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'.

 

[ccs]

Do people even really use orcs as a major threat all the much?

Sure. It just depends upon what I'm writing up. Sometimes Orcs are what fits, sometimes not.
Granted, sometimes, mechanically, it wouldn't really make any difference if it were Orcs, Goblins, some other evil humanoid, or even just plain old humans. But storywise.....

 

[Haffrung]

But, again, it’s not about the orcs. The issue isn’t the mere fact that the villain is defeated by violence. The issue is the way in which the game tries to justify that violence. There are ways to allow heroes to be victorious over villains by violent means that don’t mirror the justifications used for racial injustice in the real world.

The justification in D&D for using violence against villains is almost invariably because they pose a threat to the PCs or to allies who the PCs are protecting. That's the justification for almost all violence, in history and in fiction. It's not peculiar to any culture or ideology - it's a universal human thing.

 

[Var]

Warcraft orcs, at least by this point of continuing levels of detail and lore being added, are clearly not good or bad as a species, but individuals. There have been creeps who've led them in bad directions multiple times in the past, but Warcraft has also made a point of showing that pretty much every one of their fantasy societies have had creepy leaders and done bad things at one point or another. Even the tauren, who are probably the closest the game world has to purely good guys, has the villainous Grimtotem tribe.

Well that might be a good example for history gets written by winners and we end up with their perspective.

You're doing plenty of murdering and pillaging in the Orc campaign in Warcraft 3, with your arrival in Kalimdor you immediatly start exterminating the sapient natives like quillboars and centaurs. Warcraft Orcs are pretty metal and they have a big and shiny honor tag strapped to their giant shoulder pads, good though they are not. You're taking sides and help out the Trolls and Tauren against these "bad guys", the last remnants of the quillboars ally up with a Lich and finally they go the way of the dodo. Centaurs hang on a little longer but end up with the same fate.
They're the chumps you get to fight as horde in WoW never to be seen again once you pass the 50s.

I don't mind, it's a game, a MMO at that and theres dozends of races with the same fate in there after all these expansions. Harpies, Mogu, Ant people... you basically get a side assigned and then go on a genocidal spree to hit the new level cap each expansion.

Warcraft Orcs in particular basically always find themselves in between a rock and a hard place ever since they set foot on an alien world. As pragmatists and due to their history warlike race they usually don't end up with the short end of the stick and end up making someone else bleed for their predicament. The Horde as a whole is pretty much a colonial empire, with all the bad and ugly that is unavoidable if you expand rapidly and violently.
During the time of WoW, the Orcs who originally came with the Burning Legion faded out. The Horde is the 2nd or 3rd generation who came after. They didn't make the choices that led to the colonialisation of Kalimdor, but that's their home now and always was to them. Whatever happens and happened to all the native noncombatans isn't present in the game.
Similar to us being 3rd or 4th generation after WW2, we know the stories, we learn in school, but we haven't lived it and it tends to get stale the 3rd time you chew through it in history classes.

Peace is usually payed for in the blood of innocents, watching that makes the people living through it aware that war is worse than hell. Unlike metaphorical hell, war doesn't discern in between good or bad and eclipses everyone. We who come after get to sit around and muse about whatever we spend our time on instead of worrying about survival. We forget the lessons we didn't experience ourself, idolize the past and repeat history.
Almost all of western Civilisation hasn't seen a home turf war for the last 75 years. War is there but it didn't happen to us. The bad guys are the others, the gouvernment or whatever.

I for one just selfishly hope we can make it last another 75, so I'll never have to know how it is to live through one. And can instead spend our time having strong oppinions on DnD race representation reflecting IRL issues.

 

[Cadence]

Agreed. But do those bad guys need to be entire genealogical groups? Would it not be better for the villains to be unified by ideology rather than biology?

Is the line between 'guys' (humanoids) and monsters a big part of it. Humanoids make choices in ways somewhat akin to humans and so we should be aware of the history of human oppression, and justifications for it, when using humanoids in game. Humanoids should involve nuance in game materials, even if a particular grouping of them in a location is mostly 'being evil'.

Demon bred monsters (if they reclass gnolls), pawns of the far realms, and undead are different, right?

So, is a big question what makes a humanoid? Should the game facilitate playing non-humanoids? Could some be relabeled (e.g. goblinoids) or kept distinct (minotaurs)? Should variance by world for that be in the MM?

