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.

 

[Gradine]

There is nothing here that I disagree with in reality. What I saying is social media has both accelerated and amplified the problem. Surely, you can’t think that social media has been a net postive.

From another point of view, one could say that social media has increased connections and the accumulation of shared experiences and accelerated and amplified the demand for actual solutions to problems.

Of course, it has also facilitated and emboldened the exact same progress for bigots, neo-nazis, and others of their ilk. So is it a net positive or negative? As a trained historian, I'd argue that it's too soon to tell (as loathe as I am to credit Faulkner for anything beyond popularizing narrative run-on sentences, his line "The past isn't dead. It isn't even past." is an apt one). I'm tempted to say no, in the short run, but probably(?) in the long run(?)... Like I said, it's hard to say because we're still very much living in the "social media" moment of history.

 

[ShinHakkaider]

Alright dude. You sound like you might have a little bit of bias, dare I say racism, toward white people from all of your arguments and negative commentary. I will not be drawn in to a debate that I can't win because I'm the token white geek. I'm going to take the high ground and bow out. Good luck with your arguments. I wish you good luck and good fortune on all of your ventures. May the gamers you meet be better to you than the supposed ones you've met so far. For my part, if you have seen that side of things and only that side of things, I'm sorry. You're missing out on the better side of gamers. Good day to you sir.

And I can see that you might be a racist yourself. Due to the fact that youre calling me a racist for pointing out that there are less than virtuous people in the hobby and for stating that the hobby is mostly white? That's typical WS tactics right out of the WS playbook.

I've clearly stated that I find good people to game with first. Pretty much dont care WHO or WHAT they are. GOOD PEOPLE. I'm sorry if you cant handle something that clashes with your pristine world view.

 

[Shadow Demon]

The word "race" is problematic. It does not matter if we're talking about elves and dwarves or Africans and Asians, we're still using a contentious term.

As I voiced in another post, imagine if we swapped "race" for "breed". You pick human or dwarf or elf as your breed. That sounds worse, right. But to many people, saying "race" feels just as dehumanizing as saying "breed".

I guess we have to end this with agree to disagree. I do not find “race” to be problematic. Honestly. I would like to find the person who feels the use of this word in RPG to be dehumanizing. I literally find the concept to be unbelievable.

The interesting thing is that it’s real world context with all of the negative baggage makes it perfect for the existence of sentient genetically distinct creatures in a RPG. I am too attached to it in this context to ever let it go.

 

[Gradine]

Alright dude. You sound like you might have a little bit of bias, dare I say racism, toward white people from all of your arguments and negative commentary. I will not be drawn in to a debate that I can't win because I'm the token white geek. I'm going to take the high ground and bow out. Good luck with your arguments. I wish you good luck and good fortune on all of your ventures. May the gamers you meet be better to you than the supposed ones you've met so far. For my part, if you have seen that side of things and only that side of things, I'm sorry. You're missing out on the better side of gamers. Good day to you sir.

I'm with Shin on calling WS BS on this one. And here's the thing. It's not even the cries of "Reverse Racism" or the cloying, passive-aggressive superiority-through-a-thin-veneer-of-civility nonsense that crosses the line. It's the use of the word "supposed" that does it. That's the moment you tipped your hand. And it's more than just a passive-aggressive, subtle way of calling them a racist liar. It's proof that you're more willing to believe that he is lying about his experiences (and believe he is racist) than you are willing to believe that he has actually encountered white racist gamers in the past.

This is not civility. This is not the high road. This is, straight-up, racist bullying, and it has been reported as such.

 

[LordNightwinter]

I'm with Shin on calling WS BS on this one. And here's the thing. It's not even the cries of "Reverse Racism" or the cloying, passive-aggressive superiority-through-a-thin-veneer-of-civility nonsense that crosses the line. It's the use of the word "supposed" that does it. That's the moment you tipped your hand. And it's more than just a passive-aggressive, subtle way of calling them a racist liar. It's proof that you're more willing to believe that he is lying about his experiences (and believe he is racist) than you are willing to believe that he has actually encountered white racist gamers in the past.

