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

You were asked not to post again in the thread. You did so anyway.

black people have nothing in common with fantasy races.
Fantasy races such as orcs have a great deal in common with all human beings. See my post #1177 upthread for details.

There are also many parallels between racist ideas about non-white people (for example that they are bloodthirsty, bestial, of lower intelligence, uncivilised, physically superior, and breed faster) and evil fantasy races. See the thread I linked in post #1183 for details.
 

Given that I have no idea what your game is like and I can only relay my own personal experience ... as a DM I can always set up moral dilemas as a f*** you to players who want to play someone with a good alignment.

A couple of examples include living campaign mods (pre-AL) where one mod had you agree to work with an obviously evil NPC to do something incredibly questionable or the mod was over in 15 minutes. When I played, the mod was over in 15 minutes with no XP or rewards, a wasted trip and a missed opportunity to game with friends. In another case you had to ally yourself with a literal demon or devil. We chose neither and if the DM hadn't bent the rules it would have been a TPK.

So when I hear moral dilema about fighting evil, it's just not my cup of tea. Let's take an analogy. Let's suppose that there's a bowl of M&Ms. It's a big bowl, maybe a couple hundred of the sugar coated pseudo-chocolate.

But there's a catch. Only 2% of the M&Ms are not poisonous. If you don't throw them all out, someone will come along and eat the candy. Maybe they'll be lucky and eat the ones that aren't poisonous, but odds are anyone eating the M&MS will eat some of the 98% poisoned ones.

Is it a good thing to throw away all that candy knowing that you're throwing away some good ones? Heck no. It's terrible. But what choice is there? There is no realistic way to sort them out.

It's the same thing with "but some small percentage of X may not be evil". There is no good answer on how to deal with that. Send them off to boarding school to strip them of their identity? Colonialist white-washing at it's best. Let them go? Well ... that's the 98% problem, or the letting the enemy go in Saving Private Ryan issue.

To be clear: there is no corollary to the real world in this analogy. Well, except for the sweet, sweet candy. There are (rarely) times when I throw moral dilemas at my group, but I want it to be clear when that happens. If any creature that we consider a monster could be potentially not evil, or if there is no such thing as evil monsters there is no clarity.

I prefer a fair amount of clarity in my games because real life is stressful enough. I don't want to have to constantly tip-toe across moral land-mines when playing D&D, I just don't see how it adds to the game.

You do you, but what you consider a "morale conundrum for good aligned characters" is either "I'll just play a neutral character then" or a giant middle finger to my PC because there is not and never will be a good answer to me.
While I see what you're saying, it's more of a way to allow my PC's to think about their actions and create interesting role playing scenarios. Maybe they rescue the Kobold children? Or take a sidekick? It's just add interesting tension and can allow for interesting solutions.
 


While I see what you're saying, it's more of a way to allow my PC's to think about their actions and create interesting role playing scenarios. Maybe they rescue the Kobold children? Or take a sidekick? It's just add interesting tension and can allow for interesting solutions.

There is no one true way, I've just had bad experiences with "moral dilemmas" really being a gotcha with no answer for PCs (especially LG ones).

Again, I have no idea what your game is like and I'm not saying you're doing it wrong. It's just that there are certain pitfalls that I think are best avoided for many groups.
 


Well but all lives matter, and it would have been a more inclusive slogan imho (with clarification that no matter what skin color, religion, gender, age etc. they matter).
It would be more inclusive, but also lose its meaning. Yes, all lives do matter, but not all lives are regularly endangered by the police. The slogan is meant to highlight a specific systemic social issue, and “all lives matter” would fail to achieve this goal.

But I don’t really want to get into this here. It’s off-topic, and we’re not supposed to discuss politics.

Of course I do not want to dismiss the actual problem which BLM is based upon with that reply, which exists, especially for black Americans but not exclusive for them.
Right, that was kinda my point. You can agree with the message even if you think the slogan people are using to try and express it could be better.
 

Fantasy races such as orcs have a great deal in common with all human beings. See my post #1177 upthread for details.

There are also many parallels between racist ideas about non-white people (for example that they are bloodthirsty, bestial, of lower intelligence, uncivilised, physically superior, and breed faster) and evil fantasy races. See the thread I linked in post #1183 for details.

Most if not all fantasy races have a great deal in common with humans. This quality isnt particular to orcs, gnolls or the monstrous humanoids.

The depictions of these creatures have been changed to over the years to remove most if not all of the references to real peoples - the armour, the descriptions using words like sallow, references to mongol hordes. Skin colour has changed to grey, and the skin colour of everyone else has been expanded and explicitly depicted in text and art to enable and encourage people of colour so its no longer the case that Elves are white and monsters are dark skinned. The changes are right and proper. Its right to acknowledge the history of ideas but we get to own our current thinking and changing it is a good way of showing we dont agree with it.

Monolithic ideas of Orcs as a race have already started to be broken down (iconic paladins are half orcs in both 3rd and 5th edition), RA Salvatore's literature etc. The Players handbook expressly states that descriptions of player races are suggestions and its more interesting to be different anyway.

The ideas you are alluding to, bloodthirsty, savage, bestial and sexually predatory are becoming rarer and rarer and don't get taken seriously in normal society today outside some pretty unpleasant folks that we all recognise as being frankly lunatics. Racism is rarely overt like this. Instead (as I understand it) issues like lack of opportunity, discrimination, cultural appropriation and sexual objectification are more prevelant and therefore dangerous.

More importantly the reason those older stereotypes are repugnant is that they are not true. Thats why they are so hateful and racist. In the case of fantasy races like Orcs those discriptions can be true for the most part, and there can be player and NPC excceptions to challenge what that means and show that self-determination is an important quality.

If there is a monstrous humanoid race that isnt predominantly bestial and savage but people act like they are, then I think you have a better analogy with how antiquated racist ideas relate to monstrous races. Even then that isnt necessarily a problem if the topic is depicted sensitively and it leads to explorations about how racism can exist in society and be combated.

Dealing with racism in a game isnt necessarily bad. Razor coast for instance dealt with colonialism and the oppression of the Tualita people by the evil empire by showing how this was wrong and unpalatable and encouraging Tualita heroes, and quests to right some of these wrongs. Paizo dealt similarly with the Mwangi Expanse and the evil Aspis Consortium.
 
Last edited:


Status
Not open for further replies.
Remove ads

Remove ads

Top