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'.

 

[Zardnaar]

I'm glad that you found something that works for your table, though I am not glad that your dismissive views on this supplement have not changed. It seems wrong to dismiss another avenue for tables to have this discussion as stupid just because you have your own way of doing things.

I don't care if others use it. If I joined another table and they used it when in Rome.....

R18 stuff doesn't really bother me as such but it's also an indicator to me that groups going to self destruct.

 

[Sadras]

Well, I don't quite agree with this, although I understand your reasoning. Having a sound baseline is important.

@Morrus can view PCs as heroic and exceptional by default if he wishes to, there is certainly nothing wrong with it. It is just as I pointed out, such views generally vary from table to table IMX.

IMO it makes more sense to start from a sound baseline in the PHB with options to have DM's sprinkle heroic goodness via mechanics when they want to reflect the PCs as special than start from special characters and have to downgrade them to the baseline.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Sorry, I guess I mean white, not caucasian. That is the first I have heard of that, thanks for the correction.

Races aren't complete nonsense, though. Sure, it doesn't really mean a whole ton, but people of Tibet have different genes that let them live at higher altitudes than I have. Different races can have different features, though it isn't true all of the time, or even most of it.

By nonsense, I mean people asserting that people have specific genetic traits based almost entirely on their external appearance is broadly complete and utter piffle, because external appearances can be deeply deceiving and even genetics can be misleading due to incomplete understandings. Re: high-altitude genes, they're not universally present in people indigenous to Tibet, merely common, and they're not the only adaptation to high altitude - there's an entirely other set common in Peru, which adapt you to high altitude by an entirely different mechanism, for example. Other human groups have no real genetic adaptation to high altitude, but simple exposure and exercise in such an environment means they their body adapts to it. And distinguishing these traits would be extremely hard without genetics. In all three cases, it's just going to look like "this person does well with high altitudes".

Let me be clearer. I (and my players) prefer a black and white view of the gaming world.

Okay, but that's a simple preference. You very clearly presented it as if it logically followed and was a necessity, so I appreciate the clarification. Further, you talked about swords and sorcery, and you're now talking about "black and white". Sword and sorcery fiction does not, typically, present a "black and white" view of the world. It usually presents a grey and black view of the world. The heroes are rarely noble-spirited do-gooders in sword and sorcery, but motivated by selfish desire, whether for fame, wealth, love, glory or whatever. The villains are sometimes merely the same, yet clashing in objectives with the heroes. So indeed they're often more protagonist and antagonist than truly hero and villain. There are also, frequently, truly evil villains in sword and sorcery. People with despicable objectives, or simply alien/incomprehensible ones which still need to stopped so the protagonist can achieve his goal, or some cases, merely survive.

But the point is, it's grey and black. White is rarely seen, and tends not to last, because it's too good for that sort of world. It tends to either die, or transcend. This is true in the key sword and sorcery texts, like Conan, and Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser.

If you want black and white, you don't want sword and sorcery, and it's confusing to hear it invoked in that context. Black and white is post-sword-and-sorcery, it's Tolkienian. The tropes of such fantasy tend to be very different. It still doesn't actually require evil races, though. You can equally easily have people who are willing servants of evil. This is largely how The Deed of Paksenarrion approaches it, for example. Evil races at most tangential to the plot (even when it features actual Drow, because it's D&D-derived). The main and most frequent antagonists are men who choose to serve evil. There's simply no necessity for entire sentient, free-willed species to be "evil" in such a setting.

Ironically, Tolkien himself had a more nuanced and complex view of his own creation, but that's a whole other discussion (and indeed is easier to see in the Silmarillion, which is far greyer than LotR).

But still, look at Chang. That is so bad that it's impossible to believe it hasn't kept some people from playing (and buying) D&D.

Yes, exactly. Which was the whole joke there, and it's a really superb illustration of the issue. Chang was the perfect character for it too, just completely socially incompetent, and not even possibly seeing how this was a problem.

Drow are fixable, but they need to go back to 2E ideas where they were progressing steadily into a "The majority culture of Drow is evil, but there are alternative cultures", and really do a lot of art of them showing them as grey, and make sure the text clearly describes them as dark grey. There will be pushback, of course. But that's the problem - there was pushback about Drizzt, and about the whole thing where loads of people wanted to play Drow after him. And originally, back in 2E, that pushback was partly about mechanics, because Drow were incredibly OP. But by 3E that was no longer a viable objection, because of LA (and in 4E and 5E, there are bunches of races as or more powerful than Drow). Yet WotC totally caved, and basically rolled back or swept under the carpet all the stuff 2E did (and killed off Eilistraee, though she's back now), really pushing the "Drow are evil" angle (whilst still technically allowing good ones), rather than continuing down a road which would have lead to a less messed-up place.

