Campaign by Design

Part Two: Races and Racism

—By Talanall

In this installment, I want to discuss the problems presented by differing races in Dungeons and Dragons. Racism in D&D is a horse of a different color from what we see in the real world. Unlike in the real world, in Dungeons and Dragons there really are some races that are innately smarter, stronger, wiser, hardier, faster, more beautiful than others. In the real world, the idea of racial or ethnic "superiority" has been disproved time and again, both in dramatic ways like Jesse Owens' gold medal at the 1936 Olympic games and through the less-dramatic diligence of researchers who gather masses of information into databases for regression analysis.

In D&D, things are a little different. The average human in the 3.5 rules can lift about 115 lbs. The "average" orc can lift 200 lbs. In the case of the orc versus the human, there are other things to consider; orcs tend to be significantly less intelligent, perceptive, and personable than humans, and their eyesight is poor in daylight. There is room for debate about which race is "superior." There is much less room for such debate in a discussion of humans versus hobgoblins, though. Hobgoblins are perceptibly hardier and more agile than humans, speaking in general terms. They are sufficiently superior to humans, in fact, that they receive a Level Adjustment of +1 when used for Player Characters. This is in recognition of the fact that they are a "superior" race.

Then there is the question of lifespan. An elf can live for 354 to 750 years; a half-orc is incredibly old at 62-80 years, and humans succumb to old age at around 72-110 years. The wizened old elf with whom a human adventurer has an argument could have been considered elderly when (and if) he met that adventurer's great-great-great-great-great-grandfather. Similar situations apply to human relationships with dwarfs and gnomes, and to these races' relations with other shorter-lived races. Anyone sitting down to create a campaign setting has to grapple with the implications of both of these issues. In Dungeons and Dragons, some races really are better than others, and some races live a lot longer than others. This has to affect how the campaign world works.

Before I move on with this discussion, I should also emphasize that I am drawing a distinction between the basic, intrinsic worth of all intelligent life, moral and ethical virtue, and other "intangible" but still real measures of personal value, on one hand, and some tangible and measurable attributes like average physical strength, intelligence, perceptiveness, hardiness, and agility on the other hand. I do not want this article to be mistaken as an argument that people who are lucky enough to be above average are somehow "worth" more than anyone else. I have always believed true measures of personal worth do not revolve around a person's talents or lack of talents, but in how a person chooses to employ his talents or face the challenges of his life. I am restricting myself to a discussion of the less emotional side of this problem, and I will begin with an apparently simple question.

Are All Racists Evil?

The knee-jerk answer is, "Yes, of course they are evil, you idiot." I do not think that this is correct. I would agree without hesitation that racism is evil. In fact I would characterize it as one of the great, lingering evils that pervade the United States' culture in particular and the world in general. I think that one reason why racism is still with us while other horrific problems have dwindled is that racism can be so subtle. That subtlety is also the reason why I think that even though racism is evil, racists are not necessarily evil. Most people harbor some racist belief—usually without really thinking about it. People harbor racist ideas, as often as not, because of a basic lack of self-examination. People do not scrutinize their own motives. By and large, they think they are being fair even if they are not. Ask a car salesman if he is a racist, and he will deny it. Examine the interest rates and overall prices charged to African-American males for a car compared to those charged to white males, and you find a different answer. If you are a car salesman and you are reading this, I apologize and I am not picking on you out of malice. I do not think you are evil. I think you are not as aware of your own motivations as you think you are.

This question also has a personal dimension. I grew up in the southeastern United States. Racism is ingrained in the South. I think it always will be, and that saddens me. And I am sure you can imagine that, growing up in the South, I heard plenty of racial slurs tossed around. Sometimes, racism is not subtle where I grew up, and where I now live. If it is evil to be a racist, then I have to consider the proposition that members of my immediate family are somewhat evil. I am not really prepared to do that. Instead, I have to reconcile myself to the proposition that people who are basically good can still believe evil things, and that their beliefs contribute to the long lifespan of one of the United States' most tenacious social ills.

So how does this relate to Dungeons and Dragons? Several ways, really. To begin with, if you accept the proposition that people can contribute to enduring evil even though they are basically good, you have to follow through on that belief by changing how you deal with character alignments. You may have heard the term "alignment drift." It is used sometimes to refer to a phenomenon in which a character's actions slowly draw him away from the alignment originally stated on his character sheet. The conventional wisdom is that the DM should be extremely vigilant about tracking alignment drift.

