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]

It's too late for that. That's the problem. If that had been done twenty or thirty years ago, that might have worked. Instead the same tropes have been repeated, and Orcs themselves have been worked upon and made more nuanced and so on for decades.

You want to close the stable door after the horse has bolted.

I only have a few minutes, so will be relatively brief by necessity.

But yeah, I disagree. I don't think it is too late because I think it is the best solution to diminishing the racial stereotype linkage.

The problem you can't get around is that the only major dark-skinned race in the game is extremely evil

You haven't addressed that at all. Fiddling around with making them cursed or not-cursed is profoundly missing the point. Saying "Oh but it's ebon-black, not dark-brown-black!" is missing the point (and facile). The core problem is not that. The core problem is that only major dark-skinned race in the game is evil as hell, whilst their good-guy cousins are milky-white.

Actually, I have addressed it. Maybe not to you, but presumably you haven't read every post I've made in these several threads.

One important point is that only about 15% of Earth's population is white, meaning the vast majority of humanity is non-white. Chances are a given fantasy race, if modeled after the real world, should be non-white.

I also have no problem with adding stuff. I mean, why not? How about a nation of drow in the Forgotten Realms that rejected Lolth and became peace-loving hippies? That adds to lore, while preserving the rather cool idea of the evil drow Underdark culture. Or how about, as I've used in my own campaign world (modeled after Elric of Melnibone), a sub-race of evil white-skinned elves? You can address these problems in a variety of ways.

Sigh. He's not ACTUALLY a pimp. He dresses like a stereotypical 1970s African-American pimp. So you just don't know the material and have had a pointless argument because you assumed, instead of reading carefully.

I didn't say he was a pimp. I said that pimps don't represent black culture. Jarlaxle dressing like a pimp is not racist towards black people, because black people aren't pimps.

The exact problem is that they don't provide examples of matriarchies that aren't evil. Saying they do is lying. There are no other major races in D&D which are matriarchal as a racial trait. Small setting-specific examples that 90% of players aren't aware of aren't counter-examples.

Again, I don't see this as a huge problem, but if WotC thinks it is they can easily add a good matriarchy. How about those good drow I mentioned? You don't need to retcon the drow to not be matriarchal.

And re: cruelty, you're missing the point - it's more stereotypes for the pile. Obviously anyone can be cruel - but Drow are specifically obsessed with cruelty and torture, and this is directly linked to them being a matriarchy.

Which would be fine if D&D operated that way, but it isn't. Instead patriarchies aren't even remarked on in most cases. It's simply clear

It is a leap of interpretation: because the drow are matriarchal and cruel, D&D is sexist. Talk about a slippery slope--everything is fair game (I'm almost surprised no one has mentioned black dragons). That would only hold water if a large percentage of females in D&D world were cruel, but they aren't.

Okay, we'll get in the TARDIS, and go back in time, and fix both races so this never happens. Are you telling me you don't have a TARDIS? Well then why are you asserting a solution that requires TIME TRAVEL?!

I'm not. I'm saying you (or WotC) can make a statement, like "Orcs are based on fantasy literature, the history of D&D, and folklore. They are not meant to in any way represent any real world ethnic group." Or a more general statement to that effect. You know, "this is a fantasy game and not an allegory for the real world."

This is obviously a ridiculous non-solution for the same reason I noted earlier. People have been noting these issues since the 1980s. Entire RPGs have been built around these issues.

People think all kinds of things, are offended by all kinds of things. Where would you draw the line? Let's say a few real world little people (evidently the preferred term) complain about dwarves. How many people have to complain before you think dwarves should be changed? Or let's say Christians complain about clerics and paladins? What then? Where is the line? I'm honestly curious.

You seem really confused here. De-coupling is part of it, but you're hostile to that (changing Drow to be grey, so they're clearly non-human, and also reflect most drawing of Drow, which have treated them as grey for like 2-3 editions now), and you're also hostile to other solutions. It's bizarre.

I'm not "hostile" to it. What is bizarre is that you think I'm hostile. I just don't think changing them to gray solves anything. Obsidian black or gray are no more or less close to real world POC, other than the word "black." There are no black or gray skinned people IRL. In my campaign world, the evil elves are actually white skinned (am I anti-albino?!) and the black-skinned sub-race are mountain dwelling mystics. So if I'm confused, it is in customizing the game to suit my personal liking.

