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'.

 

[Stefano Rinaldelli]

What you just wrote is speculative fiction.
What scientific inquiry has actually shown is that Homo sapiens neanderthalensis was artistic, materially advanced, and pretty much just like US today.

Approximately 20% of modern Homo sapiens sapiens DNA is from Homo sapiens neanderthalensis. So the fiction of yours that I quoted above, is literally a fiction of Homo Sapiens on Homo Sapiens violence.

What are you saying doesn't contradict in any part the theory in wich there was a struggle for resource between Neanderthal and Sapiens. But this is not the point. The point is that the ORC is the enemy, Neanderthal, Sapiens or from another tribe is not important. What is important is the ancestral nature of this topos.
And by the way, I'm very welcome about the theory of Neanderthal and Sapiens were individual of the same species or that they were fertile together, for various sociological considerations about the different kind of electoral choice we see in politics...

 

[Warpiglet]

I don’t care what you call it.

I own most of the first edition modules.

Look at their covers.

Choose any of the early drow modules. The foundation of the race...it’s origin

What you just wrote is speculative fiction.
What scientific inquiry has actually shown is that Homo sapiens neanderthalensis was artistic, materially advanced, and pretty much just like US today and back then.

Approximately 20% of modern Homo sapiens sapiens DNA is from Homo sapiens neanderthalensis. So the fiction of yours that I quoted above, is literally a fiction of Homo Sapiens on Homo Sapiens violence.

I don’t want to play a game that is predicated on the premise that anything that I define as “OTHER” is a fair target for plundering and violence.

I call that a backpedal response. How about you find one single image from an official D&D product that depicts Dark Elves as the monstrous grotesqueries, that your ‘argument’ depends on for support.

Hopefully, you find more then one image, ‘cause just one image, in the interior of some obscure D&D product is poor supporting evidence.

Good Hunting Warpiglet!


Classy response,
People imagine things before they act. So arguing that “it is make believe” is a poor argument.
People imagine, they pretend, they consider doing violence to others or themselves before they act on their ideation.

Frankly, from your posts in this thread, I suspect, you have some ideation and ideas that are troubling.

That is just my limited observation, from the limited sampling of your posts...
(I apologize for that being borderline ad hominem, but your words seem to indicate what I would term a wrong view of the world).

 

[Helldritch]

I don’t want to play a game that is predicated on the premise that anything that I define as “OTHER” is a fair target for plundering and violence.

ishh... this is the entire premises of the game. It is mainly a game of Good vs Evil or Law vs Chaos with shades of grey in between if you need some...

I call that a backpedal response. How about you find one single image from an official D&D product that depicts Dark Elves as the monstrous grotesqueries, that your ‘argument’ depends on for support.

Hopefully, you find more then one image, ‘cause just one image, in the interior of some obscure D&D product is poor supporting evidence.

Good Hunting Warpiglet!

Down there two images. Of the original views of drows. If you believe them to look exactly like real life black people you can. But it is your view point. The drow depictment related to black people was coming from the art work on GDQ 1-7. A blatant mistake but the artist needed models and chose them. The original pictures show them with elongated limbs and thin bodies more like the elves depicted in the orignal D&D. I hope I have been useful.

 

[Cadence]

im sorry this is incorrect. You are assuming that these races have darker skin because you’re assuming that the core player races have light skin, which is patently demonstrated as not being the case in the players handbook and other documents.

Humans, Elves, Dwarves, and tieflings have all be depicted as having dark skin at the same time as being heroic and good. I’d go so far as to say it seems to be a key editorial decision in commissioning art in 5e.

Thanks for having me go look again. They did do a nice job with the art in this editon (for what we're talking about and the quality in general). The Humans and elf variety is right up front. Took me longer to find the Dwarf (1st time back with a full-pager in the midst of the spells, and the other in the DMG?). Is that an example for the Halfings on page 10 in the full-page right before Chapter 1 in the PHB?

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Down there two images. Of the original views of drows. If you believe them to look exactly like real life black people you can. But it is your view point. The drow depictment related to black people was coming from the art work on GDQ 1-7. A blatant mistake but the artist needed models and chose them. The original pictures show them with elongated limbs and thin bodies more like the elves depicted in the orignal D&D. I hope I have been useful.

It's much harder to explain why Jarlaxle dresses like a stereotypical pimp, though, whilst kind of having an attitude that goes with it. I don't think it was only that artist who was influenced by blaxploitation tropes and so on.

There are three much bigger problems with Drow, though:

1) Their culture is actually not really that unlike 1600s-1700s colonial nations (minus matriarchy, but that's another problematic element). Except they're dark-skinned, rather than light-skinned, like all the nations/people which actually engaged heavily in this. I'm sure that wasn't intentional, but it's a bit weird and gross. It's particularly weird/gross, given loads of other people came up with "dark elves" around the same time or even earlier, and guess what? They were all pale as ice. Elric's Melniboneans and Warhammer's Dark Elves/Druchii spring immediately to mind. And what's the justification for Drow having very dark skin? They were cursed to have it because they were evil. That is just really not a good look.

