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


log in or register to remove this ad

Page 7 of the MM
"If an evil celestial is rare, a good fiend is almost inconceivable'

Yeah. Which supports what I was saying. Almost inconceivable. Almost. Which means 'they exist in theory amd maybe even in actual practice as rare as they may be'.

Demons can be Good aligned. It's not inconceivable for it to happen. Rare as hens teeth perhaps, but not inconceivable.

It doesn't say 'Good demons only exist via magical compulsion' which is what you were saying.
 


Yeah. Which supports what I was saying. Almost inconceivable. Almost. Which means 'they exist in theory amd maybe even in actual practice as rare as they may be'.

Demons can be Good aligned. It's not inconceivable for it to happen. Rare as hens teeth perhaps, but not inconceivable.

It doesn't say 'Good demons only exist via magical compulsion' which is what you were saying.

The point is that evil celestials and more common than good fiends. Therefore there is something about fiends that makes the harder to redeem than celestial to fall.

I usually attribute that to magic in D&D. If something is super rare, it requires a wizard or god in my eyes.
 

The point is that evil celestials and more common than good fiends. Therefore there is something about fiends that makes the harder to redeem than celestial to fall.

Hubris and pride generally.

They assume the kind of logic Hellditch is using in this thread and embark on militant crusades against evil resulting jn them becoming the very monsters they once opposed.

That's the reason behind the Erinyes, Azazwl and some other fallen Angels falls from grace.

It's much easier for a good person to fall to evil than an evil person to ascend and redeem themselves.

Magic is not even implied in the passage you're quoting. Jusr a statement about rarity with the implication that it's easier to fall than it is to be redeemed.
 

Lets not start on drow.

Menzoberranzan makes no sense.
A city state of always CE elves surrounded by enemies with physical frailty, societal mutilation, and a predisposition to backstab each other would not last 100 years.
A place like that *WOULD*mess anybody up that came from or lived in that city state
 

Yeah, well... if in 10 years after they made a change regarding orcs they discover it was unnecessary, then they'll just put them back the way they were in 6E, like they did with devils and demons back in the 80s.

Are those 10 years of having to read in the new books a potentially different version of orcs from editions past going to be so difficult for you? If so... then just use the books you have. And then in 10 years time if they write them back the old way you can tell us all "Ha! Told ya so!" I'm pretty sure if we've reached a point in society where real-life racism has changed to the point where there isn't seen a connection between "evil humanoids" and real-life peoples across the globe... we'll be so happy about that that we won't care that you were trying to dunk on us. ;)
Question: why do you think I'm trying (or will be trying) to dunk on you?
I'm not trying to be right, I'm just expressing a preference.
I like my D&D with demons, devils, warlocks, books of vile darkness, and all kind of pagan stuff that I'm sure lots of americans find (or used to find) offensive.
I also like my D&D with evil, bloodthirsty fantasy races such as orcs and drow. I also enjoy when specific settings turn these assumptions on their head: I like "good" eberron orcs, I like "evil", cannibalistic dark sun halflings.

If WotC wants to come up with new setting where the drow and every other "usually evil" race are just regular people, sure, I'd have no objection. Let's see this new setting, I'd check it out.
Just don't "revision" existing settings. Let FR drow be FR drow.
 

I think, personally, that the application of a moral lens and humanization of monstrous races like orcs actually causes more harm than good. Because, now, the Orcs will be much more sympathetic in terms of character, and easier to identify as "almost human". If the argument relates to Orcs being an allegory for Human ethnic groups, then isn't the issue just exacerbated by making Orcs more "human" and less of a species which is totally alienated from Human thought or emotion?

I doubt that Orcs are going to cease being used as "monsters" and not "people" in the Monster Manual and in adventures, so why humanize them when the whole point is that Orcs are far removed from humanity?
 



Status
Not open for further replies.
Remove ads

Remove ads

Top