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'.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Remove races. Call them ancestries.

I'd rather keep races, and call them ancestries.

We're talking about player characters though. So why not have a halfling that's as strong as the minotaur, if that's the player's vision? Why have the rules prevent that character choice? PCs are heroes!

The rules don't prevent that character choice. What's more, there are other ways to get even closer to possible parity, like each class having a pair of stat bonuses to choose from, or each character picking a +2 from their background that can't stack with another +2 from race.

Indeed. My minotaur detests all forms of exercise, and has a troubling penchant for laudanum.

Thing is, a minotaur vs a human is more like a gorilla vs a bonobo than like two irl humans from different cultures. Now, because they're heroes a halfling can reach that same upper limit of strength (20), but it takes more work. The minotaur has stronger muscle attachments and a skeletal structure built for greater power. Even that laziest gorilla there has ever been can literally rip my arm off.

Only because of game balance and enhanced fun do minotaurs and halflings not have the same difference in possible and inherent strength. And I'm glad that the game is built that way, but lets not pretend it makes a ton of sense.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

This isn't even an issue, because the habit of referring to the human races as "white" and "black" is ridiculous in the first place. They're pink and brown. Very few people have ever actually associated light-skinned people with light and purity, or dark-skinned people with darkness and corruption. And we have a word for the people who do.

It isn't as uncommon as you think. And having a word for them doesn't make them go away, nor does it stop rather a lot of people from experiencing trauma at their hands.

 

[Sunsword]

We use Human morality because we are Humans who make the game. Nothing is stopping you from changing that, it is the beauty of RPGs.

Your PCs can be the exception because its a game. Some of us don't want to see from the Orcs POV because we hang out, blow off steam and roll dice to kill things and to take their stuff.

Do you think White Supremacists are evil or ignorant? If they are evil then how can it be hard to see Orcs or Gnolls as evil for the most part?

Run whatever game you want but there are Protagonists and Antagonists in these games.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

This isn't even an issue, because the habit of referring to the human races as "white" and "black" is ridiculous in the first place. They're pink and brown. Very few people have ever actually associated light-skinned people with light and purity, or dark-skinned people with darkness and corruption. And we have a word for the people who do.

I think that's a wonderful way to look at things, but I am not sure that is reflected in reality.

 

[Sunsword]

Your response doesn't actually answer my or your own question.

No. It does. It is a game. Apply more subtlety as much as you like at your table. But it is a game and not a class in anthropology, sociology, or philosophy.

 

[Sunsword]

I think that's a wonderful way to look at things, but I am not sure that is reflected in reality.

It is. Its called colorblind racism. Its great that some of us don't see people differently, but we are vast minority.

 

[Zaukrie]

My solution would be:

Release a new book (that is available as a free pdf) that overwrites the description of all humanoids in the game from all official sources. It removes all assumptions about culture and disposition being tied to race. It removes problematic mechanical features of the races and replaces them with less 'charged' features. Essentially, we no longer generalize about who a humanoid type is - we just discuss the mechanical differences and make sure they are not evocative of insensitive racial stereotyping.

Make the hallmark of humanoids be their free will. While free will is not only available to all humanoids, all humanoids have it and can be whoever or whatever they want. We do not assume an orc is evil, an elf is arrogant, or a dwarf stubborn. A player may elect to have their PC be so, but it is not required or suggested.

Eliminate absolute definitions of alignment. Replace it with less problematic approaches. If you look at Detect Good and Evil, they already do this in some places.

Eliminate most racial ability score bonuses, especially those for charisma, intelligence and wisdom. Shift most of them to the backgrounds. There should be a significant and justified need before they apply a bonus or penalty to a race's ability scores.

Require that this new definition of each humanoid be used throughout all future D&D products on any WotC approved product or platform - including DM's guild.

Independently address how to approach cultures within a campaign setting. To be clear - these discussions should be entirely independent of race. Regardless, they should not encourage negative stereotyping for a culture.

However, they should recognize that individuals can make choices, and some of those individuals may make selfish choices, cruel choices and damaging choices. Individuals can be evil, but it should not be the assumption for an entire type of humanoids. Nor should good be assumed to apply for a type of humanoid.

As for existing lore, don't rewrite history. If we pretend nothing was wrong, we don't learn from situations. Instead, address the problems within the game. Fix the Realms by allowing it to struggle with the same issues we struggle with today. Grow out of the problem, don't bury it and hide it.

In terms of the game, then, what is the difference between an orc and a human?

And taking this further, why do only humanoids get free will? There are stories of redeemed devils and fallen angels.....of good giants and bad giants.....

I agree, there are HUGE issues with how good/evil and free will and cultures are handled in games. But I'm not sure removing good and evil and making every race the same (and only their culture makes them different) is the answer. Like I said, it is complicated.....

 

[Parmandur]

But why are they raised by an "evil" god? Why is their god "evil" then? It's only evil because we're using human morality to determine their placement on the line. By rights, if orcs are an entirely different species then they shouldn't have an alignment attributed to them at all, or at the very least it should be reflective of their own culture and not in relation to human culture.

If an orc leave their tribe and goes to live in a human city, they're the ones who should be considered Chaotic Evil from the orc's point of view. They are evil for having forsaken their own people and gone to live with the creatures who have been trying to kill them for millenia. And they've done something completely against their nature and moved off the reservation. That's not order there, that's chaos.

But we don't make those morality shifts when it comes to alignment though, instead everything is always reflected through the lens of humanity. But is that right? Is this methodology that we have always used for alignment for the last 40 years the actual way it should remain?

Because morality in the Great Wheel isn't subjective, it is quite absolute and cosmic.

 

[Parmandur]

The Variant Features UA was brought up... so it could be completely logical to think they could create Variant options for what they could now call species/ancestries/heritages that remove certain set tropes as part of PC options. But whether anyone bothers to call it "5.5" or whatever is kind of pointless.

I continue to predict a Planescape book, based on these comments about the multiverse and diversity...

 

[Fenris447]

No. It does. It is a game. Apply more subtlety as much as you like at your table. But it is a game and not a class in anthropology, sociology, or philosophy.

You're kind of missing the point of good fantasy and science fiction stories. You can't watch Star Trek and pretend that an episode about removing an alien population from their planet, against their will, has nothing to do with European-descended Americans removing Native Americans from their land.

It's totally valid to have a hack and slash D&D game with no commentary about real world tensions. But there's no valid argument to be made that D&D must exclude the possibility of a game with that kind of commentary.