I'm out to suggest that the conventional wisdom is an example of the same kind of knee-jerk reaction that makes people say, "Of course racists are evil." This conventional wisdom ignores human experience, and I think it also has a lot to do with a strong authoritarian streak in how people approach the role of Dungeon Master. But if we keep in mind the above points about racism and racists, it seems that if we are vigilant about tracking alignment drift, we should also be conservative when deciding where to draw the lines between an alignment and its near neighbors.

Alignment drift seems very logical in cases where a player character has performed deliberate, premeditated actions that fall against his stated alignment. If your paladin slowly develops a pattern of behavior that involves his torture and murder of prisoners? Yes, alignment drift is in order. I am less willing to argue that he should suffer alignment drift if he is a racist with a prejudice against orcs.

This is a different situation because a racist often exposes a contradiction between what his culture has taught him and what he believes to be true. Most cultures do not espouse an ideology that excuses the slaughter of a helpless prisoner. But many cultures tacitly accept racism and discrimination of all sorts. The United States is a case in point. Our legal system punishes actions taken based on racial prejudices, so that racism is overtly and officially not okay. But in parallel to this official opposition to racism, consider the following: many white parents would still be mortified if their children brought home a new spouse who happened to be black. If you accused them of being racists, many would insist that they are not.

Back to our theoretical racist paladin. Is his racism a force for evil in the world? Yep. Is it likely to influence the paladin's decisions about whom to help, and when, and how? Yep. Is the paladin doing anything evil? Not on the surface of things. The logic is clear; the paladin can only help so many people at once, and he has to choose whom to help. And when you make choices, you do so based on your preferences. QED, this paladin can act as a racist without being evil. He is not exactly dragging an orc to death on a chain behind his pickup truck. It is a matter of deciding to donate twice as much to the dwarf orphanage and only a pittance to the orphanage that houses orc children.

In summary, I think that this consideration of racism gives us a few valuable lessons about the difference between being evil and being an unpleasant person. The paladin I discussed in my example is hardly a nice guy, but I do not think he is evil even though his actions contribute to the perpetuation of an evil situation. I do not even think he is in danger of violating his code of conduct. Even the best people have shortcomings.

The "Crunch" of Racism

Speaking of the best people, let's turn this discussion in a new direction. I have just discussed a nebulous topic that does not translate well into Dungeons and Dragons mechanics: morality. But the core of racism is the idea that one race is "superior" to another. The fact of the matter is that roleplaying games in general (and Dungeons and Dragons in particular) introduce players to fictive worlds in which the possibility of a "superior" race is actually pretty plausible. I alluded to this earlier, when I wrote about the relative strengths and weaknesses of orcs versus humans versus hobgoblins. I want to discuss it in more detail, pausing here only to point out that just as I consider racism evil even though I argue that people who subscribe to racist beliefs may not be evil, I consider it possible for a group of people (whether we define that group by ethnicity, occupation, nationality, or something else) to be smarter, stronger, or otherwise "better" than average without this fact conferring any special dignity upon them. A mentally retarded man is as intrinsically worthy of respect and compassion as a man whose IQ is so high that it defies attempts to quantify it.

Keeping that in mind, I submit that some races in Dungeons and Dragons are inherently better than others, if we look at them in terms of the overall stature of their physical and mental powers. This is especially clear in a comparison between human and dragon, or between elf and devil. There is a clear power disparity, and no one will miss it. Even a relative novice to the 3.5 rules will grasp such a distinction almost immediately. It's clear that there is something to my assertion. But the clear cases are less instructive than the obscure ones. Let's look at one of those.

Orcs are one of the iconic races of fantasy fiction and gaming. I would rank them on the same level as the eponymous dragons of Dungeons and Dragons. But there is a problem with how they are often depicted in fantasy—orcs are a lost cause. As a race, they basically are doomed. Stack up their strengths against their weaknesses, and they come up short. Look at the facts for a moment, and it is clear just how precarious the average orc's life is.

The orc race described in Monster Manual v. 3.5 is gifted with truly incredible physical strength. Assuming that a score of 10 to 11 is an "average" base ability score for an NPC, the average orc's strength score is 14 to 15. As I pointed out at the beginning of this article, this is the same thing, in game terms, as saying that it's very common for orcs to be able to lift 200 lbs. from the ground to a point above their heads. By comparison, an average human can only lift 115 lbs. This is great if you assume that all orcs make their living by hitting things with swords, or as porters. Otherwise, the orc's great physical strength is not very useful. Very few people can turn enormous physical strength into a reliable living.

