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'.

 

[Nickolaidas]

Or maybe...

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

Dear God - no! I like my fluff!

 

[Nickolaidas]

It's covered much more in depth in the other dumpster fire--

If you consider these two threads 'dumpster fires', I advise you to never, EVER set foot in the GameFaqs forums.

 

[Asisreo]

I can say that some members of the African-American community do appreciate the extra thought being put into the stereotypes. I also know that some women who go into D&D appreciate the fact that there isn't a mathematical boon/penalty for being a certain race. Like being a man is an optimal barbarian and being a woman makes you an optimal rogue (because, haha, men strong but stiff women weak but flexible) meaning a woman would need to either play as a man to play Barbarian or not be as good as if they had chosen being a man.

Currently, being a Half-Orc benefits Barbarians alot while being a halfling basically hurts it by alot. It's possible, but you have to play knowing that if you chose Half-orc, you'd be better.

There's also this strangeness about Orcs in fiction, period. They're almost always primitive (ape-like) in nature but they can craft tools, speak, and organize themselves in tribes. And I get that they're evil because they were "born evil." But the parallels between Orcs and Africans are a bit too on-the-nose. They'd depict african tribes as savages, strong-yet-dumb, only barely human, and born evil. They'd be afraid because they thought the true nature of the Negro was violence and immorality, and so there were "introspective Negroes" that may be decent enough to blend into society as long as they didn't give into their "True Nature" while the bad ones were obviously the ones that tried to escape the ships and plantations.


What I'm trying to say is that it feels like there was a desire, at some point, to have something as a validation for looking down on a society similar to how Africans were, and still are, treated. Religion, itself, isn't a strictly fantasy system either. People believe in 1 god, 2 gods, many gods or infinite gods. Some of which are seen as good or evil. Even in christianity, there was, and still is in some churches in america, the belief that a black person was born of the devil or are devils themselves and therefore can't possibly be good and can't possibly go to heaven. Their evil nature won't allow it.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I was unclear: I didn't say the answer was the removal of orcs altogether, but that the change resulted in no longer having a low level 100% evil NPCs you can kill without exploring deep storytelling.

It’s 100% possible to have low-level 100% evil NPCs you can kill without exploring deep storytelling: when designing them, don’t crib notes from racist stereotypes.

It’s really that simple.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

It’s 100% possible to have low-level 100% evil NPCs you can kill without exploring deep storytelling: when designing them, don’t crib notes from racist stereotypes.

It’s really that simple.

That's exactly my point and my suggestion. Thanks for supporting my position, because I was beginning to think I was the only one to see this solution. I think it's that simple. I think it's the easiest solution to the problem with orcs. But the official answer by WOTC isn't this one, as they said in their announcement :

"We present orcs and drow in a new light in two of our most recent books, Eberron: Rising from the Last War and Explorer's Guide to Wildemount. In those books, orcs and drow are just as morally and culturally complex as other peoples. We will continue that approach in future books, portraying all the peoples of D&D in relatable ways and making it clear that they are as free as humans to decide who they are and what they do. "

So we'll still have the orcs we know, with all the problem mentionned in this thread (inherited from a racist outlook against asians, physical traits that are lifted from a racist stereotyping handboook) BUT with "culturally complex" societies and the explicit mention that they are like people not monsters. I am pretty sure it doesn't remove the racism of the way orcs are presented. It even acknowledges the link between orcs and, to quote WOTC, "real-world ethnic groups have been and continue to be denigrated." I don't understand why they didn't took the route of MAKING ORCS DISTINCTIVELY UNLIKE ANY REAL LIFE GROUP.

