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.

 

[Mercule]

If we remove the term "Race", shouldn't we also remove the terms Elf, Dwarf, Halfling etc? What would those terms even be referring to without the concept of race?

There's actually a pretty good case for removing "dwarf", as a term -- probably better than "race", IMO. I'm not sure which use of the term is the derivation, though.

The term "race" doesn't bother me. Then again, I'm a white guy living in the northern midwest. Despite knowing a pretty sizable number of folks who are not white guys (including multiple workplaces where I was the "minority"), the closest I've ever heard "race" being used with negative connotation was as part of the word "racist".

 

[DemoMonkey]

We could use "People of Feyness", "People of Stoniness", "People of Wee-ness" and "People of Fangness", and just substitute the word "Race" with "People", maybe?

 

[Brogga]

Morris, I am truly sorry to read your moderator response to my post. I find it interesting how controlled our speech has become and this is another sad example of how today's political correctness is seeping into something as innocuous as roll playing games. Don't worry, I will not add any further comments to this thread but shame on you for judging me and my intent. And by the way, I have been visiting this website since it belonged to Eric Noah, long before you were in the picture Mr Morris. This is unfortunate indeed.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I always thought what was called "race" to be purely biological and so a "hatred for orcs" and "elven weapon proficiency" made no sense if your dwarf was raised by gnomes or your elf was raised by nymphs. Pathfinder already acknowledged that and allowed for different racial traits which you could choose at character creation.

Right, but then it shouldn't be an issue, for as long as we constrain ourselves to Tolkien-esque worlds where each biological group has its own unified culture and there is no inter-mixing. The reason why half-elves and half-orcs exist is because humans might conceivably bump into these other groups and mix with them, where it's inconceivable (from a worldbuilding perspective) that an elf could ever mix with a dwarf.

(Cue the Princess Bride meme)

But no, I actually mean it this time. The default fantasy setting (the same one where dwarves and halflings can't be wizards, and only humans can be paladins) is a world where an elf and dwarf would never mix under any circumstances. If your world doesn't fit that model, then feel free to change things until they make more sense, but there's definitely a reason for why things are the way they are.

 

[Celebrim]

Way to miss the mark completely Celebrim.

Then I am truly sorry. Your post read to me like a sarcastic attack on the poster. I'm sorry I mistook your intentions. Although I don't game to 'escape life' per se, I do very much agree that sexism, racism, misogyny and all the other evils of the world are legitimate topics for exploration in the context of gaming, and I would not want to expunge those evils from the world of story. Indeed, if I had my way it would only be through the world of story that we would be exposed to such evils, and only for the purpose of educating ourselves and fortifying ourselves against them.

 

[LordNightwinter]

I can see where this thread is leaning and obviously there's going to be no talking to people who can't see past their own misplaced views. I don't give a crap about a person's color, I have friends from all walks of life, people I love and respect. The final word here is that your ignorant views on race and racism have nothing to do with a fictional game. This thread has gotten way too out of hand and is leaning way too left.

 

[Mallus]

Should all characters simply be referred to as "People"...

“People” works well as a substitute for race. The Elven People, the Dwarven People, the Orcish People, etc.

Come to think of it, there’s a fairly popular science fiction series where the interstellar civilization is called the League of Peoples.

 

[Eltab]

Early on, I played more Gamma World than D&D. "Race" in GW does mean something - your genetic ancestry.
GW allows you to be a Pure Strain (unchanged) Human, a Mutated Human, any sort of Mutated Animal, even a Mutated Plant. The 'Race' fill-in-the-blank helped both you and the other players visualize your character.

Most fun pre-gen character I wrote up - and made available at conventions several years running - was a Mutated Cactus. Naturally the players treated him as a melee combatant. He was a blast.

My personal favorite PC, which I translated through several editions (but rarely got to play), was originally a Mutated Human. After some IRL Biology research I converted him into a Mutated Chipmunk.

 

[Celebrim]

It's so hard to treat people with respect, amirite?

Seeing as you have completely failed to do so at any point while you were involved in this thread, I'd guess the answer is that it must be.

And at least, speaking for myself, that is my actually my experience. It's easy to be respectful with people who agree with you. It's hard to be respectful toward people who do not. Disagreeing in a way that doesn't cause legitimate offense and frustration is hard. I'm not actually convinced however that you are trying.

If people were banned for using insulting and dismissive terminology, you wouldn't have made it this far. So, maybe a little bit of humility with regard to ones civility and manners would be in order, because from over here you don't really look the paragon thereof.

 

[DM Magic]

Seeing as you have completely failed to do so at any point while you were involved in this thread, I'd guess the answer is that it must be.

And at least, speaking for myself, that is my actually my experience. It's easy to be respectful with people who agree with you. It's hard to be respectful toward people who do not. Disagreeing in a way that doesn't cause legitimate offense and frustration is hard. I'm not actually convinced however that you are trying.

If people were banned for using insulting and dismissive terminology, you wouldn't have made it this far. So, maybe a little bit of humility with regard to ones civility and manners would be in order, because from over here you don't really look the paragon thereof.

Disagreement is one thing; you'll find it all over this thread. However, I have no interest in going toe to toe with people who dismiss the feelings of others as "misplaced views." Especially people who chime in with pejorative buzzwords. So no, no humility or manners are deserved for those people who do not engage in good faith.