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'.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Race of Wizards should have higher Intelligence.

There could be other reasons the group is full of wizards.

Maybe they live near a powerful magical resource that makes it easier for them to work magic.

Maybe they're the inheritors of a powerful magical legacy and their society is built to capitalize on magic.

Maybe they don't have access to good quality resources to pursue another path and magic is all they've got.

Maybe their religion is centered around a magical figure who wants their followers to embrace magic as well.

In recent editions of D&D, elves and dwarves aren't better with certain weapons, but they all have access to them so you'll see a dwarf wizard (what, they exist) with an axe, even though they're not technically better at using an axe than a proficient human.

If you wanted to encourage wizard player characters to be elves, you can use other incentives other than saying they're just inherently better. (Let the elves make that argument, since you know they will.)

Maybe elves don't need a magical focus or spell component, so it's easier for them to be wizards.

Maybe, as long as they're in elf-controlled territory, they can recover their spells after a short rest. (Lordy, stay out of Lothlorien!)

Maybe every elf with a level of wizard automatically starts with double the starting cash, because someone is giving out wizard scholarships.

Stat bonuses aren't necessary, even if they're fun for the optimizers to play with.

 

[This Effin’ GM]

Surely in light of the 'race and intelligence' crap sprouted by White nationalist groups, you can see why attributing racial bonuses to intelligence based on culture or race to be highly problematic, and best avoided?

such as the pseudo science that was pushed in the early 1900’s trying to prove Black people had inferior brains to white people. Which was demonstrably false.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

My answer to that is that humanoids have a basically humanlike brain which gives them the ability to think and make decisions and develop a system of morality, but other creature types may not. Aberrations are fundamentally alien monstrosities (dammit 5E, that was a perfectly cromulent word before!), who may hail from other dimensions with different physical laws; they think in fashions we can't even begin to relate to. Fiends are literally manifestations of the very concept of Evil itself; they probably don't have anything even vaguely resembling free will. Giants I would put as being little different than humans, but chromatic dragons IMO are quite probably the "reptile brain" made manifest, and can't comprehend morality because they literally don't have a cortex in their minds which can process the idea of "other beings have a right to exist", any more than a 2-year-old can. (By the way, that's one of the reasons why I hold that humans are inherently more evil than good; babies have to be taught not to be selfish, and our culture IMO is doing an increasingly worse and worse job of teaching them to stop being creatures of pure Freudian Id, give them the capacity to step outside their own desires and accept a place in the world which doesn't revolve around them.) Metallic dragons are a harder thing to figure out IMO; the mythology which indicates that the dragon god Io was bisected and thus became Bahamut and Tiamat might be useful here, indicating that the brain was cleaved into upper and lower segments and that they now are literally incapable of being selfish or selfless, depending on which kind they are (although personally I wouldn't use that myth myself, because I don't like the idea of dragon gods; maybe that's why I struggle with the metallics' nature).

Babies aren’t taught empathy, they gain it naturally as their brain develops.

 

[Olrox17]

"Just to understand your position better, please allow me to construct a strawman to disagree with."

OK, dude.

My position is very simple, and is just four words:

ALL ART IS POLITICAL

"Not" having politics requires intentionally siding with a theoretical previous version of history where the issues weren't talked about.

Since you brought up LotR, Tolkien barely mentions women at all. He is not writing about a world without women, he is choosing to not write about them. (And we know he thought about them, because he worked out long involved lives for them in his appendices.)

When art doesn't mention a thing, that doesn't mean it's not present. It means the artist made that choice, whatever they tell themselves about that choice.

I had no intention to straw man you, I was just trying to better understand your position though an example.
"ALL ART IS POLITICAL" is a statement I must disagree with, and you also kind of contradict it with your following statement about history.

If a writer is describing a fantasy world loosely based on the Roman Empire, that writer doesn't need to engage in modern day politics. He might need to engage in ancient roman politics, but that's history. History is fair game.
If I decide to build a fantasy setting based on a theoretical clash between a Roman Empire analogue and a realm of vaguely Tolkenian elves, I won't need to engage in modern day American politics. On the other hand, I'd probably need to read the "De Bello Gallico" and the Silmarillion.

As for Tolkien and women, do you believe women being mostly absent from LotR to be a deliberate political statement from Tolkien, or rather a simple reflection of the reality of the story he was telling?
My personal opinion on the matter?
LotR is about a war. Tolkien fought in a war. I don't think he met many women in the trenches of the Somme.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

Would you be a different person, in real life, if you were attracted to a different gender, an additional gender, or none at all? Would you be a different person at times you weren't having sex or trying to have sex?

I think you might be. Your sexual orientation and gender expression have far more consequences than just during naked fun times.

I'm not talking about gender, just sexuality.

Its very simple...i'm not comfortable with roleplaying sexuality at the table. If i'm a player, I just refrain from doing it (but don't stop others from doing so if they want to). If I am a GM I avoid it. Its just my comfort level. It has nothing to do with my personal opinion on any one persons sexuality, nor do I consider my game to reflect how the real world works....nor do I feel the need or necessity to reflect the perfect cross-section of the real world in my fantasy DnD game.

