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'.

 

[Oofta]

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.

I don't deny that racism is bad, I just think orcs are a Rorshach test of racist tropes. Language to describe other monsters is also problematic depending on how you look at it. As one example the misogynistic language surrounding succubi is okay because of fluff text but then fluff text of orcs is racist.

This is a complex, nuanced issue. I could (and have attempted to) explain my thoughts only to be rubber stamped with a racist label.

I think people can discuss ideas and thoughts without slandering the people making those posts.

 

[Maxperson]

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?

In my life I've seen many people who have had traumatic experiences, racism just being one of them. I've watched many times as they view something that superficially has some resemblance to their trauma and made connections that weren't there. Trauma is called trauma for a reason. It affects people profoundly and impacts how they view the world.

The best people to identify whether there truly is a connection between the two events are the ones who have not experienced that trauma. They are the ones who are best able to objectively assess the situation to see whether the connections are real, or as a result of the trauma coloring perception. Strong emotion is hard to see past.

One example is that about 25 years ago I had someone who was black go off on me for something I said and accuse me of being racist. I can't even remember exactly what it was at this point, but I do know that it had nothing to do with being racist. But his perception was influenced by his experiences and that's how he saw my statement. He came back to me a week or so later and apologized to me. I guess he had time to think about it and came to a different conclusion.

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

I don't think we should deny the experience, but there are more ways than just changing/removing the things that are being misperceived to help people through what they are experiencing.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

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.

The Roman Empire didn't abandon slavery in the East because it was unethical but because slaves became expensive and the cost of maintaining slaves became worth it only for skilled slaves. For manual labor, free men employed to farm your land, who you had no legal obligation to keep in good health and fed in bad times, were objectively cheaper. That, and the main source of slaves (captured enemy warriors) was reduced because the Empire stopped conquering new territories. So, the incentive to use slaves reduced. At the same time, christian belief holding a universal message developped and made people slowly start to think that maybe slaves were more like human than properties. So their condition slowly improved. At first, it was OK to kill slaves, since it was OK to burn your own house down back then. Slaves and other properties were treated equally. Then, gradually, slaves were recognized to be a special kind of property, and killing them became murder, though owning them was still unquestionned. It was a very progressive movement and the situations of slaves evolved as the consensus around them evolved. There was no structured "abolitionist movement" like we had during the Enlightenment era during the Roman Era. At some point, slaves were so rare it became forbidden, in France and Spain for example well before the discovery of America. Then, the conflicting economic interest (favouring slave trade) and morality were at odd. For long, the economic well-being prevailed, with the consensus that slave ownership was problematic becoming majoritary in Europe in the first half ot the 19th century. Absolute morality would have made slavery wrong from the get-go and someone would have noticed this absolute moral taboo. I am less aware of how it developped in other areas, but Africa and middle east also had a thriving slave trade at some point. That morality slowly evolved by consensus against slavery is too me much more convincing that an ethical law declaring slavery to be unethical independently of culture, era and location. After all, there is no consensus on many important area of human behaviour right now (on sexuality or violence, for example) and I suppose we would have noticed if there were absolute moral wrongs in these domains (where the good behaviour shifted back and forth with time).

Also, remember that the idea of an homogenous set of rights common to everyone wasn't widespread. It was accepted to follow personal laws depending on your community. It made treating outsider worse "easier" because you could accept to have them have LESS rights than your own people. Something that fade slowly at the same time slavery became rejected, and unfortunately became morally acceptable again with the rise of nation-states.

 

[Umbran]

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.

"Sages tweet that age is sweet
Good deeds and good work earn you laurels
But what could make you feel more obsolete
Than being noted for your morals?"
-- "No Time at All", Pippin.

To be frank, morality is not necessarily the driving force for many people. Wealth and power are major motivators, as is self-aggrandizement. To gain those things, folks are more than willing to ignore morality. Or, when that makes them feel uncomfortable, they rewrite the narrative, dehumanize the targets of their immoral acts, or shift the blame for it, or call on some even higher purpose.

"She was asking for it, and shouldn't have been dressed like that." "They're all stupid and won't amount to anything anyway, so who cares?" "You can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs, the ends justify the means." All these are used to justify immoral actions.

So, it isn't necessarily that they don't know, but that they take the time and effort to dodge the issue or assuage their conscience.

Also, in an outright neurological sense, humans process judgement about what they do themselves in a different region of the brain than where they process judgements about the actions of others. So, what I do may be wrong, but when you do the exact same thing, it may be okay, because we are literally* thinking differently about the events.



*And that's actually literally, not figuratively literally.

 

[Xenonnonex]

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.

Something reminds people of trauma. Why goddamn keep it in.

 

[Lem23]

One example is that about 25 years ago I had someone who was black go off on me for something I said and accuse me of being racist. I can't even remember exactly what it was at this point, but I do know that it had nothing to do with being racist.

Uh huh.

 

[Haffrung]

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.

But we don’t know how many racialized minority gamers find things like orcs and drow offensive. I’ve never seen a poll or a study on the subject.

What if 2 in 10 gamers of colour say they find depictions of orcs reinforce stereotypes and 8 in 10 say they don’t see it. How then should we characterize white gamers who express outrage on behalf of gamers of colour, and presume to speak on their behalf?

If it’s not the place of white gamers to decide if elements of D&D reinforce negative stereotypes, well that’s an argument that cuts both ways.

 

[Lem23]

The best people to identify whether there truly is a connection between the two events are the ones who have not experienced that trauma. They are the ones who are best able to objectively assess the situation to see whether the connections are real, or as a result of the trauma coloring perception. Strong emotion is hard to see past.

By that "logic" then black people can't describe anything as racist, since they're the ones affected by it, but white people can, because they aren't affected by it and are objective? Is that the point you're trying to make, because it's what you're saying right there.

To claim that victims of racism can't claim to be victims of racism because racism is a traumatic experience...well, that's something all right.

 

[Derren]

Something reminds people of trauma. Why goddamn keep it in.

People get also traumatized by being stabbed, so remove all daggers and swords from the game?

 

[Remathilis]

I don't deny that racism is bad, I just think orcs are a Rorshach test of racist tropes. Language to describe other monsters is also problematic depending on how you look at it. As one example the misogynistic language surrounding succubi is okay because of fluff text but then fluff text of orcs is racist.

This is a complex, nuanced issue. I could (and have attempted to) explain my thoughts only to be rubber stamped with a racist label.

I think people can discuss ideas and thoughts without slandering the people making those posts.

That does raise a separate, but no equally unimportant issue about feminism and classic depictions of certain monsters like succubi, Medusa or sirens. Hell there is an anthology called Uncaged on DMs Guild all about subverting those tropes. The fact the incubus has a prominent place in the MM with her, and a male Medusa was a villain in an early module, shows WotC is trying to make baby steps here too.