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.

 

[Myrdin Potter]

No one person, neither you, nor me, gets to say someone else's concerns are invalid.

Some people find TTRPG's use of "race" to the troublesome. Whether or not there are larger issues to be dealt with is beside the point, since we as individuals and as a society are quite capable of addressing multiple things at the same time, and there is absolutely NO burden that we need to address them in order of magnitude. There is similarly solid ground to argue from that chipping away at the small inequalities can be just as productive towards creating a better world as tackling the large ones.

This type of stand in the soap-box response gets tiresome. I said I don’t agree and that there are real issues that need to be worked in as a priority. I agree that racism exists and that there are problems and I have not said once that no one can express their opinion.

Saying I don’t agree with you is not the strawman you presented.

That type of response is all too common is too much of a trope and is exactly what you are claiming (falsely) that I am doing. I can certainly state my opinion, and I think I am making an effort to express why I believe the way I do. I don’t get to tell you if or what you can post on and you don’t get to do the same to me.

To be transparent, I am not a mod or the owner here, and that means I don’t think I have the right to tell anyone they cannot say something and that applies to me as well. As long as I don’t break the rules, which boil down to don’t swear and treat people with respect, then I think I am fine.

I am rejecting the idea that this is a needed change or an important change. I am not addressing comments at the people saying it, I am commenting on the idea.

 

[Myrdin Potter]

Dude, until you’ve been THE black guy in a crowd of thousands*, don’t presume to tell a black guy that race “is not the reason, not a reason, and is a distraction and logical error“. I haven’t lived in a majority black community in 46 years, and there are still times when that much Caucasian-ness gets uncomfortable.

Some- not all- minority gamers have an issue with this term; percentages are unknown. Saying “it isn’t a problem” is, at the very least, bad optics. At worst, it’s a barrier.

In ADR training, one thing that is constantly stressed as a major stumbling block is being dismissive of the concerns of the other parties. Even if the issue is small, the fact that it gets swept aside without being addressed can kill the greater deal.

So, listen.



* or, possibly, the chromatically reversed situation.

BTW - where I grew up was not the same as the USA for blacks, but I had the one black guy in the school that was interested in our hobby at my table. So I cannot say I lived that growing up, it was part of my close friend group. It takes a pretty keen interest and thick skin to wade through the complete lack of representation and other BS that had to be put up with, and I salute your gamer cred and your ability to discuss what is a pretty emotional topic calmly and well.

This is separate from my response to your opinion to make sure my respect for you and acknowledgment of how much harder it can be is out in the open.

 

[Lanefan]

In ADR training ....

ADR?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

ADR?

Alternative Dispute Resolution, aka arbitration & mediation.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

The point is that once you start labeling someone else’s concerns as trivial, etc. you instantly erect mental barriers against them hearing and understanding you. And unless you can quickly demonstrate a point of commonality of experience that grants you an analogous experience, what seems to you to be minor may in fact kill any chance of progress.

A major reason for this is- despite our claims to being rational animals- study after study has shown that our emotions engage first, then get reigned in by our higher minds. When you tell someone their position is of no consequence, you make them mad. Then you have to get past all that emotional baggage.

That makes negotiations tougher. Much tougher.

 

[Myrdin Potter]

The point is that once you start labeling someone else’s concerns as trivial, etc. you instantly erect mental barriers against them hearing and understanding you. And unless you can quickly demonstrate a point of commonality of experience that grants you an analogous experience, what seems to you to be minor may in fact kill any chance of progress.

A major reason for this is- despite our claims to being rational animals- study after study has shown that our emotions engage first, then get reigned in by our higher minds. When you tell someone their position is of no consequence, you make them mad. Then you have to get past all that emotional baggage.

That makes negotiations tougher. Much tougher.

People also personalize things. If I say I don't think something is significant enough to warrant a change, then I have stated my opinion. I gave the reasons for my opinion, others gave theirs. If you disagree, then you disagree. This is not math with one right answer, the very act of engaging in discussion is worthy in and of itself.

I tend to avoid the typical threads on issues like this because the medium is terrible. I am fighting jet lag and woke up too early and posted. Things like this are much better discussed in person or via voice.

I don't disagree with your point above, but I also limited my comments to the conclusion idea. It is worse when you dismiss someone as being unimportant, and that happens too much these days. I also have a personal commitment to myself to be honest when I express myself. I try and be respectful, but I stated my actual position.

 

[Sunseeker]

This type of stand in the soap-box response gets tiresome. I said I don’t agree and that there are real issues that need to be worked in as a priority. I agree that racism exists and that there are problems and I have not said once that no one can express their opinion.

Saying I don’t agree with you is not the strawman you presented.

That type of response is all too common is too much of a trope and is exactly what you are claiming (falsely) that I am doing. I can certainly state my opinion, and I think I am making an effort to express why I believe the way I do. I don’t get to tell you if or what you can post on and you don’t get to do the same to me.

To be transparent, I am not a mod or the owner here, and that means I don’t think I have the right to tell anyone they cannot say something and that applies to me as well. As long as I don’t break the rules, which boil down to don’t swear and treat people with respect, then I think I am fine.

I am rejecting the idea that this is a needed change or an important change. I am not addressing comments at the people saying it, I am commenting on the idea.

Unfortunately ideas don't post here. People do.

So either you're talking to people about ideas, or you're an old man shaking his fist at a cloud.

 

[CM]

As an ogre IRL, I prefer the term "flavor"

 

[Myrdin Potter]

Unfortunately ideas don't post here. People do.

So either you're talking to people about ideas, or you're an old man shaking his fist at a cloud.

"You are stupid."

"Your idea that you posted is stupid."

Nice diversion, but that is the normal understanding of what I said. I try hard not to attack the person, and to address myself to what they said.

So I neither said you cannot post nor did I do a personal attack.

 

[Sunseeker]

"You are stupid."

"Your idea that you posted is stupid."

Nice diversion, but that is the normal understanding of what I said. I try hard not to attack the person, and to address myself to what they said.

So I neither said you cannot post nor did I do a personal attack.

For someone who claims to not like to attack people, you're certainly doing a lot of it. Because I'm pretty sure the word "stupid" or "you are stupid" was never included in my posts.

There is an incredible ability to talk to people without attacking them.

And I never accused you of saying I could not post, nor did I accuse you of making personal attacks against me. So please stop projecting.