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.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

There's a dive bar about 45 minutes inland from me that, until about three years ago, was named "Simon Legree's Bar".

Noice.

 

[Remathilis]

Like who in the flying flippity-floppity do-dah would ever ask anyone "What is your race?" outside of the context of fantasy gaming, the US Census Bureau,* or racists?

Doctors. Certain diseases and drug interactions correlate with groups of people who share similar biological benchmarks that refer to as "race". It's being debated, but for now it's still being used as predictor of disease and medical treatment effectiveness.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3167748/

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Those books currently ask players, in the course of building a character, to choose a race. And it is clear that the choice of race isn't primarily to locate the character within a social structure - this isn't sociology of race: the RPG. The point of that choice is to establish a total (essential, if you like) package that establishes, all at once, biology, heredity, culture, capabilities and (elements of) worth. This is not a use of race that falls "outside" of racist theories; it's a use that emulates those theories.

What if the game separated out biology/heredity and culture into two different decision points, like just about everybody on this thread starting with the OP and including me has been talking about?

What if it called those decision points "race" and "background"?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

All those things persist in Pathfinder, though, except the term. (More so than in D&D, even, which got rid of attribute penalties in 5E.) If that's where the problem lies, this terminological discussion has just been a massive 102-page distraction.

No, it hasn’t.

Like I said, the pairing of the word “race” with the stats & description of Orcs, etc. might’ve been copypasted from racist tracts. Sub “species” for “race”, and the muddied waters clear, revealing that Orcs are actually bigger and not quite as bright & charming as some of the other sentiments they share the campaign space with for reasons contained within the setting.

Zero baggage, zero mess. Don’t start nothin’, won’t be nothin’.

It's like some strange inversion of the strawman where a hypothetical person is set up to make a mistake, and this is used to support an argument.

Not a strawman. People have complained, or this wouldn’t be happening at all, anywhere. All I’m assuming is that those who are offended are are far more likely to be new to the hobby than veteran gamers.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Doctors. Certain diseases and drug interactions correlate with groups of people who share similar biological benchmarks that refer to as "race". It's being debated, but for now it's still being used as predictor of disease and medical treatment effectiveness.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3167748/

While true, part of the reason for those commonalities is cultural., especially things like cuisine. No matter where you go, “soul food” is likelier than not to be made with what used to be considered low-grade ingredients, and are loaded with salt and fats. We did the best we could with what we were allowed. Now, it’s ingrained in the subculture.

But yeah, we are also more likely to have sickle cell trait, just like Ashkenazi Jews are more likely to get Tay-Sachs, and other races have their issues.

Not a surprise, though. “Breeds” of animals also vary in their susceptibility to disorders. Dalmatians are more likely to be deaf, German Shepherds are prone to hip displasia, etc.

Neither “race” nor “breed” denote major genetic differences, just important corner-case variations within species.

 

[Remathilis]

While true, part of the reason for those commonalities is cultural., especially things like cuisine. No matter where you go, “soul food” is likelier than not to be made with what used to be considered low-grade ingredients, and are loaded with salt and fats.

But yeah, we are also more likely to have sickle cell trait, just like Ashkenazi Jews are more likely to get Tay-Sachs, and other races have their issues.

Not a surprise, though. “Breeds” of animals also vary in their susceptibility to disorders. Dalmatians are more likely to be deaf, German Shepherds are prone to hip displasia, etc.

Neither “race” nor “breed” denote major genetic differences, just important corner-case variations within species.

True, but in answering Aldrac's questions, race still serves a minor beneficial role beyond census statistics and rpgs...

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

True, but in answering Aldrac's questions, race still serves a minor beneficial role beyond census statistics and rpgs...

Agreed. As “Big Pharma” and medical researchers are really just beginning to fully grasp, you can’t just test your new meds and other treatments & procedures on 1000 white males between 18-30 and expect to have anything like a complete picture of predictable results. See also gender.

 

[Aldarc]

I think "seeking to preserve" is the wrong way to put it. The Clean Water Act isn't "seeking to preserve" the use of the term "water" -- it's just using the natural term for the thing it pertains to.

I'm sure that would be an absolutely fantastic point if we were debating the use of the term "water" in D&D.

When Gygax was writing? No. In 5E? Getting there.

So in 2018 our hobby has not even got as far as a piece of legislation from 1964? PROGRESS!

What if it called those decision points "race" and "background"?

Then I would still be debating the use of the term "race," as would likely others. As it stands, it sounds like you are advocating for status quo since 5E has "race" and "background" as decision point terms.

Doctors. Certain diseases and drug interactions correlate with groups of people who share similar biological benchmarks that refer to as "race". It's being debated, but for now it's still being used as predictor of disease and medical treatment effectiveness.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3167748/

The fact that the debate is happening suggests a growing recognition that a problem exists with the term and its usefulness for doctors. But usually other terms are increasingly used such as "ethnicity," "nationality," or "genetic ancestry" rather than "race."

 

[Gradine]

Noice.

At least they are well-read racists?

 

[Tanin Wulf]

The fact that the debate is happening suggests a growing recognition that a problem exists with the term and its usefulness for doctors. But usually other terms are increasingly used such as "ethnicity," "nationality," or "genetic ancestry" rather than "race."

The problems with that (which is why it's a debate) are that that ethnicity is a social grouping often based on a nationality, so someone can be ethnically South African and genetically Caucasian. Nationality is just... not useful in the slightest (a disease, like sickle cell anemia, that disproportionately affects black Americans doesn't care that they're Americans, it "cares", as it were, meaning that the genetic predisposition required to cause it to affect you, that they're black). And, of course, genetic ancestry is basically just a longer form of saying "race" and is just as loaded.