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...

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

Zardnaar

Legend
I want to see where they can take it with future products too.

In the last month or so I did a full 180 turn on my thoughts about Asian d&d settings. I love Rokugan, have a metric ton of bushido miniatures and have enjoyed dming campaigns there. I was pretty annoyed that somehow it was ok to parody and pastiche European history but not Asian history. I may even have posted a few words to that effect on here 🙄

However after seeing Asians Represent dissect the oriental adventures books (1st and 3rd) (then properly listened again, rather than skimming to spot all the reasons I could find they were wrong) I realized I just hadn’t seen things the way they had... and that this was normal and ok, as long as I listened. I’m still revising thinking as the debate unfolds.

I hope there could be some real success stories for d&d going forward but I’m a little worried this won’t happen if we retreat to safe, neutered options. I’d rather see some real effort made (even if they get a few steps wrong). Let’s have whatever the next Tomb of Annihilation is but this time with proper consultation and input. That excites me far more than rehashing the same old-same old.

I didn't like those books even back in the day because they're BS. They didn't offend me I just thought they were really dumb. In 1993.

Next player to mention Samurai may need to dodge a PHB.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Erdric Dragin

Adventurer
This makes no sense to me. Some of these races are what they are because of the deity that is their patron. Is Gruumsh going to be a centrist politician now? Like, I don't understand what it is WotC is doing?
 




Warren Ellis

Explorer
How useful could something like evil doppelgangers be used for possibly explaining prejudice or something against some races like say tieflings, for example?:
Tieflings are an extreme minority population. Despite their fiendish appearance, the clerics of the Aesir assure the population that there is no inherent mark or stain on the tiefling soul as a result of the mixing of fiend and human. The soulless bolvaðr—accursed and evil—form the basis of this distrust.

Where tieflings retain their human soul and innate divine nature as chosen of the Aesir, the bolvaðr are conduits and agents for the tyranns and kvoldomur in Midgard. That the two are indistinguishable physically causes tieflings no end of trouble. Falleglygi love to play on this resemblance as well to sow chaos and distrust.
 

I figure I can always look at what they publish in the future, if I don’t like it, there are 5 editions of D&D I can play without the hinted at changes. If they do a good job, then I can play that edition.

i have enough content for previous editions to run games until the end of my natural life. So i am not going to get prematurely worked up about it.
 

DammitVictor

Trust the Fungus
Supporter
Greeks had slaves, so did Vikings.
Viking religion is popular with neo Nazis.

And you can actually spot Neo-Nazis amongst the Asatru faith by how much they idolize the Greeks and Romans as part of our "shared European heritage".

I will point out that neither Greco-Roman slavery, nor Ancient Germanic slavery, had very much in common with the "modern" racialized chattel slavery... which was invented by Christian Europeans centuries later. They didn't enslave people on the basis of their "race" and they didn't use pseudo-theological or pseudo-scientific justifications for why it was okay to enslave some people and not others-- they enslaved anyone they could, either as people or as peoples, and the only justification was that they could.

I'm not going to sit here and defend slavery, but ancient slavery was a damned sight less hypocritical than modern slavery.
 

Thinking on the pioneers of D&D, including Anderson, Gygax, and others. They seem progressive for their era.

There is racism in their creations. But they were in a time when the country was convulsing from Martin Luther King Jr, desegregation, and so on. For them, D&D fantasy racism might have been a safe play-space, to objectify and relativize what racism is. In other words, the play-space where racism didnt actually hurt anyone (at least not directly) might have served as a therapeutic method to breakout of the very reallife mentality of racism. Within this playful space, they gained a kind of empowerment to control racism rather than be controlled by racism. Hence, Elves hate Dwarves etcetera.



If this was true then. Perhaps these race tropes have outlived their usefulness. What was for them a ladder up out of racist thinking, is today just ladder back down into it.
 
Last edited:

Eyes of Nine

Everything's Fine
But then, how are we going to handle the next tier, when someone wants to roleplay an undead or why not even a beholder or a dragon... are we going to say that such creatures also should be made identical to a human to avoid issues?

Total sidebar, but iirc, in white box D&D, or maybe an article Gary wrote in the precursor to Dragon mag - playing a dragon was completely possible. They (Gary and Dave) just didn't really codify it in the rules, but if a DM wanted to roll with it - it was well within the conceptual framework of early D&D.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Remove ads

Remove ads

Top