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.

 

[Riley37]

Some people call that game HERO System.

Let's stay closer to the d20 SRD, and call that game Mutants & Masterminds.

I played a LOT of Hero and was briefly vice-president of the company which owns the IP. But for purposes of the current conversation, I see M&M as a closer example, since it has the d20 stats, levels, etc.

https://mutantsandmasterminds.com

 

[Maxperson]

Which would then open the game to a moral relativism concerning fighting them and taking thier stuff. What justifies a group of PC's going into a dungeon, fighting and killing the inhabitants, and leaving with thier money and wealth?

Not really. You can tell by their surroundings and behavior(not just an attack) if they are evil or not. Most of the time you will be able to tell which very few non-evil members of the race are non-evil.

It can go even further; if you find an altar to an evil God or demon Lord, is it religious intolerance to destroy it?

Yes, but so what. The game isn't the real world and intolerance of evil, religious or otherwise, is a good thing in the game.

See, the rabbit hole it moral relativism is deep, which is really why even in the deeper dives into monsters in Volo that they found ways to make most monsters slayable "guilt free", such demonic heritage or ties to evil gods. Because once you open up that orc lives matter, the game ends up about settling peace negotiations with tribes of orcs and leveling sanctions on evil creatures.

It loses something in the process.

Given the ease with which you can tell which of the few non-evil members of the race are non-evil(hint, if they're in the stronghold you are attacking, they are almost surely a slave or prisoner and behave differently), there really is no guilt involved. Things are still guilt free. Events don't progress to the point you describe until a significant percentage of an evil race is non-evil, because then you can get villages and strongholds that are completely non-evil. And if a significant percentage are non-evil, you just take the extra step of ascertaining whether this stronghold is evil or not BEFORE you destroy it. There's simply not going to be a requirement that you negotiate with and/or just level sanctions against evil.

 

[Remathilis]

Not really. You can tell by their surroundings and behavior(not just an attack) if they are evil or not. Most of the time you will be able to tell which very few non-evil members of the race are non-evil.

Yes, but so what. The game isn't the real world and intolerance of evil, religious or otherwise, is a good thing in the game.

Given the ease with which you can tell which of the few non-evil members of the race are non-evil(hint, if they're in the stronghold you are attacking, they are almost surely a slave or prisoner and behave differently), there really is no guilt involved. Things are still guilt free. Events don't progress to the point you describe until a significant percentage of an evil race is non-evil, because then you can get villages and strongholds that are completely non-evil. And if a significant percentage are non-evil, you just take the extra step of ascertaining whether this stronghold is evil or not BEFORE you destroy it. There's simply not going to be a requirement that you negotiate with and/or just level sanctions against evil.

We're arguing past each other, I think.

I'm not arguing that specific individuals of a race cannot be anything but evil (although some like fiends are harder to justify), merely that the game works at better level when such individuals are exceptions.

For example, Drow is listed both in the PHB (as a PC race) and MM (as a "monster"). This implies a couple of things.

1.) Most drow are nonredeemable creatures of evil bred only to serve their vile goddess.
2.) Some drow fight against that culture and can become heroes.
3.) Those that do tend to be emo rangers with dual scimitars.

What I am arguing against is the relativist take:

1.) The presence of non-evil Drow signifies that they are creatures of free-will and thus can be taught to change their ways.
2.) The fact they are redeemable means killing them in an act of murder.
3.) Modern concepts of war, justice, and international law means drow should ideally be captured, put on trial, and rehabilitated rather than fought or killed, unless in self-defense.

Which is the slippery slope of taking concepts of real world politics and sociology and applying them to the game.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Let's stay closer to the d20 SRD, and call that game Mutants & Masterminds.

I played a LOT of Hero and was briefly vice-president of the company which owns the IP. But for purposes of the current conversation, I see M&M as a closer example, since it has the d20 stats, levels, etc.

https://mutantsandmasterminds.com

I know the game well.

 

[Lanefan]

That is a real slippery slope...

Agreed.

While there are a few non-evil creatures in the MM ...

Maybe now, but that wasn't always the case.

The 1e MM includes all the "kindred" races (Humans, Elves, etc.) along with a widely-varying assortment of (suggested) alignments among the other creatures listed there. A better name for it, in hindsight, might have been "Creature Catalogue".

MM2 and FF both tend to have a much higher "monster" ratio, largely because most of the goodly-type ones were covered in the first MM.

the term "monster" is generally reserved for antagonists to justify there killing and the taking of thier stuff. If you want to open the door as to whether orcs, dragons, or even ithilids are truly "monsters" (as in hopelessly evil and must be destroyed) you are fundementally changing a big part of the game.

