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.

 

[Aldarc]

Firstly: ...language proficiencies?

That's likely meant to cover "basic functioning" (as seen in what you quote) so that your character actually has any starting languages. It's not perfect, but I can see the reasoning behind the design decision. (Of course, I also don't like the notion of "racial languages" and "Common." I would prefer cultural languages rather than either.)

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."

Yes, which I pointed out before - in the post you are quoting from, no less - so I'm not sure what your point is here. A player has the option of expanding their character by deciding via ancestry feats whether they want to select traits from their physiology or cultural upbringing.

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)

Yep, which suggests that they are attempting through ancestry to make moves to decouple culture from race, such that (1) they have more design space when it comes to alternate ancestry feats, and (2) the player has the option to opt-in to their desired species/cultural features.

In short, if you have an argument, I would humbly request that you actually making one. I'm not unfamiliar with what you quoted from the blog, but your post gives little to actually discuss.

 

[Arilyn]

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?

I have always appreciated having a lot of choice in PF. Munchkins/optimizers will never be stamped out, so personally, I don't believe they should be considered in design choice. As my daughter says, if optimizers come to her table, as GM, she just picks on them more.

 

[Sunseeker]

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?

Maybe, but PF2 has also already made it clear that they are sticking to a much crunchier approach than 5E, so how it that relevant to the discussion?

The discussion doesn't hinge on the particular game mechanics within a single game and it's use of race or any other term. The discussion hinges on how the use of the word "race" plays to preconditioned notions of IRL usage and feelings about "race". The discussion secondly hinges on the application of a potentially more appropriate word with less baggage and IRL implication.

If 5E switched to using "Ancestry" in place of race, nothing mechanically need change. The game would not become more munchikinnny than it already is unless 5E decided to include "Ancestry Elements" to let you customize your individual character's ancestry.

 

[Aldarc]

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?

Sure that would be problematic, if Paizo indicated that was how it worked. But that does not so far appear to be how they are handling ancestries, so that above does not reflect "Paizo's conception" but, rather, it's a monstrous conception of your own making.

If the elf and dwarf post is an indication, you would have human ancestry feats and NOT Keleshite Ancestry/Species Feats or Mwangi Species/Feats. But then you could pick feats at character creation or later that reflect your cultural upbringing: e.g., Mwangi, Keleshite. But it remains to be seen how "dusted" (to borrow from Erik Mona) the Golarion setting will be into the Core Rulebook.

 

[Celebrim]

Sure that would be problematic, if Paizo indicated that was how it worked. But that does not so far appear to be how they are handling ancestries, so that above does not reflect "Paizo's conception" but, rather, it's a monstrous conception of your own making.

Aren't we primarily discussing what is correct word to replace 'race' with? So for example, it would appear that Paizo is currently substituting 'ancestry' for race. I'm simply pointing out the consequences of substituting 'species' for race.

If the elf and dwarf post is an indication, you would have human ancestry feats and NOT Keleshite Ancestry/Species Feats or Mwangi Species/Feats. But then you could pick feats at character creation or later that reflect your cultural upbringing: e.g., Mwangi, Keleshite. But it remains to be seen how "dusted" (to borrow from Erik Mona) the Golarion setting will be into the Core Rulebook.

Maybe, but I thought Paizo had indicated that one of the reasons that they preferred Ancestry is that it allowed you to choose ethnic groups as your ancestry as opposed to just 'human'. I guess I should put a 'wait and see' on this, but that implied to me that you can choose Mwangi Ancestry feats.

I still maintain that for what Paizo is doing, they need one term for race and one term for culture, and that no one term is going to work. Just choosing an 'ancestry' isn't sufficient to divorce race from culture. You need to choose a both a race (the innate package such as 'Dwarf') and a culture (the non-innate optional things that could be potentially shared across races and ethnic groups).

 

[Celebrim]

In short, if you have an argument, I would humbly request that you actually making one. I'm not unfamiliar with what you quoted from the blog, but your post gives little to actually discuss.

I think he just presented a very strong argument, you just don't want to discuss it.

 

[Aldarc]

I think he just presented a very strong argument, you just don't want to discuss it.

Not only is this insinuation rude, it's also untrue; I do want to discuss this topic with him.

I was in the midst of a response to your other post before deciding that sleep takes priority, so I am bowing out of this topic for tonight.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

That's likely meant to cover "basic functioning" (as seen in what you quote) so that your character actually has any starting languages. It's not perfect, but I can see the reasoning behind the design decision. (Of course, I also don't like the notion of "racial languages" and "Common." I would prefer cultural languages rather than either.)

Background would seem the logical place to put those. I mean, 5e doesn't do it that way, either, but...

Yes, which I pointed out before - in the post you are quoting from, no less - so I'm not sure what your point is here.

You recommended I read that blog post to reassure me of PF2's direction. I have read it. I am quoting the specific passages that do the opposite of reassure me.

A player has the option of expanding their character by deciding via ancestry feats whether they want to select traits from their physiology or cultural upbringing.

...which indicates that "ancestry" represents both.

 

[Eltab]

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.

If your dual-wielder is as big as all that, he can dual-wield warhammers. C'mon, dude, quit messing around with those little bitty half-measure swords!

edit: And somewhat more seriously, I think using the term "Self-identity" will be more likely to set off a Mutual Upcast Fireball Contest than the current use of "race".

 

[pemerton]

I see hobgoblins as Japanese or Mongol themed

In the AD&D MM, hobgoblins are depicted wearing Japanese-style armour. There weapons are swords, spears, polearms, composite bows and morning stars.

Morning stars seem mediaeval European, but otherwise this looks rather Japanese to me.