D&D 5E WotC's Jeremy Crawford on D&D Races Going Forward

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.


636252771691385727.jpg


@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'.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

An absolute view on ethics like you propose leads to the unhelpful conclusion that every person in the past was bad as no one conformed to the ethical standard we have now. The same way we all will be considered bad by the people in 2-3 generations.

An other way to look at is: humanity has a great destiny. We are moving toward a good era. Across generations, across centuries, across millennia, each of us contributes toward this good future, where and when we can. The good requires human effort, and all of us share credit for making it possible.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

There are many theories of ethics, and the philosophy has certainly evolved. But if a given ethical framework is true, then it should theoretically hold when applied to times before the theory was described.

Human understanding is constantly evolving, as is the understanding of individual humans. This is not proof that ethics change, but that common understanding of ethics goes,

Of course our current understanding is not perfect. I never claimed it was.

All of this implies at least some degree of ethical absolutism, which I disagree with - at least as far as distinct ethical laws are concerned. For instance, you differentiate ethics and common understanding of ethics. As I see it, "ethics" cannot be divorced from the human (in a terrestrial sense) understanding of them. To posit a "true ethics" that we're all aspiring towards is a quasi-religious perspective that I do not subscribe to.

This is not to undermine the importance of ethics, or to suggest that it is all relative and that some ethical frameworks aren't better for fostering well-being for as many people as possible--that is clearly true--but to free them from dogma and "one-true-wayism."
 

Do we really have to hash out the cognitivism debate in this thread? Is it even relevant? How did we go from "Wizards is doing a thing" to "bad takes, ethical philosophy edition"?

Two people can certainly disagree on whether moral statements are truth-apt propositions, and if they are, which propositions (if any) are true, while still recognizing recurring themes in fiction that echo real-life racist attitudes. I don't know why we need to drag the moral realism vs anti-realism argument into the thread when it's already enough of a mess as is.

It is tangential, but relevant when discussing applying terms like "racism" to authors from different eras. In fact, I would say it is necessary if we're going to bring said authors into the discussion, otherwise we remain on a very surface level.
 

Yes, it makes sense. I view it someone differently, even if I agree with your underlying point--or the gist of it. I'll try to explain.

You and I both probably agree that when a four-year old child kills an ant, they deserve less judgement than an adult does--or, say, a ten-year old child (Assuming that killing an ant is wrong!). According to your statement, it is no less wrong of the child to do so than the adult, but I personally think it actually is less wrong, because the child is less aware of various factors that would make it wrong. Meaning, they don't know any better, and "knowing better" makes it more wrong (or at least, more malevolent).

This doesn't justify the act itself, in the same way that an act of xenophobia from someone who has never actually interacted with a member of another ethnic group and/or has been enculturated to be xenophobic, is justifiable or any less harmful than if they "know better." As I think you are saying, xenophobia is xenophobia. But a more worldly person--someone who has interacted with a diversity of people and still exhibits xenophobia is, in my mind, "more wrong" than someone who hasn't had the same education, exposure, cultural context, etc.

In that regard, when we look back at authors fromprevious eras, we should include in our critique the fact that they haven't been exposed to what we have been exposed to. Tolkien probably interacted with a diversity of people to some degree, but probably not nearly as much as someone living in contemporary urban America or London, Paris, etc. Tolkien didn't have the internet, nor did his university have the same emphasis on cultural education that many contemporary universities do.

This doesn't justify any racism in his work, but it points out that he grew out of very different soil, and thus the racism in his work--to whatever degree it exists--is less racist (and thus less wrong) than if it were written by, say, George R.R. Martin.
So, here you are critiquing the moral responsibility of individuals for the acts those individuals commit. Those of us on the other side of the fence aren’t really interested in individuals, we are interested in systems. Were the racist underpinnings of Tolkien’s work malicious? Probably not, but I don’t particularly care. I’m not critiquing Tolkien, I’m critiquing his work and its cultural impact. One of the major cultural impacts his work has was influencing the lexicon of fantasy fiction going forward, including but not limited to D&D. We, today, do well to understand the racist underpinnings of his work - absent moral judgement of his character - so that we can be more intentional with what parts of his work are worth carrying forward and what parts would be better left behind.
 

Or maybe...

4) Not much more than a statblock. No alignment. No society. No behaviour. Individual DMs can interpret it however they like.

That seems to be what WotC is going for according to the kobold statblock Morrus just posted.

If thats the route they are going they should just remove alignment completely.
 

So, here you are critiquing the moral responsibility of individuals for the acts those individuals commit. Those of us on the other side of the fence aren’t really interested in individuals, we are interested in systems. Were the racist underpinnings of Tolkien’s work malicious? Probably not, but I don’t particularly care. I’m not critiquing Tolkien, I’m critiquing his work and its cultural impact. One of the major cultural impacts his work has was influencing the lexicon of fantasy fiction going forward, including but not limited to D&D. We, today, do well to understand the racist underpinnings of his work - absent moral judgement of his character - so that we can be more intentional with what parts of his work are worth carrying forward and what parts would be better left behind.

Note that I was directly responding to Cadence's example of individuals.

I don't have a problem with what you say here as an injunction, even if I don't resonate with some specific framings and implications. But, yes, I agree that understanding historical and cultural context is important, including differences in Tolkien's context vs. our own, how his work has influenced fantasy fiction, what is and is not relevant to our time, and what sort of changes we might make with future creative projects.
 

That seems to be what WotC is going for according to the kobold statblock Morrus just posted.

If thats the route they are going they should just remove alignment completely.

I don't take issue with the idea of making alignment an optional rule; in fact, I've run games without it and it is rather easy (e.g. detect evil becomes detect malicious intent, or strengthening the idea that paladins are bonded to their oath and particular code, whatever that may be).
 




Status
Not open for further replies.
Remove ads

Remove ads

Top