• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

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

Oofta

Legend
...
But yeah, Evil Ice Giants = dumb, blue brutes north-european is problematic.

Can't the same thing be said of a large percentage of monsters? If you go looking for prejudice or issues you're going to find it.

Which is not to say we shouldn't be sensitive to these issues, we should. But even if hobgoblins take some inspiration from samurai ... so what? If every single depiction of eastern Asians (and really, it's a horrible mish-mash like everything else in D&D) was evil there might be a point. But you can also play a good samurai, or a monk. I could just as easily say that dwarves are problematic because they represent miners from the UK, or any other number of conclusions.

It is virtually impossible to depict any humanoid without there being possible ties into existing culture or heritage. At least occasionally.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Are depictions of evil monsters that evoke any real-world cultures problematic, or only ones that evoke non-Europen cultures? Is it problematic that always-evil Frost Giants evoke Norse culture?

You seen any Scandinavian people being stereotyped as ravaging, pillaging monsters lately? I mean, I haven't. If we imagine a D&D that existed in say, 1900, and had clearly-Irish-inspired Elves who were drunk, lazy, stupid layabouts, that, in 1900, would have been problematic (it might even a little today), because those were once real stereotypes which harmed people, bad tropes to work with.

But Scandinavians haven't been negatively thought of as Viking for uhhhhh, 600+ years? So that's not really the same thing.

That's without getting into cultural appropriation, which can range from fairly harmless to pretty awful.
 


Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
Supporter
Are we equating Vistani to the historical Romani people?

No. We are noting that the Vistani bear a striking resemblance to existing stereotypes of the real-world Romani. Those same stereotypes were used to justify persecution of the Romani.

I'm sorry, but the repeated exhortations that, "this is fiction, this is fantasy, it doesn't mean anything," don't hold water. Fiction is not without meaning or real world impact..
 

Olrox17

Hero
Even by the standards of the time, the Romans were outstandingly evil in terms of mass slaughter, mass slavery, violent conquest, and so on. I did an archaeology and ancient history degree, so I'm not a random civilian here, note. Nobody was lovely, sure, but they stood out from the crowd, even back then.

More importantly, today's standards aren't what we're judging by. D&D's alignment standards are. In any edition, from 1E onwards, it would be very fair to say Rome, as a culture, was broadly Lawful Evil, in the AD&D/D&D sense (in BD&D it'd merely be the nasty kind of Lawful). The obsession with violent, expansionist conquest (to the literal ends of the earth)

As for you being "offended", I'm British. So you claiming to be "offended" because I'm criticising a culture that existed in the general area you live in, and died out well over a thousand years ago seems pretty bloody silly, when I'm from a culture, that, up until sometime in the 20th century, was trying to ape them, and was perhaps even worse in many regarded, and which I would absolutely accept and agree with criticism of. What, should I be offended because someone notes how massively horrific the British Empire was? I'm not. That's factual. And Rome was utterly horrific too. The British Empire circa 1700s would be a good starting point for an evil imperial culture or species in a slightly more modern D&D setting.
I suggest you re-read my post. Highlights:
  • I'm not really offended
  • Roman culture could be easily described as lawful evil by today's standard (and D&D's, sure, alright), but so can most historical cultures
  • I'm just surprised that people advocating for a better depiction of orcs and drow, because they might be offensive to real world cultures, are now proposing to tie an evil fantasy race to a real world historic culture.

Dude... He was talking about appearance. Are you saying that it's okay to make racist comments on appearance because a group of people are distantly descended from people who killed a lot of people? Seriously? Because that is literally the logic you're using. No-one if defending Ghengis Khan mate, people are saying "comparing actual humans to orcs, in appearance, is not cool".
This whole thread was not merely about appearances, let's not kid ourselves. It has been about harmful, allegedly offensive fantasy depictions in general.
I'm also confused by you differentiating the Gauls, Britons and Celts though - the Gauls and the Britons are both kinds of Celts, if we're using that term.
I defer to your expertise in this specific matter.
 
Last edited:

It is virtually impossible to depict any humanoid without there being possible ties into existing culture or heritage. At least occasionally.

The real issues start when those ties begin to line up with existing stereotypes or racist sentiment.

No-one is racist against Scandinavians because they were once the vikings. It's not a thing. Even when someone being a "viking" is invoked, it is usually implied positively as "tall and strong". So Giants being themed that way isn't particularly problematic.

Whereas plenty of people are racist against Japanese people for perceptions that they are part of some sort of would-be-invader culture, whether they're invading by force or by skill at business or whatever. It's less common now than it was in, say, 1985, but it is still around. So that is somewhat more problematic.

And it can get a lot worse than that.
 

Can't the same thing be said of a large percentage of monsters? If you go looking for prejudice or issues you're going to find it.

Which is not to say we shouldn't be sensitive to these issues, we should. But even if hobgoblins take some inspiration from samurai ... so what? If every single depiction of eastern Asians (and really, it's a horrible mish-mash like everything else in D&D) was evil there might be a point. But you can also play a good samurai, or a monk. I could just as easily say that dwarves are problematic because they represent miners from the UK, or any other number of conclusions.

It is virtually impossible to depict any humanoid without there being possible ties into existing culture or heritage. At least occasionally.
I suggest you re-read my post. Highlights:
  • I'm not really offended
  • Roman culture could be easily described as lawful evil by today's standard (and D&D's, sure, alright)
  • I'm just surprised that people advocating for a better depiction of orcs and drow, because they might be offensive the real world cultures, are now proposing to tie an evil fantasy race to a real world historic culture.


This whole thread was not merely about appearances, let's not kid ourselves. It has been about harmful, allegedly offensive fantasy depictions in general.

I defer to your expertise in this specific matter.
If you find this offensive just ignore it.
 

Oofta

Legend
Utterly missing the distaste to the inspired appearance used for an evil race. Good on you.

No matter what you do, no matter how a monstrous race is depicted, I believe someone somewhere will make an association they find problematic with some creatures. You don't have to agree.

Personally I prefer the more generic 3.5 artistic depiction of hobgoblins. For that matter I also prefer green skinned orcs and goblins because it makes them more distinct from any human counterpart.
 

Doug McCrae

Legend
What about the suggestions to make Roman-inspired evil hobgoblins? Do you have an opinion on that idea?
It would need to be considered in the context of the game as a whole. Are hobgoblins in this game evil as an entire race as orcs are in Tolkien? Are there also positive depictions of Romans? Are there generally positive associations with European culture, as there are in D&D? Druids, bards, clerics with spells related to Christianity, dwarves, etc?

This seems to be a private game, not official published D&D content, so that makes a big difference.

My personal view is that I don't like associating any real world culture with evil. I wouldn't do it in my own games.
 


Status
Not open for further replies.
Remove ads

Remove ads

Top