• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

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...

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

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
Ethics don’t work that way. Wrong is wrong, no matter when it occurs. Some wrong things have historically been more socially acceptable than they are now. That doesn’t mean they weren’t still wrong at the time, they were just easier to get away with.
Morality is relative, not absolute. There's no set of universal laws that predate humanity that say that murder is evil or helping little old ladies across the street is good. Humans determine right and wrong by their beliefs and those beliefs change over time.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
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.
By that logic, if in 100 years people decide that it is no longer wrong, then it was never wrong and what we believe now would be wrong.
 

Dannyalcatraz

Schmoderator
Staff member
Supporter
By that logic, if in 100 years people decide that it is no longer wrong, then it was never wrong and what we believe now would be wrong.
That’s only if you believe morality is entirely subjective. That there is no objective right or wrong.

If 100 years from now, slavery enjoys a resurgence in popularity not seen since 1870, it would still be evil, IMHO.
 

Morality is relative, not absolute. There's no set of universal laws that predate humanity that say that murder is evil or helping little old ladies across the street is good. Humans determine right and wrong by their beliefs and those beliefs change over time.
The moral realism vs anti-realism debate in meta-ethics is nowhere near as settled as you're making it out to be. Also, the majority of ethical philosophers in academia today hold and defend a moral realist position, i.e. that moral statements are expressions of beliefsthat may contain truth value, and that some moral statements can be demonstrated as being true.
 

I had always thought the alignment system to be a gamist simplification, not the way people would really consider morality, absolute and unchanging.
I also fear that "objective morality" proponents are also ones to consider their own current societal values to align neatly with the claimed "objective, unchanging morality".

For example, harming animals is objectively wrong, would all societies on earth that tolerate eating meat (= most of humanity I guess) evil? Isn't there a risk that "harming animal" wouldn't be included in the set of objective wrongs instead, until there is a social consensus that we shall stop enjoying steaks?
 


Sadras

Legend
Although, Albino Drow are super rare.


Thanks for this. I didn't know about them!
 

Phion

Explorer
Personally I will just be ignoring this new direction we are going with races when designing a campaign but don't particularly mind playing campaigns that are enforcing these changes; might even freshen things up a bit. That's the beauty of the game I guess, the freedom to play as the group wishes.
 

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 the same way as a person from the past would be shocked about our unethical ways.
I don't see why that's a bad thing.

To put it in a more nuanced way, we can recognize the good things that people in history have achieved while also acknowledging their faults. The one does not negate the other. I don't see why it's controversial today any given historical figure would probably fall short of where we are now in at least one area. I guess I'm humble enough to accept that the same will happen to us, assuming society hasn't completely collapsed by then.

For example, harming animals is objectively wrong, would all societies on earth that tolerate eating meat (= most of humanity I guess) evil?
If you buy into the ethical arguments put forward by proponents of moral vegetarianism, then you could argue that it is so, but I'm of the view that one sin does not an irredeemable person or society make, so long as it is acknowledged that there is room to improve and tangible steps are being taken to achieve such.

There are many arguments put forward both by academics and by laypeople, both moral and practical, against both our intensive animal farming methods that supply most of the world's meat and against the consumption of animals and animal products period. The question is whether you find them convincing or not?
 

Derren

Hero
I don't see why that's a bad thing.

To put it in a more nuanced way, we can recognize the good things that people in history have achieved while also acknowledging their faults. The one does not negate the other. I don't see why it's controversial today any given historical figure would probably fall short of where we are now in at least one area. I guess I'm humble enough to accept that the same will happen to us, assuming society hasn't completely collapsed by then.

One bad thing is that it makes it pretty useless. If everyone is automatically bad then there is no need to even categorize. "We" see them as bad because of our current values ("We" heavily depending on the culture). In the past they were not considered bad, at least by many groups. And who knows what the future generations will think about them.
And despite this being known some people claim that the values they currently hold are the absolute true ones for all eternity...
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Top