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'.

 

[Lanefan]

Me and others have asked for balanced versions of fantasy races.

Which sounds nice in principle.

My concern in practice is the risk of making the various creature types too homogenous, with nothing to clearly differentiate them culturally or world-view wise or - dare I say - physically, other than very broad-brush things e.g. kobolds and hobbits are generally shorter than humans and elves.

And I for one don't have any problem at all with there being certain relatively mundane* creature types in the game that are widely viewed as evil-horrible-despicable by the usual kindred types; otherwise who are the PCs supposed to kill and loot?

* - this is a key element being overlooked, I think, by those suggesting demons, mind flayers, etc. take the role of the always-evil enemies: those sort of creatures don't tend to show up as viable opponents until mid-to-high level, so who are low-level PCs going to fight?

You keep saying all we want [is] automatic agreeance.

Sorry, but the preceding string of posts from you would tend to suggest this, yes.

 

[Mercurius]

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

Honestly curious: who is tying orcs to any ethnic group? I'm not talking about the Tolkien letter, which I don't think is all that relevant, nor am I talking about the connection drawn by a guy on twitter to racist stereotypes, which is him making the connection. Those are pejorative words that multiple cultures have used to speak of other cultures. Unfortunately that sort of racism has existed for thousands of years, and isn't the sole purview of any particular group. But is there any published D&D work or passage that you feel clearly ties orcs to a real ethnic group?

 

[Xenonnonex]

Which sounds nice in principle.

My concern in practice is the risk of making the various creature types too homogenous, with nothing to clearly differentiate them culturally or world-view wise or - dare I say - physically, other than very broad-brush things e.g. kobolds and hobbits are generally shorter than humans and elves.

And I for one don't have any problem at all with there being certain relatively mundane* creature types in the game that are widely viewed as evil-horrible-despicable by the usual kindred types; otherwise who are the PCs supposed to kill and loot?

* - this is a key element being overlooked, I think, by those suggesting demons, mind flayers, etc. take the role of the always-evil enemies: those sort of creatures don't tend to show up as viable opponents until mid-to-high level, so who are low-level PCs going to fight?

So. Work with consultants. From respective groups. Work from the concerns. Work with the concerns.
Making balanced versions does not mean cultural sameness. Such a simplistic view. And not at all what even real life is like. Creating fantastical versions is the goal. Draw from inspiration. Do not be beholden to it. Or create versions wholecloth.

Have you ever heard about talking ways out of combat. Diplomacy. Persuasion. This is a roleplaying games. Yes.

Sorry, but the preceding string of posts from you would tend to suggest this, yes.

I have not demanded agreeance. I have not demanded only my view. On you if you want to believe that.

 

[Eyes of Nine]

Samurai Hobgoblins seem pretty cool.

I can't disagree. Samurai Hobgoblins that are ALWAYS EVIL is a problem, at least for me.

 

[Lanefan]

So. Work with consultants. From respective groups. Work from the concerns. Work with the concerns.
Making balanced versions does not mean cultural sameness. Such a simplistic view. And not at all what even real life is like. Creating fantastical versions is the goal. Draw from inspiration. Do not be beholden to it. Or create versions wholecloth.

Amazing how I can wholeheartedly agree with some of those 4-6 word sentences and completely disagree with some others.

I'll pick on 'draw from inspiration' - the question is not whether or not to draw from inspiration but more that some people will draw elements A, B and C while others will draw X, Y and Z from the same source; and each would be correct. It depends on what role the drawer sees that inspiration's result playing within his-her setting.

Take Viking-era Norse. They can be depicted as they generally were when at home (artistic, well-learned, strong sense of culture) or as seen by those they raided (savage, barbaric, despoilers and looters); and both would be correct. It depends whether the game designer (usually the DM) wants to base the game within their culture or use them as more remote enemies of a culture where the game is based.

Have you ever heard about talking ways out of combat. Diplomacy. Persuasion. This is a roleplaying games. Yes.

Yes I have, as a matter of fact. Tried it on occasion, too.

But remember: Rule One of survival is Never Leave an Enemy Behind You. Unfortunately, talking one's way past an enemy almost inevitably leads to a direct violation of Survival Rule One.

 

[Eyes of Nine]

We’re all myopic

My wife is hyperopic, as are many people who wear reading glasses...

 

[Ash Mantle]

Samurai Hobgoblins seem pretty cool.

They're awesome as a concept!
It's the other connotations with conquest, domination, and subjugation that's very unfortunate. Which is why Eberron: Rising from the Last War is so excellent in its concept, design, and lore of its hobgoblins. It's a different take, and such an awesome take.
As a Chinese, I'm finding my culture staring back at me, please Google the Chinese topknot, Chinese war armor, and Chinese swords. Unfortunately, with all of the other connotations in mind and the hobgoblins as presented as only an evil people, that's personally alarming. If hobgoblins could be presented with more positive aspects, more positive connotations, and capability to tend towards other alignments, that'd be really excellent.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

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 been hacking at that same barrier for 100 pages now. You ain't getting through that way, amigo.

Best of luck, though.

Slumps unconscious

 

[Xenonnonex]

Amazing how I can wholeheartedly agree with some of those 4-6 word sentences and completely disagree with some others.

I'll pick on 'draw from inspiration' - the question is not whether or not to draw from inspiration but more that some people will draw elements A, B and C while others will draw X, Y and Z from the same source; and each would be correct. It depends on what role the drawer sees that inspiration's result playing within his-her setting.

Take Viking-era Norse. They can be depicted as they generally were when at home (artistic, well-learned, strong sense of culture) or as seen by those they raided (savage, barbaric, despoilers and looters); and both would be correct. It depends whether the game designer (usually the DM) wants to base the game within their culture or use them as more remote enemies of a culture where the game is based.

Then depict both sides. Why must continue to have one dimensional depictions. Why only have cariactures. Get with the times.

Yes I have, as a matter of fact. Tried it on occasion, too.

But remember: Rule One of survival is Never Leave an Enemy Behind You. Unfortunately, talking one's way past an enemy almost inevitably leads to a direct violation of Survival Rule One.

But we still need to kill enemies. And take their stuff. That is only how we get xp. Okay. Great.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

They're awesome as a concept!
It's the other connotations with conquest, domination, and subjugation that's very unfortunate. Which is why Eberron: Rising from the Last War is so excellent in its concept, design, and lore of its hobgoblins. It's a different take, and such an awesome take.
As a Chinese, I'm finding my culture staring back at me, please Google the Chinese topknot, Chinese war armor, and Chinese swords. Unfortunately, with all of the other connotations in mind and the hobgoblins as presented as only an evil race, that's personally alarming. If hobgoblins could be presented with more positive aspects, more positive connotations, and capability to tend towards other alignments, that'd be really excellent.

Yup. Finding inspiration in real world cultures is not wrong. It's when you associate that real world culture with something negative that it becomes problematic.

Scottish dwarves are fine.

Miserly Scottish dwarves are not.