handled race and class seperately, which became more pronounced after Supplement I.

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).

Which is exactly how OD&D handled them by the time Supplement I was out.

 

[james501]

Absolutely. It’s just a term. Just like negro, retard, Eskimo, oriental, and Indian.

I am sure you are familiar with the term "false equivalence".

Also, "Indian" is an actual nationalty distinct from Native Americans.

“Ancestory” is as good a term as any. “Origin” would work too.

No, not really.

The terms themselves sound "off" and "wrong" in comparison to "race". THey sound too "past tense", too "forgone" so to speak, while "race" sounds more "present" and descritpive.

Also, while they may be fine for individualistic use they become awkard and problematic when needing to describe groups.

It's fine to say "he is of Elf ancestry" but not " The Elven ancestry/origin has pointy ears"

See where it sounds silly ?

It would be like trying to replace "nation" with "descent" in real-life language. It doesnt cover the same meaning and wouldnt work as a synonym.

Other alternatives like "species" also dont work.

-Species sound too scientific, too impersonal, too dehumanising. Whereas Race still retains the element of humane and personhood.

English is a robust language. We can find a better word. Heritage. People. Nation. Etc.

They still dont work.

-heritage sounds as awkar as ancestry/origin

-nation is a sociopolitical notion, not a biological one as race is

-people still doesnt cut it. Different ethnicities of one "race" can be different people. While "Race" retains the biological differentiation of each one of them.

The person offending cannot be the judge of whether or not something is offensive or upsetting or causing emotional distress

Disagree. Christian Conservatives were offended by all sorts of innocuous things. Other religious denominations are offeded by others.

But I learned in college, waaaay back in my 2000-01 term, that the word is inaccurate as there's no real biological distinction between human cultural groups and that ethnicity, culture, and nationality were the proper terms.

Good thing, fantasy doesnt apply it on human people then ?


I also thought of changing the term but, so far none of the alternatives seem good enough.
"Scion" perhaps ?