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]

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, lizardmen, fairies, dragons, etc - all inhabiting a fantasy world.
But, it's just an opinion, not a demand.

Agreed, 100%.

 

[Tony Vargas]

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."
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."

Again, you are grossly mischaracterizing what Some Other People saying, and you are flat-out putting words their mouths.

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?"

Me: Y'know, the word's been so contaminated by political baggage, why not use another word that'll evoke medieval fantasy instead of modern politics?

 

[pemerton]

Some folks here are clearly well versed in critical race theory and other similar philosophies that are currently popular among academics and many of those academics fully believe that the lens created by these theories shows the present and the past in the most accurate way. Others are arguing from the more practical standpoint of how have gamers and D&D used this term and if there hasn't been a problem, why should there be one now, which (in my opinion correctly) leaves the non-game problems aside and focuses on the confines of the game.

I don't think this is a correct characterisation.

My concerns - which I've tried to articulate, straightforwardly, from my first post in this thread - is that my RPG books are real things that I would like to be more easily able to share with real people - actual family and actual friends. This is a practical thing.

What is the current obstacle to sharing them? Because these books incorporate an idea, and stories that employ that idea - they recapitulate and treat as unremakarble an idea - which some of my family and friends would rather not have to deal with on those terms: namely, the idea that biology, heredity, culture, capabilities and worth on a hiearchy of people all travel together in some total package called "race".

A few good points have been made on connections where the real world issues have inevitably crossed that fiction/non-fiction divide and those are in my opinion the strongest in favor of why a word that is not used offensively could still cause offense.

For me personally, there's nothing wrong with being considerate, but that's not what this debate is about in my case.

<snip>

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.

<snip>

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.

<snip>

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

These remarks don't really bear on this discussion at all.

As best I can recall, no one in this thread has said of him-/herself that s/he is offended by the use of the word "race". And as best I can recall, the only offensive text that's been exhibited is from Gygax's PHB, which I posted upthread (concerning half-orcs).

And no one in this thread is talking about banning words, or censoring anyone. I have a copy of Gygax's PHB on my shelf. I have copies of REH and HPL on my shelf.

This is a discussion about what sorts of words and ideas one wants to be required to engage with to play a game. And it's obvious - I would have thought - that for some people that engagement brings stresses and burdens that it may not for others.

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?

Alienation and discomfort are much better words to capture what I'm talking about than offence.

 

[Eltab]

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?

A mirror: why is removing this one word more important than making people feel welcomed and included at the table or in the hobby? Why is removing this one word from the game text more important than the real people at the table and in the hobby?

It was put very well upthread: not all the effort to change language and culture is being put forward in good faith. The bad faith actors are a lot noisier and quickly level highly flammable insults at non-agree-ers.
I've seen more good faith and gentlemanly behavior in this thread - including your contributions except for this evening - than I've seen in socio-political discourse as a whole. Maybe this is because RPG'ers are different from the average person: we have experience with the idea "put yourself in the other fellow's shoes," because that is what we do for fun.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

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?

I interrogate the reasons for taking an action because that's what it means to be a rational human being. I'm... disturbed by your implication that I should do otherwise. What you're describing does not sound like common courtesy to me. What would you say if a player from a culture with conservative modesty norms said to you, "The women in this game's art should wear headscarves. It's just one small change. Why are the bare heads of fictional characters more important than making real people like me feel welcome? Isn't it inconsiderate of you even to question my request?" (Please note that I am not drawing equivalence between the proposed changes of "race" and headscarves, but rather the coercive means being used to argue for them. If you want to start pointing out the ways in which "race" is a different case than headscarves... great! It means you're interrogating the merits of the proposals.)

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.

That's roughly how I would react at the actual table. I'm not there to argue, I'm there to play D&D. I also keep the peace when somebody says something I find politically or religiously objectionable at dinner, because of course I do. But we are here, on a forum, in a thread entitled "Do we still need 'race' in D&D?" If there's anywhere to cross-examine the stuff that doesn't make sense to us, it's here.

 

[Sunseeker]

A mirror: why is removing this one word more important than making people feel welcomed and included at the table or in the hobby? Why is removing this one word from the game text more important than the real people at the table and in the hobby?

The problem with reversing the argument is that it doesn't hold up.

The people who are feeling unwelcome generally attribute some level of unwelcomeness to the use of the term "race". As expressed by folks like [MENTION=19675]Dannyalcatraz[/MENTION]
Removing the word, updating it to something less unwelcoming helps being more real people into the hobby.

You can't really reverse that. If you say "Worry about the people, not the word!" well...those people are concerned about the word. So if we are to be concerned about them then we should share in their concern over the word.

 

[Afrodyte]

Again, you are grossly mischaracterizing what Some Other People saying, and you are flat-out putting words their mouths.

This is annoying. Please stop or leave me alone.

 

[Afrodyte]

A mirror: why is removing this one word more important than making people feel welcomed and included at the table or in the hobby? Why is removing this one word from the game text more important than the real people at the table and in the hobby?

I don't play this game. It's irritating. People have explained, at length, why they're in favor of removing it.

 

[Afrodyte]

That's roughly how I would react at the actual table. I'm not there to argue, I'm there to play D&D. I also keep the peace when somebody says something I find politically or religiously objectionable at dinner, because of course I do. But we are here, on a forum, in a thread entitled "Do we still need 'race' in D&D?" If there's anywhere to cross-examine the stuff that doesn't make sense to us, it's here.

Then what are you arguing about?

 

[pemerton]

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"?

Speaking for myself, and re-aticulating points I've already made in this thread, that doesn't resolve the issue, and in some ways makes it more accute.

Under this model, "race" becomes even more a marker of biological inheritance, and equates that with a person's identity and capabilities, while also making questions about biological purity all the more pressing. To explain further: at the moment, maybe some "elves" are really "half-elves" - ie people with ancestry that most would regard as human - raised among the elves - a sort-of D&D approximation to Elrond. Once you make race unequivocally biology, how does such a person fit into the mechanical scheme?

Upthread some poster were discussing rules for quarter-elves, eighth-orcs etc. My view is that those sorts of rules do nothing to resolve the issue I have been posting about in this thread, and indeed tend to exacerbate it.

I'm not a designer, and haven't tried to do any sort of systematic study of the mechanical alternatives and how they might be rendered well in the fiction. That said, upthread - in discussion with [MENTION=6787503]Hriston[/MENTION] - I already sketched an idea of elaborating on the existing background rules that are found in 5e, 13th Age and maybe some other recent d20 games. Being an elf, a dwarf, a half-elf or whatever could just be another component of background choices.