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'.

 

[Horwath]

You know what this is making me imagine? Take orcs from Eberron or Scarred Lands or wherever, ones that are part of the playable races, and have them run into orcs like those from Greyhawk or wherever.

Imagine the sheer weirdness on both sides as they possibly see some sort of perversion of what they are.

Could be an interesting bit of roleplaying I imagine.

This!

I do not see why various setting could not have various take on the "same" race.

Why not have FR be the "Sith Lord" of settings that deals only in absolutes:

All drow are evil(or 99,99%), same as orcs or gnolls.,
All elves and dwarves are good (or 99,99% of them),

All orcs are dumb(-2 int) or more precise, dumber on average than other races.

 

[Coroc]

But does the basic text of dwarves, elves, or even orcs in 5e really represent what humans would think?

Elves and dwarves, for example, have always struck me as being too good and content to be human. Things like having little or no crime (I see that in so many fantasy elf depictions) and being so content with everything strikes me as honestly alien to basic human sensibilities.

Like the only human part about most elves in fiction, to me at least, is that they kind of look human and maybe share some commonish values, but beyond that they're kind of idealized and weird.

Very good point. That is one of the things to explain why e.g. Elves take their time in doing things and humans are the always expanding, quick living people instead.

 

[Helldritch]

You know what this is making me imagine? Take orcs from Eberron or Scarred Lands or wherever, ones that are part of the playable races, and have them run into orcs like those from Greyhawk or wherever.

Imagine the sheer weirdness on both sides as they possibly see some sort of perversion of what they are.

Could be an interesting bit of roleplaying I imagine.

Agreed. This could be interesting. Noble orcs against evil ones. And what would Furyondy think...

Edit: Added what to the last sentence... damn smart phones.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

How many orcs have died in D&D 5e games? How many goblins?

We don't even need to refer to monster manual creatures...how many Drow (a playable race)?

These are races players play. These PC's act like humans normally, think like humans normally, AND...ADVANCE like humans normally. An Orc Barbarian is going to put most of their points in Strength or Constitution first. They will value the same thing a player playing a human barbarian would value in level ups. An Orc Sorcerer would be played the same way. They don't value different ideas and things normally, they are played and advance in the same fashion.

A LOT of this is because the game is fashioned that way...and then...they turn around and slaughter an entire tribe of Orcs because...why?

Orcs are evil? An Orc tribe is raiding a human or other settlement? An Orc group is under the sway of an evil spellcaster? And this justifies the wholesale slaughter of a race that can be played by PC's?

This is how we traditionally have handled these things...and even I play it that way in many instances (and certainly, there are those that do not, but I feel those are the minority of players rather than most)...

But is that really the RIGHT way we should be handling things today with enlightenment on how the real world is going or should there be a better way to do things?

There's a lot we could talk about in this, but my reaction was specifically to your claim that PCs fight orcs "just because they look or act differently". With so many strong emotions invested in the topics we're discussing, I think it's best if we keep a lid on the rhetorical hyperbole.

 

[Coroc]

...
Orcs are evil? An Orc tribe is raiding a human or other settlement? An Orc group is under the sway of an evil spellcaster? And this justifies the wholesale slaughter of a race that can be played by PC's?
...

Humans did that to other humans (and still do) and for motivations which aren't so dumb like racial stereotypes - well almost, if you take religion as a reason for war - but things like hunger, power concentration versus a greater foe etc. , all being reasonable from some survival oriented point of view.

E.g. imagine a medieval Lord, who does a feud to the last, devastating his (human) rival, killing him, his heirs (aka family, including children) to prevent revenge later on, pillaging his subjects, e.g. robbing his farmers and killing / enslaving a few, to compensate for his own losses and to show them who is the new boss etc.

If the whole thing is part of a greater war campaign, he might even leave burnt soil behind, on a case by case, to prevent the enemy from resupplying.

So now put something like orcs in the place of the rival lord and his subjects. Just imagine that orcs would be real for a moment. Do you think the medieval Lord would hesitate one second to do the same to them? Especially if they are different, in e.g. that they would eventually never be convertible from enemy soldiers to peaceful subjects, because it is their nature and mentality to fight? Of course he would massacre the orcs also!

And still the history books and his followers would see in him the wise and foreseeing ruler, who keeps up the law and order, aka is at least LN in D&D alignment if not LG (in the view of his followers)

 

[Olrox17]

Note: I'm not American, but I still am privileged to be living elsewhere in the Global North.

I see, sorry for assuming that.

If you're asking me if I'm in favour of interventionism, then no. Military intervention into other states more often than not only results in destabilization of the region, the new regime becoming a puppet of their "liberators" (quotation marks emphasized), and very little progress being made into actually improving the material and social conditions of the common people in that country. My opinion is that it's impossible to excise problematic and reactionary elements from a culture not one's own by threat of force, at least not without completely shattering it. No, that kind of lasting change needs to come from the bottom up, from local grassroots organizations, and by the local people becoming more conscious of one another and their conditions. That is where I would lend my support - education and awareness. Showing people the door to change and justice. But in the end, I'd take a seat and let the actually concerned parties in that situation take the lead, go from there. That kind of social change is what sticks, while also respecting the cultural background and traditions of the local people.