This is not civility. This is not the high road. This is, straight-up, racist bullying, and it has been reported as such.

Do what you must, people hide behind the anonymity of the internet all the time. I have no way of validating his statements nor he mine. It's not a crime to be skeptical.

 

[Jester David]

I guess we have to end this with agree to disagree. I do not find “race” to be problematic. Honestly. I would like to find the person who feels the use of this word in RPG to be dehumanizing. I literally find the concept to be unbelievable.

Then go back and re-read this thread. There are several.

Feel free to disagree with them and tell them how you don’t think their problem is a real problem.

 

[JonnyP71]

And yet, you think you are being polite and reasonable and treating other people with respect?

Are we just allowed to call anyone that disagrees with us bigots and misogynists now, or is it only if we are being sarcastic and passive aggressive about it?

Do you really think that OtHG deserves that sort of response, and that even if you think he does you are just allowed to express that sentiment?

In this context are those claims anything other than meaningless and insulting terms? Because I certainly don't see anything in the post you are responding to that suggests that those claims are valid.

Way to miss the mark completely Celebrim.

I was agreeing with OtHG. I like my fantasy world dark, gritty, misogynistic, I think it makes for better villains and greater player investment in putting paid to their nefarious schemes. The world I'm making for a 2E game loosely mirrors Europe around early-mid Middle Ages, Religious violence, Feudalism, downtrodden peasants with no escape from the drudgery, mistrust of foreigners and so on. I use the old 1E racial preference tables, I stick to the old no dwarf or hobbit mages rule, and so on.

 

[DemoMonkey]

Am I correct in giving all different ideas their due and boiling this entire long heated discussion down to:

"Race is probably the most accurate and genre appropriate word for describing different sentient fantasy creatures, but it is also a word that some people find offensive in the real world and should be changed to increase inclusiveness." ?

 

[Rygar]

From another point of view, one could say that social media has increased connections and the accumulation of shared experiences and accelerated and amplified the demand for actual solutions to problems.

Of course, it has also facilitated and emboldened the exact same progress for bigots, neo-nazis, and others of their ilk. So is it a net positive or negative? As a trained historian, I'd argue that it's too soon to tell (as loathe as I am to credit Faulkner for anything beyond popularizing narrative run-on sentences, his line "The past isn't dead. It isn't even past." is an apt one). I'm tempted to say no, in the short run, but probably(?) in the long run(?)... Like I said, it's hard to say because we're still very much living in the "social media" moment of history.

Did it?

It's trivial for a group of political activists to create a wide range of shill accounts to make it look like 1 person is 10 people, or 100 people, or 1000 people. It's also trivial to drive it with AI, especially on limited text platforms like Twitter, or to utilize bot networks to produce a scripted response that mimics thousands or tens of thousands of people.

It's also trivial to skew things to make herd mentality and group think turn to outrage. Purposefully leaving out information to make something meaningless sound outrageous for example. The average person isn't going to research something their cousin said on Facebook, they're going to believe it and post it for their 200 friends, who'll repeat the process without researching it. Leveraging that, you can outrage large groups of people who'll never take the 30 seconds to get the 2/3 of the story that was left out to make it sound like some heinous event.

So I'm not convinced that Social Media has done anything other than give ready examples of extreme forms of public manipulation by special interest groups and the psychology of manipulating large populations of people to produce desired output.

 

[Shadow Demon]

Then go back and re-read this thread. There are several.

Feel free to disagree with them and tell them how you don’t think their problem is a real problem.

I read several where they preferred ancestry but none where I getting the dehumanizing vibe. Maybe our definitions aren’t in sync. The n-word is dehumanizing, derogatory, and inflammatory. The word “race” even in real-world use doesn’t really meet the same criteria. Yet, there are those would want us to believe that it does. Once more, agree to disagree. I am going to happily play at conventions and use the word “race” without a second thought.