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.

 

[Jester David]

I’m so freakin’ tired of having to argue and fight against racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, and the like in D&D and gaming.
We should be better. We know what it’s like to be marginalized. To be teased and bullied.

I’m lucky not to personally be affected by racism or sexism. But I listen to those who have been. And when they say they don’t like a term or find it problematic, I take them at their word. Because why wouldn’t I?
If just one otherwise reasonable person doesn’t like phrase or term, why would I spit on their opinion and feelings by continuing to use that term.

But, damn I am sick of this . I always make the mistake of engaging, because I think it’s worth doing. If I can change just one mind...
But it always ends up just killing my morale, sapping my appreciation for this community and gaming as a whole.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Nope, so calling them Oriental lands shouldn’t be offensive. After all, it is a Latin word meaning “east”.

Is it a Latin word meaning "east", or is it synonymous with the British occupation? Pick one.

 

[Mercule]

I do think that the +2 Charisma fits with their Tolkien-source inspiration better, though there I would argue that they are less of the Elrond the Half-Elven sort and more of the Aragorn (i.e., Numenorean) sort, where they are an ancestry of humans with elven blood.

This, I could agree with. The one I thought about was the Khoravar of Eberron, who form a distinct race -- though humans and elves will occasionally still get down to making first-gen half-elves. The setting is significantly more cosmopolitan, and it would make sense that true-breeding half-elves would have overcome the "bastard" prejudice of other settings.

But, the core D&D "implied setting" is, and always has been, that half-elves are somewhat rare (at least uncommon) and somewhat outcast by both sides of the family tree. While that could make a good justification for a particular PC to be fast-talking, diplomatic, and smooth, it's a pretty poor rationale for the entire race to be that way.

 

[Shadow Demon]

Is it a Latin word meaning "east", or is it synonymous with the British occupation? Pick one.

For Asian peoples of the 19th Century it is synonymous with British occupation but to me it is a Latin word meaning “east”.

 

[Mallus]

I think TSR used it by design because it was archaic and outdated.

Sure. I'll buy that. I mean, I *did* buy a copy back in 1986. Still sounded a bit weird though, because it's something I've been called to my face.

 

[DemoMonkey]

"I’m lucky not to personally be affected by racism or sexism. But I listen to those who have been. And when they say they don’t like a term or find it problematic, I take them at their word. Because why wouldn’t I? "

That's an interesting division point between worldviews, what you could simplistically call believers and cynics. Just as many people (and not necessarily racist ones) would say "Why would I?". It really depends on your fundamental opinion of the goodness of your fellow human.

I'm not really sure history bears out the assumption of goodness, what with all the wars and murders and inappropriate choices of pizza toppings and all.

 

[ShinHakkaider]

Since I assume you both agree that the alteration was a bad thing, I think you're just making MacConnell's point for him.

You'd be wrong. While the alteration is problematic it wasn't done unilaterally across ALL BIBLES. It was done specifically to oppress/suppress one particular group of people while leaving everyone else unscathed. It wasn't done for inclusiveness, quite the opposite. So no I dont see removing all references to freedom and Exodous from the Bible in order to opress slaves and possibly replacing the word "race" in D&D as even remotely the same thing. Not even the same ballpark. Hell, not even the same sport.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

For Asian peoples of the 19th Century it is synonymous with British occupation but to me it is a Latin word meaning “east”.

Language only works when the speaker and listener share a common understanding of what a word means. Your position is silly.

(Oh, by the way, to me "silly" is an Anglo-Saxon word meaning "wise". It's your own fault if you didn't understand it as such, because I bear no responsibility for making sure my vocabulary matches modern consensus usage.)

 

[TheCosmicKid]

You'd be wrong. While the alteration is problematic it wasn't done unilaterally across ALL BIBLES. It was done specifically to oppress/suppress one particular group of people while leaving everyone else unscathed. It wasn't done for inclusiveness, quite the opposite. So no I dont see removing all references to freedom and Exodous from the Bible in order to opress slaves and possibly replacing the word "race" in D&D as even remotely the same thing. Not even the same ballpark. Hell, not even the same sport.

So... why did you bring it up, then?

 

[ShinHakkaider]

So... why did you bring it up, then?

Because using him using the Bible as an example of a book that people want to alter in order to destroy may not have been a great example as there are alterations and many different versions of the Bible throuought history.

Me bringing up the slave bibles wasn't meant to stand in agreement with him. It was meant to point out an inconsistency specifically dealing with that "book".

EDIT: To his credit, the works of Twain was a better example. Altering the language in Huck Finn or Tom Sawyer does nothing but try to erase what was point of fact the language used at the time. But Those books ARE works of literature and SHOULD be left intact. Not so with RPG's.