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.

 

[Maxperson]

Indeed; I know a Paramount staffer who played a prank at a trade show, on that basis.

So now we can draw the links from Scottish to Dwarvish, because James Doohan was the initial author of the Klingon language. Scottish, to Klingon, to Hebrew, to Dwarvish!

But if you don't recognize Dunsany's influence on Tolkien, and the Hebrew phonetics in Dunsany's stories, then I have a wall to sell you.

Hey. Let's continue drawing specious links. Let's see. Doohan was human, half elves are half-human, half-elves are half elven, so Doohan is linked to elves. Elves are linked to drow, drow are black, Graz'zt is a black demon. My god! Doohan is a demon!!!

 

[Celebrim]

It looks like it is increasing complexity and admitting that culture is distinct from species.

I think that we can get to my core issue then.

It never occurred to me that we need to admit that culture is distinct from species. That never occurred to me because it's so freaking obvious. But ok, if you want to call that out explicitly, I'm perfectly OK with that.

Except, Paizo isn't actually doing that. See you think that among its other problems the term 'race' conflates culture and species. But because they have made 'ancestry' the term for both explicitly cultural things and explicitly things innate to species, I think that they've actually conflated the two things worse than before. What they should do is say you pick a 'species' (or race, or whatever) and then you can pick some 'ancestry' not limited just to species but depending on your background. That way the two things are really called out as separate.

Although race IMO is the least problematic term here, and less problematic that 'species', that's really just a term and I don't care that deeply about that. What matters is that the actual substance and representation and so forth. If the problem is that some how race and culture were conflated, detangle them by picking two new terms rather than trying to pick a synonym for a term that confused that.

 

[Guest 6801328]

How about we relabel that section of the book as "Self-Identities."

So we would say, "My dual-rapier-wielding Paladin self-identifies as a Gnome."

If you're woke you won't question this, even if (or maybe because) he is 6'8" and has tusks.

 

[JonnyP71]

I would argue the half elf depiction in most editions is closer to Tanis than Elrond, with the boyish, beardless "attractive youth" appearance. Also Arwen is a 3/4ths elf (which goes back to my point of if we're doing half breeds, it implies a lot more), and Elrond is something of an exception since he was kinda magically made into a full elf.

Erm, plus if you were right then Gygax would have needed a time machine to take him back from the mid 80s (when DL appeared), to the mid 70s (when he was writing 1E) - as Half Elves were a core race in the 1E PHB.

 

[Aldarc]

Except, Paizo isn't actually doing that.

Except for the fact that they are, which they discuss briefly in their latest blog entry. Not the best start.

I think that they've actually conflated the two things worse than before.

You have not done a good job elucidating why that is the case or why "race" would somehow be a better term in this context.

What they should do is say you pick a 'species' (or race, or whatever) and then you can pick some 'ancestry' not limited just to species but depending on your background. That way the two things are really called out as separate.

My sense of Paizo's new system is that Ancestry provides the base species abilities. From there, the player has the option to expand into either cultural or biological aspects of their ancestry via feats. But the cultural aspects will be the most flexible ones - likely tied to the lore and cultures of Golarion - with the possibility of cross-pollination between species or within species. So this appears to me at least as a move away from the whole "all elves are like this" or "all dwarves are like this." This also opens a lot of design space by having not build around core assumptions of "race": "So why do all dwarves no matter what their background or culture gain a bonus to fighting goblins and giants?" That moves to feats. And those feats can be substituted with other feats depending on the setting.

Paizo's ancestry system strikes me as a move towards what you describe while still within a system that is more similar to what they had in PF1. As they put it, it's as simple as ABC: you pick your Ancestry, Background, and Class. (And let's be honest, "SRBC" is nowhere near as catchy.)

Ancestry includes species, but it also creates a lot of open space that provides room for either (1) emphasizing traits of your species, or (2) your culture, which does seem that there will likely be cross-pollination across ancestries. There are undoubtedly potential problems present, but it's a move towards a greater breadth of complexity about species within various cultures.

If the problem is that some how race and culture were conflated, detangle them by picking two new terms rather than trying to pick a synonym for a term that confused that.

It appears to broaden the term outside of the scope that "race" alone should suggest, while moving the cultural aspects of past racial features to the "feel-free-to-ignore/substitute-these-options zone"

 

[Myrdin Potter]

No, race is average variance from humans. Humans are the zero-point from which all other races are distinguished. All members of other species are likewise “the same” with each other.