Do you really think that you can just keep going with "Yes, the only major race in the game with dark skin is super-evil, and it's close cousins with light skin are good guys!" and justify that? Because no amount of de-coupling alone is ever going to do that. You need to make actual changes as well. Two strong ones are reflecting the art in the description (i.e. grey) and making it so the main Drow culture is evil, not all Drow (which is already the case, but can be stressed a lot more). But you're opposed to those changes and offer zero suggestions of your own. Instead you seem to think if you just keep saying "It's just a game!!! They're not humans!!!!!!" it'll magically become fine? How's that been working out so far? It's been tried for like, thirty years. It's failed.

OK, I think I get it. I'm a straw man. Are you actually reading what I'm saying? Any of it?

Yes, we don't disagree on some of this - but at least try to understand what I'm saying. That is, what I am hostile or opposed to. I'm fine with changes, I just think there are different ways to reach the same goal. I've provided more examples in this post.

And I don't think what WotC has done has failed. The game is more popular than ever, more inclusive. Some still feel offended by certain elements, but I imagine it is not as widespread as these threads would imply.

Orcs are even more spectacular. The language that describes them, even in 5E, is literally the same language used to describe black people in racist history books. You can't just say "Oh yeah but it's okay because they're monsters even though they look like people and act like people and have children and raise them and so on...", but that's all you seem to be suggesting.

I've discussed orcs to death. But yeah, disagree. Feel free to search this or other threads for my view, if you feel so inclined.

 

[Hussar]

/snip

So for the writing of the time it doesn't seem that bad.

Talk about damning with faint praise. "Oh, it's only a little racist, so, we shouldn't worry about it too much. A little racism never hurt anyone after all..."

 

[Hussar]

I guess it's time for me to bow out too.

I'll leave these threads with this thought - I am spectacularly thankful that the people in charge of D&D are not the people in this thread. The defense of the indefensible has been repeated time and time again. Oh, we can't change this or that. It's pandering. Etc.

You are wrong.

Every single time.

You have been shown to be wrong on this issue EVERY SINGLE TIME.

You have never, not once, in history, been vindicated.

I cannot fathom the thought process that thinks, "Hey, real life people are telling me that this is offensive, but, my imaginary friends are so important to me that I'm going to ignore what real life people are telling me so I can continue to play with my imaginary friends."

Folks really, really need to take a very, very hard look at their priorities when their imaginary friends are more important than the feelings of real people.

 

[TheSword]

Duplicate post

 

[Bagpuss]

I'm sure that was Tolkien's conscious intent but it's not the message of The Lord of the Rings.

You take from it what you want, but at least you agree his intent was not racist.

Evil is consistently associated with the south, the east, and non-white people. In the many derivations from real world events, such as the Battle of the Catalaunian Plains as a source for the Battle of the Pelennor Fields, the real life eastern and southern peoples used as sources become orcs or their allies. The protagonists and their allies on the other hand reference the pre-WWI rural English (hobbits), Anglo-Saxons (Rohirrim), and Italy (Ravenna was a source of inspiration for Minas Tirith).

Well he is British so historical from his European view point the Mongols were an aggressive invasive force bend on destruction. Is it surprising that they are used to represent that aspect of man? He other letters make it clear that orcs are on both sides in a conflict, is ancient history, a story, where in the telling one side will have the orcs and the other the angels, and guess which is which from the European perspective.

Orcs are irredeemably evil, beyond any human evil. They are described as "swart", "sallow", "slant-eyed", "squint-eyed", and "bowlegged". In one of his letters Tolkien states they are intended to look like Mongols.

Not Mongols "in fact degraded and repulsive versions of the (to Europeans) least lovely Mongol-types.", so not Mongols. That's just a starting point, it's like trying to describe an elephant to someone that had never seen one before, you might start "look like cows, only bigger with a long nose and massive ears, feet like tree trunks." Would you say they were intended to look like cows? He's describing something non-human, but starts from a point people would be familiar with.

Therefore the intended idea of representation of a universal, non culturally and racially specific evil fails.

They have to look like something, and other than that appearance which isn't the same as any race, what cultural aspects have they taken from the Mongols? Were the orcs horse warriors? No. If they were meant to represent a specific people then you think he could have made a few more parallels.

 

[TheSword]

I only have a few minutes, so will be relatively brief by necessity.

But yeah, I disagree. I don't think it is too late because I think it is the best solution to diminishing the racial stereotype linkage.




Actually, I have addressed it. Maybe not to you, but presumably you haven't read every post I've made in these several threads.

