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.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I joined a gaming group in which it was clear to me there was one person who didn’t care for my particular skin tone. He didn’t express this to the rest of the group. They had no clue.

But I didn’t let him drive me out- by that time I’d been gaming for @16 years, and had already developed a certain social armor against attitudes like his in other contexts. While he had a problem with me, nobody else did, and I didn’t reciprocate against him. After all, he was their friend before they ever met me. Zero percentages in making them choose between us.

Don’t know if my willingness to treat him like everyone else changed his attitude. Hopefully it did.

Thing is, I have no idea how someone like me but with a “thinner skin” might have handled the situation.

 

[Aldarc]

-> the words race is being used as defined (check dictionaries) and all humans get the same package. So the word is correct and there is equality for all people. That is problematic?

Because real life human cultures are being mapped to demi-human races with different packages. That is "problematic."

-> what design space is opened? You want to vary humans based on what? Different stats for different ethnicities? Isn’t that worse? Doesn’t backgrounds and feats give you tons of room for this without changing the base stock?

I doubt that stats would be adjusted for humans. Other abilities possibly. It may be beneficial to read Paizo's statements that Morrus collected here on the design space that switching to the term "ancestries" opens up.

 

[JonnyP71]

I know I know, we have half-elves as playable because of Tanis, but Tanis was explicitly stated to be rare. But nowadays half-elves are as common as anything else!

Tanis???

Surely Elrond, and Arwen.......? The Half Elf existed in fantasy fiction (and also in D&D) long before Dragonlance.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

I doubt that stats would be adjusted for humans. Other abilities possibly. It may be beneficial to read Paizo's statements that Morrus collected here on the design space that switching to the term "ancestries" opens up.

As I mentioned earlier, the preview of the PF2 goblin has me worried they're actually going in the wrong direction with this, conflating biology with culture.

 

[Aldarc]

As I mentioned earlier, the preview of the PF2 goblin has me worried they're actually going in the wrong direction with this, conflating biology with culture.

Then I would recommend reading the newest blog entry where they discuss their elf and dwarf ancestries. I can post a snippet on dwarves, but link you to the blog.

As a dwarf, you get three ability boosts: one to Constitution, one to Wisdom, and one to the score of your choice. You take an ability flaw to Charisma, though your clan mother says you're quite charming. You get 10 Hit Points from your ancestry—more than the other ancestries and MUCH more than the elves! Your speed is 20 feet, perfectly adequate for adventuring, and you can ignore the speed reduction from your armor. You speak Common and Dwarf, as you may expect, and you can see in the dark just fine.

All that represents what's common to all dwarves, and comes from their innate tendencies. Ancestry feats go farther, reflecting mostly the cultural propensities of the ancestry. For example, you likely grew up among your dwarven kin, training with the weapons of the Weapon Familiarity feat. Battleaxes, picks, warhammers... those are good, dependable weapons. And let's not forget the special weapons with the dwarf trait, like the dwarven waraxe or your beloved clan dagger (forged for you at birth and capped with a gemstone sacred to your clan). Your training might have included the best ways to battle creatures like derros, duergar, giants, or orcs. In that case, you might pick up the Ancestral Hatred feat to give you a bonus on damage against these enemies—a bonus that goes up for 1 minute if one of those wretched creatures critically hits you!

So it appears that they are making cultural abilities "optional" or "self-selected," while making biological and other basic character functioning (i.e., language proficiencies) remain core.

 

[pemerton]

There is absolutely no evidence that the use of the word race in the way it is used keeps anyone away.

Two things.

First, I thought that [MENTION=19675]Dannyalcatraz[/MENTION] posted to the contrary upthread, namely, that he had reason to believe there are some Black potential gamers (not him) who are turned off by use of the word "race". (Or did he just say that they don't like it but put up with it?)

Second, "keeping anyone away" is not, in my view, the test for what is desirable in a cultural artefact. [MENTION=6786839]Riley37[/MENTION] had a really good post about this not far upthread: the racism in LotR doesn't keep me away, but the novel might be even better without it (I'm not sure you can get rid of all of it and still have it be the story that it is, but the bit about the "half-goblin" Southerner clearly is not fundamental to the story being what it is).

As I've already mentioned in this thread, few of my family and friends are RPGers. I don't think they would play FRPGs if the treatment of "race" was changed; and if they wanted to play, I don't think the treatment of "race" would stop them. Nevertheless, I would prefer a game that doesn't require me to make apologies or acknowledge problematic elements to family and friends. And that I was more comfortable sharing with my children.

 

[Riley37]

In 5e, ancestry would be good substitute for sub-race and human ethnicity. Otherwise...no not really.

If I understand the Paizo announcements correctly, then that's somewhat similar what they're doing. In 5E, an Elf gets Fey Ancestry. If that character has the sub-race Wood Elf, then it also gets Mask of the Wild and Fleet of Foot. Meanwhile, a character with the Half-Elf race gets Fey Ancestry and Skill Versatility.

In Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide, a half-elf with Moon Elf ancestry can choose either Mask of the Wild or Fleet of Foot, instead of Skill Versatility.

In Pathfinder 2, that choice of *which* features you get from ancestry is built into core rules, rather than a variant rule, in a supplement, for a single race, which didn't get subraces in the core book.

 

[Riley37]

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.

I care more about that divide - who agrees that those are legitimate topics in gaming, and who doesn't - than about who prefers "race" and who prefers "ancestry". The OP is about the latter topic, the terminology, but the thread seems to bring out a lot of disagreement on the former.

For example, the immediately following post asserts "The final word here is that your ignorant views on race and racism have nothing to do with a fictional game." (As opposed to... non-fictional games?)

 

[Riley37]

Stuff like automatically having proficiency in weapons would be moved to backgrounds.

Except when that proficiency is a gift from the deity who created the race, and will emerge no matter who raises the child. Celebrim runs a setting in which elves have a divinely granted ancestral bow proficiency. I like your point about genetics versus training, but insofar as one of the prolific participants has explained that elven bow use *falls on the other side of that divide* in his setting, maybe it would be clearer to use something else as the go-to example of a trained skill. Dwarven stonecunning, maybe? Or do dwarves have an innate connection with stone? Language?

If a tielfling is raised by parents who don't speak Infernal, in a village where no one has ever spoken a word of Infernal... then at what age does the tiefling acquire the ability to write notes in Infernal? At adolescence, along with all the other changes of adolescence?

 

[Maxperson]

-> the words race is being used as defined (check dictionaries) and all humans get the same package. So the word is correct and there is equality for all people. That is problematic?

No it isn't, and never has been.

-> if you try and bring in the race theory that exists outside the game rules (which primary components are not in the rules as all humans are treated equally) or you just are very sensitive to the word race, then maybe, but there seems to be a lot of people that find it problematic to change it.

If you bring in race theory from outside the game rules, then the problem lies with you, not the game. The solution is to fix you, house rule the problem you brought into the game for your table only, or for you to endure the problem you brought into the game. Not to try and "fix" the game rules.