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.

 

[pemerton]

This issue is not "postmodernists" vs "classical liberals". There is nothing postmodernist about identifying patterns of thought and of cultural accretion in contemporary cultural artefacts. There is nothing postmodernist about identifying the elements of traditional racial theory, and noting that fantasy stories replicate those modes of thoughts (biology, heredity, culture, capability, worth, hierarchy as an essential package in relation to any given people).

Nor is there anything particularly liberal about disregarding or denying this. Liberals aren't committed to denying that patterns of ideas can be a burden on autonomy. (Eg Rawls emphasises the significance, to free and equal citizenship, of enjoying the social bases of self-respect; and Kymlicka identifies the importance of patterns of ideas (as elements of culture) as mediating the judgements of value that are essential to autonomy.)

 

[Myrdin Potter]

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.

But they march and live in legions and use fortified camps. The 5e MM calls out the tramp of their booted feet.

I am probably influenced by basically starting with AD&D, the new write-up is a mash-up of so many different elements that I don’t think one really stands out.

 

[pemerton]

But they march and live in legions and use fortified camps. The 5e MM calls out the tramp of their booted feet.

I've never read the 5e MM. The only other significant reference to their material culture in the AD&D MM is this:

In the latter case [ie if the hobgoblins don't live underground] the lair will be a village with a ditch, rampart, and palisade of stones, earth and logs. There will be two gates and 3-6 guard towers. The dwellings inside are usually a mixture of wood and stone.​

 

[Lanefan]

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?

It's relevant in that it's a change being made (or at least proposed) by Paizo as part of the PF redesign.

The discussion doesn't hinge on the particular game mechanics within a single game and it's use of race or any other term.

Perhaps not any more, but that is where it started.

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.

Again, just for PF2 for now, as it's the only major game going through a revision. Each other game or system will no doubt have the same discussion at the design level as part of any eventual redesign, and each will come to its own decision as to what to do.

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.

It's too late to switch 5e's terminology, as 5e is already out. It's not like Hasbro can go out and retroactively edit all the however-many copies of the 5e PH and DMG they've sold...

But PF2 is not already out - in fact it's not even in public playtest yet - and so there is still time to propose changes to it (e.g. the terminology) and-or point out possible problems (e.g. with the mechanics that look like they're going to accompany the terminology change); which is what I did in the post you quoted.

Lan-"there's always a knock-on effect"-efan

 

[Riley37]

I'm sure there are more than two teams on the field in the sense that there are probably actually as many opinions as participants. However, this argument has broken into largely conventional lines, as for example you could probably prove by looking at groupings of who predominately receives XP from whom.

Hah, you noticed that too. I levelled up in this thread! Ding! Should I take ASI or feat? Yes, I'm on a "team" in this thread. Are you? I dunno about "prove"; "statistically overwhelming evidence" is as far as I'll go.

Well, that seemed to have come out of left field.

That's... one thing you could say, rather than answering my question. In the process of answering it, you will either realize why I asked, or you would have to go through even more elaborate contortions of avoidance.

Which James Fields?

James Alex Fields Jr.

Learn for yourself, or not, as you will. Answer the hardball question, or not, as you will. Seek guidance from the one you trust most, or not, as you will. I can, at most, lead you to water, and that only fallibly, as a fellow seeker.

Are you familiar with Lewis's Narnia series, ending with "The Last Battle", and the dwarves who deny Aslan?

 

[Sunseeker]

It's relevant in that it's a change being made (or at least proposed) by Paizo as part of the PF redesign.

This thread isn't about the PF2 redesign, it's about the use of the word race in D&D.

Perhaps not any more, but that is where it started.

No, this thread is about the use of the word. Those other threads in the PF2 discussion are about mechanics.

Again, just for PF2 for now, as it's the only major game going through a revision. Each other game or system will no doubt have the same discussion at the design level as part of any eventual redesign, and each will come to its own decision as to what to do.

Again, this isn't a PF2 discussion thread. In fact it's specifically aimed at having that discussion about keeping the term "race" in D&D, not Pathfinder.

It's too late to switch 5e's terminology, as 5e is already out. It's not like Hasbro can go out and retroactively edit all the however-many copies of the 5e PH and DMG they've sold...

Well obviously. My point was that exchanging a word doesn't exchange rules.

But PF2 is not already out - in fact it's not even in public playtest yet - and so there is still time to propose changes to it (e.g. the terminology) and-or point out possible problems (e.g. with the mechanics that look like they're going to accompany the terminology change); which is what I did in the post you quoted.

Lan-"there's always a knock-on effect"-efan

But you didn't. The use of the term "Ancestry" is independent to the ancestry-related abilities. These are two separate and distinct changes.

The first is the change of language from "race" to "ancestry".
The second is the change of rules from having to select a fixed package to being able to select ancestral elements a-la-carte.

The change of language does not imply the change in rules, nor does the change in rules imply a change of language.

 

[Celebrim]

Hah, you noticed that too. I levelled up in this thread! Ding! Should I take ASI or feat? Yes, I'm on a "team" in this thread. Are you? I dunno about "prove"; "statistically overwhelming evidence" is as far as I'll go.

