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.

 

[clearstream]

Sure. But it's one thing to facilitate the emergence of story; another to tell us the answer.

The rules for Dogs in the Vineyard let a player decide whether something is worth fighting, or shooting, over. If they didn't allow that to happen, they wouldn't be doing their job. But they don't answer the question the player is called upon to decide. (As eg D&D's alignment rules seem to try and do, at least as many players have read them over the years.) If they did that latter thing, then the rules wouldn't be doing their job.

I guess we have to note here that if our agenda isn't narrativist, then the rules might well be doing the job we want them to. Our goal might be just to get to the next room of the dungeon, for e.g.

So to make slavery a topic in a game, we might - as one possible minimum - need rules whereby people can be captured in warfare. (And so eg would not want to use a simply combat wears away hp until you die at zero mechanic.) But we wouldn't need a "slavery" subsystem built into the game.

As you say, we need to be able to subdue rather than kill. Probably also restrain. Possibly know what slaves cost, so that they can be bought and sold at meaningful prices. I point that out not to solve slavery gameplay here (ugh), but rather to suggest the rules support is scalable. Do we need Paladin abilities to define our Paladin? I think she pales a bit if she can't lay on hands, cure disease etc. Those mechanics shout out good intentions.

So do we need Elves to be able to see in the dark? If we have that as a rule, then it speaks for itself: elves inhabit a nighttime world. That could yield stories where elves are naturally at odds with the daytime world of humans; each race viewing the other with a degree of discomfort or suspicion.

 

[Khaalis]

I personally prefer the use of Species for differences between .. species (e.g. human vs. dwarf) and Ancestry as a synonym for Culture.

 

[Aldarc]

I think it's also worth noting...

So before we go this route, I think it's *really* important to show that there is a market and that the market is at least as big if not bigger than the current one. RPG's cannot survive the drop in sales those other markets experienced. If there is a market that wants to play RPG's but refuses to play them until we put into place all of the language changes and other changes spoken about here the past few weeks then it's worth discussing next steps. But if there isn't hard factual numbers then I don't see a reason to veer off course into territory where numerous other markets have consistently experienced underperformance (at best) and risk RPG's dying out completely.

Everything you listed had bigger problems, issues, and contexts worth discussing than the shallow "things got bad when they catered to SJWs" line implicit here. Consider, for example, in the case of Marvel comics, which has received a lot of flack about this recently. Their sales were decreasing at the same time that DC launched a highly successful (and socially inclusive) Rebirth relaunch. (Even when their sales dipped, they were still the unquestionable market leader.) Their sales were decreasing at the same time that they were flooding the market with NEWEST, HOTTEST, MUST-BUY, CASH-GRAB EVENTS that led to a lot of buyers' fatigue. Their sales were decreasing at the same time that they were increasing the issue price of their comics and releasing a lot of higher priced "special issues." Their sales were decreasing at the same time that Marvel was instituting new controversial policies about their digital sales. Their sales were decreasing at the same time that there is an increasing trend in the whole comic book industry of people not buying comics because the online digitalization of comics makes buying to read comics unnecessary. Many retail brick-and-mortar stores are now diversifying into selling comic book merchandise (e.g., clothing, accessories, etc.) rather than just comic books. But as a number of brick-and-mortar comic book stores noted, a lot of kids were requesting and buying the "SJW stuff," such as the new Ms. Marvel (Kamala Khan). Though some people can point to some of the "SJW comics" as having low sells, that was also true for many of the concurrently running longtime, mainstream heroes as well, some of whom were outsold by the "left-wing push" comics, yet those characters are not getting the axe.

You want to talk about the left-wing push in films and cite the underperformance of Wrinkle in Time and Ghostbusters? Sure. While you are at it, would you mind telling me how well Wonder Woman and Black Panther performed again?

I mean, take Indian as an example. It was used to refer to the indigenous people in North America. At its base level, that's the meaning (although not the only meaning) of the word. But, "Indian" has all sorts of negative connotations and history so it has been replaced, at least in Canada, with First Nations.

I once thought the appropriate term was "Native Americans," at least in the U.S. I recall, however, taking a "Native American Cultures" course in undergrad. The professor belonged to the Creek Tribe and had done extensive government work and research in the field. She insisted that the preferred term was "American Indian." This was even supported by a number of other American Indian students in the class, including some from the Cherokee and Lumbee tribes of North Carolina. It was a bit odd at first, but my sense from the professor was that this represented a re-appropriation of a term that had been used to label all indigenous peoples of the U.S. It's now my default term of choice in my head, but I still find that it is better to ask people of indigenous descent what their preferred term is and tactfully, when appropriate, the reason why.


There is something else that is important to keep in mind during these discussions. There are people who point out that there are meaningful biological differences and distinctions between elves, dwarves, orcs, etc. that would be suggestive of approprioteness of the term "race" in D&D. The problem, however, when it comes to humanoids in D&D is that these "races" are not divorced from culture, but are, instead, heavily rooted in culture, and that culture often draws from real life cultures in highly inappropriate ways. Just like in real life, notions of "race" are often thrown together with issues of culture in a derogatory manner. This also becomes even more of a red flag when these humanoid races with real world-inspired cultures are dehumanized, colonized, or marginalized.

 

[pemerton]

I guess we have to note here that if our agenda isn't narrativist, then the rules might well be doing the job we want them to. Our goal might be just to get to the next room of the dungeon, for e.g.

