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'.

 

[Xenonnonex]

Actually, I think the problem with swearing was brought up to illustrate the extreme view Xenonnonex has been supporting, likening the language used for orcs that he deems "disturbing" to swearword that they are entitled to feel "disturbing" too using the same reasoning. So basically, your advice is validating the position that language is of no importance, and I get the feeling that it was not your intention.

My extreme view was to help the game be more welcoming. Emphasis was needed. Especially since the messages challenge ideas. And notions.

 

[Xenonnonex]

My issue. And I think others see this as issues as well. Do not want to talk for them. Is judgement has been made by a few with limited or no experience of racism. And then deciding whether racism is there on behalf of groups. I do not like that. At all. And do not think it is right. We need to work with groups. So they feel safe. So they feel welcome. In gaming with friends. In gaming with strangers. If boundaries need to be in place. Then we should consider. If needed rewrites are needed. Then we should consider. Of course home games are yours.

 

[Maxperson]

If offense is present in depictions of -> Vistani or orcs. How do the groups that are vilified to defend themselves. This can done with discussion with groups. Composed of them.

Neither the Vistani, nor orcs vilify any real people.

The Vistani are clearly based on the Romani, but with the negative stereotypes such as running off with children or stealing everything near them. They are given the evil eye, which might be viewed as a negative stereotype, and they are given the ability to fortune tell, along with the very real ability to see the future by doing so. They are also respected and elevated above all the other peoples of Ravenloft. They are the only one who can navigate the mists, are rumored to be able come and go from Ravenloft unlike everyone else, have the respect and well treatment of many, if not most of the domain lords, etc.

I can see the Vistani being a possible offense to the Romani, though. There are still a lot of stereotypes going on.

D&D Orcs on the other hand have no real connection to any real people. Nobody in the real world is actually being vilified by evil orcs. If someone who plays D&D is offended by orcs, they can handle that in the game that they play. The rules themselves don't need to correct this issue.

I have no problem if some settings change orcs so that they are not always evil, though, or even give them the same breadth of alignments as humans. Just like I didn't have a problem with cannibal halflings or running elves. Settings exist to make changes to the baseline of the game.

 

[Xenonnonex]

Neither the Vistani, nor orcs vilify any real people.

The Vistani are clearly based on the Romani, but with the negative stereotypes such as running off with children or stealing everything near them. They are given the evil eye, which might be viewed as a negative stereotype, and they are given the ability to fortune tell, along with the very real ability to see the future by doing so. They are also respected and elevated above all the other peoples of Ravenloft. They are the only one who can navigate the mists, are rumored to be able come and go from Ravenloft unlike everyone else, have the respect and well treatment of many, if not most of the domain lords, etc.

I can see the Vistani being a possible offense to the Romani, though. There are still a lot of stereotypes going on.

D&D Orcs on the other hand have no real connection to any real people. Nobody in the real world is actually being vilified by evil orcs. If someone who plays D&D is offended by orcs, they can handle that in the game that they play. The rules themselves don't need to correct this issue.

I have no problem if some settings change orcs so that they are not always evil, though, or even give them the same breadth of alignments as humans. Just like I didn't have a problem with cannibal halflings or running elves. Settings exist to make changes to the baseline of the game.

The Vistani vilify the Romani. They are given all of the negative stereotypes. And talked about as child stealers. As drunkards. Very damning. They are not respected. Only feared as Strand lackeys.
Guess what. Perkins changed the Vistani for his game. It means example for good change is there.

Mix of villied groups are orcs. And mix of racist depiction. Examples have been posted. Over and over again. Over and over again.
If orcs were not evil. All the time. That already solves a lot.

 

[Maxperson]

The Vistani vilify the Romani. They are given all of the negative stereotypes. And talked about as child stealers. As drunkards. Very damning. They are not respected. Only feared as Strand lackeys.

