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]

So, if someone in the real world uses the term "the human race", are they the real world equivalent of a Klansman? I'm seriously asking because I want to understand your perspective.

No, because human race is all inclusive, as opposed to dividing humanity up into the non scientific social construct of race.

I’m saying a game character using race as opposed to species might (and that is the word I used) be revealing hidden prejudices. Whether he actually is or not would depend on further context.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I don't know about that. The "Holy Grail" of "Race Realists" is to prove people of "african ancestry", like us, are a different species, not just race. Any bigot that could use the word species over race to refer to their hated group would probably do so without hesitation.

True, but to date, I’ve seen precious few willing to do so on the record.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

All races is 5e are deviance frommtne 6 base stats you have, not from humans.

I stand corrected. (I don’t play 5th.)

They get few additional abilities like immune to magical sleep and charm

Wait. Humans get that?

 

[Celebrim]

No, because human race is all inclusive, as opposed to dividing humanity up into the non scientific social construct of race.

Sure, but I don't understand how that is an answer. If an orc says to me "the orcish race" in the same context that I use "the human race" am I supposed to infer something about whether he's an orc supremacist or something?

And as I said before, the problem with species is that there isn't actually a lot of indication that the biological concept of species exists in fantasy worlds. I mean, dragons, fairies, and humans appear to get it on successfully with just about every other species in the setting. And I don't have near the background in sociology that some of you have, but the more biology you know the more problematic 'species' becomes as a word anyway. No universally accepted definition of the term exists in biology, and many biologists consider the term problematic. Once you move the term over to a fantasy world without chromosomes in it, where pretty much anything can hybridize with something else, then I don't really see the value in it.

Besides which, if 'race' is problematic in concept because some racist will use it to justify his racial supremacy, then surely species is worse. I mean the worst classes of racism in my experience are the ones that want to deny that the people that don't look like them are even human. (And I've met all sorts of those, whose ugly beliefs I won't repeat, except to say that for every white guy that thought black people weren't human I knew a black guy convinced white people weren't human.)

Nor did you address my point that if we replace 'ancestry' with 'species' in Paizo's conception, that you'd be picking something like 'Keleshite' or 'Mwangi' as a species and you'd have 'Mwangi Species Feats'. Is that less problematic?

I guess I'm still stuck on the fact that it isn't a word that is a problem, it's what the word is employed to mean. Race has been used for some really terrible things. But it's those terrible things that are the problem, not the word. And certainly not the word in the context of a fantasy situation that does not have a direct parallel in the real world, because we don't actually have elves, dwarves, centaurs, dragons and so forth. And certainly not in the context of the word used nobly and employed for more noble purposes, as a synonym for people or a synonym for humankind (or orckind, goblinkind, etc.) Just because someone employs the word doesn't make them a racist.. or is that really what's being disputed here and I'm not just getting that yet?

I’m saying a game character using race as opposed to species might (and that is the word I used) be revealing hidden prejudices.

I still don't get that. It seemed like you made a tautology. So this orc comes up to me in a fantasy world where there was no 19th century, and he says to me, "The orcish race is a feared and misunderstood people.", and I'm supposed to be thinking, "Shouldn't he have said species? Is he some sort of orcish surpremicist?" Why would the use of race be revealing hidden prejudices? And wouldn't it be sort of obvious that we were different, and that there was a high chance we really didn't have a shared common ancestor? I have no idea what the biological basis of fantasy species actually is, but it doesn't appear to be DNA. I can't help but feel that in this conversation there is a high percentage of academics in departments that used to be called 'anthropology' and because of some of the less noble claims of some members of that profession there is a lot of, "We no longer use the 'r' word!" going on here. And that's fine I guess, but it seems to be a misunderstanding of the problem to me.

 

[Lanefan]

Are you being serious or just having a laugh?

And I do mean that as a question. I’ve never heard anyone having this particular issue with paladins before. What is there to get offended by?

The DM whose game I play in got rid of them ages ago because, as a non-Christian, he didn't like all the Christian baggage attached to them.

 

[Lanefan]

One concern: as it seems PF2 will allow one descent (e.g. Human) to poach abilities previously exclusive to another descent (e.g. Dwarven stonecunning), isn't that just going to open up a whole new set of tools for the munchkinizers and optimizers to break the game with?

 

[Maxperson]

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.

The big problem here is that ancestry and species are not at all the same. Human ancestors include apes, monkey looking things, and even a rodent looking thing. Using ancestry to provide species abilities is more borked than using race. Trying to attach culture to that word is even worse. What was the culture of the rodent looking thing? What was the culture of Homo Rudolfensis? Those are part of human ancestry. Now let's try to figure out the ancestry for dwarves, elves and gnomes.

Race is more than sufficient for the needs of an RPG.

 

[Maxperson]

double post

 

[TheCosmicKid]

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.

Firstly: ...language proficiencies?

Secondly: "Now, this isn't to say ancestry feats deal exclusively with your upbringing. Heritage feats are a special type of ancestry feat that reflect special physiological traits of your ancestry."

Thirdly: "Ditching 'Race' in favor of 'Ancestry' lets us slice-and-dice across, er... racial lines, so we could—for example—easily confer the same mechanical benefit to characters who came from the same place without regard to whether they're human or elf, or we could give different mechanical benefits to Azlanti and Shoanti even though they're both human." (from here) (also note the use of "race" when referring to, er... race)

 

[Myrdin Potter]

I stand corrected. (I don’t play 5th.)



Wait. Humans get that?

No, humans get +1 to everything or +2 to distribute and a feat. Elves get a +2 to dexterity a few other traits like immune to sleep.

Since you have not played it, I guess you have not read Chapter 2 the 5e PHB? The intro uses race as a specific word and has thing like:

“Choosing a Race

Humans are the most common people in the worlds of D&D, but they live and work alongside dwarves, elves, halflings, and countless other fantastic species. Your character belongs to one of these peoples.”

If you don’t play it, and have not even read the chapter, then maybe you are latching onto the word “race”instead of how it is being used.