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.

 

[Lanefan]

While 'race' might not be the best term, all the suggested-thus-far alternatives are worse either via inaccuracy or awkwardness; leaving race as the best of the bad.

'Ancestry' for example is more accurate (particularly because it elegantly includes the various half-xxx's and part-xxx's which none of the other suggestions do) but also more awkward to say, use and parse.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I get where you are coming from, but if I really thought the races were all basically human, I'd consider it pointless and problematic to include them in the game. If all races have to be basically human, then we should just have humans and eliminate the idea of racial diversity (in the since of real racial diversity, and not just ethnic groups). Elves are not just humans with pointy ears.

Is it not significant enough, to you, if there's this cool group of humans with perfect hair and great eyesight and this specific long and rich history? I mean, is the game world more interesting to you for only having normal humans in their regular variants, than if you also include other playable peoples that are still mostly human?

My intention in having non-human races is for the players to attempt to stretch their imagination and attempt to empathize with and articulate something alien from who that they actually are. That's why when someone wants to play a non-human race, I give them a document explaining how different that they are and why their cultures are what they are because of it. As a DM, that's why I have such beings in my game world.

Honestly, that sounds like a lot of work, and I'm not sure that I (or any other player) could do it justice.

It's hard for me to guess how much we're actually disagreeing on this point, but when I look at elves, the main thing that jumps out at me is how they live for a very long time. If elves were exactly like humans, except in that they had a significantly longer lifespan, then that would already require the player to adjust all of their thinking to take that into account. They would be different, but not so different that a player couldn't understand them, if they put in a little effort.

The more alien you make something, the less capable a human is off playing it. Thri-kreen are probably the most obvious example of something that shouldn't be playable, because there's absolutely no way that a player could ever get their primate brain to mimic the responses of an insect brain. They simply aren't compatible. It makes me suspicious whenever I see someone want to play an actually alien race, because it feels like they care more about the mechanical benefits or something like that, rather than actually trying to role-play the impossible.

 

[Jester David]

Maybe the problem is that modern society acquires loaded, negative connotations fairly quickly without any reasonable justification.

Yes, the because the Ancient Greeks never used slurs to negatively talk about neighbouring lands 3000 years ago.

(Spoiler alert: they totally did.)

 

[Lanefan]

I think one reason I'd like to see race go away is that I'd like to see human "subraces" like we have for dwarves that represent major socities which have perhaps bred for different traits. Part of the reason I want to get rid of race for this reason is I really don't want to see human-variants referred to as "subraces". I think a fantasy game like D&D, unlike real life, has room to say that X humans developed differently from Y humans because of the magical nature of their environment. Maybe "north" humans really are stronger. Maybe "island" humans are smaller and faster. Maybe "jungle" humans are more hearty.

Yes, and sub-races is a fine term for this whether applied to Humans, Dwarves, Elves or Shoggoths. "Sub" in this case does not mean lesser in quality, it means lesser in number - just like in math you'd use the terms 'set' for all of something and 'sub-set' for a specific portion of the set.

 

[Sunseeker]

Yes, and sub-races is a fine term for this whether applied to Humans, Dwarves, Elves or Shoggoths. "Sub" in this case does not mean lesser in quality, it means lesser in number - just like in math you'd use the terms 'set' for all of something and 'sub-set' for a specific portion of the set.

Uh, no.

Absolutely zero people are going to buy that, especially if your imagery reflects traditional western ideas of what color or style of dress an "islander" or "jungle" person has.

 

[Celebrim]

I'm Canadian.
Statistics Canada has decided the term "race" is not to be used and is an old standard, and uses the term "ethnicity" in its place.

Are you suggesting that centaur, dwarf, elf, and lizardfolk are ethnicities?

Ethnicity in my opinion matches much more closely to "culture" than it does to anything else. That might be appropriate for distinguishing humans, but if it was, then my ethnicity would be "American" or perhaps "Jamaican-American" or "American-Jamaican".

And I'm sure somebody would have a problem with that as well.

If you don't see the problem then maybe you should defer to the opinion of people who DO see the problem and DO have problems with the term. Human beings who DO feel dehumanized by the world.

I see the problem, I just don't see a legitimate solution being proposed. Nor do I necessarily agree with what the problem actually is.

 

[Shadow Demon]

When I think of ancestry, I think of lineage, then I think of nobility, which in turn makes think of the British monarchy. It is all too humanocentric. It doesn’t work for me.

 

[Over the Hill Gamer]

Have to call BS on this. Morrus and the other moderators most certainly do not "censor" opinions on the site. What they do is block the insulting behavior of some bad actors.

You'll find plenty of opinions in this very thread on all sides of the issue whether the term "race" is used problematically in D&D or not. The OP certainly positions "race" as an outmoded and somewhat racist term that we should consider abandoning, but if you post your disagreement, politely and respectfully, you'll be fine.

If you start spouting off with insulting and demeaning terms like "political correctness" and "social justice warrior", yeah, you're gonna see some mod action, and rightfully so.

If you just can't have reasoned and polite discussions over this and other similar topics on race and culture in D&D, then stay out of those threads. Sooooo easy to do!

Morrus, Talien, keep up the good work pushing us to think about concepts we often take for granted without realizing the deeper implications!

That's pretty sad if they actually censor people for using the term political correctness. I know it's a term of the right and I largely disagree with the people who use it but still, it's a thing. The term is a legitimate expression of opinion. Heavy-handed censorship of legitimate poltical discourse is unfortunate. Your solution that these people should "stay out of those threads" is another kind of censorship. Political censorship is anti-1st amendment and anti-American in my opinion.

 

[TrippyHippy]

But it's not 'culture', any more than it's race.

To be sure, the acuity of the language is not as much an issue as the offensiveness of using the term 'Race' being used in this sort of context. They've used 'Culture' in other games - The One Ring/Adventures in Middle Earth and also RuneQuest 6/Mythras. It worked OK for them.

If you want a more acute word then maybe 'Heredity'.

 

[Jester David]

Okay, it's tricky to keep changing your language and dropping old terms from your vocabulary.
But as Einstein is reported to have said: “once you stop learning you start dying”.
I'm not ready to get dying, so I guess I'll keep learning new ways to speak. I'm not the elderly grandfather on a pouch speaking trash because that was the era I was raised in. I'm capable of changing how I talk and the words I use. And I am responsible for what I say, not society.


Whether or not I agree if a word has negative connotations is largely irrelevant. Because I'm not the one being offended or upset. The person offending cannot be the judge of whether or not something is offensive or upsetting or causing emotional distress. Life just doesn't work like that.
While there is very much an outrage culture occurring online, we cannot live life assuming that people are upset over nothing. That's not how society works. We have to assume people are being honest about their feelings and their outrage.

Purposely saying or doing things that upset people has another name. No, not "triggering". That's label people doing the upsetting use to veil their actions. Deliberately causing negative emotions is bullying. People who knowingly and unrepentantly make other people feel bad are bullies. Plain and simple.

I don't personally have a problem with the term "race". No emotions there. But I learned in college, waaaay back in my 2000-01 term, that the word is inaccurate as there's no real biological distinction between human cultural groups and that ethnicity, culture, and nationality were the proper terms.
And since then I'm aware that other people do have a problem with the term. So I try to use "ethnicity" when discussing real world groups. Because I don't want to be a bully. Bullies suck. Bullies made my life hell in junior high and that's not the kind of person I want to be.


Being carefully how I speak doesn't hurt me. And it doesn't hurt other people.
Not being careful how I speak hurts other people. Which makes me a bully.

As choices go, that's a no-brainer.