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

I don’t play Magic but associated colours in games is probably a whole other topic for discussion.

In Lords of Waterdeep white agents represents Piety and black agents represent Skullduggery.

I don’t believe for a second these were chosen for any regard to skin colour but I use this as an example that this stuff goes on everywhere. It’s built in. The least we can is identify it, question whether it matters and then think on it for next time.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Let's play a game of... spot the racism!

View attachment 122923

1. The card is called Crusade.
2. They all have christian crosses on as their emblem.
3. They're raising swords in triumph as the foreground burns.
4. All "white" creatures gain +1.

If you don't get why the 4 points above equal a symbol for white supremacy, then I can't help you.
I never played this game and I would need "All white creatures get +1/+1" explained in context to judge if it is racism. If it is as simple as what you are implying here, then yes number four is racism.

Number 1 and number 2 (crusade and crosses) are not racism. They may be examples of bigotry, but "Christian" is not a race and the crusades were religious wars, not race wars.

Number 3 - swords being raised as the background burns has nothing to do with bigotry or racism at all.
 

I don’t believe for a second these were chosen for any regard to skin colour but I use this as an example that this stuff goes on everywhere. It’s built in. The least we can is identify it, question whether it matters and then think on it for next time.
I'm sure most references to things being black in games are not due to racism. Humans naturally are afraid of the dark, and black is associated with crime, as it's easier to blend in at night.

I don't have a problem with having evil magic items or guild symbols being black, but evil races having dark skin is bad, obviously.
 

Like I said some of these problems and not others... with zero representation of POC that didn’t involve being a pirate or risen dead.

IP killed the old world, and it will be back when Old World Classic comes back.

There were other POC in WFB.
GW just didn't make them playable (Cathay, Nippon) or had to removed them for being racist (Araby, Albion).

Lets just see if GW stays closeminded and keeps the OW as heavily Empire biased and ignore the whole rest of the planet... again.
 


In the grand scheme of things it seems to me you have two extremes. Let's say that on a scale of 1-10 a 1 means that orcs are evil monsters, a 10 means Orcs are effectively human that look different.

I rate a 1 on the scale for my games because I want evil protagonists. Sometimes I just want bad guys who are bad guys. I also seems to be the default assumption in the MM (that can obviously be overridden for specific campaigns). From the POV of someone who's a 10 I see where that would be problematic - it seems like people (and Tolkien) just use orcs as a stand-in for a different tribe.

But I think saying that the vast majority of orcs are evil solely because of culture is even worse than they're hard-wired as evil. Let's take a thought experiment. The non-monstrous races have banded together and defeated the orcs. There are still some left and nobody wants to commit genocide, so all the orcs are gathered up into new homelands. Politics being politics, the new homelands are in marginal areas, so they do get subsidies.

However they're still orcs, still worshipping Gruumsh which is an evil nasty god. How to fix that? Well just send all the orc kids off to boarding school! Wipe out their culture, their history, their identity and they can be good upstanding citizens, right? After all, it's their culture that made them evil, if they adopt a better culture they'll be just fine.

That starts to sound an awful lot like what the US did with native Americans and other atrocities around the world where colonial rulers tried to civilize "ignorant savages".

So I get where people that are on the 10 side of things come from, I just don't think it's a better answer. I also don't see a need for yet another human-with-slightly-different-ability-scores in my game.

Then there's the people who try to take a middle of the road. That orcs are not guaranteed evil, but have evil tendencies built in.

I'm not sure how I feel about that. I get that they're trying to find a middle ground, but to me it sounds even more like racist propaganda. "People of [insert race] are usually [insert attribute] they just can't help it. It's not their fault if [insert result]." Usually along the lines of asians academically succeed, African Americans excel at sports along with common, ugly, negative stereotypes.

Ugh.

So I don't think there's a best answer or even a good answer. In a campaign where there is conflict with other sentient races, in almost all cases there's going to be an us or them. Sure, the bad guys can be part of a cult. But what is a cult but a religion you don't approve of?

TLDR: I don't think there's an answer that will work for everyone. I don't have a problem with sentient monsters (whether vampires, beholders or orcs) because I think it's less problematic than the alternatives.
A good analysis of a sticky situation.
 

I never played this game and I would need "All white creatures get +1/+1" explained in context to judge if it is racism. If it is as simple as what you are implying here, then yes number four is racism.

Number 1 and number 2 (crusade and crosses) are not racism. They may be examples of bigotry, but "Christian" is not a race and the crusades were religious wars, not race wars.

Number 3 - swords being raised as the background burns has nothing to do with bigotry or racism at all.

It's a symbol of racism, there is subtext.
 


Higher than the average person in general, but not higher than the average person online, I assume. We all have access to Wikipedia.

It was just because they wanted to capture the holy lands. The crusades were racist, horrific, and bad.

War in general was bad.

Know what a ghazi is?

Basically they were raiding the Byzantines and in the years leading up to the crusades they invaded Crete, were in Spain and didn't exactly aquire the Levant and Egypt peacefully.

In said raids slaves were taken. The Byzantines wrote a letter asking for help and it snowballed from there.
 

There were other POC in WFB.
GW just didn't make them playable (Cathay, Nippon) or had to removed them for being racist (Araby, Albion).

Lets just see if GW stays closeminded and keeps the OW as heavily Empire biased and ignore the whole rest of the planet... again.

Thankfully GW is making steps to make the Old World more diverse;

1592352707894.png


1592352736933.png
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Remove ads

Remove ads

Top