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.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Anyways, I'm gonna go out on a limb here, and suggest that Paizo is gonna lose market share among Alt-Right customers, with some hope of gaining market share on the... well... if the usual phase is unwelcome on Enworld, then I'll just refer to them as the other side.

For what it's worth, Paizo has stated outright that "the terminology change has nothing whatsoever to do with politics". So if they're courting "the other side", they're lying about it.

 

[Riley37]

I think I was very explicit in summarizing my feelings on this back in the first post I made in the thread. I invite you to refresh your memory of what my position is in this thread, since it largely hasn't wavered from that.

@ Aldarc: I have to say, Celebrim staked out a position early on, and has held it consistently.

Celebrim has described the racial mix of his setting. It's not current canonical D&D, but that's because he gave it some thought, decades and editions ago, and made decisions. At his table you play either a human, or a creature with fundamental differences from humans, which result in cognitive and social differences. He hasn't seen later editions as compelling reason to blow with the wind. (Celebrim, correct me as needed.)

As for whether to ditch the term "Race," and replace it with "Ancestry", he's not interested. I think he oversimplifies or dismisses where Paizo's going, but time will tell, probably depending on how well Paizo can get their playtesters to actually think through the intended changes, rather than just re-skinning old tropes. He's actively concerned about the possibility of rules-codified categorizations of different varieties of human, and how that could be mis-used or mis-understood.
(Still a fair, reasonably accurate summary, of points made across dozens of posts?)

Riley's $.02: I have seen, no kidding, rules in which humans from Europe get +1 INT while humans from Africa get +1 WIS, so I also consider this a legitimate concern. Time will tell whether Paizo handles the rules codification of the relationship between nature and nurture with good judgement and/or adequate idiot-proofing.

Since these are not *my* positions, I am not the one to advocate or elaborate them, but Aldarc, you could try *asking* Celebrim about specifics, and he can clarify anything lost in translation (that is, distorted by my biases), if that suits him. *shrug* If that helps you to a good faith exchange of views with useful outcomes, then good luck. If not: "take what you can use, and leave the rest behind."

 

[Riley37]

For what it's worth, Paizo has stated outright that "the terminology change has nothing whatsoever to do with politics". So if they're courting "the other side", they're lying about it.

Paizo under-estimates the degree to which politics will enter into any discussion of race, ancestry, breed, blood, folk, or any related topic (so to speak), which has substantial participation from people in the USA. When the USA has gone several years in a row without anyone killing multiple people on a specifically, overtly racial basis, *then* maybe Paizo can make such a statement accurately.

 

[Riley37]

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.

If you are here to win debates, by a zero-sum measure of who looks good and bad, then... good luck with that? Not why I'm here.

You didn't answer the question *as asked*; you don't need to. I've seen several posts in this thread, using the language his "side" or "team" uses. Morrus tends to end their participation, but they're real, and without Morrus they'd dominate the conversation. Swastika graffiti became a thing I had to deal with, directly, last year, as never before. I am not embarrassed. I am sad for Heather, though everyone dies and she died with honor. If you are sad and sorry for me, then please extend your compassion to her family and friends.

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

Thank you. Likewise. We cannot harm each other with such prayer, and if we're both fallible, imperfect mortals, then we can only benefit. There's a saying about two knives sharpening each other...

 

[Riley37]

Cherry picking one definition of an ambiguous word is a seriously terrible argument, particularly when RPGs are already known for using words in novel ways.

Gygax offered alternatives such as "rank" for class level, as opposed to physical level within a dungeon, but in practice, here's what we mean by "level":

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0012.html

 

[Riley37]

Why? Were the developers of 4e immune to influence from Tolkien?

Yes. 4E has "Immunity to Tolkien" as an origin feature, because 4E has WOTC Ancestry rather than TSR Ancestry.

Just as Fey Ancestry grants immunity to Sleep spells. Same principle.

 

[Aldarc]

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

First, thank you for your response. I agree with what you write here, but I am also not sure whether this would fit with the scope of how backgrounds (may) operate in 5e and PF2. So at least on this matter, we agree.

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.

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

Perhaps you are seeing something else causing you misgivings that I don't. For me, this represents at least a move in the right direction. Cultural abilities were being hard-baked into species, which was often a massive pain when homebrewing around that. But Paizo appears to be relegating that to ancestry feats: i.e., the realm of exchangeable parts. That in itself is a move towards disentangling culture from species. That shift also makes it easier for GMs potentially homebrewing settings to say, "Ignore these ancestry feats, because they do not represent the culture of dwarves in my setting" or "These are the in-setting cultures than any species can potentially claim for their upbringing." This still runs the risk of mapping real life human cultures to fantasy species. I will not pretend otherwise. But it adds a greater degree of depth than was previously available in comparison with past mechanical portrayals of species, culture, etc. But more interestingly for me as a fan of Eberron, this opens up a tremendous amount of space to delve into the cultures and nations of Khorvaire, where national identity often has a greater emphasis than racial identity. This is not to say that Eberron does not explore racial identity, as it does in a number of places, particularly with species on the margins of society (e.g., warforged, kalashtar, shifters, etc.).

