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'.

 

[Umbran]

Ah, but is it listening you want, or capitualtion?

Nice emotionally loaded word, there.

 

[Sadras]

Nice emotionally loaded word, there.

It fits for an emotionally charged thread.

 

[Umbran]

It fits for an emotionally charged thread.

That doesn't make it rhetorically sound.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

My sense is that what Galandris is saying is that the best way to solve the orc/drow problem is not to make them more accurately represent black people (or women in the case of drow), but to de-couple them from that association altogether. Make orcs orcs, drow drow. Galandris isn't talking about representing the player base, but the (hypothetical) connections of D&D races to real-world peoples.

Orcs and drow are problematic for different reasons, but the problems are relatively easily rectified in both cases. I'm not sure what the orc/African American association is, although do remember some being upset that they had darker (although more grayish) skin in the LotR movies, but that seems a bit of a stretch. There's the quote from Tolkien about Mongolian people, but regardless of whether or not what he said is problematic, D&D does not equal Tolkien (and remember when orcs had pig-snouts? What was that about?). But again, there's really only a problem if there's any connection to African Americans (or Mongolians), so rather than try to make them more accurately representative--which is going in the wrong direction--why not separate them from that connection entirely? If orcs are just orcs, it doesn't matter if they're evil and brutish.

Yes, that's exactly what I meant. Thanks for clarifying!

The other complaint is matriarchy = evil and oppressive. This complaint impliesthat a female-centered society couldn't be evil, which is itself a subtle form of sexism (women are only good, and thus not as complex or diverse as men, who can be good or bad). The simple solution here is to provide examples of matriarchal races and/or cultures that aren't oppressive and good and/or neutral.

Like Rashemen.

 

[Hoffmand]

You need to scroll back some - but the armour, the top-knot and everything @Minigiant mentioned. To be honest it is not something I had picked up until this board. But then again I do not play in my imaginery elf game equating fantastical creatures with RW counterparts. I do not have time for that in my hobby.
But you know how people enjoy low-hanging fruit.

What I do notice is that Medusa is a name and Gorgon should have been the creature - things like that.

Gorgon was actually also an adjective meaning terrible and

Vistani stuff was bad even in the 90s. The non human stuff is a bit silly and if you can make those associations there's plenty of other things you can nitpick.

Eventually you'll have to draw a line somewhere or make 6E.

the vistani stuff was some of the best stuff d&d did. I urge players to buy the books and read the setting. They were perfect for capturing the gothic setting and stories told in those settings. Very true to the literature and setting it was trying to implement. If you are looking to recreate that type of setting they are perfect.

 

[Xenonnonex]

the vistani stuff was some of the best stuff d&d did.

Of course you would think that.

 

[Umbran]

They were perfect for capturing the gothic setting and stories told in those settings. Very true to the literature and setting it was trying to implement. If you are looking to recreate that type of setting they are perfect.

The issue being that gothic horror literature was founded and grounded in morality and fears of the 1800s, a period not known for being particularly racially enlightened in Western culture...

Which is to say, yes, the Vistani may be good at capturing the genre... but the genre had racism in it.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Like Rashemen.

Rashemen would be good as part of the picture, for sure, but it's not major, indeed, in 5E it's downright obscure (as the focus has moved away from the Heartlands and the greater FR to be clearly on the Sword Coast specifically). It also plays into some mild sexist stereotypes and is more neutral than good, but as part of the picture, that's okay. With the Drow specifically, just including, in an MM or similar book, clear information on non-Lolth Drow, a description of say, an Eilistraee-ruled city, which would also likely be a matriarchy, but likely a positive one, would be helpful and not take up some huge amount of space or anything.

 

[Hoffmand]

The issue being that gothic horror literature was founded and grounded in morality and fears of the 1800s, a period not known for being particularly racially enlightened in Western culture...

Which is to say, yes, the Vistani may be good at capturing the genre... but the genre had racism in it.

I think it’s the opposite. People saying hobgoblins can’t have topknots are racist. And people saying specific behaviors and personality traits aren’t common in groups and cultures are the racist. So we have competing theories on racism. Mainstream is not always right. Let the readers decide for themselves. Sometimes the 1% complaining in a group don’t represent what the others want in their group. Some are offended at being called colored. Some want to be called colored. Some are offended by being called African American. Others are proud of it. You can’t satisfy everyone. I have specifically been told in a city near me that we are not black. We are colored. Can not satisfy everyone. And no racism is even intended. And by satisfying one group you tick off the other group within the same ethnicity because there is no universally accepted terminology. Although we may try to force one.

 

[Xenonnonex]

I think it’s the opposite. People saying hobgoblins can’t have topknots are racist. And people saying specific behaviors and personality traits aren’t common in groups and cultures are the racist. So we have competing theories on racism. Mainstream is not always right. Let the readers decide for themselves. Sometimes the 1% complaining in a group don’t represent what the others want in their group. Some are offended at being called colored. Some want to be called colored. Some are offended by being called African American. Others are proud of it. You can’t satisfy everyone. I have specifically been told in a city near me that we are not black. We are colored. Can not satisfy everyone. And no racism is even intended. And by satisfying one group you tick off the other group within the same ethnicity because there is no universally accepted terminology. Although we may try to force one.

"Everyone is racist but me". Okay. Great.