Can't speak for your experience, but the whole "They're not evil, they're just misunderstood" debate has come up at least once in every campaign I've played in, regarding some creature or other.

Also, within any intelligent species there's liable to be a wide variety of alignments or ethos between individuals or even entire communities - just because the MM says a certain subset of Dragon types are evil or that Elves are chaotic good doesn't necessarily mean every one of them will be. (though in fairness, with Dragons it's often mighty hard to differentiate between "evil" and "hungry") And I try to keep this in mind when running "monsters" as opponents, not that the PCs often notice while they're busy mowing 'em down.

Lanefan

 

[pemerton]

I don’t spend time thinking about racial theories and nature vs. nurture to the point that the correct use of the word race in an RPG (in a chapter that says species and peoples have the same meaning) will cause me to lose sleep.

I don't lose sleep over it. For the reasons I've explained, I care about it.

Marvel has always pushed those boundaries and not every Marvel series has been a success.

<snip>

Marvel has always tried to tell a story over anything else and has always been somewhat subversive (race and prejudice via X-men. Luke Cage having a white girl friend and then wife when that was not seen on TV or really discussed or allowed in mass media back then, etc.)

As I posted upthread, if D&D took the same approach to these issues as Marvel and the X-Men, I don't think we'd be having this discussion. At least, not in the same terms.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

in fairness, with Dragons it's often mighty hard to differentiate between "evil" and "hungry"

“It’s not personal, it’s just dinner.”

 

[pemerton]

It's entirely possible to deconstruct the 5e races into their components and assign point values to them for purchase at character creation. Due to some analysis I've done for an unrelated project, I happen to think the point value for a 5e race is 78 points, where a 1 point increase to an ability score is worth 12 points, and a language or tool proficiency is worth 3 points. The result of moving away from racial "packages", however, may be to inhibit ease of play, as a player would be faced with a long list of possible choices that may or may not interact in various ways. It may also open up the possibility of overly optimized combinations, not that I'm particularly concerned about that.

I'm no sort of expert in 5e design. But my intuition would be to do this sort of thing at a less granular level.

The stat bonuses could probably be taken out altogether, and just rolled into the point buy rules for stats - so that if you want your PC to have some stat spread that (you feel) represents your ancestry and/or training, you just pay for it with your points.

 

[pemerton]

I am surprised that the name of the book, Monster Manual, with the most races in it has not been subject to mention because it calls them all “monsters”.

While there are a few non-evil creatures in the MM, the term "monster" is generally reserved for antagonists to justify there killing and the taking of thier stuff. If you want to open the door as to whether orcs, dragons, or even ithilids are truly "monsters" (as in hopelessly evil and must be destroyed) you are fundementally changing a big part of the game.

The original Monster Manual included humans (under the label "Men") - with a "tribesman" entry that I won't reproduce but will leave to your imagination.

"Monster", at that time in the game's history, didn't even really mean "antagonist" and certainly didn't mean "for killing and looting". As the PHB explained (p 40):

t is necessary to stress that the usage of the term "monster" is generic for any creature encountered during the course of adventuring. A monster can be exactly what the name implies, or it can be a relatively harmless animal, a friendly intelligent beast, a crazed human, a band of dwarves, a thief - virtually anything or anyone potentially threatening or hostile.

When your referee indicates your character has encountered a monster, that simply indicates a confrontation between your character and some type of creature is about to take place. The results of such a meeting will depend on many factors, including the nature​

the game best functions when the narrative is simple and divorced from real world concepts of race, morality, culture, religion, and other "hot button" concepts.

I don't agree with this at all. It's quite contrary to my own RPGing experiences.

 

[pemerton]

You keep using phrasing like "denying", "disregarding", "not recognizing". Try instead "remaining unconvinced due to a dearth of persuasive reasoning that the mere use of this one particular word constitutes an instance of the incorporation and promulgation of patterns of burdensome ideas". You, in fact, appear to be denying, disregarding, or not recognizing the disconnect between the general principle you're espousing, which is a good one, and the specific case that you're trying to apply it to.

There is no disconnecte of the sort you describe. I quoted the passage upthread (from Gygax's PHB) about "mongrel" half-orcs. I quoted the passages from the 5e PDF, which associate vibrant cultural difference with different "races".

That's the "problem" I'm talking about. As I've already posted, I don't regard it as a theoretical problem. It's a practical problem which affects the way I and people I know interact with these cultural artefacts.