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


log in or register to remove this ad


Insulting other members.
That's a contestable claim. Up until very recently, every culture saw itself as the centre of the earth. Chinese, Indian, etc. stories and myths were about China and India, with strange or funny or threatening foreign elements sometimes making an appearance. Multiculturalism on a scale beyond a city is new to humanity. In the last century or so humanity, led mainly by the West, has made gradual progress in inching beyond a culturally parochial outlook. If Tolkien's works make us uncomfortable today, then so should pretty much all literature from its era or earlier, European or otherwise. Ethnocentrism is the default setting for humanity. And wringing our hands about art from the early 20th century now is about as useful as getting offended by the lack of effective public sanitation in the world before the 1850s.
No, it isn't contestable. You even acknowledge it in your response. Racists keep claiming their background is in some way purer, in some way better. That's racist naughty word and we know it. Ethnocentrism (based on a mythology of "race" and "purity") is the basis of Nazi ideology and it's appalling that you think it's alright to advance that theory here and now. Language!

(I am absolutely certain, by the by, that Eric's grandma had similar views on Nazis)
 
Last edited by a moderator:



Although, Albino Drow are super rare.

 

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 know now its just a guideline of sorts, I myself for alignment I put Neutral down and then play my character as I see fit it really doesn't do anything anymore and the spell Detect Evil and Good just gives celestial, Fiend and Fey if I remember correctly
 

Let's take totally fictitious made up races in a role playing game about killing beings and taking their stuff that some people find racist because they imagine the game has based them on real life people....and make those totally fictitious folk more realistic and base them on real life people? That sounds like it can't possibly go wrong. Lets even give them governments and social aspects to flush them out that will not actually exist anywhere in our world and that no one will ever think reminds them of their own country and then become offended.

This is a GREAT idea!


Heck with it. At least D&D will burn bright.

Get's Popcorn.
casts Detect Sarcasm

It really is as simple as Wheaton’s Law.

By making the fictional races genuinely more realistic while simultaneously less dependent on obvious, known, real-world racial stereotypes, YES, you will reduce the number of people pissed off by racist elements in the game.
 

Yeah, that's racism as well.

We can resist it, though.

...or is your argument that ethnocentrism is okay?

Read my posts. I clearly said it's not. Is there something unclear about:

I'm simply pointing out that cultural bigotry is a universal human weakness, not some defect peculiar to European culture. We must - and we are - gradually evolving past it. North American attitudes around race and culture are dramatically different today than they were 50 years ago. And that's a good thing.

Everything bad about us has been with us since the dawn of humankind. We're violent, status-seeking primates. The good news is we're making progress. We live in a far better world today than 50 years ago, which in turn was far better than 200 years ago.

Not sure why you're getting a completely different take on my comments than I intend. Maybe it's something to do with the naturalistic fallacy? To say humans are innately violent and that murder is, in that sense, natural is not to condone or excuse murder. Civilization is largely a matter of overcoming our worst human instincts.
 
Last edited:

I agree with the gist of this, with a slight difference: I wouldn't say "it was wrong to do," because that is applying contemporary ethics to a different time frame. I would say, "it is wrong to do now" and discuss how and why we have progressed from that understanding (although my personal rhetorical style wouldn't use the highly moralistic word "wrong").
If demeaning a race in a particular way is wrong now, it was wrong then. That it might not have been viewed as wrong by the majority then merely illustrates how off their moral compass was in that earlier time; how deaf and blind they were to the protestations of the victims.
 
Last edited:

Status
Not open for further replies.
Remove ads

Remove ads

Top