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


I'm really digging Ancestry (for like, basic, in-born traits that are going to occur without training or the like) and Culture (for learned traits). With crossover traits (like maybe Drow aren't born with 120' Darkvision, it's an adaptation from growing up in the Underdark), you could say "If your Ancestry gives you trait X, modify it this way".
I'm developing a half-race system for D&D that does something similar to that. I would like the races to be changed. The name change would be good. I personally prefer Species because I like science and I think it fits better, but Ancestry probably works the 2nd best.
 


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.

Every culture regards foreigners they feel threatened by that way. The Romans said the same of the Celts. The Persians said the same of the Scythians. The Egyptians the same about the Libyans. The Chinese the same about the Mongols and the Koreans. The history of humanity is one of dread and fear of the Other, and oppression of the weak by the strong. In every corner of the planet since the first hominid bashed another on the head with a stone.

If the characterizations of barbarians and foreigners as monstrous is "problematic", then it's a universal human problem, not one peculiar to European or Western culture.
 

Fairly certain that revisions to canon for the sake of cultural, sexual, and racial sensitivity and inclusivity has happened numerous times since the Satanic Panic as well. This has been a continuous conversation about the political shape of D&D for decades.
I would be interested to hear about politically-driven changes in canon, besides the famous demon-devils (temporary) censorship. As I mentioned before, I have no direct experience with editions before 3.0, so I might be missing some. As far as I can tell, the biggest difference I noticed between third edition and 5e is more inclusive artwork, which i support, and doesn't mess with existing canon in any way.
Apparently quoting your own words back at you is an ad hominem attack now? Who'd have thunk it? If you are done deflecting with more feigned outrage, would you like to contest your exact words about this situation or are you good with that?
You called me ignorant, implied more than once a lack of sincerity on my part, and followed that up with straight up mockery. I'm good with just reporting your post, thank you very much. I'm glad the average level of civility on this board is far superior to yours.
We're not talking basic disagreement of positions here. You admitted that you were ignorant of the conversation around race in fantasy RP - aka "why now?" - and that most certainly is ignorance. You implied that Jeremy Crawford was not being authentic when he said what he said. That's ignorance. You have not really challenged me when I have said that you don't seem aware of who Jeremy Crawford is or what he has published, so should I chalk that up as us disagreeing or your ignorance?
A smattering of gamers occasionally complained about something in the last 20 years. Yes, I might have seen a couple thread like that in the past. I didn't agree with them, and I didn't consider them relevant, as did IMO, the majority of the player base.
Now the situation has changed, because a D&D designer has officially acknowledged and agreed. Also, as I already said, I don't care if Crawford was sincere or not. Regardless, what he said was probably the smartest thing he could say in the current situation. I'm not interested in his personal politics. I've never cared about the political ideas of any D&D designer. They're game designers, I expect them to design good, solid, fun games, and nothing more.
That's a privilege that you are able to exercise, but I am telling you that your "game that is meant to recreate pseudo-medieval fantasy tomb raiding and warmongering" has various problematic racist undertones that makes some of its player base, who lack that privilege you enjoy, feel excluded from enjoying the game as much as they could if those elements were removed or re-contextualized.
So how have you determined that racism is not there?
By reading and not finding anything that I deem racist. Also, the burden of proof is usually on the party that is trying to demonstrate the existence of something. Not that it matters here, this is not a court of law, we're all in the wonderful realm of opinions and feelings.
 
Last edited:


Now I have got some questions for you.

Who said this is only WotC's matter? I mean there are lots of fantasy videogames with orcs, dark elves, goblins, beast-men. Why not to report Game Workshop? The imperium of the man in Warhammer 40.000 is practically a dictatorship, and taus' regime isn't a democracy either.

Were evil any ancient civilitations from the past? For example Sparta, but also the Persian empire. Was evil the first Chinese emperor, Qin Shi Huang? Was evil the famous pirate Barbarrosa (Red Beard)? (He was Otoman, not English, Hollywood lied). Weren't evil the Vikings pirates when they attacked civil populations? Were evil Iulius Caesar, Napoleon or Alexander the Great because they conquered other countries? Is evil a characters from a story of 1001 nights who kills his adultere wife to clean his honor?

Do you remember Magneto, the archenemy of the X-Men, I use this example from the comics, the speculative fiction, as a softer way to explain sometimes the oppresed may become a new oppresor.

Is Westeros (Games of Thrones) evil if it's ruled by Joffrey Baratheon but not if it's rule by one of the good guys?

Do you think the old movies and books about Fu-Manchu promote the sinophobia, or Disney movie "our dinosaur is missing"?
 

I just had a flash and went through the MM entries and noticed one thing: most ''created'' or ''cursed'' creatures that act in some way because they are forced by some evil power or that have an attitude closer to beasts than human arent Humanoids, they are, for the most part, Monstrosities.

Take a look at the description of the Centaur, Harpies, Medusas, Merfolks, Yetis and Yuan-ti: scratch the names, and the description of their monolithic cultures or raison d'être could fit the Orc's or Gnoll's to a T.

So if Orc and Gnolls (in FR at least) are created by an evil power, and have urges that prevent them from acting in empathetic ways, why arent they Monstrosities?

I mean, Tieflings aka humanoids actually sharing blood with fiends are considered humanoids with free-will, able to forge their own path in functional society, even though (in FR) their soul was actually claimed by an Arch-devil/god. If those guys are able to be of any alignment, so do playable orcs and gnolls. Those that cant resist the dark urges of their creator are Monstrosities.
 

Mod Note:

Folks,

These are difficult, uncomfortable topics. Folks are having their base assumptions and desires and attitudes challenged, so we do try to be patient and understanding.

But, and I will make this big so it gets seen - WE REQUIRE YOU TO TREAT EACH OTHER WITH RESPECT IN THIS THREAD.

We've handed out warnings - those are "permanent record" type things. If you build up a stack of those, we have to have a conversation about how you approach these boards. We've also handed out a few threadbans. You may want to consider how much more patience you'll get if you push the envelope.

 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Remove ads

Remove ads

Top