I was going to make some interesting observations on that theme until I got further down into your reply, but yes, I seem to have been nominated by a number of parties in that regard.

That's... one thing you could say, rather than answering my question. In the process of answering it, you will either realize why I asked, or you would have to go through even more elaborate contortions of avoidance.

You see at the time, I was trying hard to see you as a person who wanted to have an honest discussion, and who had a rational viewpoint, and intended to make a meaningful contribution to the website. But it kept seeming like you were really coy about something, and I couldn't figure out what it was.

James Alex Fields Jr.

Learn for yourself, or not, as you will.

Oh, that's what you mean. Yeah the name didn't ring a bell at all. And here I thought you were talking about the economist, and you were trying to draw me into some sort of conversation about institutional economics.

Answer the hardball question, or not, as you will.

Sir, now that I know the question, that's not a hardball question. It's a question that makes you look bad, and not me. The very fact that you asked it gives me the debate win. And it makes me sad, and sorry for you. I tried to believe in you, and it turns out that the thing you are being coy about is nothing less than you going full Godwin Law's on the thread.

Here is my answer, just so you don't accuse me of not giving you one, the man you are interested in, in my opinion, is not representative of anyone in this thread. And you should be embarrassed for thinking otherwise, but I don't think you actually will be.

Are you familiar with Lewis's Narnia series, ending with "The Last Battle", and the dwarves who deny Aslan?

Yes, I am. I will pray that your eyes are opened and your heart unhardened. God bless.

 

[Myrdin Potter]

I've never read the 5e MM. The only other significant reference to their material culture in the AD&D MM is this:

In the latter case [ie if the hobgoblins don't live underground] the lair will be a village with a ditch, rampart, and palisade of stones, earth and logs. There will be two gates and 3-6 guard towers. The dwellings inside are usually a mixture of wood and stone.​

It is unfortunate that you debate the point on the stereotypes in the monsters in D&D and yet have not read the much more carefully written 5e MM. Certainly not perfect but much better.

Now the art in the MM for the hobgoblin (which shows up in searches) has a somewhat Japanese style armor to it and the face and top knot has a certain suggestion if you are looking for it, but I found the actual lore, the descriptive fluff, to not call out one culture in particular.

D&D has evolved, have you at least read the 5e PHB, especially the introduction in Chapter 2 which is all about character races?

 

[Parmandur]

This is basically the "crunch vs. flavor" debate. Me personally as an admitted fan of 4E and MTG, like my flavor and my crunch to the separate. A rulebook is for rules. A setting book is for flavor. I don't have any problem with more scientifically accurate terms like "species" (interbreeding aside) being used in place of race. I also would like to see half-elves and half-orcs removed as playable "races", because if most of the humanoid races can interbreed, they make the use of the term "race" worse, because we've just decided that bloodlines can be watered down, so naturally there must be 3/4ths elves, 1/8th orcs, and 7/16ths of both of them! And if humans and elves can breed and humans and orcs can breed, logically elves and orcs can breed so WTF do we do with that knowledge?

And why is half-dwarf so rarely accounted for? It seems like dwarves and humans would be far more likely to co-mingle than humans and elves. (from the viewpoint of humans & dwarves generally sharing their favored past-times of drinking, eating, killing and being dirty and hairy)

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!

At least the "half-dragonborn" problem is resolved by saying they can't crossbreed (lizards with boobs or even psuedo-boobs aside....) and the problem is resolved with tieflings by saying that tieflings always create more tieflings, doesn't matter what the other half of the equation is.

Personally I'd be happy if crossbreeding just wasn't core by default.

In the Forgotten Realms, at least, you do get Half-Dwarves with Human, Gnome or Halfling parents: mechanically, they are Dwarves. Ed Greenwood wrote it in a source book, so it is true.

 

[Parmandur]

In reverse order...

Muls (Dark Sun) are the first place I've seen a half-dwarf addressed. The 4e incarnation, more so than other half-races, says "you get half of the cool things each parent has".

Unwritten* Human Racial Trait:
Good Breeding. You can have children with almost anything you care to try. Conversely, almost anything that cares to try can have children with you.
* because only Rated-M and Rated-X campaigns will have cause to use this explicitly

From FR11 Dwarves Deep by Ed Greenwood, published in 1990:

"Humans, gnomes, and halflings are
cross-fertile with dwarves. Elminster says
elves and dwarves can have issue as well.
Common in Ardeep, Eaerlann, and Myth
Drannor of old, this is unheard-of today.
Mates who respect dwarven customs
and traditions are honored for their courage (in entering a strange society), loyalty
(to the customs of dwarves) and aid (in
preserving the Folk).

"“Half-dwarves” are not a distinct race.
Save for their height (a head taller than
most dwarves) all offspring of unions be-
tween dwarves and other races look and
act (and are treated in the rules) as pure-blood dwarves. Dwarven halfbreeds always have the stocky build and hirsute
appearance of purebloods.

"If halfbloods mate with pureblood
dwarves, the offspring will be a pure-blood. If halfbloods mate with another
halfblood or a nondwarf, the offspring
will be a halfblood."