This is the big weakness of orcs, as a race. They may be strong, but they take a -2 penalty to all three of their mental ability scores. It has huge consequences. Let's compare a human commoner with Int 11 to an orc commoner with a base Int of 11. Effectively, the orc has Int 9. Here are their stat blocks.

Look at the Profession skill bonus for each character. The difference is only one point, but that point makes a big difference over time. A weekly Profession check governs how well a character does at making a living. The core rules dictate that a character with ranks in Profession (or Craft) gains a number of gold pieces equal to 1/2 his or her check result for a week's work. On any given week, all other things being equal, the a human with equivalent training and experience will make 5 silver pieces more than an orc. Over the course of one year, that works out to a difference of 26 gold pieces.

And once again, I hear you thinking, "Okay, so what? 26 gold pieces is nothing much." But that isn't true. An unskilled laborer earns about 36.4 gold pieces a year. The human commoner I statted out for you? He earns 442 gold pieces per year. The half-orc earns 416 gold pieces annually. To put it in "real life" terms, the unskilled laborer earns $6.55 per hour in US funds, or about $13,600 US. By extension, the orc commoner earns approximately $155,400. The human earns approximately $165,140. In modern sensibilities, a $9,740 gap in salary is substantial enough to drive a very serious lawsuit for discrimination. 26 gold pieces is a lot of money unless you are filthy rich.

What is more, this pay gap does not shrink as you go down the social ladder. For every point you lose from the ability score modifier keyed to your job, imagine that your salary drops by $9,740. This makes orcs inherently unable to compete with humans in any peaceful trade. The balance tips further towards the humans' side when you consider that the orc commoner above is a one-trick pony. Is he doing well economically? Sure. The orc commoner is doing just fine, especially compared to the local ditch digger. But he will never quite catch up to the human. And what is more, the orc commoner cannot afford ranks in any other skills. Other races gain more skill points because they lack an Intelligence penalty, and they can spend the excess on skills that help them cut living expenses, get ahead politically, or cope with emergencies like sickness and injury. By contrast, orcs can never be quite as prepared, quite as well-connected, or quite as thrifty as their competitors.

The end result is that orcs have little incentive to attempt to live in harmony with "civilized" society. Their handicaps mean that orcs can try to follow the following paths:

1. Resign Themselves to Being a "Lesser" Race: On this path, orcs make up for their racial weaknesses by accepting that they are less intelligent, perceptive and personable than other races. Down this path, they can socialize into other cultures readily, so long as they are willing to form the backbone of a disadvantaged underclass. According to the Monster Manual, this already happens with orcs that are faced with more powerful evil creatures.
2. Form Tightly-Regimented Societies: Orcs can mass together for shared advantage. In this approach, they form an orderly society with strict separation of duties so that specialization and cooperation can make up for individuals' lack of flexibility and adaptability. This paradigm for orcish society does not show up in "classic" fantastic descriptions of orcs; it demands a basically lawful cultural outlook. This also does not necessarily require that orcs live apart from other races. It would imply that (by choice or necessity) orcs associate primarily with other orcs, and give one another advantages in business dealings that they would not offer to other races. This approach would tend to exacerbate feelings of "racism" on both sides. A parallel example would be in medieval European feelings about Jews. I refer here not to any stereotype that Jews might be "inferior" to other ethnic groups—we'll leave that sort of idiocy to the Nazis—but to a feeling of distrust and dislike between European Christians and Jews. Jews in medieval Europe tended to live in neighborhoods together, and to help one another get ahead. Christians recognized this fact, and responded in ways that actually reinforced the Jews' cultural isolation. Orcs are good candidates for a similar scenario in fantasy.
3. Herd, Hunt, Farm, Fish, Raid: The "classic" fantasy paradigm, if attention is paid to details about orcish culture at all, is that orcs live a pastoral lifestyle, with perhaps a little farming on the side, and then they raid their neighbors in lean years or when they need supplies that they cannot make for themselves. In this approach, orcs try to live in a self-sufficient manner. They grow their own food, make their own clothing and tools, and prey on their neighbors when times are hard or they need things that their lifestyle cannot provide for them. This is a harsh, hardscrabble existence, and when their neighbors are numerous enough to resist or retaliate for the orcs' attacks, raiding probably spells the beginning of the end for the orcish race in a region. But where geography, political instability, or some other weakness makes their neighbors weak, the orcs are actually very well positioned to grow wealthy . . . or even to set themselves up as a ruling elite. Real-life examples are numerous in the Baltic, England, Ireland, Scotland, and Northern France, where Viking raiders overthrew the local rulers and became kings and dukes.

