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...

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


log in or register to remove this ad

JPL

Adventurer
I've been impressed by the Tome of Foes not just stopping at "evil," but trying to dig in on WHY some of these non-human cultures are evil, and what specifically is evil about them.
 

Olrox17

Hero
The two are completely different. The Satanic Panic was the hegemonic order reacting against some newfangled thingamajig that was challenging their picture-perfect picket fence world. It was the powers that be seeing something they did not understand, not liking it, and thus trying to stamp it out. The Satanic Panic was the politics of domination, of cultural tyranny.

Crawford's creative decision to create a more inclusive game is of a completely different character than the Satanic Panic. It is him making a (long overdue) resolution to trim away the colonialist and supremacist baggage of the lore of D&D that may turn people away. What Crawford is hoping to do here, and what many, much more progressive RPG designers and companies have already achieved with their game systems and settings, is to try and make a game that makes BIPOC and LGBTQ+ feel welcome to participate in, instead of a game that acts as an unwelcome reminder of their problems in the real world. This is the politics of treating people with equity and making reparations for a history of past abuse.

And really, this will probably just amount to WotC making an errata to a few books (like they did with the Triton race, they finally have Darkvision), hopefully hiring more consultants and sensitivity readers for future products, and perhaps attempting to shift the lore of the game in a direction that doesn't give players as much license and leeway to be genocidal plunderers a la Columbus. I'm not optimistic that they'll achieve even that much, which means how much is this interfering with the game really? It's just gonna be them changing a few lines of text and them making minor creative course corrections for their future products.
The satanic panic was conservative people messing with d&d.
The entirety of your post is an excellent example of progressive people messing with d&d.
I don’t want anyone to mess with d&d for politically charged reasons.

Might I question part of your logic for a moment? You described what you perceive as your political foes with very strong words. Tyrannical, supremacists. Did it occur to you that maybe these people that you seem to despise so are perhaps just people with a different perspective in life, rather than monsters?

You seem to advocate for the humanization of non-existent d&d monsters, while seemingly considering some your fellow real life humans, monsters.
Don’t you see a little bit of a contradiction here?
 

In COS there is a gay character that can be the main NPC opponent of Strahd. You assist him in helping his lover regain the memories of his love and thus beat the curse of rage and revenge that blights that NPC, gaining a valuable ally and safe haven against Strahd.

Don't tell me gay characters in these games are all tokens.

How many people exist in the setting of Strahd? Millions? Only two are gay?

I feel WotC has started to be more inclusive about gay and transgender characters (and reallife players).

I am saying that the nature of the game itself as a hack-and-slash makes it more difficult to be inclusive of gay people, whose identities remain invisible − unless in an overt relationship.
 

Dire Bare

Legend
What about the xenomorph babies? Don't you want an adorable little chestburster to grow up and lay its eggs in your stomach? If gnolls are all evil, then they're all evil. Just ask your GM what the truth is OOC, or discover the truth IC the hard way.

This isn't a hard question to answer. Xenomorphs are not evil. They aren't killing and impregnating humans for fun or any other evil reason, they are just reproducing in the way nature (or those giant white guys from Prometheus) designed them too. Humans of course view the xenomorphs as evil, because they are super scary and alien looking to us, and well, they seem to interact with us in only one way . . . .

Gnolls? In classic D&D, gnolls weren't super different than other "humanoids" like orcs and goblins, and were equally problematic. I think it was 3rd Edition that began to link gnolls to demons, which evolved into their current portrayal as monsters spawned from the corruption of hyenas by demonic influence. Somewhere upthread it's mentioned that the D&D team thinks this concept of gnolls should be classified as "fiends" rather than "humanoids". These gnolls are inherently evil, if you stick to the story in the MM and Volo's. Is that problematic? Personally, I'm not sure, but definitely less so than gnolls being a "natural" race predisposed to evil, just like orcs and gobbos. In Eberron books (3rd Edition through 5th Edition), gnolls ARE portrayed as a "natural" race (not a demonic corruption), but are also NOT portrayed as inherently evil. In Eberron, goblins, gnolls, and other classically "evil" D&D races are presented as antagonists to human civilization (and by exstention, often the PCs), but are not inherently evil at all. I really dig how Eberron treats these classically "evil" races.
 