One important point is that only about 15% of Earth's population is white, meaning the vast majority of humanity is non-white. Chances are a given fantasy race, if modeled after the real world, should be non-white.

I also have no problem with adding stuff. I mean, why not? How about a nation of drow in the Forgotten Realms that rejected Lolth and became peace-loving hippies? That adds to lore, while preserving the rather cool idea of the evil drow Underdark culture. Or how about, as I've used in my own campaign world (modeled after Elric of Melnibone), a sub-race of evil white-skinned elves? You can address these problems in a variety of ways.



I didn't say he was a pimp. I said that pimps don't represent black culture. Jarlaxle dressing like a pimp is not racist towards black people, because black people aren't pimps.



Again, I don't see this as a huge problem, but if WotC thinks it is they can easily add a good matriarchy. How about those good drow I mentioned? You don't need to retcon the drow to not be matriarchal.



It is a leap of interpretation: because the drow are matriarchal and cruel, D&D is sexist. Talk about a slippery slope--everything is fair game (I'm almost surprised no one has mentioned black dragons). That would only hold water if a large percentage of females in D&D world were cruel, but they aren't.



I'm not. I'm saying you (or WotC) can make a statement, like "Orcs are based on fantasy literature, the history of D&D, and folklore. They are not meant to in any way represent any real world ethnic group." Or a more general statement to that effect. You know, "this is a fantasy game and not an allegory for the real world."



People think all kinds of things, are offended by all kinds of things. Where would you draw the line? Let's say a few real world little people (evidently the preferred term) complain about dwarves. How many people have to complain before you think dwarves should be changed? Or let's say Christians complain about clerics and paladins? What then? Where is the line? I'm honestly curious.




I'm not "hostile" to it. What is bizarre is that you think I'm hostile. I just don't think changing them to gray solves anything. Obsidian black or gray are no more or less close to real world POC, other than the word "black." There are no black or gray skinned people IRL. In my campaign world, the evil elves are actually white skinned (am I anti-albino?!) and the black-skinned sub-race are mountain dwelling mystics. So if I'm confused, it is in customizing the game to suit my personal liking.



OK, I think I get it. I'm a straw man. Are you actually reading what I'm saying? Any of it?

Yes, we don't disagree on some of this - but at least try to understand what I'm saying. That is, what I am hostile or opposed to. I'm fine with changes, I just think there are different ways to reach the same goal. I've provided more examples in this post.

And I don't think what WotC has done has failed. The game is more popular than ever, more inclusive. Some still feel offended by certain elements, but I imagine it is not as widespread as these threads would imply.



I've discussed orcs to death. But yeah, disagree. Feel free to search this or other threads for my view, if you feel so inclined.

This was your brief post?

 

[Bagpuss]

I don't understand why they didn't took the route of MAKING ORCS DISTINCTIVELY UNLIKE ANY REAL LIFE GROUP.

Please tell me which "REAL LIFE GROUP" you think this fella looks like. Because I can't see any resemblance to any.

He's "swart", "sallow", "slant-eyed", "squint-eyed", and "bowlegged" oh and has a flat-nose, just like Tolkien described. But doesn't look like any human ethnic group at all.

 

[Haffrung]

Well he is British so historical from his European view point the Mongols were an aggressive invasive force bend on destruction. Is it surprising that they are used to represent that aspect of man?

The Mongols were an aggressive invasion force bend on destruction from the POV of Chinese, Persians, and Arabs as well. India has been invaded over and over again from Central Asia. The settled peoples of Eurasia have long histories of being invaded by the nomads of the steppes, and those histories are reflected in their stories and legends. It would be strange if it was otherwise.

 

[Haffrung]

It seems to me that the principles for removing the tag 'evil monster' from orcs and drow can - using the same justifications - be used to remove the tag from ogres, trolls, ettins, and giants. And why stop there? Mind Flayers are intelligent and live in communities. Why should they be evil by default? Same with sahuagin, yuan-ti, lizardfolk, and troglodytes.

Why should evil monsters remain in D&D at all? And what are the implications of removing the notion of evil monsters from the game entirely? How would the game change if compassionate and just PCs are expected to reason and negotiate with all living things that show signs of intelligence without resorting to violence?

 

[pemerton]

Well he is British so historical from his European view point the Mongols were an aggressive invasive force bend on destruction. Is it surprising that they are used to represent that aspect of man?

Why did an English author not frame invaders as English? It's not as if the English have never done any agrresive invading! To the best of my historical knowledge the Mongols never invaded England.