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]

Also, as you may have guessed, I'm generally on the same page as DannyAlcatraz and Afrodyte. Birds of a feather... no, wait, that's not what we are. All we have in common is that we're each somewhere on the Niemoller Scale of whether they come for you first, or second, or later, or in the endgame. Holocaust, eugenics, Trail of Tears, Middle Passage, Inquisition, an Gorta Mór - different parties, same dance. But if none of your people were ever invited to any of those parties, then you'd have to cultivate understanding *across difference of perspective*, to understand at all. (Which you totally can... you clearly have the INT minimum, and then some... whenever you choose to.)

τῇ καλλίστῃ !

Dannyalcatraz and Afrodyte have been saying challenging and thought-provoking things which, even if I don't always agree, I can respect.

You have been saying stuff like this. You could argue for anything, however wrongheaded or absurd, with this rhetoric. Why am I supposed to believe you when every far-out position from anti-evolutionism to radical anarchism is also trying to blackmail me with "Do what we say or else you're heartless and supporting the next Holocaust!"?

 

[Sunseeker]

Dannyalcatraz and Afrodyte have been saying challenging and thought-provoking things which, even if I don't always agree, I can respect.

You have been saying stuff like this. You could argue for anything, however wrongheaded or absurd, with this rhetoric. Why am I supposed to believe you when every far-out position from anti-evolutionism to radical anarchism is also trying to blackmail me with "Do what we say or else you're heartless and supporting the next Holocaust!"?

Speaking of the use of rhetoric....

 

[TheCosmicKid]

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

"Race" is the term for the thing the Civil Rights Act pertains to. Whether the thing is a social construct or not, it is a thing.

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.

Pretty close. As has been discussed earlier, the races in 5E still have some baked-in cultural features. I'd expand backgrounds and move the option of taking those features over there.

 

[Afrodyte]

Serious question: what is the problem with being considerate of other people? What is so off the wall insane about changing the name of one game mechanic so that it doesn't remind people of real-world nonsense they don't want to deal with while playing D&D? Why is keeping this one word more important than not driving people away from the gaming table, D&D or the hobby as a whole? Why is it more important to debate and interrogate the ones who have a problem with it instead of, I dunno, look for an alternative that doesn't alienate people?

Seriously, what is so hard about that?

Player: Er, about this race thing. I like elves and dwarves and halflings and stuff, but I'm not comfortable with using terms like race to describe them. Is there another term we could use?
GM and other Players: Um...sure, what would work for you?
Player: How about ancestry/origin/heritage/kin/chromosomes?
GM and other Players: OK, no problem.

Or this?

Book: We've moved away from using race to describe the playable creatures because it has far heavier connotations than what we intend for this game.
GM and Players: *shrug* OK.

What is so mind-boggling about that?

 

[Hussar]

For all the back and forth in this thread [MENTION=8713]Afrodyte[/MENTION], that's pretty much my take on it.

But, you have to remember, in D&D, words MATTER. To an insane degree. And any change must be fought tooth and nail no matter what. Change is bad. Change is just "change for change's sake" regardless of any other justification.

That's why it's such a hard thing to do here.

 

[Phasestar]

Serious question: what is the problem with being considerate of other people? What is so off the wall insane about changing the name of one game mechanic so that it doesn't remind people of real-world nonsense they don't want to deal with while playing D&D? Why is keeping this one word more important than not driving people away from the gaming table, D&D or the hobby as a whole? Why is it more important to debate and interrogate the ones who have a problem with it instead of, I dunno, look for an alternative that doesn't alienate people?

For me personally, there's nothing wrong with being considerate, but that's not what this debate is about in my case. I am against racism, in favor of good manners and consideration and believe in judging each person individually by who they actually are underneath their skin. Racism is stupid and unfounded and I find it personally repellent. I'm also in favor of introducing D&D to everyone in the world, if possible and making them feel welcome.

For me this is about a bigger debate than this one question - a debate about principle that focuses on free speech and the long-term consequences on civilization when speech is too greatly limited. There has been a growing pattern of speech censorship and limitation and reclassification in our society in general. Much of this has seemed well-intentioned on the surface, but the unintended negative consequences have been greater than any benefit. Within this thread, many moved quickly from asking the question "is the word race offensive even when used inoffensively" to deciding that it was and that therefore no one should use it. From there, it's a very short step to declare anyone using it, past/present/future as a racist and an evil person. I have a very high bar when it comes to declaring words off-limits because of that, especially when they have a neutral meaning and can be used in good faith without causing offense.

