D&D 5E Jeremy Crawford Discusses Details on Custom Origins

[Helldritch]

I'm getting sick of having to argue this, but just to be clear: it's still propagating language in defense of dehumanizing groups of sentients considered "lesser". This probably won't have real-world applications unless we A: figure out how to have meaningful conversations with elephants and/or dolphins, or B: first contact happens, but even still: even when removed from a real world context and placed in a fictional context, the very language itself, and the ideas it represents, is tainted. The stories we tell about ourselves and others reveal our values and beliefs, even if we aren't aware of such. Thus the question to ask is "what kind of themes does this worldbuilding and narrative encourage, and what does it suggest its ideological underpinnings are?"


Ultimately this. The book's out next week, surely you all can wait that long? We can make a judgement on whether these rules are busted or not then.

Continue to get sick about my view point. I simply do not apply such non sense to real world person. That very language is for fictional races. If you want to apply it to real person... Not my cup of tea. Do not agree. Never will.

Is it okay that ogres have a low intelligence? That mind flayers are geniuses? Does being stronger, weaker, wiser or less wise make someone else "lesser"?

Different does not mean lesser.

I agree, and I really dislike the concept of 'monster races' or 'enemy races' and the demonising language that comes with that. But at the same time I very strongly feel that in order to the non-human sapients to have a purpose, they must actually be meaningfully different from humans, and this doesn't and shouldn't mean that they're any 'lesser'. Orcs can have their own strengths, weaknesses and ways of doing things, and those don't need to be the same than those of humans to have value.

In these two post, you have my full position.

Fiction is fiction. Period.

 

[Maxperson]

Tolkien's elves would indeed not be a balanced PC race either, especially the Noldor. They're clearly just flat out better than humans, no question about it.

Third age humans, yes. The first age humans were of like stature to the Noldor, but aged and caught sicknesses, so were called Angwar(sickly). That's why humans like Beren and Turin could take on 1st age Noldor who had dwelled in Aman, one and two a time and defeat them.

 

[Undrave]

You literally wrote: "A lot of other traits are just not ascribable to humans (powerful build is one of those)" so I assumed you know what it means.

Man I have no memory of typing that... what the hell... anyway, what does Powerful Build does again?

Personally I feel you should be able to express a race's unique biological traits through non-numerical (or at least non-ability base, for exemple giving Goliath a carrying capacity twice what their STR score would normally give them, or walking speed) traits, like how every race in4e had an encounter power. Those were neat.

The biggest problem is when cultural elements get conflated with the race. Humans get ethnicities with no impact on their stats, but somehow the different types of Elves and Gnomes all get new powers and scores and stuff. It's weird that way. And when talking about a specific culture, you should go deeper into the lore. Why are dwarves always proficient with axes and hammers? What's the environmental pressure that led to that development? Or is it just because dwarves always use those weapon in the fiction that inspired D&D?

My thoughts exactly.

At some point, arguing about fictional races is cerebral masturbation of the highest degree. Even downright racist to the ethnicity you are comparing the fantasy race to. Where some here see the fantasy race being racist's bias toward an ethnicity, I almost tend see the person as racist for making such a comparison in the first place. Especially if that comparison is not a good one.

You know the guy who wrote those article is Asian himself right? And am I gonna have to quote the 'flinch' section again:

Let’s work with a counterfactual here: let’s say their reasons are valid, and it’s cool to take something which looks exactly like racism and put it in your game because a wizard did it/it’s a satire/there’s this one good half-orc who was president or something. None of those reasons negate the visceral reaction of fear, pain, and panic I’ll suffer as a person of color who experiences racism. It’s like flinching away from a blow even if I’m certain it’s a feint. I don’t decide; my muscle memory and subconscious do.

If you don’t feel that fight-or-flight flinch, either you’re blessed with resilience, or you haven’t experienced those racist stimuli in the context of racism before. In the moment, if I’m with strangers and we’ve never discussed the topic before, I don’t know who means well and who’s a real threat (cw: sexual assault discussion). The flinch reaction doesn’t factor in the reasons for a racist-seeming expression or the knowledge that we’re pretending. It lives in the same realm of unconscious bias where my own racist preconceptions live as well. It’s a thing racism does to us which we cannot undo, any more than we can cease to be racist. So even if I believe the setting’s author didn’t intend orcs to read that way … it doesn’t matter. I play, I flinch.

Under the circumstances, many people of color will simply bow out. “No hard feelings. It just isn’t for me,” we’ll say after the game. Maybe we won’t realize what happened or why until we postgame the incident with other PoC later on. Maybe we never will.

Especially the bolded part (emphasis mine). You call it nonsense, you insist that fiction is fiction, but the feelings that fiction evokes are real, even if whatever they represent are not. We wouldn't be able to engage in role playing if the story didn't get us emotionally invested, if we didn't care. It's why people cry and laugh while watching fiction.