And you still see the same sneering as in 1990 or whenever today. Even from people so young, that they haven't actually read any Drizzt books, nor were around when he was cool, but they've already been indoctrinated into a "lol Drizzt is lame and everyone who wants to play a non-evil Drow is a lame Mary Sue-type who just wants to be OP!". It's not universal, but it's extremely common, and people even continue to claim Drow are OP, which is just mad in 5E (even without the sunlight deal, they'd be strong but not top-tier). And any attempt to feature non-evil Drow of any kind if tarred by the same brush - "snowflake" "Mary Sue", "special" and so on. Even in 5E.

(As it's traditional to accuse me of just wanting to play/playing a Drow at this point, I should point out in the last thirty years, I've played one Drow, and it was three months ago in a one-shot. I just think it's really messed-up to be sneering at people who want to be a good Drow, especially as other, more powerful or more disruptive races don't attract the same criticism.)

WotC need to blow through that. It kind of sounds like they're getting it. It would also help to have some evil non-Drow elf cultures. It's not like elves being evil is even uncommon in D&D fiction. They've always been pretty common as individuals. Countless adventures back to 1E and probably before feature an evil elf who isn't a Drow. Yet get enough elves together, and they're so often presented as do-gooders. Several settings have tried to fight this, to varying degrees. Eberron has elves as neutral and kinda violent mercenary types, or a not-obviously-good bunch of ancestor worshippers who feel a bit cult-y. In a genius move, Taladas had the majority of steppe barbarians be elves and half-elves (with the elves in charge), and also fought the elf master-race vibe with two separate groups of elves who were basically very primitive (one because of their self-isolation, the other because they were the thralls of degenerate mindflayers - note that it was the mindflayers who were degenerate, not the elves - Taladas wasn't perfect but it was way ahead of it's time on some issues - it even had the first clearly trans stuff I saw in D&D - one of the cultures required all wizards to be women - but you could be born male and simply identify as a woman, and they'd accept that, you just had to go live with the women and act/dress like them - I mean, that's not "right on", but it's acknowledging the complexity of this kind of issue, and actually reflecting some real-history practices from outside the West). But the general presentation just keeps floating back to "woods hippies".

 

[TheSword]

Isn't the who point why you had to play Half Orcs is that Orcs could not be anything but CE. That Orcs, either due innate aspects from their origin or Gruumsh's constant influence, could not be good nor neutral. Orc were mentally handicapped brutes who needed a god's blessing to having enough braincells to be an orog.

Half orcs, being half human, lacked the natural propensity to evil and thus were playable.

Therefor the Classic MM orc shouldn't be playable as a PC. Its stats would be for monster creation. A new statblock would be needed for Orc PCs.

The Players Handbook pg 17 under races reads regarding race descriptions:

“These details are suggestions to help you think about your character; adventurers can deviate widely from the norm for their races It’s worthwhile to consider why your character is different, as a helpful way to think about your characters background and personality.”

There is no restriction preventing people playing any alignment or social behavior of a race they like.

 

[Sadras]

How about this

Humanoids use humanoid morality and logic. They have free will and can make culture of any alignment.

Giants use giant morality and logic. They have free will and can make culture of the alignment based on their place on the ordning.

Beasts use animal morality and logic. If intelligent, they still act like beasts just smart.

Fey use fey morality and logic. Their will and culture is bound to their lord. Their logic is weird but still logical. Their culture is warped reflections of those of humanoids. Only fey with no master like a hag or royal fey, has free will.

Fiendd use fiendish morality and logic. Their will is tied to their alignment and their morality barely exist. Their cultures are always stolen and corrupted from others. LE devils are always LE. CE demons will always revert to CE. NE Yugoloths never stay from NE.

Celestials use the morality and logic of the gods. Their brains are always in tune with the god their serve.

Aberrations use use alien morality and logic. It is too alien to anyone but them and their kin. Attempting to understand them is a foolish sacrifice of one's mind.

Therefore you make Orcs humanoids, fiends, or giants in your world and have them follow their group's mindset. Gnolls would be humaniods or fiends depending on how you use them. Just be brave and use the right group.

This reminds me of VtM - with the various Paths and Virtues (Conscience/Conviction, Self-Control/Instinct)

 

[Minigiant]

The Players Handbook pg 17 under races reads regarding race descriptions:

“These details are suggestions to help you think about your character; adventurers can deviate widely from the norm for their races It’s worthwhile to consider why your character is different, as a helpful way to think about your characters background and personality.”

