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'.

 

[Envisioner]

gay and transgender are different.

There should be multiple examples of each.

You are wishing for characters in D&D world to have gender dysphoria, when D&D world does not have the medical technology to be capable of performing SRS and HRT? (Sure, you might be able to track down a high-level druid who can cast Polymorph Other on you to permanently change you into your preferred gender, but that's going to be a lot more uncommon an outcome than in our reality.) Why do you want your characters to suffer?

 

[Haldrik]

My understanding was that there are at least one identifiably gay NPC in every campaign?

I also, I dont want a token gay guy, just like I dont want a token black guy.

I want living members of a living community.

 

[Zaukrie]

I don't think anybody is suggesting removing the concepts of good and evil from D&D. Just from labeling certain sentient creatures as inherently good or evil. Any individual, or organization of individuals, could certainly still choose to behave in an evil manner.

If orcs are no longer inherently evil . . . . does that mean we have to give up evil cultists, evil conquering hordes, or evil murdering assassins? No, it just means we have to be a bit more mindful and careful about how we build our evil antagonists to avoid racist stereotypes and thinking. And to forgive ourselves for trying and not always succeeding, as racist thinking is often subtle and culturally-embedded IRL.

we agree on that, and probably most of this, I'm just trying to learn.....and I'll stop for a bit. I'm guessing most people get tired of two people going back and forth in a thread.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Just a side note. A while ago I made up a new form-fillable character sheet. I was very happy with it. Everything seemed to be there and I loved the layout, etc. It was only after I was done with the entire thing that I realized I had left out one thing:

Alignment.

It simple isn't needed anymore. How a creature acts dictates our views towards it. We might see an act as evil, but to that creature it might be normal or even good. We have seen this as cultures clash throughout history. People do good (altruistic) and evil (selfish) thing;, they are not, in and of themselves, good or evil.

Neither should D&D creatures be. Are orcs generally violent in your world? Good chance. They are warlike and believe strength is important as a culture as depicted by the D&D genre since the beginning. A strong orc might feel satisfaction in knowing it has position and leads its tribe. Other orcs might look up to that strength and aggressive nature and feel secure in knowing they have strong and decisive (maybe?) leader. An outsider might look at an orc "contest for dominance" with abhorrence and think they are evil, dominating brutes.

I think having a couple descriptive terms akin to Personality, Ideal, Bond, and Flaw for creatures might be better than Alignment. Like alignment, these need not be "universal" and there will always be exceptions. I know Alignment serves as a simple "catch all", but it seems like that isn't what people want anymore or the direction D&D is heading.

 

[Envisioner]

They (culture/ race/ ethnicity) are basically the same thing. Race (among humans) is a social construct. Biological race does not exist.

Incorrect. There is extensive medical data indicating that there are significant, but small, differences among the races, mostly in terms of reactions to certain medications. Doctors account for race because it does have an actual measurable effect. That doesn't mean that they treat some races better than others, just that they have to have specific treatment based on what race the person is, in order to have the proper curative effect. Melanin is a biological compound, levels of it have measurable effect, and it is genetically connected to certain other biochemical changes. There's no judgment in that, it's just a fact.

 

[Haldrik]

@Envisioner,

You yourself are inflicting suffering against gamers who are gay or transgender.

If you stop, these gamers will enjoy the game more.

 

[Flamestrike]

Sometimes I just want to play a game where I'm the good guy kicking the ass of the bad guy and I play Doom. Most of the time I want my D&D game to be the same way. If I want moral quandaries it will come about because of opposing human/"non-monster" races goals and desires.

But you can still do that even if races are not 'inherently' evil. Regardless of where the tendency to evil comes from in Orcs (nature or nurture) Orcs are still frequently evil.

Anakin Skywalker and the Emperor are not inherently evil. They just choose to be. That doesnt reduce your agency in fighting to stop them, nor does it diminish their role as villains.

In fact, it enhances it.

 

[Minigiant]

Isn't there a more fundamental question or two? What purpose does good and evil serve in the game and why do we need evil monsters?

Personally I don't really care whether there is clear good and evil in the real world. There are no real world evil species that we know of. But I do think that evil monsters serve a purpose in a game if you want them to.

That's why to me creature types should start supplanting alignment. It should be more important to know a mind flayer is an aberration instead of a humaniod rather than than it is evil. It is more important to know itis alien. That you cannot reason with them. That you cannot predict their actions unless you desire madness and horror. A mind flayer is beyond evil. It is unnatural in mind.

 

[Dire Bare]

You are wishing for characters in D&D world to have gender dysphoria, when D&D world does not have the medical technology to be capable of performing SRS and HRT? (Sure, you might be able to track down a high-level druid who can cast Polymorph Other on you to permanently change you into your preferred gender, but that's going to be a lot more uncommon an outcome than in our reality.) Why do you want your characters to suffer?

What does medical technology have to do with the existence of gender dysphoria? IRL, the term "gender dysphoria" is fairly new, but do you really think the condition itself is something we "invented" in modern times?

There have been many ways past cultures have dealt with gender dysphoria (positively and negatively) without the technology of hormone therapy or surgery. And besides gender dysphoria isn't always seen as a "problem" that needs "fixing" by those who are subject to it.

A lot of folks like exploring what it means to be queer in all sorts of RPG settings, including pseudo-medieval fantasy. Sometimes as a story of struggle, other times simply as "this is how my character is".

 

[grimslade]

This was posted up above and it is a thorough discussion of race

Gonna take a moment to plug James Mendez Hodes, a cultural consultant who has associated with Wizards in the past. Dan Dillon gave him a shoutout in the recent Twitter discussion referenced in the OP. James also done RPG design work, his most notable work I believe being the PbtA RPG Thousand Arrows.

On the orc matter, he has written two pretty lengthy articles about the tropes used in regards to orcs on his site, so if anybody here hasn't already read that, feel free to do so. Orcs, Britons, and the Martial Race Myth, Part I; and Part II. But I feel a later and shorter statement of his says it a lot louder and clearer:
Incidentally, James was on Morrus' podcast just yesterday. Go have a listen if you like.

EDIT: I'm also gonna recommend this Twitter thread (collated in Thread Reader), which I also think is good though it's a lot shorter. The most important point in that thread IMO is as follows:

Make me smarter, because I don't agree......if we remove all species differences in terms of attributes, and only an individual's culture and upbringing makes them different (or having fur vs skin), how are they different? They are just humans that look different at that point, and aren't actually different species. If by the rules there are no differences other than teeth or eyes or skin......then isn't it just their appearance that is different, and aren't they humans then?

The orc thing confuses me, and I admit that might be my lens on life......but you seem to be arguing we can't have an inherently/generally evil species.

I guess if we can't have inherently evil two legged humanoids, why can we have inherently evil aberrations? Or devils? Or demons? Or giants?

There are two problems with using evil default humanoids. One, the language we use for 'evil' humanoids tends to echo real-world racist tropes and two, the concept of making a default evil species leads to othering the species can affect players who may have to deal with those issues in real life.