Overall, I think that this opens up design space for ancestral cultures rather than an ancestral monoculture than how it was before (e.g., all dwarves know how to fight giants and goblins, all dwarves have stonecunning, all elves know how to wield longswords and longbows, etc.). As Paizo expressed elsewhere, and included in what you quoted, it appears that there will be ways to reflect via ancestry feats being an Elf raised in Varisia or a human of one ethnicity raised in another culture to reflect that. Why should an elf raised in Magnimar city be able to automatically know how to wield a longsword or bow? Now players can opt out of that. But they may say that they do want to take a feat that represents growing up in Magnimar. I don't think that Paizo's change is perfect, but it seems like a step in the right direction, as it permits a cross-pollinating weaving of species and cultures that was not as feasible before.

But as I said before, if what Paizo has written in those specific passages does not "reassure [you]," then it might be more useful for our dialogue to elucidate a bit more about those misgivings or how they could be alleviated. I don't necessarily think that this is meant to be a PF2 discussion thread, but it does provide an interesting focus of conversation as it is dealing, partially, with thread topic issue.

Eg Rawls emphasises the significance, to free and equal citizenship, of enjoying the social bases of self-respect;

XP for John Rawls.

 

[pemerton]

Liberals are, however, pretty committed on the whole to the principle of innocent until proven guilty.

I have no idea how that bears upon this discussion, which has nothing to do with a criminal trial.

Characterizing my position, at least, as "denying that patterns of ideas can be a burden on autonomy"

Who said that? You seem to be identifying as a liberal - and I posted that "[l]iberals aren't committed to denying that patterns of ideas can be a burden on autonomy."

To the extent that you think "race" is a sensible word to use in these rulebooks, I assume it is for some other reason. (Eg perhaps you are not recognising the way in which the rulebooks incorporate and promulgate patterns of ideas having that character.)

Which is to say, whatever the nature of the disagreements in this thread, there is nothing about them that suggests "postmodernist vs liberal'.

 

[pemerton]

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.

<snip>

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

I was really referring more to racial descriptions than the MM. Though on that score, I don't think changing orcs from default LE to default CE is "progress", if what we are talking about is a tendency to treat biology, heredity, cutlure, capabilities and worth as an immutable package.

The 5e Basic PDF, on p 6, says

Every character belongs to a race, one of the many intelligent humanoid species in the D&D world. . .

The race you choose contributes to your character’s identity in an important way, by establishing a general appearance and the natural talents gained from culture and ancestry.​

Page 11 adds that

[T]he people themselves—people of varying size, shape, and color, dressed in a dazzling spectrum of styles and hues—represent many different races . . .

Half-elves and half-orcs live and work alongside humans, without fully belonging to the races of either of their parents.​

I don't see how this is meant to show that "race" in D&D has a different meaning from the way traditional race theory uses it.

(By way of comparison, the AD&D PHB says nothing about "race" except that it is an element of PC build choice until we get to p 13. On that page, we are told only that "each racial stock has advantages and disadvantages" and the ensuing discussion makes it clear that these are basically game-mechanical in nature. We get nothing about races as contributing to the fiction - as opposed to mechanics - until p 15, which says that

All of the non-human or part-human races closely resemble humans in many aspects. It is assumed that similarities are sufficiently apparent so as to warrant no further comment, and only special racial characteristics which are dissimilar to humans will be dealt with. Characters differ slightly within their respective races as a whole.​

It's really in the AD&D DMG that we see the clear equation of biology and heredity with culture, capabilities and the like, with the obvious exception of half-orcs, where p 17 of the PHB tells us that

Orcs are fecund and create many cross-breeds, most of the offspring of such being typically orcish. However, some one-tenth of orc-human mongrels ore sufficiently non-orcish to pass for human. . . .

t is assumed that player characters which are of half-orc race are within the superior 10% . . . )​

 

[Riley37]

-Video games that went this route underperformed or outright crashed. Mass Effect Andromedae had a very strong left wing push and it underperformed...

Well, if Paizo tanks because all their customers DEMAND the word RACE, then WotC will pick up the market share. If not WotC, then Palladium or someone else. Worst case, Breitbart will get into the TRPG market and publish FATAL 2020, and you'll still be able to buy a game with your preferred vocabulary.

But yeah, you've clearly established why fantasy movies with what the leftists call "representation", such as "Wonder Woman" and "Black Panther", always fail at the box office. When will Hollywood learn from the failures of "Princess Mononoke" and "Buffy the Vampire Slayer"?

Counter-example, though: The Call of Duty series has sold over 250 million copies, with gross revenue over US$15 billion. That's a very left-leaning game - it started as a WWII game, and there is absolutely *nothing* more Leftist than defeating the Third Reich. That united leftists all the way from George Orwell to FDR to gorram Stalin. The Wolfenstein series also did just fine, despite its political correctness.