Pull out your 2e Ravenloft and quote me the passages that talk about them as child stealers? You won't be able to, though. I own it and read it as I'm running a Ravenloft campaign right now. I just re-read it to be sure I didn't miss it, and I didn't. It doesn't exist. There was a line I missed the first time that said a few are thieves and con artists, but that applies to every race in D&D. In fact, Vistani specifically don't allow outsiders into their society and even true children of Vistani and outsiders are kicked out. They certainly aren't going to steal children from others.

Mix of villied groups are orcs. And mix of racist depiction. Examples have been posted. Over and over again. Over and over again.
If orcs were not evil. All the time. That already solves a lot.

People have given superficial connections that aren't really there, sure. They've given descriptions of Tolkien's orcs, which are not D&D orcs. Here is the description of D&D orcs from 1e.

"Description: Orcs appear particularly disgusting because their coloration - brown or brownish green with a bluish sheen - highlights their pinkish snouts and ears. Their bristly hair is dark brown or black, sometimes with tan patches. Even their armor tends to be unattractive - dirty and often a bit rusty."

Do you know why they had pink snouts and ears? They were pig people. There's nothing remotely resembling any real world race in D&D orcs. Here's the picture from the 1e MM in case you haven't seen it.

 

[Xenonnonex]

Pull out your 2e Ravenloft and quote me the passages that talk about them as child stealers? You won't be able to, though. I own it and read it as I'm running a Ravenloft campaign right now. I just re-read it to be sure I didn't miss it, and I didn't. It doesn't exist. There was a line I missed the first time that said a few are thieves and con artists, but that applies to every race in D&D. In fact, Vistani specifically don't allow outsiders into their society and even true children of Vistani and outsiders are kicked out. They certainly aren't going to steal children from others.

One of the most abused groups are Romani. Who are chased out. And harassed by many. Because the stereotype is there that they harass.

Now CoS. We are in a 5e thread. Yes.
Page 19-20. They have begun harassing townsfolk and other visitors demanding money and wine and threatening to put hexes on anyone who does not pay up.
Page 32. These evil vistani. They are searching for graves to plunder.
Page 96. The vistani are not very friendly. Vistani are not welcome in Vallaki.
Page 19 the vistani lie about their allegiance to Strahd
Page 19 the vistani lie about helping the characters
Erasmus was stolen by vistani. And sold to a vampire.

Vistani are neutral or evil. Almost all. Assassins. Bandits. Bandit captains. Thugs they are.

Want me to go on.

Someone else can talk about orcs. Again. Examples have been given. Over and over.

 

[Maxperson]

One of the most abused groups are Romani. Who are chased out. And harassed by many. Because the stereotype is there that they harass.

Now CoS. We are in a 5e thread. Yes.
Page 19-20. They have been begun harassing townsfolk and other visitors demanding money and wine and threatening to put hexes on anyone who does not pay up.
Page 32. These evil vistani. They are searching for graves to plunder.
Page 96. The vistani are not very friendly. Vistani are not welcome in Vallaki.
Page 19 the vistani lie about their allegiance to Strahd
Page 19 the vistani lie about helping the characters
Erasmus was stolen by vistani. And sold to a vampire.

Vistani are neutral or evil. Almost all. Assassins. Bandits. Bandit captains. Thugs they are.

Want me to go on.

Someone else can talk about orcs. Again. Examples have been given. Over and over.

I don't know Curse of Strahd, but if they are using negative stereotypes, that's pretty bad and should be changed. I'm going by the 2e Vistani. The original and those did not have the negative stereotypes that the quotes above show. Maybe they should be rolled back to the 2e version.

Also, are all Vistani like that or is it a localized group? A group can go bad without vilifying the entire race.

 

[ZeshinX]

So what if it is? Let us take it as a given, for now, that it is an entirely accidental collection of imagery that is unintentional, but overall evokes the stereotypes.

If you accidentally do a thing that isn't nice, you can easily be forgiven... so long as you act in a way to prevent it in the future.