There is no restriction preventing people playing any alignment or social behavior of a race they like.

1) I said Classic Orc should not be used as PCs. I didn't say the game bans it.
2) Orcs not in the PHB

 

[Doug McCrae]

Isn't the who point why you had to play Half Orcs is that Orcs could not be anything but CE. That Orcs, either due innate aspects from their origin or Gruumsh's constant influence, could not be good nor neutral. Orc were mentally handicapped brutes who needed a god's blessing to having enough braincells to be an orog.

Half orcs, being half human, lacked the natural propensity to evil and thus were playable.

Therefor the Classic MM orc shouldn't be playable as a PC. Its stats would be for monster creation. A new statblock would be needed for Orc PCs.

Orcs were lawful evil prior to 3e. The 1e MM does portray them as unusually wicked even in comparison to other evil monsters. "Orcs are cruel and hate living things in general, but they particularly hate elves and will always attack them in preference to other creatures. They take slaves for work, food, and entertainment (torture, etc.) but not elves whom they kill immediately."

Orcs in Roger Moore's article are evil, but not as evil as the MM description. There's no mention of torture or other pointless cruelty.

In nearly all orcish societies, the social philosophy is the same. Orcs are the ultimate social Darwinists; only the strong and the clever survive, and the strongest and cleverest orcs are the ones who manage to reach the upper social levels of their cultures: Orcs have no respect for those weaker than themselves, and are quick to step-and-fetch* for those stronger than they. They distrust all overtures of friendship and love, seeing these as a cover for other, baser intentions; if they discover feelings of friendship to be quite genuine, they immediately attempt to manipulate events to take the best advantage of them and gain the upper hand.​

Moore says that these attitudes are caused by environmental factors and divine influence by means of religious instruction. He roots orcish hatred of elves in a personality clash, which mostly comes down to a narrow vs wide perspective particularly short vs long-term thinking.

The 2nd edition Complete Book of Humanoids (1993) allows for playable orcs, etc. "Orcs tend toward lawful evil, half-orcs tend toward true neutral. PC orcs and half-orcs may be of any alignment."

EDIT: *The phrase step-and-fetch can have a racial meaning, but isn't necessarily being used in that way here.

 

[Morrus]

I read elsewhere - perhaps on this site - that some DMs are passing out pre-game surveys about "triggers" and other embarrassingly stupid crap.

Mental damned pablum.

You went out of your way to create an account just to post this? It’s not even on topic. It’s a random non-sequitur rant about something else entirely.

 

[TheSword]

1) I said Classic Orc should not be used as PCs. I didn't say the game bans it.
2) Orcs not in the PHB

They aren’t but many different monstrous races have been released in various supplements. I’m not sure why you think it’s one rule for PHB races and a different one for the additional races? Drow are described as defaulting to evil in the MM but are in the PHB. How is it it different for the monstrous races in Volos guide for instance? When you look at the text under alignment the phrase is “they tend towards” and “they are usually”.

 

[Zardnaar]

Orcs were lawful evil prior to 3e. The 1e MM does portray them as unusually wicked even in comparison to other evil monsters. "Orcs are cruel and hate living things in general, but they particularly hate elves and will always attack them in preference to other creatures. They take slaves for work, food, and entertainment (torture, etc.) but not elves whom they kill immediately."

Orcs in Roger Moore's article are evil, but not as evil as the MM description. There's no mention of torture or other pointless cruelty.

In nearly all orcish societies, the social philosophy is the same. Orcs are the ultimate social Darwinists; only the strong and the clever survive, and the strongest and cleverest orcs are the ones who manage to reach the upper social levels of their cultures: Orcs have no respect for those weaker than themselves, and are quick to step-and-fetch for those stronger than they. They distrust all overtures of friendship and love, seeing these as a cover for other, baser intentions; if they discover feelings of friendship to be quite genuine, they immediately attempt to manipulate events to take the best advantage of them and gain the upper hand.​

Moore's account of orcish hatred for elves roots it in a clash of personalities. Orcish evil is mostly due to environmental factors.

The 2nd edition Complete Book of Humanoids (1993) allows for playable orcs, etc. "Orcs tend toward lawful evil, half-orcs tend toward true neutral. PC orcs and half-orcs may be of any alignment."

I prefer ye olde traditional type Orcs and Drow.

However I don't care what Wildemont or Eberron does with them.

That's kind of the point of campaign settings. Try something different. If you want to design Orkworld campaign setting and they're geniuses go for it.