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

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.


636252771691385727.jpg


@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'.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

YMMV, but I'd have to say that "stock" in this context immediately calls to mind the extreme self-superior attitudes of 19th-century British aristocrats; it's pretty much synonymous with "breeding".

Didn't know that. As a non-native English speaker, BW was the first time I saw "stock" applied as a substitute for genetic origin. As I said above, I simply found it short, direct, and the kind of word people would use in a fantasy setting, almost the opposite of "ancestry", which is long, pretentious, and the kind of word Conan would stumble trying to repeat.

I feel there's something very fantastic about saying "No dwarf worth his stock would fear to enter that cave". Now, I also believe that many people playing D&D today would deem the very idea of being worth your stock to be an outdated concept with no place in modern games. I'm on the fence about this but inclined to believe that it works great for fantasy settings but reads and plays badly in sci-fi or modern settings, much like using imperial units of measurement... :ROFLMAO:
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Its certainly less problematic. I mean there are clear lines of demarcation between different species. A human isnt a fish for example, and its not racist to say 'human beings cant breath water' because we lack gills.

I agree with you mostly, but . . . . to be that guy . . . .

Well, actually . . . the demarcations between different biological species is not a clear cut as folks would like to think think they are. Species too, is a continuum. As a species evolves and different populations of that species begin to differentiate . . . where exactly do we draw the line, when do the different populations become truly different species? Is it when they can no longer have fertile offspring? What about the liger (lion-tiger crossbreed) and other "mules"? They are often non-fertile, but sometimes they are and can reproduce with other ligers, tigers, and lions (oh my!). Does that mean that tigers and lions are the same species? Biologists are constantly reclassifying the taxonomy of species as we learn more about the natural world, we've changed those demarcations numerous times.

I mostly posted that because, well, I'm a nerd and just had a deep-seated need to put that out there, but it does relate to the discussion at hand. If elves and humans are different species, can they have half-elf babies? Are those half-elves themselves fertile and capable of reproducing with other half-elves, elves, and humans? At different times over the decades, D&D had different answers to that question.

:)
 


No ancestry or heritage for me, unless they want to sound both uglier and more pretentious with a single word choice.
Huh. I am curious about your connotations.

For me, "ancestry" used to matter in an era where noble families ruled government. I find "ancestry" to be moreorless irrelevant, and if a person mentions it, it is a mildly interesting historical note, and if they obsess about it, I think they are living in a fantasy world (like all of the people who are reincarnations of Cleopatria) and it probably tells me that their reallife is disappointing them.

"Heritage" has positive connotations for me. These are values and traditions and identities that we pass on to our kids and their kids.

Heritage is what allows us to experience different ways of being human.
 

You are being provocative and again I dont think you know much about the Birthright setting.

Its my favorite AD&D setting. I voted for it as 'the one setting I want back' in a recent thread.

I know it well.

Yet again you persist in the myth that the writers made Anuireans objectively better. This is factually not true. The Brecht think they are the best, the Rjurik think they are the best etc etc. However there are disapora of the cultures across the continent and blurring of the boundaries between regions. They work in concert too.

Anuirians are objectively wiser and more civilised than the Vos ethnic group, who are dumber and stronger and more barbaric. This is literally reflected by in game bonuses to ability scores, and depictions and descriptions of the ethnic groups.

Anuirians are (expressly) modelled after real world Germanic peoples of the late Holy Roman Empire, and the Vos are expressly modelled after real world Slavic peoples of the Russ. In case it wasnt obvious from a glance at the depictions and illustrations in the game, the authors themselves conceded that as being the case.

What the author (and the game) is clearly leaning on here (In case you're missing it) is the real world stereotype that Slavic people are barbaric and stupid, and Germanic people are civilised and ordered.

Which is the exact stereotype that Hitler relied upon to justify his invasion of Poland (and the Soviet union), massacre 'inferior' Russian and Slavic peoples and create 'living space' for the 'culturally superior' German peoples.

I mean, Im not suggesting that the TSR authors of Birthright were Neo-Nazis. What I am suggesting (outright stating even) is that it is more than fair to label the inclusion of such real world stereotypes, applied to fantasy people who are themselves based on real world peoples, to be highly problematic, and indeed racist and to be repudiated.

I dont want that racist bile in my games thanks very much, just like I dont want to see some kind of fantasy East asian peoples with a slew of racial traits that make them 'good at math', or the introduction of a fantasy dark skinned race of people that have racial traits that make them 'run faster', or a Semitic people that are 'good with money and worship a God of Commerce', or mirror any other vile racial or ethnic stereotype.

The game is better without that crap. Its my one and only criticism of Birthright, and Im glad Wizards have all but repudiated that approach here.
 
Last edited:



Which is without doubt e

Which is without doubt one of the most racist races in existance. Even as a person who loves Dark Sun.
Probably true, not a fan of the Dark Sun premise so I know little about it beyond half giants and half dwarves exist in it and halflings are cannibals
 

Yet again different is not better. You're assuming that the Anuireans getting +1 Wis is better than getting +1 Str. Which in AD&D was almost certainly not true.

Mapping it onto the real world, how far do you have to work to get from there to some folks are better at athletics and some are better at academics based on culture... that seems not helpful.
 


Status
Not open for further replies.
Remove ads

Remove ads

Top