That- and all other stuff said- it did come to me that there is one thing substituting “species” or another word for “race” does: it gives room for the worldbuilding DM to reintroduce it as a word used in in exactly the same way as it is in the real word.

IOW, if “species” is being the term used in the gamebook text means that a character or NPC talking about the ”Orcish race” might in fact be revealing himself as the in-world equivalent of a Klansman.

Actually, race is not change from humans. Humans get +1 to every stat. Humans are the jack of all trades race. They get few additional abilities like immune to magical sleep and charm but they get +6 to attributes. All races is 5e are deviance from the 6 base stats you have, not from humans. The equality is not just that all humans are the same, but that humans are the same in their treatment as other races. Older editions used to be they got a worse starting package but were not restricted in level they could achieve. They also did multiple classes differently, most fully explored in AD&D.

 

[Sunseeker]

Erm, plus if you were right then Gygax would have needed a time machine to take him back from the mid 80s (when DL appeared), to the mid 70s (when he was writing 1E) - as Half Elves were a core race in the 1E PHB.

My wife also took me to task on this. I think I'm mixing up my various half-elves. Please disregard.

 

[Myrdin Potter]

It looks like it is increasing complexity and admitting that culture is distinct from species.

But it looks like elves, dwarves, gnomes, halflings, etc. can potentially pick up feats reflecting an upbringing in their Cimmerian culture rather being exclusive to a particular species. That affords more complex distinctions of culture and species. Or that humans could potentially pick up "Dwarven Weapon Fighting" if they were raised by dwarves, etc.

I think it increases complexity at no benefit compared to just using background in 5e. You are welcome to create backgrounds (packages of languages and skills separate from the race and class) that reflect dwarven upbringing if you wish. Or the existing sub-classes fit -elderich knight is what a human raised by blade singing elves can do.

I also think it opens up too much space for some cultures to be made superior to others an in such a Eurocentric genre, that looks like a problem to me.

I also read the blog. I don’t play Pathfinder, I don’t like the rules bloat and complexity and 2e is because it is too long in the tooth and too much has been layered in. 5e is soundly beating them in market share.

 

[Myrdin Potter]

Could you please answer the question I asked? I'm not disagreeing with you on percentages. "It's not going out on a limb" is the theory I'm contesting, and I provided a specific counter-example to that theory.

I raise that question, because one of the early commenters said a bit about his personal experience of playing D&D while black, and it wasn't all happy rainbows. That person *was* going out on a limb, against a previous assertion that the D&D player base is universally inclusive. The question of percentages then arose, as part of ongoing discussion of that disagreement.

The response was... well... I quoted the most specific line. If you'd like to read the full post in all its glory, you can find it at http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?630103-Do-We-Still-Need-quot-Race-quot-in-D-amp-D/page13



Those are factors. More than one factor is present, and picking out one factor as THE factor, is a strong claim, requiring strong evidence. I have seen a counter-example, to your assertion about allowing non-white people to play. The guy didn't actually turn anyone *away*... but there was an ongoing group with six players, and he invited five of those players to a one-shot playtest of a convention adventure, and guess what, the sixth player, the one not invited, was black. Coincidence? Maybe. I can't prove anything. It's harder to establish causality than to observe outcome.

I am not sure how saying I don’t think it is a risky or contentious position that D&D players are mainly white (more than simple population metrics indicate) and mainly male can be further explained. It think the counter position - it is not mainly white and mainly male - is one that would need support.

If you do a google search for GenCon dealer hall and select images, can you show me why I am going out on a limb to suggest that?

 

[Aldarc]

I think it increases complexity at no benefit compared to just using background in 5e. You are welcome to create backgrounds (packages of languages and skills separate from the race and class) that reflect dwarven upbringing if you wish. Or the existing sub-classes fit -elderich knight is what a human raised by blade singing elves can do.

Paizo indicated PF2 will have Ancestry, Class, AND Background, but there will be further distinction within Ancestry between biology and culture(s).

I also think it opens up too much space for some cultures to be made superior to others an in such a Eurocentric genre, that looks like a problem to me.

So where was your concern for the problematic implications earlier when I raised this point before and you side-stepped the entire issue with a comment about D&D not being Warcraft? Hmmm...

5e is soundly beating them in market share.

What is the significance of this comment? How is this relevant, meaningful, or consequential. Or is this your attempt at sneaking in an argumentum ad populum?