This isn't a hard question to answer. Xenomorphs are not evil. They aren't killing and impregnating humans for fun or any other evil reason, they are just reproducing in the way nature (or those giant white guys from Prometheus) designed them too. Humans of course view the xenomorphs as evil, because they are super scary and alien looking to us, and well, they seem to interact with us in only one way . . . .

Gnolls? In classic D&D, gnolls weren't super different than other "humanoids" like orcs and goblins, and were equally problematic. I think it was 3rd Edition that began to link gnolls to demons, which evolved into their current portrayal as monsters spawned from the corruption of hyenas by demonic influence. Somewhere upthread it's mentioned that the D&D team thinks this concept of gnolls should be classified as "fiends" rather than "humanoids". These gnolls are inherently evil, if you stick to the story in the MM and Volo's. Is that problematic? Personally, I'm not sure, but definitely less so than gnolls being a "natural" race predisposed to evil, just like orcs and gobbos. In Eberron books (3rd Edition through 5th Edition), gnolls ARE portrayed as a "natural" race (not a demonic corruption), but are also NOT portrayed as inherently evil. In Eberron, goblins, gnolls, and other classically "evil" D&D races are presented as antagonists to human civilization (and by exstention, often the PCs), but are not inherently evil at all. I really dig how Eberron treats these classically "evil" races.
Just want to jump on the Eberron love here. Their approach to alignment and religion was also very good. The race approach and the religion approach was what drew me to the setting overall, far more than the magic punk elements.
 

Envisioner

Explorer
How many people exist in the setting of Strahd? Millions? Only two are gay?

How many people do you MEET in playing through Curse of Strahd? I'm pretty sure it's not millions. Feel free to imagine that 1 in 10 of the oppressed peasants is gay, if it pleases you to do so. If there are fewer than twenty major characters, then having two of them be GLBT seems pretty generous or pretty pandery, depending on your perspective.
 

Dannyalcatraz

Schmoderator
Staff member
Supporter
Gnolls? In classic D&D, gnolls weren't super different than other "humanoids" like orcs and goblins, and were equally problematic. I think it was 3rd Edition that began to link gnolls to demons, which evolved into their current portrayal as monsters spawned from the corruption of hyenas by demonic influence.
FWIW, Gnolls were worshipping Demogorgon as a god all the way back in AD&D. So that demonic link has deeeeep roots.
 

Cadence

Legend
Supporter
"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.

Heritage seems like it would be ok if it just referred to one persons immediate past. It doesn't seem more helpful than race or ethnicity if it goes back multiple generations and encompasses a large group of people who share it. Of course we don't have more people of that heritage working here, their values and traditions led them on other paths?
 

Is there any agreement on what a species is across fields yet?

On the one hand the ornithologists are sure the Black-capped Chickadee and Carolina Chickadee are separate species (in spite of a huge range of interbreeding) and all kinds of similar Lories and Lorikeets that might very well interbreed but are on different islands are different enough to be different species. On the other you have the mammologists who might be ok with the dog being either Canis lupus familiaris or Canis familiaris, and with various sub-species of brown bear and northern giraffe all being brown bears and northern giraffes. I've wondered for a while how ornithologists would have classified humans across the planet, say 20,000 or 5,000 years ago (I'm pretty sure the mammalogists would match up with the way we all wood as just one).

Youre conflating the existence of distinct species with the difficulty in some cases of assigning a species (due to biological closeness of two closely related species). The geonome of each species is distinct, even among closely related species (like Humans and Orangutans or Chimps). You cant say that about human ethnic groups.

In fact it was at the Human Geonome project where old racial 'classifications' started to really fall apart.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Remove ads

Remove ads

Top