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]

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.

Personally I'm not a fan of modeling ethnicity with mechanics, which is basically what it would be. It'd be easier to just give up on it entirely and have race be pure flavor, without mechanical backing. Just give some feats or something that allows to pick Darkvision, breath weapon and stuff if you really need it, or not, that stuff is biological after all.

 

[ccs]

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.

It already is. See PHB (5e), P11, paragraph 6. It's step 1 of creating a character (though plenty of people tend start by picking their class).
Now to some players it's IMPORTANT if their character is an Elf, Dwarf, etc.
To others their caring seems to stop at the stat mods & other special abilities.

 

[Tony Vargas]

This is annoying. Please stop or leave me alone.

I'm sorry, it's just that you make it so easy by repeatedly doing exactly what you accuse others of, often in the same breath.

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?.

Even assuming someone would feel put off by replacing the politically-charged-in-America term race with 'ancestry' or something, wouldn't stepping away from the modern issue and focusing on the fantasy be desirable?

 

[Sunseeker]

Personally I'm not a fan of modeling ethnicity with mechanics, which is basically what it would be. It'd be easier to just give up on it entirely and have race be pure flavor, without mechanical backing. Just give some feats or something that allows to pick Darkvision, breath weapon and stuff if you really need it, or not, that stuff is biological after all.

Frankly, I'd be perfectly happy to do away with racial ability modifiers. I think they do a lot to enforce certain choices when creating certain types of characters. And I don't like that. I'd rather see a +2 floating based on class and a +1 based on background. Something to say "Your ability in this area is better because of your life experiences, not your biology."

That said, I don't mind biological-based abilities, but I don't feel that most of them are defining enough to really scream "ELF!" or "DWARF!". They're mostly just tropey, like a Dwarf's "Iron Stomach" which plays upon ideas of how much they eat and drink, which plays upon stereotypes that first let to defining Dwarves as a "race" which are themselves based on stereotypes of real people.

And really, I've run games where "race" is nothing but flavor (it's actually my preferred method). I do this by letting players choose whatever "racial ability block" they want to use mechanically, and then letting them say "Well I'm an .....". You know what it changes about the gameplay? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. People who play elves still tend to be arrogant tree huggers. People who play dwarves still tend to be scottsman parodies. People who play humans tend to be...human. And so forth.

 

[Riley37]

For the first two yes, I find them offensive. There's nothing sacred or saintlike about being a survivor that prevents them from using a past horror to their current political advantage. For the last one, I don't understand why you even put it here.

Well, I asked you a question, and you gave a non-evasive, yes-or-no answer, so thanks for that.

Your answer horrifies me, but *shrug* better to know and be horrified, than to turn a blind eye.

 

[Hussar]

So, to sum up, the reason against changing the word is a slippery slope fallacy without any actual supporting evidence. There is no evidence that previous changes, like lizard folk , have had any negative impact so claims of “thin edge of the wedge” seem rather disingenuous considering changes that have already been made and accepted.

 

[Maxperson]

Well, I asked you a question, and you gave a non-evasive, yes-or-no answer, so thanks for that.

Your answer horrifies me, but *shrug* better to know and be horrified, than to turn a blind eye.

This is one of the big problems with this country. People are willing to excuse people for their actions because bad things happened in their past. Killers and rapists get off or get reduced sentences because they got beat by their fathers or grew up really poor. I got beat by a father who was an alcoholic. Not only have I never even come close to wanting to kill or rape someone, I don't abuse my kids. Despite what happened to me, I still make my own choices as do others who had horrible experiences in the past.

Oh no you di’nt! That's not acceptable.

THAT was unacceptable. Don’t go there again.

 

[Riley37]

What I am arguing against is the relativist take:

1.) The presence of non-evil Drow signifies that they are creatures of free-will and thus can be taught to change their ways.
2.) The fact they are redeemable means killing them in an act of murder.
3.) Modern concepts of war, justice, and international law means drow should ideally be captured, put on trial, and rehabilitated rather than fought or killed, unless in self-defense.

Which is the slippery slope of taking concepts of real world politics and sociology and applying them to the game.

i suspect that you might be misrepresenting relativism. I don't know if relativism asserts that all humans are redeemable. (Humans as in real world Homo sapiens, the only animal on Earth which sparks fire from flint.) If it does, then I don't understand relativism, because I don't see how Charles Manson was redeemable. Well, not by his fellow mortals. By a divinity with infinite time and infinite love, maybe, but not by any nation's criminal justice system, nor mental health system.

But I know that modern concepts of war, justice, and international law don't require that *humans* be "captured, put on trial, and rehabilitated rather than fought or killed, unless in self-defense." For example, Seal Team Six did not capture Osama bin Laden for trial and rehabilitation, nor was he holding some innocent at gunpoint just before they paid a visit to his household. I'm not saying they should have tried for a capture; I'm just pointing out that they *didn't*, and so far as I know, that mission was within modern concepts of war, justice, and international law. Insofar as we don't hold that standard for humans, you need not worry about applying it to high elves, wood elves, or drow.

Those concepts also distinguish between rules of engagement appropriate to "an unarmed tourist from (x) walks into a Tibetan bar" and "an army from (x) invades, pillages and occupies the nation of Tibet", whether (x) stands for China or for Drow.

So if you don't understand concepts of real world politics and sociology well enough to apply them to the game, then leave that to those of us who do, and let us have our fun with that. You can still have fun, at your table, with "the only good (x) is a dead (x)". Take what works for you, and let the rest go by.

 

[Riley37]

Those holocaust survivors are using their past to make up lies about the present for political advantage.

Hey now. You brought up Trump, and disagreement with Trump. So far as I know, you're the first one to bring him into this thread. I asked a yes-or-no question, and I included links which readers can follow or not as they please, but without giving *my* personal opinion of the 45th president of the USA. You provided brief explanations for your yes answer, and I expressed a general feeling, but did not argue my specific reasons for disagreement into this thread. I thanked you for the directness of your answer.

I disagree with your description of the survivors, as a matter of fact-or-false rather than as a matter of what is or isn't unacceptable; but I'm not gonna elaborate, in this thread, not unless Morrus encourages me to.

For what it's worth, since you've shared some of your past, I am glad that you survived your father's abuse, and that you are breaking the cycle by treating your children better. No matter how deeply I disagree with you, and would oppose you in other venues, I tip my hat to breaking that cycle. (I have no children of my own genes, but if I did, then my #1 goal, and low bar, would be providing them a healthier, safer childhood than mine.)

 

[Riley37]

At least they are well-read racists?

My mother's childhood nickname, which some of her East Coast relatives *still* use despite her expressed preferences, was "Topsy". Yeah, that Topsy, because she was much darker than her siblings. (From Trans-Bering genes rather than Trans-Atlantic genes, according to family lore, but they weren't good at that kind of nuance.) Someone once gave her a 1930s-ish poster about a song "Topsy" which probably qualifies for the Museum of Racist Memorabilia at Ferris State.