I wasn't just asking about interventionism, or "exporting democracy", as someone might have called it at some point. I was pretty sure you would have been against that (and I agree).
More specifically, I was asking you what's your opinion of people, human beings, doing "bad things" in places where doing "bad things" is allowed, traditional, or perhaps even mandated by law.

A considerable amount, possibly a majority of these people that are doing "bad things", think what they're doing is right. What do you think of them? Are they evil? Wrong? Misguided?
Or perhaps they're just doing what they think is right, what they've been taught is right, and they're nothing else but humans living their lives, and we have no right to judge them, even if what they do is extremely repulsive to us. We can talk to them, trying to convince there's a different way to live.

I believe this notion also applies to what you perceive as your political foes. You may disagree with them, vehemently. But don't forget that you're dealing with people, humans. They may hold political ideas that you find mind-bogglingly wrong, but you still should respect their right to hold their opinion, even after you've done your best to convince them otherwise.

In short, back to my initial point: I respect all law-abiding political ideals, and I want all of them to equally stay the heck out my D&D

I'm not going to go too deep into the nitty-gritty of my political and eocnomic views due to forum rules, so let's just say that I hope for a world where people can live together in a system of mutual aid and cooperation, without threat of force or bigotry. But I can't force people into that, no matter how hard I try. Nor do I have the right to. It's something every culture and people needs to grow into on their own.

As often happens, the problem is how, more than what. Unfortunately.

 

[Krachek]

The debate is already pretty harsh,
So another question : Do orc can have psionic?!!!

 

[Olrox17]

And still the history books and his followers would see in him the wise and foreseeing ruler, who keeps up the law and order, aka is at least LN in D&D alignment if not LG (in the view of his followers)

Case in point: Vlad III of Wallachia, the impaler, is a national hero in Romania.
Funny story: a romanian friends of ours once gifted my grandmother a portrait of Vlad. My grandmother was slightly horrified, and our friend insisted that Vlad was a good guy, he only killed bad people. My grandma wanted to throw away the portrait, but luckily my uncle took it, he still has it stored somewhere.

 

[Envisioner]

I get very tired of the smug assertion that people today are "more enlightened" than they were in the past. Look at all the slapfighting that happens on Twitter, and it should quickly become obvious that we're just as viciously tribalistic as we ever have been. The only thing which has really improved is that we've invented a bunch of useful tools that give us access to better solutions - and our inherent human weakness frequently results in us choosing not to make optimal use of these anyway.

The debate is already pretty harsh,
So another question : Do orc can have psionic?!!!

Going by 3E lore since that's the only version I know, psionics is tied to all three mental ability scores depending on your chosen class. Orcs in 3E have penalties to both Intelligence and Charisma, so they can't be effective as psions, lurks, or wilders. But they are just as competent as humans at being ardents or psychic warriors, because those are based on Wisdom. (And very few races get a natural Wisdom bonus or penalty.)

 

[Warren Ellis]

This!

I do not see why various setting could not have various take on the "same" race.

Why not have FR be the "Sith Lord" of settings that deals only in absolutes:

All drow are evil(or 99,99%), same as orcs or gnolls.,
All elves and dwarves are good (or 99,99% of them),

All orcs are dumb(-2 int) or more precise, dumber on average than other races.

Agreed. This could be interesting. Noble orcs against evil ones. And would Furyondy think...

Not just orcs, but also other races as well. Imagine the possibilities of roleplaying them in places that are different from where they are. How weird it may be for them because they're so used to X in how they're normally treated but now they're treated like Y.

For example here is some info on how dwarves are described in the 5e setting of Dragon Heresy:

Distinguishing Features:
Dwarves’ skin and hair resemble living granite, from off-white to nearly pure black, and from pebbled brown (very common) to brilliant hues of red, blue, yellow, and gold. Some dwarves have multiple patterns; dwarves consider this attractive, and distinctive. Their skin is slightly rough, as if calloused, and warm to the touch.

Although dwarven skin resembles granite, it does not contain the mineral inclusions that cause granite to reflect light—dwarves do not sparkle, and will fight anyone that attests they do.

Social Organization:
Two primary social bonds anchor dwarvish culture. The first is the nuclear family unit, consisting of the pair-bonded parents of young children. Children of the same parents look wildly different from one another, and like the Aesir, that created them, hey can marry and reproduce without issues.

When the children have attained the human-equivalent of teenaged status, their primary social structure shifts to the craft-bond (iðn skuldabref). This group of 3-7 students is paramount in dwarvish culture, tying together younger dwarves with master crafters (kennari). This becomes a dwarf ’s family, known as the fjolskyldan kennara, and shares most of the strictures and taboos of a typical human family related by blood. For example, dwarves do not marry or have intimate relationships within that group.

The relationships between dwarves and their birth parents, as opposed to their craft-bond teachers, is the reverse of human relationships. The way a well-loved human child feels about his parents mirrors, in some respects, the way a dwarf feels about her kennari, while the happy fondness one might show to a favorite childhood teacher or college professor is how a dwarf relates to her birth parents.

Unfortunately, because I'm on a mobile I can't snip the images of the dwarves, but I'm seeing them have skin that is like purple, red, or yellow. Oh and no beards or hair, despite the text saying they have hair. So they're like bald.

I mean imagine dropping a dwarf like this in say Forgotten Realms and them and local dwarves looking at each other and thinking, That's a DWARF?

EDIT: Here is what they look like