 

[Hussar]

/snip

There's also this strangeness about Orcs in fiction, period. They're almost always primitive (ape-like) in nature but they can craft tools, speak, and organize themselves in tribes. And I get that they're evil because they were "born evil." But the parallels between Orcs and Africans are a bit too on-the-nose. They'd depict african tribes as savages, strong-yet-dumb, only barely human, and born evil. They'd be afraid because they thought the true nature of the Negro was violence and immorality, and so there were "introspective Negroes" that may be decent enough to blend into society as long as they didn't give into their "True Nature" while the bad ones were obviously the ones that tried to escape the ships and plantations.
/snip

Y'know, it's almost funny. This paragraph, right here, has been stated, restated, re-restated, reformed, put into different words, made bold, made in a hundred different ways.

Yet, you STILL have people talking about how there just isn't a problem and it's the observers fault for being offended, or how there isn't really any direct connection, or a thousand other excuses. But, it really does come down to this paragraph, right there.

 

[Hussar]

That's exactly my point and my suggestion. Thanks for supporting my position, because I was beginning to think I was the only one to see this solution. I think it's that simple. I think it's the easiest solution to the problem with orcs. But the official answer by WOTC isn't this one, as they said in their announcement :

"We present orcs and drow in a new light in two of our most recent books, Eberron: Rising from the Last War and Explorer's Guide to Wildemount. In those books, orcs and drow are just as morally and culturally complex as other peoples. We will continue that approach in future books, portraying all the peoples of D&D in relatable ways and making it clear that they are as free as humans to decide who they are and what they do. "

So we'll still have the orcs we know, with all the problem mentionned in this thread (inherited from a racist outlook against asians, physical traits that are lifted from a racist stereotyping handboook) BUT with "culturally complex" societies and the explicit mention that they are like people not monsters. I am pretty sure it doesn't remove the racism of the way orcs are presented. It even acknowledges the link between orcs and, to quote WOTC, "real-world ethnic groups have been and continue to be denigrated." I don't understand why they didn't took the route of MAKING ORCS DISTINCTIVELY UNLIKE ANY REAL LIFE GROUP.

Because, just like people, as in human people, you have good ones and bad ones. Nice and not nice. All different kinds of people. So, instead of those orcs being ok to kill because they happen to be orcs, they are instead judged based on what they do.

Look at it this way. You've probably seen all sorts of DM's who have their NPC's lose their mind if a dragonborn or an orc walks into town. "OH, those things should be killed on sight" and every NPC grabs the torches and pitchforks. Instead, now, you have orcs, and various other races, being treated as actual people, and not racist caricatures.

Given how tightly a very, VERY vocal subset of the fandom is about lore changes, completely rewriting orcs from the ground up would cause those folks to absolutely lose their minds. It's "You're ruining my game" all over again. WotC learned that lesson in 4e. You can't make radical changes like that because you'll get absolutely hammered by the fandom.

 

[Xenonnonex]

Y'know, it's almost funny. This paragraph, right here, has been stated, restated, re-restated, reformed, put into different words, made bold, made in a hundred different ways.

Yet, you STILL have people talking about how there just isn't a problem and it's the observers fault for being offended, or how there isn't really any direct connection, or a thousand other excuses. But, it really does come down to this paragraph, right there.

They ignore those points. Continually. Because there is no comeback to them. They instead insist we do not understand. The degrees. The nuances. They insist it is not that bad. They insist we see things that are not there. They insist the history of the game should be preserved. Just because. It is poor form to continue discussions like that.

 

[GameOgre]

Y'know, it's almost funny. This paragraph, right here, has been stated, restated, re-restated, reformed, put into different words, made bold, made in a hundred different ways.

Yet, you STILL have people talking about how there just isn't a problem and it's the observers fault for being offended, or how there isn't really any direct connection, or a thousand other excuses. But, it really does come down to this paragraph, right there.

It's because we are not racist. We don't see your point at all. Orcs are bad. Orcs are violent brutish psychotic monsters who are fun to kill and fun to be killed by.

Minorities are real life human beings that we are. They are the heroes playing the game. Our DM, our fellow players,ourselves.