You could create a gay character with me as a GM. You could have a husband, or a wife, or a transgendered husband AND transgendered wife. You could marry an orc or a sentient sword or an entire pack of unicorns. I don't care...go for it. I might even develop some plots around it. But what I am NOT going to do is roleplay your sexy time with your unicorn pack because I am uncomfortable (and uninterested) in exploring the sexual dynamics of PCs or NPCs of the world.

 

[Giltonio_Santos]

The Conan who learns new languages faster than your typical teenager learns new video games? That one?

But who had no love (or patience) for the fancy words and sweet tongues of the so-called "civilized" folks! You'd probably see Ascalante bragging about his Aquilonian ancestry where Conan would not lose his time trying to explain to you why Crom made the Cimmerian of such a sturdy stock.

 

[Flamestrike]

Very good! I will check it out

http://www.eidolonstudio.com/Shadow_World/Links_files/Grand Campaign.pdf

Raek is the PCs name. From his backstory:

The Master Healer Sheren Taas took Ræk under her wing when he was a youth of thirteen, when he displayed a strong potential healing gift. Ræk proved an apt pupil with one exception: he displayed an emotional block which prevented him from forming the bond necessary to transfer serious wounds from others onto himself. It was not until the youth confessed his secret (see Traits below) that she understood. With her help he has gained some self-acceptance and access to transferring abilities...

...Finally, Ræk has a secret which he has told no one except his mentor. Sheren accepted Ræk for what he was, but she was unable to protect him from the attitude of intolerance which pervades his culture. Ræk has come to realize that he is what his people call a sherikaan, a lover of men.

This homosexual orientation has various levels of acceptance in Kulthea. Most Elven tribes are blasé about it (considering that few remain completely constrained to one orientation throughout their immortal lives). Interestingly, most mortal tribes also do not hold up their own prejudices against the Elves. The Dúranaki are openly supportive; most other cultures range from trying to ignore it to actively persecuting those caught ‘in the act’. It is socially unacceptable and/or morally wrong but not illegal in Nuyan Khôm, Rhakhaan, most of Hæstra and the western states of Jaiman. The Rhiani cast out sherikaan tribesmen. In Sel-kai it is quietly accepted, while in Vajaar and among the Y’kin it is illegal and punishable by death. In Kaitaine it is illegal (subject to a small fine but rarely enforced, and then only agaibst prostitutes); those known to be sherikaan (a slang, uncomplimentary term is sherk) are frequently socially ostracized, however.

Goes on to mention:

Regarding Ræk’s [sexual] orientation: for players or gaming situations where this aspect of a character is inappropriate, the GM may change the nature of the character, although characters should not be discouraged from playing Ræk. This personality trait is included not to promote role-playing sexual encounters (since he is even more unlikely to have one than the average heterosexual character) but to encourage players through role-playing to gain a better understanding of discrimination and how to combat it.

On the other hand, if players and GM feel comfortable with this aspect, there is ample material for inter-character dynamic tension. For instance, Ræk might find himself drawn to the handsome, charming (and potentially available) Jymsan. Ræk’s psychologically related spell-casting troubles can be included as an ongoing part of the character or played down, as the GM and player wish.

For a campaign that was written over 20 years ago, that's beyond progressive.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I had no intention to straw man you, I was just trying to better understand your position though an example.
"ALL ART IS POLITICAL" is a statement I must disagree with, and you also kind of contradict it with your following statement about history.

I didn't make a statement about history. Please stop responding to things that I didn't say.

If a writer is describing a fantasy world loosely based on the Roman Empire, that writer doesn't need to engage in modern day politics. He might need to engage in ancient roman politics, but that's history. History is fair game.

History books written in 1820, 1920 and 2020 about Roman history are vastly different.

All art is political, because creators are a product of their environment. Even an attempt to not be swayed by the current era is a reaction to the current era.

As for Tolkien and women, do you believe women being mostly absent from LotR to be a deliberate political statement from Tolkien, or rather a simple reflection of the reality of the story he was telling?

Please stop with the strawmen. Here's what I actually wrote:

When art doesn't mention a thing, that doesn't mean it's not present. It means the artist made that choice, whatever they tell themselves about that choice.

That was in response to your assertion that politics can be absent from a work of art. My assertion was, and is, that "leaving out politics" is a conscious act. As you know.

 

[Xenonnonex]

Demand: Only if you force them to preface all their dialogue like HK-47.

Imperative to.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

i'm not comfortable with roleplaying sexuality at the table.

I DM for my family, among other groups, including my kids. I won't be running Monsterhearts for them, as good as that game seems to be. So I get you.

But what I am NOT going to do is roleplay your sexy time with your unicorn pack because I am uncomfortable (and uninterested) in exploring the sexual dynamics of PCs or NPCs of the world.

I don't think a lot of people want a great deal of energy spent on sex in-game. I'm not sure how many people really want to. The fact that we can count the number of D&D books that directly address the issue on the fingers of one hand suggests the market isn't there. If there were a huge untapped demand, those products would sell like gangbusters and more would have followed.