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'.

 

[Mercurius]

Increasingly some people are saying because they are not bothered by it it is not a problem. Fundamentally that is a broken worldview.
People are not wanting automatic agreeance. They have given viewpoints with points of concern. And reasons for that concern. Incredibly dismissive is saying that they want automatic agreeance. Shockingly dismissive. And disturbing. You want to air views. Allow others to.
Whether you want to hear them for their viewpoints is up to you. Or if you want to keep dismissing viewpoints. And keep insisting they just want agreeance.

I am fine if you air your concerns - you don't need my permission to do so, nor do I have (or want) any power to allow or dis-allow you. But I can respond to your concerns if you voice them publically and share my perspective.

Your assertion that what I am saying is "shockingly dismissive" and "disturbing" is a rather stark example of a red herring, not to mention hyperbolic. Disagreement is not dismissive, especially if it is supported by reasons for that disagreement. I disagree with you, I don't dismiss you.

 

[Xenonnonex]

I am fine if you air your concerns - you don't need my permission to do so, nor do I have any power to allow or dis-allow you. But I can respond to your concerns if you voice them publically and share my perspective. Y

our assertion that what I am saying is "shockingly dismissive" and "disturbing" is a rather stark example of a red herring.

Me and others have asked for balanced versions of fantasy races. You keep saying all we want are monolithic solutions. And automatic agreeance. We have been asking for nuance. And we have been asking for perspective. But you keep insisting that l have not. Or that we have not. What you are saying is shocking in being dismissive. You are ignoring what others have already said. Dismissing what have others pointed out. And trying to control a narrow narrative.

 

[Mercurius]

Me and others have asked for balanced versions of fantasy races. You keep saying all we want are monolithic solutions. And automatic agreeance. We have been asking for nuance. And we have been asking for perspective. But you keep insisting that l have not. Or that we have not. What you are saying is shocking in being dismissive. You are ignoring what others have already said. Dismissing what have others pointed out. And trying to control a narrow narrative.

Again, there's a difference between "disagreement" and "dismissive" which you refuse to acknowledge. Because a person disagrees with your interpretation (and suggested solutions) doesn't necessarily mean they're ignoring or dismissing it. But it is clear that we're at an impasse, so let's peacefully agree to disagree?

 

[Xenonnonex]

Again, there's a difference between "disagreement" and "dismissive" which you refuse to acknowledge. Because a person disagrees with your interpretation (and suggested solutions) doesn't necessarily mean they're ignoring or dismissing it. But it is clear that we're at an impasse, so let's peacefully agree to disagree?

Stop making blanket statements that dismiss the points of others. Or concerns of others. That is not disagreement. That is simple dismissal. Stop doing that.
Agree to disagree.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

The N*zi appropriation of other cultures ruined so many things for so many people!

Nazis are kind of infamous for ruining things.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

We’re all myopic, self-centered.

False.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

False.

In general, it's true. Evolutionarily, we have to care about ourselves, it's better for survival of the species. Sure, there are exceptions, like when a parent gives their life for their children or a close friend, but that statement is generally true.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

We’re all myopic, self-centered. We see the world through our own eyes. We don’t see a problem with X and claim it’s not a problem, But perspectives are not the same. Some things affect people differently, in ways we can’t imagine. Unless we stop and really listen. The majority of people didn’t see an issue with the way race in D&D has been handled. That doesn’t make it right. It makes people feel marginalized. It’s not that “people need to stop feeling offended over everything.” It’s that we should listen to concerns people have. Inclusivity is kindness. Insisting that the escapist fantasy game you like to play remain the way it has been despite the fact that it subtly and not so subtly reinforces negative stereotypes and makes people feel unwelcome is no longer ignorance but selfishness.

I agree with this. The "myopic" might be a stretch. Some are more in a bubble than others.

 

[PsyzhranV2]

In general, it's true. Evolutionarily, we have to care about ourselves, it's better for survival of the species. Sure, there are exceptions, like when a parent gives their life for their children or a close friend, but that statement is generally true.

Humans are social animals. Solitude wreaks havoc on our psyches. Our evolutionary history is one of group cooperation, even all the way back when we first walked the African Savannah 300,000 years ago. Evidence suggests that our Homo erectus ancestors and our Neanderthal cousins displayed similar socialization and social structures. Look at hunter-gatherer cultures that persist to this day and you see this selfless and communal principles still in practice.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Humans are social animals. Solitude wreaks havoc on our psyches. Our evolutionary history is one of group cooperation, even all the way back when we first walked the African Savannah 300,000 years ago. Evidence suggests that our Homo erectus ancestors and our Neanderthal cousins displayed similar socialization and social structures. Look at hunter-gatherer cultures that persist to this day and you see this selfless and communal principles still in practice.

Yeah, but that's not what I was arguing against. We are social creatures, but that doesn't mean that I would sacrifice myself to save your life, because evolutionarily, that doesn't make sense. I don't know you, don't have an emotional connection with you, you're not related to me, and I would be sad if you died, but would not give up my life so that someone online wouldn't die. This is a social platform, but that doesn't mean that I care about you besides not wanting to hurt your feelings.

(I mean absolutely no disrespect. Sorry if this is a strange post.)

We're social creatures, but that's also for our own good. We like talking with other people, because it keeps the demons inside our heads at bay. We also do care about each other, but that's also to pass on our genes and reproduce. Again, this is evolutionarily to our advantage. It's not "selfless" to care about other people. It's selfless to honestly not care about yourself and your needs, but instead care about other people before you. It's selfless to give your life for other people.

Sure, we care about other people's feelings and try not to offend them and like spending time talking with them, but that's purely for the advantage of passing on our genes, because that's all that life is for, evolutionarily.