We don't see the connection you insist is there. We don't see the (as you put it) so obvious racism because that sounds like us. It doesn't......at all.

 

[Mercurius]

Y'know, it's almost funny. This paragraph, right here, has been stated, restated, re-restated, reformed, put into different words, made bold, made in a hundred different ways.

Yet, you STILL have people talking about how there just isn't a problem and it's the observers fault for being offended, or how there isn't really any direct connection, or a thousand other excuses. But, it really does come down to this paragraph, right there.

In the spirit of good faith discussion, I'm going to assume that you're at least a tiny bit open to understanding why some view the matter differently, and offer an alternate perspective.

I cannot speak for anyone but myself, but I don't agree with the notion that because orcs have certain traits in common with racial stereotypes that orcs themselves are a racist idea, or are being treated in a racist manner. I cannot speak to every single depiction in the literally thousands of D&D books published over the last half century, but in terms of general treatment and more recent descriptions, all I see are traits in common with certain stereotypes, not traits in common with any particular ethnic group.

The problem is in this equation: orcs = racist stereotypes = ethnic group(s). If we acknowledge that the racist stereotypes are false depictions of the ethnic group(s) in question, the equation falls apart, or it requires us to link it back up; that is, it requires us to re-inforce the stereotype. By doing so, not only are we perpetuating said stereotypes, but we can apply the same process to nearly any depiction. Think of the traits of any number of monsters, races, or other D&D tropes, and see how they can be assigned to a variety of real world stereotypes. Meaning, if we see orcs as indicative of racism, then a lot of things in D&D are indicative of racism.

This is isn't scientific methodology, but an interpretive process. Meaning, person A sees racist connotations and person B doesn't, but because we're in the domain of interpretation, there's no way to find an objective truth because interpretation isn't in the domain of objective truth. As Christopher J Ferguson puts it, it is a Rorschach test: if you want to see racism in D&D's orcs you'll see racism; if you don't, you won't. He was specifically referring to Tolkien, but the same applies to D&D.

It isn't about right vs. wrong perception or interpretation, because interpretation isn't binary. Different interpretations lead to different results, and one interpretation magnifies a problem that can be addressed in other ways (as I have said, further differentiating fantasy orcs from real world ethnic groups). In other words, the view that "orcs = racism" actually perpetuates racism, because it strengthens the link between racial stereotypes with certain ethnic groups.

Take any specific trait, say "brutishness." Are any real world ethnic groups inherently brutish? Of course not. Individuals of probably every ethnic group can be brutish, and an ethnic group could theoretically be more brutish than another ethnic group because of historical or environmental factors, but it isn't inherent to the ethnicity itself (and there's none that I can think of that qualify). Does that mean that a fantasy race that is characterized as brutish equates with an ethnic group for whom the stereotype doesn't even apply? Of course not.

A further point that Ferguson mentions is that in D&D, "race" is used differently than in the real world. He uses the difference between Homo Sapiens and Neanderthals as a closer comparison, and given that there are no real Neanderthals left, the equation becomes even more faulty. Real world ethnic groups are not races in the sense of D&D races.

That said, obviously there is a problem that needs addressing, if only because some people are interpreting orcs in a particular way. But there are many paths to Rome. I, too, want D&D to be as inclusive as possible, but I think the notion of orcs = racism only perpetuates the problem that it seeks to solve. As I've said many times, I think a better solution is clarifying that orcs have no relation to any real world ethnic group; if need be, stating it explicitly in the books. And of course, such a statement would need to be applied in a general way.

I think expanding the notion of what an orc is can also help, making it a playable race with a greater range of behavior, if only to add depth and range to them. I have done this in my own campaigns, with orcish sub-races that exhibit a variety of behavioral traits (including blue orcs who are focused on magic, green orcs who are druidic and nature-worshipping, grey orcs who are more traditional, although more CN than CE, and red (or blood) orcs who are focused on war and violence).