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'.

 

[plisnithus8]

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 interaction.

It seems you feel my use of pronouns is enough to dismiss my perspective, wondering if you will say the same about statements such as “we don't need to be dictated to by wizards of the cost about this topic.”

Let me rephrase this:
Are you refuting that people are imperfect and see the world through their own eyes, that they can try to see through the eyes of others with work but that it will never be exactly the same?
Are you saying that the forming of tribes in no way is based on self interest? and can lead to us vs them?

 

[Doug McCrae]

@Bertil Fiction that says violence is good is better than fiction that says racist violence is good.

 

[Oofta]

Since I’m new here I want to introduce myself. I work as a paralegal for a union, helping working folks to stand up against oppressive and bigot employers. I’m also an elected official for a far-leftist party. So I spend most of my hours awake trying to act for a just society with equality for all.

I have degrees in sociology and political science, and like to think I have a pretty good grasp of the poststructuralistic theoretical foundation for the current postcolonial and identity political movement.

First of all, I fully support WOTC’s actions for a more inclusive game. For them as a company it’s a no-brainer to not exclude potential customers, and for us as gamers to expand the hobby and get more gaming friends is win. And in my experience at the table, the game becomes more fun with players that can contribute from true diverse experiences and backgrounds.

With that said, from an intellectual perspective I find it problematic to apply real world morals to a fantasy game of pretend. Foremost the problem is consistency. Lets say we extend real world morality to the orc problem. Orcs are no longer implicitly evil, since that might offend or alienate a group of people from the game and mirror oppressing structures from the real world. Cool, few of us have any objections to that.

At the same time one of the cornerstones of D&D specifically is killing sentient beings and taking their stuff. We are encouraged to play religious zealots who – no matter what alignment – do pretty horrific atrocities in the name of our god. We play druids who slaughter whatever to keep nature pure from corrupting civilization. Or we play ”heroes” spreading the glory of civilization and the true faith to ”poor indigenous folks” who we presume can’t fend for themselves – or we just kill them so we can move on to the BBEG. All are actions that for sure are offensive and alienating to a pretty large percent of the world population.

My point is this: Making sure that the default lore of the game doesn’t mirror oppressive structures and phenomena from the real world is great! But trying to argue the orc and drow question from an isolated moral standpoint – like many in this thread do – while the whole premise of the game is doing pretty awful stuff from a real world perspective is hypocrisy imho.

It’s complicated to live in the real world with no absolutes. Good and evil are floating abstracts depending on perspective, context and a gazillion personal experiences, and learning to view the world through many different glasses is necessary to illuminate and fight against oppressing structures.

Therefore, my D&D is a world where moral absolutes exist. Sentient beings – not only celestials and fiends – can be implicitly good or evil. They can be physical manifestations of philosophical ideas, religion and art. And it is ok to act like a conquistador in the name of good if you so choose. I believe that it’s beneficial to be able to step into a bad beings shoes to explore what makes them tick, to have oppressive structures in-game to explore their mechanisms, and to twist and turn philosophical concepts such as good and evil – all in the safe zone that is D&D. Me and my mainly leftist friends like to believe the game makes us more empathic and help in our real world work for equality for all. We can’t put up real world moral ramifications for the game – that would make the whole basis for the game moot if we were to implement it consequently.

So, I think using moral arguments to exclude certain lore and mechanical aspects of the game, while the whole premise of the game is a low moral swamp, is problematic. Aspects of colonialism, imperialism, zealotry and violence are all parts of core D&D. That rpgs is sensible to real world developments and clean out old oppressive garbage is good – maybe the hobby at large should take point in the progression to make the world a better and more inclusive place for all, and clean out even more morally dubious stuff from the pretend worlds to be consequent. But then I don’t think there would be much left of most games.

And maybe that wouldn’t be bad. If we are sincere about wanting to make the world a better place for all of us, perhaps we have better things to do than to play imaginary violence.

I don’t know. It’s complicated. And I still want to play D&D.

I agree that it's a complicated, sticky issue. I've said so repeatedly and tried to discuss options. It's not made any better that some people seem to want to attempt to eliminate certain core elements of the game and repeatedly say that if we don't agree 100% that we're being dismissive or ignoring an issue.

For example a lot of people point to campaigns where only some orcish cultures are evil because they live in a certain region and worship Gruumsh. To me it's just as problematic to say that orcs aren't evil except for those orcs that are from this region that follow that religion. You're just replacing one bias with another.

There are a lot of people who think "[insert ethnicity] are fine unless they live in [insert part of world] and who are [insert religion]. Those guys are evil."