Notice that I have not discussed alignment in this examination of the orcs' disadvantages as opposed to humans. This is by design. Viking raiders were not universally cruel and wicked, even if they were demonized by their victims of the time. Modern citizens of the United States are often quite decent people who happen to harbor some very unpleasant racist beliefs. Human nature (and elven nature, or dwarven nature) is mottled.

In truth, the difference between human intellect and orc intellect is fairly small. An orc's Intelligence, Charisma, and Wisdom scores are less than a standard deviation lower than a human's. "Normal" IQ for a human is about 85-115. Normal for an orc is 75 to 105, or something like that. In real life, one measure of retardation is a person's IQ, and the United States currently draws the line for the upper limit of mild retardation at 69. Several other criteria are involved in diagnosing mental retardation, as well; IQ alone is not sufficient.

So orcs are not mentally deficient. They just tend to be a step slower on the uptake than the average human. The difference between orc and human is so slim, in fact, that I have chosen to present it to you readers in terms of a discussion about racism because I argue that in a game world, that is what its effects would and should look like. I have not laid out a scenario where orcs are so stupid that they are incapable of doing the things humans do. To the contrary, orcs are capable of performing very capably in any role that humans could fill. The prevailing stereotype in fantasy fiction and gaming is to treat orcs as if they are dumb brutes. I submit to you that a subtler approach is warranted, both in the particular case I have illustrated here and in fantasy gaming in general.

Propaganda and Racism

A little while ago, I pointed out that I did not want to talk about alignment in terms of orcs' advantages and disadvantages compared to humans (or other races). I want to avoid commingling alignment into that part of the discussion that I have just finished, because I think that alignment and mechanical power are independent. But I think that the way alignment is handled in gaming supplements forms one of the most valid bases for the criticism that fantasy gaming and literature are racially biased.

One of the hallmarks of racist propaganda is to depict the "lesser" race in terms that suggest not only mental deficiency, but moral deficiency as well. The technique is literally to demonize the victim. We see this especially in the orc's case, but that is not the only example. Take the goblin. Racially, they suffer no Intelligence penalty. They are often misrepresented as stupid creatures despite this fact. Not surprisingly, goblins are also depicted as cowardly, thieving, disorganized vermin that prey on those weaker than them. And their alignment line in the Monster Manual reflects this with a listing of "Usually neutral evil."

As elsewhere, the truth is a little more complicated. In their iconic roles as sneaky, numerous, but not-terribly-challenging foes for low-level adventurers, goblins are like orcs in the sense that they are at an inherent disadvantage against "civilized" races. Goblins' disadvantages are a little less pronounced than orcs since they are just as smart and perceptive as humans. But unlike orcs, goblins are physically weak. They lack the brawn that makes orcs credible as the mainstay of a horde of raging barbarians. And as a result, goblins are easier to push off of their lands. Once they have been dispossessed of their homes, goblins are still better off than orcs because of their human-like adaptiveness. Within a generation, the goblins' small size, stealthy habits, and sharp wits can turn them into guerilla fighters who inhabit lands which are inherently defensible for the same reasons that they are undesirable to invaders. Because of this, goblins are even harder to wipe out than orcs.

No wonder, then, that goblins are demonized so fiercely. They are just as much of a threat as orcs when circumstances turn them into raiders and criminals. And the kinds of warfare that suit them best depend on ambush, hit-and-run attacks and similarly underhanded methods that showcase their race's better-than-average marksmanship and agility. In a pitched battle, their size puts them at a disadvantage, as does their racial penalty to Strength. A typical description of goblins emphasizes their cowardice and wickedness. But it does so by pointing out behaviors that are necessary as survival strategies because of the goblins' physical stature and weakness.

Even if goblins manage to establish peaceful relations with their neighbors, or if they integrate into another culture, their penalty to Charisma will see to it that they experience similar but less intense discrimination compared to that experienced by orcs. A goblin craftsman or professional living in a city can expect to make as much money as a human with equivalent training and experience. But the human will still tend to be better connected socially and politically. And in turn, that will tend to affect the socio-political pecking order. It is a point of fact that most "villainous" races in Dungeons and Dragons have a Charisma penalty. And it is equally a point of fact that most "civilized" races do not.

