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.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

And when Gygax used it in that quoted section, he was using it in the precise way in which a RW racist would, complete with the further use of contextual words like “mongrel” and “passing for” human.

What I take from that is that the problem lies in the actual ideas he was expressing, not the words he was using to express them. If, as you say, a southern white man in his 40s-50s calls you "boy", that's expressing a very different idea than a black older acquaintance calling you "boy". What's going on here, to me, seems like if you asked your grandfather's friend to stop calling you "boy" because of how other people at other times used the word.

 

[Phasestar]

And when Gygax used it in that quoted section, he was using it in the precise way in which a RW racist would, complete with the further use of contextual words like “mongrel” and “passing for” human.

Understood and followed all of this except for this part - what is a "RW racist" as opposed to a racist?

 

[Lanefan]

Understood and followed all of this except for this part - what is a "RW racist" as opposed to a racist?

RW = real world, I think; as opposed to racism expressed within the confines of the game e.g. Dwarves and Elves disliking each other, or only the top 10% of human-orc crossbreeds being playable.

 

[Hussar]

What I take from that is that the problem lies in the actual ideas he was expressing, not the words he was using to express them. If, as you say, a southern white man in his 40s-50s calls you "boy", that's expressing a very different idea than a black older acquaintance calling you "boy". What's going on here, to me, seems like if you asked your grandfather's friend to stop calling you "boy" because of how other people at other times used the word.

Is that a bad thing?

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Is that a bad thing?

Yes. He's doing nothing wrong.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

What's going on here, to me, seems like if you asked your grandfather's friend to stop calling you "boy" because of how other people at other times used the word.

Except again, as noted, Gygax used the word in that passage in exactly the same way as a klansman. He’s expressing the same concept, but directing it at a fictional people. Seeing a racist concept clearly expressed- with the real world serial numbers filed off- could be extremely jarring to some.

Whereas my grandfather’s friend was expressing an entirely diffeeent, non-racist concept.





It’s an age-old problem authors and artists face, especially as time passes. Their prose or other creation is fixed in time; the meanings of words and images may change. The Nazis ruined swastikas for cultures worldwide. Writers of the past using racial epithets get grilled over whether their word usage was for verisimilitude of a character & setting, or whether that reflected their true inner selves.

 

[Hussar]

Yes. He's doing nothing wrong.

Really? By using a term, even completely innocently, that is so heavily steeped in racist history, isn't that more or less condoning how the term is used? After all, that grants the racist the defense of, "Well, I'm just using it how he meant it".

I remember years ago, driving in Detroit with a friend of mine from Newfoundland. Now, if you know Newfie English, you know that they use "boy" all the time, but, it's pronounced as rhyming with "bye". Well, we got a bit lost and my friend leans out the window and asks the young black man at the corner, "Hey, b'y, where's t' Ford Museum at?"

Now, again, 100% innocent, but, this time from a white dude in the middle of Detroit in the early 1990's. Still doing nothing wrong?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

“Poor optics” to be sure. (I believe the phrase of yesteryear would be “tin eared”.)

Go to New Orleans (and other places in Louisiana, Texas and Mississippi) at any point prior to @1985, you could find a lot of places serving an Italian salad called “W*p salad”.
http://www.gumbopages.com/food/app/wop-salad.html

There are places that, up until the 1960s-70s had names like “N****r Creek”.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negro_Creek_(Tongue_Creek)

Most locals wouldn’t have blinked twice about those usages, and probably had no racial animus in their heart.

But we know the words offend, so they were changed.

Some people are saying now that the way “race” is used in FRPGs is distasteful or offensive. Why discount their narrative?

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Except again, as noted, Gygax used the word in that passage in exactly the same way as a klansman. He’s expressing the same concept, but directing it at a fictional people. Seeing a racist concept clearly expressed- with the real world serial numbers filed off- could be extremely jarring to some.

Absolutely. That passage was wrong, and Gygax was wrong to write it. Later editions of D&D were improved by not reprinting it. But it doesn't follow that they'd be improved by avoiding the word "race" entirely, because it also expresses different, non-racist concepts.

It’s an age-old problem authors and artists face, especially as time passes. Their prose or other creation is fixed in time; the meanings of words and images may change. The Nazis ruined swastikas for cultures worldwide. Writers of the past using racial epithets get grilled over whether their word usage was for verisimilitude of a character & setting, or whether that reflected their true inner selves.

Fitzgerald's use of swastikas in Gatsby sure jumped out at me, the first time I read it.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Absolutely. That passage was wrong, and Gygax was wrong to write it. Later editions of D&D were improved by not reprinting it. But it doesn't follow that they'd be improved by avoiding the word "race" entirely, because it also expresses different, non-racist concepts.

We in this thread may know/believe the designers aren’t racists. But someone new to the game or hobby won’t necessarily be able to figure that out. At least, not before having their initial gut reaction. By then, the damage may have already been done. Perhaps too much to overcome.

To use an old aphorism, why borrow trouble? Why continue to use a word with lots of baggage when there are others with less?

Fitzgerald's use of swastikas in Gatsby sure jumped out at me, the first time I read it.

See also photos of Army units comprised mainly of Native Americans whose regimental symbols included swastikas, prior to their engagement in WW2. Like the 45th Infantry:
View attachment 96221

Or, perhaps more disturbing, the pre-war “Bellamy salute” given to the American flag during the Pledge of Allegiance.

(FWIW, for the past few years in the Catholic Church, pastors have asked congregations to “extend their right hand in prayer” over/for certain purposes. I participate, but I do it from the elbow only, without raising my arm. It looks too creepy for me to do otherwise.)