I think you can fix artwork and clean up wording. I don't think you can fix tribalism, biases or pareidolia (seeing patterns where they may not exist). People are going to imagine real world corollaries with fictional creatures no matter what you do. Out of all the options, I think using the base assumptions (perhaps cleaned up a bit) from the monster manual is the least bad option. Orcs are evil because they were made for the sole purpose of enacting vengeance by a spiteful god.

But I'm sure this will just get the same old "You just don't understand because if you did you'd agree". I've pretty much given up on trying to have a discussion when that's the only answer.

P.S. There should be a way to put a thread on ignore.

 

[Bertil]

@Bertil Fiction that says violence is good is better than fiction that says racist violence is good.

I agree, of course.

But then again, violence in general is bad, even if you and I agree on the degree of badness in this specific case.

 

[Xenonnonex]

I agree that it's a complicated, sticky issue. I've said so repeatedly and tried to discuss options. It's not made any better that some people seem to want to attempt to eliminate certain core elements of the game and repeatedly say that if we don't agree 100% that we're being dismissive or ignoring an issue.

But I'm sure this will just get the same old "You just don't understand because if you did you'd agree". I've pretty much given up on trying to have a discussion when that's the only answer.

Based on the points made in this thread this is not true. You know this. Why continue to misconstrue others. Why continue to paint others as demanding complete agreement. Why continue to make baseless statements. Why continue to lie about the position of others.

P.S. There should be a way to put a thread on ignore.

As said. If not to your taste ignore.

 

[Bertil]

I think newer adventures move away from this. There are excellent adventures that don’t revolve around around killings ‘less civilized folk and taking their stuff.’ In fact now I come to think of it, not many do now.

The general parsing down of magic items has meant it isn’t always the case that we just loot tombs. Looting a tomb often comes with a curse or a negative effect. In one notable published campaign the spirits of tombs gift their items to players.

Also lots of campaigns actually involve fighting the evil oppressive overlords, or involve fighting otherworldly threats. I particularly liked skull and shackles which involved becoming freeing a press ganged sailors. My players then used their ship to attack the slavers of the Aspis consortium and the evil Chellaxian empire that was trying to colonize the islands.

Yeah, I’m aware that the game has changed, and tombrobbing murderhobos isn’t the default anymore - and that is a good thing.

Still, the game has violence as primary means for conflict solution, and that - among other things - is a problem from a moral and inclusive perspective.

 

[Xenonnonex]

Yeah, I’m aware that the game has changed, and tombrobbing murderhobos isn’t the default anymore - and that is a good thing.

Still, the game has violence as primary means for conflict solution, and that - among other things - is a problem from a moral and inclusive perspective.

Then implement nonviolent conflict resolution. Implement that into games for DMs. Talk to DMs about that for players.

 

[Remathilis]

Since I’m new here I want to introduce myself. I work as a paralegal for a union, helping working folks to stand up against oppressive and bigot employers. I’m also an elected official for a far-leftist party. So I spend most of my hours awake trying to act for a just society with equality for all.

I have degrees in sociology and political science, and like to think I have a pretty good grasp of the poststructuralistic theoretical foundation for the current postcolonial and identity political movement.

First of all, I fully support WOTC’s actions for a more inclusive game. For them as a company it’s a no-brainer to not exclude potential customers, and for us as gamers to expand the hobby and get more gaming friends is win. And in my experience at the table, the game becomes more fun with players that can contribute from true diverse experiences and backgrounds.

With that said, from an intellectual perspective I find it problematic to apply real world morals to a fantasy game of pretend. Foremost the problem is consistency. Lets say we extend real world morality to the orc problem. Orcs are no longer implicitly evil, since that might offend or alienate a group of people from the game and mirror oppressing structures from the real world. Cool, few of us have any objections to that.

At the same time one of the cornerstones of D&D specifically is killing sentient beings and taking their stuff. We are encouraged to play religious zealots who – no matter what alignment – do pretty horrific atrocities in the name of our god. We play druids who slaughter whatever to keep nature pure from corrupting civilization. Or we play ”heroes” spreading the glory of civilization and the true faith to ”poor indigenous folks” who we presume can’t fend for themselves – or we just kill them so we can move on to the BBEG. All are actions that for sure are offensive and alienating to a pretty large percent of the world population.

My point is this: Making sure that the default lore of the game doesn’t mirror oppressive structures and phenomena from the real world is great! But trying to argue the orc and drow question from an isolated moral standpoint – like many in this thread do – while the whole premise of the game is doing pretty awful stuff from a real world perspective is hypocrisy imho.