An Exception to Prove the Rule

Only two races featured in the Player's Handbook v. 3.5 suffer from a racial penalty to Charisma. Half-orcs belong to one of these races, and the same observations that I have made regarding goblins and orcs apply to them to a greater or lesser degree. The other Charisma-impaired race, of course, is the dwarf. Dwarfs are the exception that proves the rule about how Charisma and Intelligence penalties affect the way character races are depicted in-game.

Dwarves are usually presented as lawful, orderly people who live in tightly-regimented societies with clear separation of social roles. They are gruff and stoic in most depictions of their race. They do not have a racial Intelligence bonus. Instead, they receive a +2 racial bonus on any Craft or Appraise check dealing with stone or metal. This works out as the equivalent of a +4 bonus to Intelligence for dwarves who want to specialize as professional smiths or masons. As a result of both culture and natural aptitude, dwarves are likely to undertake such specialization, with the result that a dwarf commoner built along the same lines as the orc and human commoners described above will earn the equivalent of $204,100 in United States funds annually.

Furthermore, dwarves have every incentive to continue this behavior when faced with the decision on whether to integrate with a multiracial society. By keeping to themselves and dealing preferentially with other dwarves over humans, gnomes, elves, or any other race, dwarves compensate for their lower Charisma and the misunderstandings it causes between them and other races. They are the equivalent par excellence to a variety of real-life examples of ethnic groups who form political, social, and professional alliances based around a shared industry. Such examples include expansive Jewish involvement in banking prior to the Holocaust, Venetian monopolies on glassblowing and the manufacture of mirrors in Renaissance Italy, the domination of the English wool trade by Flemish immigrants in the late middle ages. And there are other, more obscure examples. This kind of banding together by ethnicity and profession allowed minorities to prosper in the midst of societies that were prejudiced against them. Similar strategies are valid in Dungeons and Dragons.

Race and Dynastic Politics

One other thing sets races apart from each other in Dungeons and Dragons, and it bears mentioning in this column. Dwarves are one example of this phenomenon, as well: some races live longer than others. A lot longer. The most pronounced example of this phenomenon in the Player's Handbook is the elf, but my remarks on elves, apply also to dwarves, gnomes and (to a lesser degree) halflings and half-elves. This is an important difference between the races—much more important than the differences evidenced by a penalty or bonus of 2 points to an ability score. I have saved this discussion for last because this aspect of the racial divide is so decisive.

The average elf lives 550 years, give or take a couple of centuries. The average dwarf or gnome lives for 350 years; the average halfling lives to 150 years; the average half-elf to 175 years. But humans reach 90 years if they are not carried off by accident, war or disease, and a half-orc who sees his seventieth birthday is tremendously old. The shorter-lived races also have correspondingly shorter generations. And all of this has consequences for political life in a culture that includes at least two races that have significantly different lifespans.

In the natural order of human politics, real or imaginary, a politician's career stretches over as much as forty years. Aberrations like Strom Thurmond do occur, but they are rare. A political dynasty, in our understanding of the term, has to involve multiple members of a family group or political party. But if some politicians can expect to begin a career at the age of 130, and to continue it for four centuries . . . what then? What would the political landscape of the United States look like if George Washington were still walking around in 2009? The effects of extended lifespans on politics would certainly be felt. Dungeon Masters and would-be designers of campaign settings should consider how those effects would be felt.

Would the electorates of republics in a fantasy campaign world impose term limits as a safeguard, not only against empire-building on the part of human candidates but to nullify some of the advantage of the long life spans of elven citizens? Would politically-minded elves gain leverage from their long life-spans by becoming career bureaucrats? And how would a human emperor discourage his elven advisors from striking out on their own? Might such a ruler demand that the occupants of the highest offices of his government submit to castration, becoming eunuchs so that they might harbor no ambition of ruling in their own right?

Or might the inhabitants of a world replete with elves, dwarves, and gnomes (in addition to humans) mistake the importance of this greatest of differences between the races, and impose no controls at all? Would stern dwarven elders rule from the shadows behind a human throne, seeing to it that the energetic but short-lived humans formed policy and carried out wars and trade in ways that suited their own purposes? Would elven kings seek to temper the wildly erratic politics of their human neighbors by marrying off their daughters to a human monarch so that longer-lived half-elven princes come of the union and rule with the long view in mind?

I do not know the answer, except to say that there is no single answer. The important thing is to imagine a world where your answer makes sense.

Next time:

• Religion: the opiate of the masses? Rock of ages and comfort to the oppressed?
• Divine magic: where does it come from?
• Deities: Good and Evil embodied? Omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and eternal? Or humanity writ large?

Come back for these topics.