"Oh, sorry, I stepped on your foot. Didn't mean to. Apologies."
"Oh, sorry, stepped onyour foot again."
"Oh, sorry. Still stepping on your foot."
"Geeze, I'm still crushing your toes, aren't I? Oops!"

Doesn't do it.

There comes a time when, whatever the origin of the issue, it is still your responsibility to change things. WotC is taking that responsibility, and choosing a way to stop stepping on toes.

What WotC will do does not actually change a gosh darned thing about how you run your game at home. It is not actually an imposition upon you. You don't need to change anything, or take any action. So, it is hard to see what standing you have in arguing against it.

My own "arguments" are not so much against the change(s) (ultimately they'll mean as much or as little to my game as I would like them to). There have been plenty of changes that I didn't like, or did like and still I enjoy the game, ignoring what I don't like (where able) and enjoying what I do like (again, where able). Hell, I even skipped 4e altogether after giving it a go, simply because it just didn't do it for me.

My "arguments" stem not from a desire to stop any changes or change any minds, merely as a cautionary against seeking avoidance as a solution to what is, as I see it, a good and extremely valuable discussion regarding how language is utilized in a specific or generalized context. In this particular discussion, the context of racism (the act of racism, the feelings it conjures, the various ways it effects us all, the historical use of language to invoke a racist sentiment, etc).

Now clearly (to me at least), whatever changes are pending are not simply avoidance of the issue of racism. No doubt they will be designed to be a more constructive means of presenting the various races and cultures of the game, in ways to appeal more to those who find it difficult to read (in its present forms) without associating it (consciously or unconsciously) with their own experiences with racism or the history of racism.

The tricky bit for me is finding the nuance present, since as with any worthwhile and complex discussion, there is nuance. The "you're either with us or against us" ultimatum that has found it's way into this discussion is troubling (not all are presenting this of course, but it's presence is undeniably there). Once such ultimatums manifest, solutions become that much more challenging. It's certainly not a reason to cease the conversation, but the insidious nature of ultimatums means the various points of discussion inevitably begin to align with one of the two sides (again, not always consciously, oft times it's an unconscious occurrence).

Your commentary that the changes (whatever form they take) will not pose an imposition on the various games of individuals is quite true....but by the same token, the existing state of the language of the game should also pose no imposition on the various games of individuals, so wherein lies the need for the change(s)? What drives them aside from an emotional reaction to abhorrent events happening in the world? Emotion drives change certainly, as I have said elsewhere, but emotion is not enough. Emotion requires temperance.

That's the nuance I'm currently looking for. The changes are coming, and I certainly don't oppose them, even if, at present, I find them perfunctory. This can be perceived, rather easily, as siding with the "against us" faction of the ultimatum I mentioned. I'm not, but don't begrudge those who may feel and/or interpret it as such. It's a trap I've fallen into many a time, and I'm sure I will again in the future.

Do I feel the changes will benefit the game and the community of the game? I don't know. Perhaps I never will. I do know that, in the present climate, this feels more like a change incited by an angry and emotional part of our community, reacting strongly (and more than understandably) to terrible events (past & present) that have been focused by the most recent examples of how awful humanity can be to one another.

I will say I appreciate all who contribute to this discussion, and offer thanks to the mod team who have kept cool heads and allowed the discussion to continue, despite plenty of opportunities and reasons to shut it down.

 

[Xenonnonex]

I don't know Curse of Strahd, but if they are using negative stereotypes, that's pretty bad and should be changed. I'm going by the 2e Vistani. The original and those did not have the negative stereotypes that the quotes above show. Maybe they should be rolled back to the 2e version.

Also, are all Vistani like that or is it a localized group? A group can go bad without vilifying the entire race.

People have been talking about CoS. This thread is about 5e. Why bring 2e into this.
Hence the changes.
Like that for virtually all Vistani in CoS. Madam Eva is different. But still neutral. Ezmerelda is good.

 

[Phion]

Does anyone know any blogs or videos of a direct account of someone being harmed/offended by d&d races? I am looking for a direct account on how and why its effected them but I am having no luck in finding a source.