It’s complicated to live in the real world with no absolutes. Good and evil are floating abstracts depending on perspective, context and a gazillion personal experiences, and learning to view the world through many different glasses is necessary to illuminate and fight against oppressing structures.

Therefore, my D&D is a world where moral absolutes exist. Sentient beings – not only celestials and fiends – can be implicitly good or evil. They can be physical manifestations of philosophical ideas, religion and art. And it is ok to act like a conquistador in the name of good if you so choose. I believe that it’s beneficial to be able to step into a bad beings shoes to explore what makes them tick, to have oppressive structures in-game to explore their mechanisms, and to twist and turn philosophical concepts such as good and evil – all in the safe zone that is D&D. Me and my mainly leftist friends like to believe the game makes us more empathic and help in our real world work for equality for all. We can’t put up real world moral ramifications for the game – that would make the whole basis for the game moot if we were to implement it consequently.

So, I think using moral arguments to exclude certain lore and mechanical aspects of the game, while the whole premise of the game is a low moral swamp, is problematic. Aspects of colonialism, imperialism, zealotry and violence are all parts of core D&D. That rpgs is sensible to real world developments and clean out old oppressive garbage is good – maybe the hobby at large should take point in the progression to make the world a better and more inclusive place for all, and clean out even more morally dubious stuff from the pretend worlds to be consequent. But then I don’t think there would be much left of most games.

And maybe that wouldn’t be bad. If we are sincere about wanting to make the world a better place for all of us, perhaps we have better things to do than to play imaginary violence.

I don’t know. It’s complicated. And I still want to play D&D.

Without conflating too many issues, we are reaching an uncomfortable point where the notion of violence in our media (both TTRPGs and other) is going to have to be addressed. We are slowly crawling to the point where women can be viewed as full participants in the story (rather than mere eye-candy to be won or fetishized) and antagonists need more than to be the "evil other", but the logical endpoint ends up asking if games that rely on violence to solve conflict are going to remain acceptable. The whole notion of "kill things and take thier stuff" to D&D (as well as countless other TTRPGs or video games) raises some uncomfortable issues when examined too closely regarding justice, lethal force, property rights, theft, grave-robbing, and conflict resolution.

In short; you can't apply D&D game structure to the real world, but as the two seem to inevitably want to collide, there will come a time when the very premise of D&D needs to be re-examined. It's going to be an uncomfortable discussion.

But until then, hopefully the creatures we put to the sword and loot for gold after invading their homes won't bear too close a resemblance to any real-world groups.

 

[Oofta]

Based on the points made in this thread this is not true. You know this. Why continue to misconstrue others. Why continue to paint others as demanding complete agreement. Why continue to make baseless statements. Why continue to lie about the position of others.


As said. If not to your taste ignore.

What am I lying about? I've repeatedly tried to have a discussion, to see if there's any compromise.

Do you have any suggestions at all? Can you explain why converting orcs to the equivalent of a specific ethnicity, region of the world and religion is not problematic? Do you just want to get rid of evil in D&D? If you do how would that work? Anything?

Because just like your other responses, this is just another in a long chain of "you're lying, you're dismissing the issue without thought, you just don't understand, you need to be considerate" and on and on and on. Not just to me, but to everyone who disagrees with you. When was the last time you contributed to the conversation?

Some people have explained their positions and I appreciate it. I can see why some people have issues with hobgoblins, I think the artwork could be changed for them and orcs. I think the colonialist wording in Volos (?) on converting orcs is awful. I thought @Professor Murder had a good post.

I just think the majority of issues can be fixed without throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I also don't think there is a perfect answer.

 

[Bertil]

Without conflating too many issues, we are reaching an uncomfortable point where the notion of violence in our media (both TTRPGs and other) is going to have to be addressed. We are slowly crawling to the point where women can be viewed as full participants in the story (rather than mere eye-candy to be won or fetishized) and antagonists need more than to be the "evil other", but the logical endpoint ends up asking if games that rely on violence to solve conflict are going to remain acceptable. The whole notion of "kill things and take thier stuff" to D&D (as well as countless other TTRPGs or video games) raises some uncomfortable issues when examined too closely regarding justice, lethal force, property rights, theft, grave-robbing, and conflict resolution.

In short; you can't apply D&D game structure to the real world, but as the two seem to inevitably want to collide, there will come a time when the very premise of D&D needs to be re-examined. It's going to be an uncomfortable discussion.

But until then, hopefully the creatures we put to the sword and loot for gold after invading their homes won't bear too close a resemblance to any real-world groups.

Thanks for saying what I wanted to say, in one-third the wordspace and much clearer put!