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
That’s only if you believe morality is entirely subjective. That there is no objective right or wrong.
For morality to be objective, it would have to exist independently of humanity. Who made this morality?

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

Mine too, but then we're both products of this eras morality. It's how WE see things. It's not how things were seen in the past, and may not be how they are seen in the future.
 

log in or register to remove this ad




Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
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.
How often in the past have many, even a majority of people believed something that was incorrect? Even today scientists are fairly often coming to us and letting us know that we were wrong in some belief of how things work.
 


Sadras

Legend
For morality to be objective, it would have to exist independently of humanity. Who made this morality?

Mine too, but then we're both products of this eras morality. It's how WE see things. It's not how things were seen in the past, and may not be how they are seen in the future.

I understand where you're coming from, I'm just feeling my way around this topic.
How did people realise slavery was wrong if things were so black and white morally speaking (excuse the pun)?
Surely there must have been an inkling that there was something wrong with the concept - even during Roman times.
 


Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
I understand where you're coming from, I'm just feeling my way around this topic.
How did people realise slavery was wrong if things were so black and white morally speaking (excuse the pun)?
Surely there must have been an inkling that there was something wrong with the concept - even during Roman times.
Things are never just black and white, which is just more proof that morality is subjective and not objective. Even now there are small numbers of people who don't view slavery or racism as bad. Morality is set by society as a whole, not by individuals, though, so even though some individuals view things in a morally different way, they are immoral at this time.

People talk, though, and convincing people to change can and does happen, so morality changes over time. Parents teach children. Those kids teach their kids. Some become teachers and spread viewpoints that way. When I was in high school, homophobia was pretty widespread. I've watched as each generation has become less homophobic than the one before it. As more and more kids are raised to view things differently.

If morality was objective it would be black and white, and people 10,000 years ago would have recognized that objective morality and the majority would have followed it. Life would have looked much the same as it does not morally speaking.
 

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
Supporter
I will say this to all the folks who say, "Well, I don't see it as racist, so WotC should not do anything.":

If you're not the one experiencing the racism, why do you expect that 1) you'd be the best qualified to identify it, and 2) your opinion of whether it is actually happening matters?

Denying the experience of abused folks is at the least unkind. At the worst, it is gaslighting.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Remove ads

Remove ads

Top