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'.

 

[Hussar]

Frost Giants vs Orcs

Why aren’t Frost giants problematic? Well you are borrowing a culture and grafting it onto some of the most powerful creatures in the game. Frost giants are smart, have culture, are “civilized “ and incredibly powerful.

As a stereotype goes, it’s not exactly offensive is it?

OTOH, orcs are brutish, stupid, cowardly, untrustworthy, and lacking in culture. Would you want you ethnicity tied to that?

I’ve seen the question raised a few times about why it’s okay for one thing to be evil and not another. I really think that that’s a facile reading of the issue that really misses the point.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Frost Giants vs Orcs

Why aren’t Frost giants problematic? Well you are borrowing a culture and grafting it onto some of the most powerful creatures in the game. Frost giants are smart, have culture, are “civilized “ and incredibly powerful.

As a stereotype goes, it’s not exactly offensive is it?

OTOH, orcs are brutish, stupid, cowardly, untrustworthy, and lacking in culture. Would you want you ethnicity tied to that?

I’ve seen the question raised a few times about why it’s okay for one thing to be evil and not another. I really think that that’s a facile reading of the issue that really misses the point.

I agree. It's because no one gets offended when you base a giant race off of Vikings. Vikings don't exist anymore, and there's no reason their descendants should get offended by Frost Giants' depictions. (I'm descended from Scandanavians, so take my word on that)

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...

www.enworld.org

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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.

Well, no, that actualy isn't true. Evolutionarily, we survive exactly by caring about others. That is literally an inherent part of being "social", and we are the most social primate species, and one of the most social mammals. There are remains from before the agricultural revolution (perhaps before we were properly modern humans, but I don't recall for certain) that could not have survived to the age that they survived to without daily assistance from the family unit. Individuals who the group would likely have had an easier time had they abandoned, but they didn't. Because we evolved to care deeply about others.

 

[Lanefan]

The PHB is for making player characters. You figure the PCs are average?

I figure they should trend toward the average, whatever the average might be for the creature type being played; and that to go opposite the average should require a bit of system-fighting.

As in, sure you can have a Str 16 Hobbit but you're going to be putting (the equivalent of) an 18 in there to get it; and you ain't never gettin' no Str 20 Hobbit 'cause they hard-cap at 18.

Same token, if you want a Dex 16 Hobbit you only need to drop a 14 in the slot; and were it not 5e with its hardline bounded accuracy their Dex might hard-cap at 21.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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.

Look, since neither of us are scientists in the fields of anthropology or sociology, I won't try to get into the weeds on this, but...let's leave it at this. What you are saying is, at the very least, controversial within those fields.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I figure they should trend toward the average, whatever the average might be for the creature type being played; and that to go opposite the average should require a bit of system-fighting.

As in, sure you can have a Str 16 Hobbit but you're going to be putting (the equivalent of) an 18 in there to get it; and you ain't never gettin' no Str 20 Hobbit 'cause they hard-cap at 18.

Same token, if you want a Dex 16 Hobbit you only need to drop a 14 in the slot; and were it not 5e with its hardline bounded accuracy their Dex might hard-cap at 21.

There are a lot more new players who really strongly dislike this sort of thinking about games than those who like it, and that includes the players who are in it for "dark souls" style player skill gameplay.

 

[plisnithus8]

False.

I think we both proved my Words As Intended: I made too broad a generality, and you followed up with a terse absolute that addressed only Words As Written.
No one’s perfect. We see the world through our own eyes, our own perspective. We have to work to see the world as others do and can never truly achieve that.
As for humans being social, could it be that forming tribes is often just a more powerful self-interest?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I think we both proved my Words As Intended: I made too broad a generality, and you followed up with a terse absolute that addressed only Words As Written.
No one’s perfect. We see the world through our own eyes, our own perspective. We have to work to see the world as others do and can never truly achieve that.
As for humans being social, could it be that forming tribes is often just a more powerful self-interest?

Again, no. You can twist whatever you want to make yourself feel like you're winning something, but you're just spouting nonsense.

Especially the last part. Talk about reaching for whatever will support what you already wanted to believe.

Try speaking only for yourself, in the future. It leads to more successful interactions.

 

[Mercurius]

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.

It is always fun being chastised by a stranger on the internet ;-). Anyhow, I'm sorry that you feel like I'm being dismissive, but that may be because you interpret disagreement as dismissal. I get it, because I don't think you are really considering what I am saying and are just lumping me in with a group of people that you find objectionable ("they").

I can only re-iterate what I've already said, that there is far more nuance and variation of perspectives than you acknowledge, and in terms of discourse, if someone disagrees with you it doesn't mean that they are dismissing what you are saying. Disagreement is simply saying, "Yeah, I don't see it that way, and here's why." Which I did, repeatedly, but you didn't really engage with most of what I've said.

I've repeatedly stated that I think there are real concerns, but I just don't see them in the same way that you do and think there are better ways to approach the matter that both preserve the heritage of the game, while also making it more inclusive.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

As for humans being social, could it be that forming tribes is often just a more powerful self-interest?

That's exactly my point. We evolved to be self centered, because when we care about taking care of ourselves, it helps us survive. It also helps to care about other people, because living close to other humans helps us survive, because they can help with hunting, gathering food (and money), and we need less resources for shelter.

It's not "controversial" to say that we evolved self-centeredness. It's like the "fight or flight" response. We do what we need to in order to survive. Being social and self-centered are not opposites. Humans are very clearly both. Without being social, we'd be extinct. Without being self-centered, we wouldn't care about our own lives, and be extinct as well.