Well, I chose Dogs in the Vineyard as my example for a reason - I think it's the best-known of RPGs designed to facilitate narrativist play.

So do we need Elves to be able to see in the dark? If we have that as a rule, then it speaks for itself: elves inhabit a nighttime world. That could yield stories where elves are naturally at odds with the daytime world of humans; each race viewing the other with a degree of discomfort or suspicion.

Well, the analogous point to the slavery discussion would be something like this: we can play a game in which, within the fiction, their are groups whose capabilities, technologies, cultures, etc bring them into potential opposition with one another without locating the allocation of capabilities, technologies and cultures inside a race mechanic.

 

[pemerton]

when it comes to humanoids in D&D is that these "races" are not divorced from culture, but are, instead, heavily rooted in culture, and that culture often draws from real life cultures in highly inappropriate ways. Just like in real life, notions of "race" are often thrown together with issues of culture in a derogatory manner. This also becomes even more of a red flag when these humanoid races with real world-inspired cultures are dehumanized, colonized, or marginalized.

I agree with this point and think it is often ignored in these discussions.

 

[LazarusKane]

Then how do you explain the change in Pathfinder? If it is of absolutely no issue, then, why is the #2 game changing it and why have a number of other RPG's changed it as well?

That´s one of the points we discuss: Is this change good, bad or irrelevant?
And as I stated some pages ago (accoriding to a thesaurus): "ancestry" is something else than "race" - you can´t switch this two words.

(...) Compare that to @Celebrim's elf example, that at least isn't counter-factual some of the time. In AD&D, since the rules were silent on the issue, any interpretation is equally valid. Of course, that means that the "nurture" interpretation is just as valid as the "nature" one. Now, after AD&D, the "nature" interpretation is flat out false since it actually contradicts what's written in the game.

And here you are wrong: The 5th Edition was the first who explicitly stated "weapon training", 4th,Pathfinder,3.5/3 called it weapon familarity or profiencies.

Like I said, I'm not terribly fussed abou this. Just bemused that people who spend this much time thinking about the game are so blind to their own internalizations.

Tells the guy who searches all Edition to prove his point (the medusa) but needs several tries to at least admit that someone isn´t completely wrong...

 

[Hussar]

/sni
And here you are wrong: The 5th Edition was the first who explicitly stated "weapon training", 4th,Pathfinder,3.5/3 called it weapon familarity or profiencies.



Tells the guy who searches all Edition to prove his point (the medusa) but needs several tries to at least admit that someone isn´t completely wrong...

Nope. Go back and reread your 3e PHB. It's specifically called out as training. The fact that you gain a proficiency makes it training.

Funnily enough, in AD&D, you actually DIDN'T gain proficiency, simply a +1 to hit. Which meant that unless you played a fighter or a thief (or subclass thereof) you actually can't use a longsword or bow as an elf without accruing some serious penalties. So, even the idea that all elves in AD&D could use swords and bows isn't actually true.

Umm, I never said, btw, that Celebrim was completely wrong. He just wasn't right. He criticized AngryDM based on his specific interpretation of how elves work. And interpretation that at best doesn't contradict anything, but, is no more (or less) valid than any other interpretation. Which means he has no leg to stand on to criticise AngryDM's point.

 

[LazarusKane]

Nope. Go back and reread your 3e PHB. It's specifically called out as training. The fact that you gain a proficiency makes it training.

No it doesn´t.

For example: Humans are very adept at expressing, recognizing and manipulating emotions in various situations, depending on the need. Such proficiency is evident in a few specific occasions soon after birth. Infants just a few seconds old start expressing one of the most fundamental and functionally important emotions: “cry“, also known as “first cry”.
There is no training involved.

(Sidenote: There are several studies that show that not only training is relevant for how fast you learn something and how good you get, there are also genetic factors. So why it shouldn´t possible that a elf who never wielded a longsword gets "the hang of it" after wielding it for several minutes?)

Umm, I never said, btw, that Celebrim was completely wrong. He just wasn't right. He criticized AngryDM based on his specific interpretation of how elves work. And interpretation that at best doesn't contradict anything, but, is no more (or less) valid than any other interpretation. Which means he has no leg to stand on to criticise AngryDM's point.

Maybe you refer to an other posting of him that I do, but AFAIK he only stated about the fact that in AngryDMs opinion "that it’s self evident that training with particular weapons or training to fight certain foes is a learned thing" the questions

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?

 

[jasper]

Elves are ‘fey ancestry’. They are spirits from a spirit world…..
Hmm I will take a fifth of Waterdeep High Elf, 2 fifths Wood elfs, and 3 fifths Underdark Drow?
How many punches will that me on my ration card sgt?
And can Alabama tax elves just for breathing out spirits? The ABC board needs to make a ruling!

….Ghostbusters severely underperformed, as did Wrinkle In Time….. Both these were mainly sold as LOOK AT THE CAST LOOK AT THE CAST not story or characters. Black Panther/Wonder Woman HERE IS THE CHARACTER and Story.

 

[james501]

It's ironic you should say that, as you've in fact hit on the best alternative yet: "descent".

"The Elvish descent has pointy ears."
"Roll stats, choose class and descent."
"What descent features does a Dwarf get? I saw stonecunning, but what else?"

Yeah, I think we might have a winner here. (though I havne't read the intervening 100-or-so posts to see if someone's already shot it down)

Disagree. It would sound as awkard as in real life.

"Oh yeah the Scottish descent once voted for independece" ....????