D&D 5E WotC's Jeremy Crawford on D&D Races Going Forward

On Twitter, Jeremy Crawford discussed the treatment of orcs, Vistani, drow and others in D&D, and how WotC plans to treat the idea of 'race' in D&D going forward. In recent products (Eberron and Wildemount), the mandatory evil alignment was dropped from orcs, as was the Intelligence penalty.

@ThinkingDM Look at the treatment orcs received in Eberron and Exandria. Dropped the Intelligence debuff and the evil alignment, with a more acceptable narrative. It's a start, but there's a fair argument for gutting the entire race system.

The orcs of Eberron and Wildemount reflect where our hearts are and indicate where we’re heading.

@vorpaldicepress I hate to be "that guy", but what about Drow, Vistani, and the other troublesome races and cultures in Forgotten Realms (like the Gur, another Roma-inspired race)? Things don't change over night, but are these on the radar?

The drow, Vistani, and many other folk in the game are on our radar. The same spirit that motivated our portrayal of orcs in Eberron is animating our work on all these peoples.

@MileyMan1066 Good. These problems need to be addressed. The variant features UA could have a sequel that includes notes that could rectify some of the problems and help move 5e in a better direction.

Addressing these issues is vital to us. Eberron and Wildemount are the first of multiple books that will face these issues head on and will do so from multiple angles.

@mbriddell I'm happy to hear that you are taking a serious look at this. Do you feel that you can achieve this within the context of Forgotten Realms, given how establised that world's lore is, or would you need to establish a new setting to do this?

Thankfully, the core setting of D&D is the multiverse, with its multitude of worlds. We can tell so many different stories, with different perspectives, in each world. And when we return to a world like FR, stories can evolve. In short, even the older worlds can improve.

@SlyFlourish I could see gnolls being treated differently in other worlds, particularly when they’re a playable race. The idea that they’re spawned hyenas who fed on demon-touched rotten meat feels like they’re in a different class than drow, orcs, goblins and the like. Same with minotaurs.

Internally, we feel that the gnolls in the MM are mistyped. Given their story, they should be fiends, not humanoids. In contrast, the gnolls of Eberron are humanoids, a people with moral and cultural expansiveness.

@MikeyMan1066 I agree. Any creature with the Humanoid type should have the full capacity to be any alignmnet, i.e., they should have free will and souls. Gnolls... the way they are described, do not. Having them be minor demons would clear a lot of this up.

You just described our team's perspective exactly.

As a side-note, the term 'race' is starting to fall out of favor in tabletop RPGs (Pathfinder has "ancestry", and other games use terms like "heritage"); while he doesn't comment on that specifically, he doesn't use the word 'race' and instead refers to 'folks' and 'peoples'.

 

[Xenonnonex]

Mercurius. Very poor way you have of dismissing opinions by saying they do not understand nuance. Or do not understand degrees of something. Even when examples are repeatedly given.
Can you find some other way. Makes for a tiresome discussion if all you do is dismiss.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Or maybe...

4) Not much more than a statblock. No alignment. No society. No behaviour. Individual DMs can interpret it however they like.

 

[bloodtide]

Surely the problem is the core assumption has been in D&D that most ethnic groups have been presented as monolithic and monocultural with little or no variation.
That is the problem.

So is this "enough"? WotC comes out with an All Race Book and says "anyone and any race can be anything". Ok, all good?

And it is simply not true that most ethnic groups or races have been presented as monolithic and monocultural with little or no variation. D&D is full of tons of different presentations and interpretations. The only reason people don't see it is if they choose not too.

 

[Urriak Uruk]

"The Goths were divided into two major branches: ⁸the Visigoths and the Ostrogoths. The Visigoths took over much of Western Europe and battled Rome constantly in the late 300's. Under their leader Alaric I, the Visigoths sacked Rome in 410."

Those were the barbarian hordes that sacked Rome.

"The barbarians were starting to take over parts of the Roman empire. To the Romans, anyone who was not a citizen of Rome or who did not speak Latin was a barbarian. In Europe there were five major barbarian tribes - the Huns, Franks, Vandals, Saxons, and Visigoths (Goths) - and all of them hated Rome."

African isn't mentioned. Which is why in all my recollections I cannot remember from Basic D&D onward (until very recently when games like WoW and shows like Bright especially) tried tying their version of Orcs to an African ethnicity.

What are you quoting? I won't dispute that those were the biggest threats to the Roman Empire at its peak, but the Romans did have conflict with African tribes, as they occupied Northern Africa ranging from modern day Egypt to Algeria. There were a number of Berber tribes in constant conflict with the Romans.

I'll add that although Tolkien explicitly ties Orcs to Mongols (not Africans) the film adaptation makes Orcs dark-skinned, an especially uncomfortable choice considering there are no dark-skinned humans (or elves or anything else) in the series.

