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.

 

[MoonSong]

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.

There's way more nuance to ethnicity than that. Ethnicity is a social group based upon common cultural heritage: history, customs, traditions, idiosyncrasies, values, and overall worldview. Sometimes it also includes common language, and even some genetic resemblance. -though this last one is not a guarantee, for example the Nahua people come from quite distinct genetic lineages only one of which is genetically close to the ancient Aztecs-. It is not synonymous with nationality, as a single nation/state can include tons of ethnicities and a single ethnicity could easily be spread around different nations.

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?

Nothing, we could easily switch it.

However, the mere premise over which the initial argument rests, can be alienating. Not the actual fights for equality, just the overgeneralizations that come with it. Merely assuming the sociopolitical climate of a given country holds true for all countries. Like I said in an earlier post, I don't know what to make of things as simple as the "PoC" moniker. I'm sure in America things are more clear cut, but in my country, that doesn't make any sense. I'm not saying skin color isn't a problem in my country -it is, specially the Higher the socioeconomic class of the people involved, but my brother being darker skinned than I makes no difference between us, if anything he is more privileged than I though for totally unrelated reasons-, but the worst and most urgent inequalities aren't racially based, they are economically driven, ethnically driven, regionally driven, even religiously driven. I empathize with the feelings and I wish you the best of luck, but American issues driving the hobby and taking center stage on it, while the issues of non-americans are basically unheard of and quickly dismissed -as it happened to me when I complained about a certain holiday themed adventure. No biggie, it just makes a mockery of my ancestors, a quite sacred holiday to me and throws in quite casually a few insensitive stereotypes while at it.- makes me feel as if I don't belong in the hobby. Heck I wouldn't be able to take part in this conversation if I hadn't taught myself English!

 

[Tony Vargas]

This seems like a slippery slope argument

Yes. Slippery slope, narrow end of the wedge. It's not a logically valid argument by itself.

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?

I don't think it's wrong to be considerate. I think it's wrong to go too far in punishing people for being inconsiderate, especially, in their speech, because punishing speech can become a tool of oppression. And it's better to just let everyone have their say, and express themselves as they see fit - even if they're terribly, horribly wrong and actively malevolent in doing so, at least we know where we stand with them - and, we, in turn, can call them on it. (For instance, here on the boards, you can lie all you want, but calling someone on it is verboten, because it's inconsiderate to call them a liar. Not an ideal situation, IMHO, but it's Morrus's forum and he can do what he wants with it.)

The way I see it, 'race' has been used in modern contexts in a way that makes it less useful as game-rules jargon in evoking the fantasy genre than an alternative like 'heritage' or 'blood' or 'people,' for some instances, might. It's not that someone might be offended, it's that the drift of the language and the stench of politics has placed connotations on the word that rendered it less valuable for the purpose. At least, for now.

 

[Afrodyte]

There's way more nuance to ethnicity than that. Ethnicity is a social group based upon common cultural heritage: history, customs, traditions, idiosyncrasies, values, and overall worldview. Sometimes it also includes common language, and even some genetic resemblance. -though this last one is not a guarantee, for example the Nahua people come from quite distinct genetic lineages only one of which is genetically close to the ancient Aztecs-. It is not synonymous with nationality, as a single nation/state can include tons of ethnicities and a single ethnicity could easily be spread around different nations.



Nothing, we could easily switch it.

However, the mere premise over which the initial argument rests, can be alienating. Not the actual fights for equality, just the overgeneralizations that come with it. Merely assuming the sociopolitical climate of a given country holds true for all countries. Like I said in an earlier post, I don't know what to make of things as simple as the "PoC" moniker. I'm sure in America things are more clear cut, but in my country, that doesn't make any sense. I'm not saying skin color isn't a problem in my country -it is, specially the Higher the socioeconomic class of the people involved, but my brother being darker skinned than I makes no difference between us, if anything he is more privileged than I though for totally unrelated reasons-, but the worst and most urgent inequalities aren't racially based, they are economically driven, ethnically driven, regionally driven, even religiously driven. I empathize with the feelings and I wish you the best of luck, but American issues driving the hobby and taking center stage on it, while the issues of non-americans are basically unheard of and quickly dismissed -as it happened to me when I complained about a certain holiday themed adventure. No biggie, it just makes a mockery of my ancestors, a quite sacred holiday to me and throws in quite casually a few insensitive stereotypes while at it.- makes me feel as if I don't belong in the hobby. Heck I wouldn't be able to take part in this conversation if I hadn't taught myself English!

This does not answer my questions: Why is it wrong to be considerate of other people? Why is keeping this one word more important than making people feel welcome and included at the table or in the hobby? Why is this keeping this one word in the game text more important than the real people at the table and in the hobby?