2) They're the only major very dark-skinned humanoid race in D&D, and they're generally presented as monolithically evil. Not playing an evil Drow gets contempt, sneering, accusations of being a Mary Sue or copycat and so on. So there's actual pressure from the real actual gaming community to only play and only have evil Drow in the game. All this despite Drow explicitly not being "born evil". So that's also really not a good look.

3) They're the only major matriarchal race in D&D, and they're totally evil. So I guess putting the ladies in charge is a bad idea? There are plenty of patriarchal races, or typically patriarchal ones (like Dwarves) who are good guys, but no major matriarchal ones.

So Drow have BIG PROBLEMS. I mean big. And it's not like people didn't see this coming. They totally did. Ed Greenwood and others basically attempted to steer away from this. Eberron attempted to steer away from this. But we keep seeing this reversion to not really the original tropes, but to late 1E/early 2E tropes regarding them.

Humans, Elves, Dwarves, and tieflings have all be depicted as having dark skin at the same time as being heroic and good. I’d go so far as to say it seems to be a key editorial decision in commissioning art in 5e.

This has improved in 5E, but it's still not really true. It's notable that, in the text, Dwarves, particularly, have been fairly dark-skinned, in general, since 2E at least. But what about in art? In the actual art, they almost never are. And 5E added a bit more diversity, but it's still mostly depicting the darker-skinned demihumans as pale and pasty, sometimes even so pale as to be outside the described range of skin-tones, but never so dark that they are.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I bet that it would not sell at all. Such a world would be bland and boring. If I want a sword and sorcery game, every one in it will be humans and they will either fight other humans or monsters/demons just like Conan does. If you have multiple races, you must then have evil races. Otherwise, what is the point?

This doesn't make any sense at all.

There's literally no logical or rational argument here at all! It does not follow that having multiple races requires "evil races". That's not an argument. Having evil people from every race is much more interesting and effective than having "evil races".

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

One thing I think is missing in the discussion of the depictions of drow in earlier editions is the other side of the equation. What are the depictions of people of color in D&D at the time? In earlier editions, even going as far as 2e, you will find unfortunately few, if any. We find ourselves back at the point that the only dark-skinned people depicted in the game are the villains.

Ironically enough, of all things the D&D cartoon probably had the most prominent depiction of a POC adventurer in the form of Diana.

 

[Stefano Rinaldelli]

This has improved in 5E, but it's still not really true. It's notable that, in the text, Dwarves, particularly, have been fairly dark-skinned, in general, since 2E at least. But what about in art? In the actual art, they almost never are. And 5E added a bit more diversity, but it's still mostly depicting the darker-skinned demihumans as pale and pasty, sometimes even so pale as to be outside the described range of skin-tones, but never so dark that they are.

I wonder what solution could be the best, or the worse. I agree with your analysis but:
1. start to paint them white? LOL
2. retcon with the fact that there are also good dark elves communities? difficult without making material aimed at that
3. give a great and memorable example of their not ontologically cruelty with an iconic png that is a good and powerful hero? DONE

 

[auburn2]

All this does bring me back to a game in the early 80s when I asked a beginner (an African American) what race he wanted to be and he said "black". I think using the term "race" at all and then putting up differences based largely on the stereotypical character in that "race" is a problem. I think they should call them "species" and not "races" (not ancestries or heritage either because that is no better). Clearly Elves, Dwarves, Humans, Orcs, Halflings, Dragonborn are all different species, with cross-breeds like half-orcs and half-elves being just that; a cross between species.

As for the game and racism in the game (or specieism if you go with my naming convention). Well that does exist in my game. It is a big part of the role play and the good drow who is in our party regularly faces discrimination even in a metropolis like waterdeep. That storyline and her fighting against that stereotype is a part of the role play. The exact same stereotypes against Drow is a big part of the novels covering what is arguably the most popular character in the Forgotten Realms (Drizzt). Now if you want a game where Drow are automatically accepted and thought of like any other human or elf, well that is fine too, but I don't think that is the Forgotten Realms and it is not the D&D norm either.

As others have mentioned the game is good versus evil and I don't think there is a problem with hordes of evil drow or evil orcs or evil goblins and if you are creating your own world I don't think there is a problem with making the orcs good as a whole ... and then maybe the exception is the evil orc. Maybe the Dwarves are evil like in Lewis. That works for me but you can't gloss over it and make everyone the same because that does not work for the game in my opinion. What is next Demons aren't evil?

As for WOTC, they can do what they want but I can also change the rules in my game to suit my table.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

I personally would prefer if they called them "Species" and the subraces become "races". That's how we, as the Homo Sapiens Sapiens, are a distinct species from Neanderthals, but I, a Caucasian male, is a different race from someone from India.