If you were at my table and asked me not to use the word "race", I would be initially puzzled (because until reading this thread I had no idea folks were offended by what on its own to me had always been a neutral word used without negative connotations in D&D) but would agree until we could discuss in private. Afterwards, I would ask you what bothered you about it and listen with an open mind to try to understand your position as to why it personally upset you. I would also hope that you would listen and understand my position. Whether we agreed or not would depend on that discussion, but my reluctance to accomodate your concerns on a personal level is much lower than my reluctance to ban words in all cases, so I expect I would agree.

In this debate though, it comes down to something closer to "should the word race, in any context, be banned in general", which concerns me much more.

A great deal of history has taught me that we need free speech precisely to protect offensive speech, not to protect popular or considerate speech, because when those who want to limit speech seek power over all, they will declare any speech that is against them as offensive. Free speech as a principle is a key natural right and bulwark against all kinds of things that are much worse than being considered ignorant or inconsiderate. This to me is one of the core principles of our civilization and should not be compromised. Most of human history was much different and much worse than the relative golden age in which we all now live and the principles that established this unique period in human history could be easily lost (and along with it, much of what we now take for granted) if they are not understood and defended.

For those reason, I would rather not avoid or ban words that in and of themselves are not offensive but could be or have been used offensively in the past. I would rather say "let's understand that when used this way, this word is offensive, so don't use it that way if you do not intend to offend".

 

[Tony Vargas]

A great deal of history has taught me that we need free speech precisely to protect offensive speech, not to protect popular or considerate speech, because when those who want to limit speech seek power over all, they will declare any speech that is against them as offensive. Free speech as a principle is a key natural right and bulwark against all kinds of things that are much worse than being considered ignorant or inconsiderate. This to me is one of the core principles of our civilization and should not be compromised. Most of human history was much different and much worse than the relative golden age in which we all now live and the principles that established this unique period in human history could be easily lost (and along with it, much of what we now take for granted) if they are not understood and defended.

Perhaps the hardest part of defending freedom is the need to defend the freedoms of those who despise freedom, itself, and will abuse every freedom they have in trying to abridge those of others.

 

[Afrodyte]

But none of what you wrote answers my questions: What is wrong with changing one word to be considerate of other people? Why is it so important to dig your heels in and refuse to even look for alternatives to one word that some people have said alienates them from the game, or at least makes things more uncomfortable than they need to be? Why is this one word more important than the people at the table or in the hobby?

 

[Tony Vargas]

But none of what you wrote answers my questions: What is wrong with changing one word to be considerate of other people?

At best, it's a narrow end of the wedge thing. If someone gets to dictate that you can or can't use word, do they get to dictate other words, as well? Can it be taken to the point that certain concepts can't be meaningfully discussed any more because the words that are needed to express one side of an argument are forbidden?

If an idea is wrong, it need only be confronted and refuted (not merely shouted down) every time it is expressed, (I say 'only,' but, obviously, that's a major, continuous undertaking). If, instead, public expression of an idea is suppressed, it goes underground, where it an be expressed in echo-chambers without being refuted in public, and it's proponents can take up the mantle of the oppressed struggling against their oppressors.

That said, a game has a fair amount of latitude in choosing it's jargon, and a term like heritage or ancestry could easily work better than race as such jargon, while side-stepping the current loading of the term, not to mention the sense of anachronism that loading adds to the use of the term. No telling what term might be loaded up on later, though... maybe someday, for some unforeseeable reason, 'Hit Points' will become a horribly offensive phrase...?

 

[Afrodyte]

At best, it's a narrow end of the wedge thing. If someone gets to dictate that you can or can't use word, do they get to dictate other words, as well? Can it be taken to the point that certain concepts can't be meaningfully discussed any more because the words that are needed to express one side of an argument are forbidden?

If an idea is wrong, it need only be confronted and refuted (not merely shouted down) every time it is expressed, (I say 'only,' but, obviously, that's a major, continuous undertaking). If, instead, public expression of an idea is suppressed, it goes underground, where it an be expressed in echo-chambers without being refuted in public, and it's proponents can take up the mantle of the oppressed struggling against their oppressors.

That said, a game has a fair amount of latitude in choosing it's jargon, and a term like heritage or ancestry could easily work better than race as such jargon, while side-stepping the current loading of the term. No telling what term might be loaded up on later, though... maybe someday, for some unforeseeable reason, 'Hit Points' will become a horribly offensive phrase...?

This seems like a slippery slope argument, and it doesn't answer my questions. Why is it wrong to be considerate of other people by changing this one word? Why does this one word mean more than the people at the table or in the hobby?