 

[Afrodyte]

Yes. Slippery slope, narrow end of the wedge. It's not a logically valid argument by itself.

I don't think it's wrong to be considerate. I think it's wrong to go too far in punishing people for being inconsiderate, especially, in their speech, because punishing speech can become a tool of oppression. And it's better to juts let everyone have their say, and express themselves as they see fit - even if they're terribly, horribly wrong and actively malevolent in doing so, at least we know where we stand with them.

The way I see it, 'race' has been used in modern contexts in a way that makes it less useful as game-rules jargon in evoking the fantasy genre than an alternative like 'heritage' or 'blood' or 'people,' for some instances, might. It's not that someone might be offended, it's that the drift of the language and the stench of politics has placed connotations on the word that rendered it less valuable for the purpose. At least, for now.

Again, this seems like the slippery slope fallacy as well as a strawman. The hypothetical cause and effect you're presenting here is neither inevitable nor is "punishing people for being inconsiderate" an accurate representation of what people in favor of changing this one word actually asking for.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Why is keeping this one word more important than making people feel welcome and included at the table or in the hobby? Why is this keeping this one word in the game text more important than the real people at the table and in the hobby?

This seems like the slippery slope fallacy as well as a strawman. The hypothetical cause and effect you're presenting here is neither inevitable nor is "making people feel unwelcome and excluded" an accurate representation of what people in favor of keeping this one word actually asking for.

But, my opinion is that D&D would do well to step away from 'race,' with its modern connotations of political controversy, and choose an alternative that better fits the D&D concept of radically different sentient beings - elves, dwarves, orcs, lizardfolk, fairies, dragons, etc - all inhabiting a fantasy world.
But, it's just an opinion, not a demand.

 

[Afrodyte]

This seems like the slippery slope fallacy as well as a strawman. The hypothetical cause and effect you're presenting here is neither inevitable nor is "making people feel unwelcome and excluded" an accurate representation of what people in favor of keeping this one word actually asking for.

Again, you are grossly mischaracterizing what I'm saying, and you are flat-out putting words in my mouth.

Nowhere do I accuse anyone of any malicious intent, nor do I, in any of my posts, say that people are engaging in any deliberately exclusive behavior.

If you can't answer my questions without grossly distorting my point, I have no desire to converse with you.

 

[Gradine]

This seems like the slippery slope fallacy as well as a strawman. The hypothetical cause and effect you're presenting here is neither inevitable nor is "making people feel unwelcome and excluded" an accurate representation of what people in favor of keeping this one word actually asking for.

But, my opinion is that D&D would do well to step away from 'race' and choose an alternative that better fits the D&D concept of radically different sentient beings - elves, dwarves, orcs, lizardmen, fairies, dragons, etc - all inhabiting a fantasy world, rather than one that carries modern connotations of political controversy.
But, it's just an opinion, not a demand.

*Lizardfolk

 

[aramis erak]

In Adventure in Middle-earth, which is D&D 5e based, it is called Cultures. Cultures cover Elves of Mirkwood, Men of Bree, and Hobbits of the Shire.

Only because it's a port of The One Ring.

 

[Afrodyte]

Pathfinder: "It seems that this word we use has some unintended baggage we don't want in the game. Why don't we change this word to address the concerns a few people brought up?"

Some People: "Not really something I worry about, but if it means more people feel welcome and included, OK."

Some Other People: "Nyah, nyah, nyah, you can't make me, and you're a big ol' PC meanie if you say this means I'm acting like a jerk."

Me: "Why is it so important to not do this simple thing if it means making someone feel more comfortable at the table or in the hobby? Why is being a little more considerate of fellow D&D players a bad thing?"

Some Other People: "I have the right to be inconsiderate, and even if somebody did have a problem with the word (which I doubt despite several people flat-out saying that they do), changing one word is limiting free speech."

Me: "Uh...you do you, I guess."

 

[MoonSong]

This does not answer my questions: Why is it wrong to be considerate of other people? Why is keeping this one word more important than making people feel welcome and included at the table or in the hobby? Why is this keeping this one word in the game text more important than the real people at the table and in the hobby?

Why is this one word so important to fight over? This whole discussion is alienating to me, I don't even fit into this "race" category as is the case for basically everybody I know and hold dear. Am I white? Am I PoC? the mere fact that I had never needed a racial label for myself speaks by itself. The whole premise over which this discussion is a thing is just so alien, and that it is that huge of a deal just makes me feel like an outsider and unwelcome. You're American? yeah your issues matter. You're not? what are you doing here?

I'm all for making people feel welcome, but I'm not even sure if I'm in the position to make others feel welcome, when I don't feel welcome myself. Who cares enough to make me feel welcome? Apparently nobody...