Orcs in D&D aren't even green like in other series; they're gray, and more similar to a gorilla in appearance. It's again uncomfortable, considering how in Europe racists often compare black people to monkeys.

 

[Markh3rd]

So then you think this is a modern association and not intended by the creators of D&D?

 

[Cadence]

There's three reasonable directions to take orcs and other evil humanoids imo.

1) Humans with tusks.
2) Very inhuman like a kind of minor demon or a construct (as Tom Shippey suggested). No children, society, biological needs, etc. This would be a big change.
3) Unlike humans but not evil or stupid, like trolls in RuneQuest. This is very hard to pull off, has no precedent in D&D, and I have no confidence WotC could manage it.

So we are left with (1).

By "humans", are:

Elves basically humans with pointy ears who live a long time, often like the woods and magic, and whom Correlion has a special fondness for

Dwarves basically short-but-broad humans with darkvision, who don't live as long as elves, who often like mining, and whom Moradin has a fondness for

Halflings bascially small humans who don't need shoes and eat a lot, live in between human and dwarf lifespans, and whom Yondalla has a fondness for

?

If so, then would a similar thing about orcs maybe be:

Larger humans with tusks who live a bit shorter lifespans and whom Gruumsh has a desire to rule? (Fondness sounds odd).

If so, seems fine. If not, basically, where's my aim most off?

Edit: I just realized I forgot to give them something general that they like :-/

 

[Mercurius]

Mercurius. Very poor way you have of dismissing opinions by saying they do not understand nuance. Or do not understand degrees of something. Even when examples are repeatedly given.
Can you find some other way. Makes for a tiresome discussion if all you do is dismiss.

Except that is exactly what was happening, as I was seeing: ignoring (ahem, dismissing) degrees and nuance.

You keep throwing this word "dismissing" around, yet ironically I see that exemplified in many/most of your posts. Even when examples are repeatedly given. I try to address the examples given and ask that you do the same.

Edit: Meaning, I observe that you dismiss disagreement by saying it is dismissive. I don't find that it facillitates actual dialogue.

 

[TheSword]

That's the point. If you make orcs people, you can no longer use violence as a tool, but there is no need to make them like people.

Why does an orc being a person preclude violence?

I’m playing Owlcats kingmaker game. I was attacked by human slavers so I chopped them up. Are human slavers people?

I later attacked the Stag Lords Bandit Fort (he’s human) I chopped them up too because they’ve been murdering traders and crofters and taking their stuff. Are bandits people?

I’ll be honest, i didn‘t feel any remorse. Sorry I said I’d go to bed and Not encourage the third thread.

 

[Urriak Uruk]

So then you think this is a modern association and not intended by the creators of D&D?

Here's the thing; I don't think very many creators of all sources, including Ed Greenwood, Peter Jackson, Gary Gygax, Perkins or Crawford, WoW, is intentionally trying to tie certain races to certain ethnic groups.

All of these races however pull from mythic sources, such as Viking, Celtic, Roman or other mythology (or Tolkien, who was a little racist), which are all intentionally tying certain "evil" monsters directly to the "outsiders." D&D is built using primarily myths from Europe (dragons for example match the European design, not Asian). So drow are inspired by races like the Dokkalfar, who are more evil in comparison to the Ljosalfar, whose complexion is brighter than the sun (this is Viking myth).

Myths call the Dokkalfar "blacker than pitch" and Gygax said "Drow are mentioned in Keightley's The Fairy Mythology, as I recall (it might have been The Secret Commonwealth—neither book is before me, and it is not all that important anyway), and as Dark Elves of evil nature, they served as an ideal basis for the creation of a unique new mythos designed especially for the AD&D game."

Was Gygax intentionally making the same connection that the myths were, that "the darker the skin, the more evil the creature"? Probably not; he read a book, thought it sounded cool and ran with it. However, those same comparisons continue despite everyone not trying to make these connections purposefully. So the dark-skinned drow are evil, the fair-skinned elves are not; and that should make us all uncomfortable.

TLDR: The "monstrous races" are all inspired by real myths that were intentionally racist; unless there is a clear break to make these races "not explicitly evil" the comparisons will always exist to some extent.

 

[Umbran]

So then you think this is a modern association and not intended by the creators of D&D?

If the game's writer's did intend it, that would e very, very bad. But, if they didn't, that doesn't mean we can close this up and walk away like nothing is wrong.

If you're at a party, and while dancing you stomp on someone's foot, or whack them in the face, completely unintentionally, you say you are sorry and try not to do it again, right? Whether or not you intended harm, their toe is broken, or their nose is bleeding, and your carelessness is at least part of the cause. You have some responsibility for harm you do even when you don't intend it.

Thus, even if the tropes were put forth in complete innocence, WotC still has a responsibility for their impact at this point. WotC is saying "whoops, sorry" and no longer flailing its arms quite so much. That's it.

This entire, hundred page thread, is here because some folks do not want WotC to be kind.