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.

 

[Shasarak]

Maybe we could change it to "Warlord"...

As long as it can still shout hands back on.

 

[Shasarak]

Generally I think there is a right and a wrong way to be inclusive and promote diversity. Movies like Force Awakens, Black Panther, Wonder Women, are the way to do it vs trying to force cultural change which tends to initiate blowback.

I always thought that the point of the Force Awakens was to prove that you really can ruin a perfectly good franchise if you put enough money into it.

 

[Celebrim]

It's a change that frankly costs nothing and makes people happy. Why wouldn't we do it?

First of all, I consider this particular argument a marker in and of itself that no good reason exist. This particular argument and ones like it always shows up when something proposed is a non-solution to a problem. First, it does cost something. Maybe it's a small amount, but it has a cost. And second, it doesn't "make people happy". It clearly makes a lot of people upset.

And, funnily enough, outside of some specific tables, no one seems too terribly fussed about this either. I've never seen so much as the slightest quibble about this.

So there are a couple of things I could answer to that. Remember how I said earlier in the thread that I had banished the words "demon" and "devil" from my game, most particularly as technical terms. I also later said I'd banned the word "church" from my game, and you might not be surprised that I've banished the term "angel" from my game. Now you might notice a couple of things. First, these words appear in the 3.X SRD. Secondly you might notice that at one time in TSR's history they actually listened to persons like me and did banish "demon" and "devil" from the game. But you might also notice that it had a cost and it didn't make people happy. I mean, sure, it made some people happy, but it didn't make everyone happy. Moreover, even those of us that thought it a good move didn't like the fact that all they did was keep the exact same body of lore and slap a neologistic euphemism on it, because that isn't really a meaningful move at all. We would have much preferred that in addition they invented a new body of lore that distanced itself from its occult roots even further.

But finally, you might notice that when they put the terms back, there was no outcry. I'd be the biggest hypocrite on the planet if I was going around EnWorld raising up a hue and cry and trying to breed outrage over this matter. Do I consider the use of the term "church" to refer to a non-Christian cult to be insulting? Absolutely. Am I going to try to force other people to behave the way I want them to behave and force them to adhere to what I believe? No, absolutely not. For one thing, I know very well it won't do any good. It actually makes things worse. You can't hit people over the head with your beliefs. You can't use your position of authority or dominance to make people agree. It just makes them that much less receptive and hardens their heart against what you are trying to say.

 

[Eltab]

What other unit would one use to measure and quantify fun?!

Giggles?

 

[Farealmer3]

You can't hit people over the head with your beliefs. You can't use your position of authority or dominance to make people agree. It just makes them that much less receptive and hardens their heart against what you are trying to say.

This, I cannot stress how true this is enough. Many a modern woe can be traced to one group or another trying to force someone to comply either at literal or metaphorical gunpoint or trying to make every discussion about a single thing even if it has no bearing on what anyone is saying.

 

[Mallus]

I always thought that the point of the Force Awakens was to prove that you really can ruin a perfectly good franchise if you put enough money into it.

Hey, that's whole other topic. Stay on target!

 

[Eltab]

Stay on target!

Pun intended?

I thought Movies 7 and 8 were 'the next generation' of scriptwriters trying to prove that they could do it better than anything that had gone before.

 

[Celebrim]

I thought Movies 7 and 8 were 'the next generation' of scriptwriters trying to prove that they could do it better than anything that had gone before.

One would hope that scriptwriters would realize the danger of hubris, but alas, I've known too many scriptwriters. I've never met a one that wasn't convinced that they could write better than the writer they were adapting content from or that they had some mystical special knowledge of what it took to write a good script and that all the changes they were making to a beloved story were fully justified.

As a sometime writer myself, I think it takes a certain amount of arrogance to create something with the expectation people will enjoy it. Unfortunately, that means that people with the humility to self-critique their work rare.

This is one of the reasons that a script driven by the desires of a producer never works.

 

[Gradine]

Personally I'm sceptical about this idea that a new meaning has been coined - it's often not that easy. (And D&D does have its continuing trouble with "usually evil hence slaughterable" goblins and orcs.) This is part of the reason why I take the view that I've taken in this thread.

Most of this post very succinctly sums up the main significant argument against the use of the term. I just wanted to take this opportunity to plug my Eberron fanboyism, but this specific issue is one of the biggest reasons I enjoy that setting so much. I love what they do with the goblinoids and specifically the orcs (and honestly, most of the "monstrous" humanoids") in that setting.

 

[Celebrim]

I just wanted to take this opportunity to plug my Eberron fanboyism, but this specific issue is one of the biggest reasons I enjoy that setting so much. I love what they do with the goblinoids and specifically the orcs (and honestly, most of the "monstrous" humanoids") in that setting.

I'm not hugely familiar with Eberron, but in my game orcs don't exist and goblinoids are a PC race. That goblins are generally 'slaughterable' has more to do with the fact that they are generally bandits, cattle thieves, and raid surrounding lands for slaves (and meat, since cannibalism is held in high esteem). But in point of fact, we've had one hobgoblin PC in the campaign so far, the current party has a goblin NPC retainer (the party's cook), there was a plot line for a while about the discrimination that the hobgoblin experienced, and one of the few times they've actually decided to show mercy on a foe was a hobgoblin thug whom they interrogated and extracted a promise from that he'd never get in the parties way again.

But I have no intention of banishing the idea of monster from my game completely. Goblins are people, albeit people who appear monstrous and often live up to that appearance. Gnolls and Minotaurs are not people. They are always monstrous. They lack critical people defining traits like free will that goblins have. However, if in some world goblins aren't people, well that doesn't bother me very much in and of itself (though I can imagine scenarios where it would).

PS: I've got a reply to your longer post I've been stewing over, but I'm trying to make it less angry and more substantial.