 

[InnocentPope]

When an entire culture has failed to notice or act upon a major issue that we've been told about for decades, there's a strong argument that for any part of that culture, "innocent bystander," is at best, "Didn't intentionally make it worse." Simply continuing on as if the problem isn't your concern is part of the problem. Or, in the terms used in those protests - "Silence is violence."

I'm sorry, but I think any reasonable person should have a big problem with the idea that literally doing nothing is an act of violence. The blame for a hate crime lies with the person who actually commits it, not with people in nearby houses who were minding their own business and simply did not notice the travesty happening outside their window.

 

[Morrus]

I'm sorry, but I think any reasonable person should have a big problem with the idea that literally doing nothing is an act of violence. The blame for a hate crime lies with the person who actually commits it, not with people in nearby houses who were minding their own business and simply did not notice the travesty happening outside their window.

Internet. Nuance. Never shall they meet!

 

[Umbran]

Of course. And the vast majority of the RPG public didn't agree with those opinions. If they did, all of this would've happened years ago.

While you seem to be painting this as all-or-nothing agreement/disagreement, the actuality is a far more complex nuanced matrix of degrees of agreement and associated choice of actions.

There's agreement as an intellectual exercise.
There's agreement, but it is happening down in Florida, or Texas, and Somebody Else's Problem.
There's agreement, and how about I make a donation or two.
There's agreement, and I'm joining protests.
There's agreement, and I'm considering my workplace and what they could do better, and bringing that to corporate leadership and suggesting changes (with a possible side of "the situation is such that I could lose my job for doing this").

It's happening now because of a strong emotional (ergo, irrational) response to a very tragic and horrible crime.

I don't think it is irrational at all. I think this is a reasoned response, probably one that's been knocking around in a few heads at WotC for some time, with a final judgement that it is time to take that one last step and act. I think that's the way it is for a lot of people now, in general - not actually irrational. Just taking the final step to acting.

Oh, there's another reason why it is happening now: 5th Edition.

If I recall the last demographics breakdown we saw, old fogies (say, 40+ years old) are in the minority these days. 5e has brought in loads of new gamers. Younger gamers. And younger folks don't look at these races and see "Tradition!" They are not bound by the inertia having had it done the same way for decades, and have little resistance to the change. And they probably started out higher on the "care enough to act" ladder than 40+ year-old gamers.

 

[Zardnaar]

While you seem to be painting this as all-or-nothing agreement/disagreement, the actuality is a far more complex nuanced matrix of degrees of agreement and associated choice of actions.

There's agreement as an intellectual exercise.
There's agreement, but it is happening down in Florida, or Texas, and Somebody Else's Problem.
There's agreement, and how about I make a donation or two.
There's agreement, and I'm joining protests.
There's agreement, and I'm considering my workplace and what they could do better, and bringing that to corporate leadership and suggesting changes (with a possible side of "the situation is such that I could lose my job for doing this").



I don't think it is irrational at all. I think this is a reasoned response, probably one that's been knocking around in a few heads at WotC for some time, with a final judgement that it is time to take that one last step and act. I think that's the way it is for a lot of people now, in general - not actually irrational. Just taking the final step to acting.

Oh, there's another reason why it is happening now: 5th Edition.

If I recall the last demographics breakdown we saw, old fogies are in the minority these days. 5e has brought in loads of new gamers. Younger gamers - 40+ year olds are a minority in D&D at this point. And younger folks don't look at these races and see "Tradition!" They are not bound by the inertia having had it done the same way for decades, and have little resistance to the change. And they probably started out higher on the "care enough to act" ladder than 40+ year-old gamers.

Generational divide. They've been complaining about that since the times if Rome.

Boomers are on the way out, Generation X will get a turn so we'll see how well the Nirvana/Grunge generation can do.

In 10 or 20 years the Millennials and Zoomers will get a shot. Wash rinse repeat.

 

[Zardnaar]

Random photo of actual Polynesian stuff not tiki culture.

Bit sozzled on Saturday night. Respect anyone with skills that can create stuff (craft wise). I can't carve wood.

Wall decorations mate made.

 

[Morrus]

Of course. And the vast majority of the RPG public didn't agree with those opinions. If they did, all of this would've happened years ago.

Internet wasn’t around then. It’s the most powerful tool since fire was discovered. It exposes you to the world’s opinions.