Clearly you can't empathize with the author of those articles and you just find the tradition of racial ASI something worth protecting.

Maybe you think that tradition is important as a tradition. Maybe you think limiting how efficient certain combination of race and class are is important for game balance ("Oh no! the Dwarf Wizard has the same INT as the Gnome one!"). Or maybe you think a race can't be different from another without that aspect.

Or maybe you just think it's too late in the edition for such drastic change and the Tasha rule aren't properly playtested and you wouldn't mind if 6e ditched racial ASI from the start?

Regardless of your position, the issue of racially charged language in RPG is a complicated matter and I don't think it's fair to just swat it away as 'nonsense' or 'cerebral masturbation'.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I've read those and 'martial race' doesn't mean 'physically strong.' But ultimately if one feels that different fantasy species having different capabilities is problematic, then one needs to get rid of all such capabilities, not only the ASIs. Different movement speeds, traits such as 'powerful build', 'stone's endurance' etc. And you also need to get rid of such differences in the lore as well. And once you have done that, what's left? Why have these fantasy species at all?

I think that might be taking it too far. I mean, the message I got wasn't "stop making anything unique about races" but more "stop just slapping common racial and cultural stereotypes on everything." That includes things like the race that is the perfect embodiment of grace and beauty, which just happens to personify white western European-derived people's idea of beauty and reifying it, for example.

This is a hard topic, and I agree that I don't want to see all SPECIES of beings in fantasy games simply portrayed as having identical abilities and differing only in appearance. Still, isn't it possible to simply provide differentiation at the CHARACTER level and let people decide for themselves when they play how they want to interpret something? That seems to be part of what the author of the article was talking about, that and just putting a bunch more effort into making cleverer and more non-stereotypical depictions of various fantasy persons.

It will take a few iterations for D&D to probably 'get it right' in terms of how to handle all this. It is undoubtedly good for the game though. I cannot say I've played extensively with a wide variety of people of different ethnicity/race/culture. So I am probably a bit ignorant of all the sore points. Still, I can tell you, they are there!

 

[Helldritch]

Man I have no memory of typing that... what the hell... anyway, what does Powerful Build does again?

Personally I feel you should be able to express a race's unique biological traits through non-numerical (or at least non-ability base, for exemple giving Goliath a carrying capacity twice what their STR score would normally give them, or walking speed) traits, like how every race in4e had an encounter power. Those were neat.

The biggest problem is when cultural elements get conflated with the race. Humans get ethnicities with no impact on their stats, but somehow the different types of Elves and Gnomes all get new powers and scores and stuff. It's weird that way. And when talking about a specific culture, you should go deeper into the lore. Why are dwarves always proficient with axes and hammers? What's the environmental pressure that led to that development? Or is it just because dwarves always use those weapon in the fiction that inspired D&D?



You know the guy who wrote those article is Asian himself right? And am I gonna have to quote the 'flinch' section again:



Especially the bolded part (emphasis mine). You call it nonsense, you insist that fiction is fiction, but the feelings that fiction evokes are real, even if whatever they represent are not. We wouldn't be able to engage in role playing if the story didn't get us emotionally invested, if we didn't care. It's why people cry and laugh while watching fiction.

Clearly you can't empathize with the author of those articles and you just find the tradition of racial ASI something worth protecting.

Maybe you think that tradition is important as a tradition. Maybe you think limiting how efficient certain combination of race and class are is important for game balance ("Oh no! the Dwarf Wizard has the same INT as the Gnome one!"). Or maybe you think a race can't be different from another without that aspect.

Or maybe you just think it's too late in the edition for such drastic change and the Tasha rule aren't properly playtested and you wouldn't mind if 6e ditched racial ASI from the start?

Regardless of your position, the issue of racially charged language in RPG is a complicated matter and I don't think it's fair to just swat it away as 'nonsense' or 'cerebral masturbation'.

We had this debate in another locked thread. I don't agree with that author, never did, never will. I would have had quite a nice debate with him but it won't happen nor would I care. He's dead set on his position. Even watched 3 hours of nonsense about the 1ed OA on youtube. Couldn't disagree more with so many fallacious arguements... But again, this is what some people think.

I can't debate how they feel. I can only debate that I simply do not see what they see. I feel sorry for them to see things that way as it was not the intention then and neither is it today. True racism is not in D&D. It's out there in the real world. That is where the fight should be. This is where I fight it. This is where everybody should fight this ugly thing called racism.

As for your other questions. Yes tradition is important, but not vital. As long as the change is adding something and make things more interesting for everyone. And I really mean EVERYONE. Then a change is entirely justified. The changes in Tashas are just to appease a small or not so small portion of the player base (and these were not even tested correctly) and to avoid accusation (real or not) IRL.

Had these changes' been brought after many playtest and consultation with the player base, I would not have been so vocal against them. But it was not the case. They repaired something that was not broken and might have broke it in the process. I am not the only one who feels that way. It does not entitle me to belittle anyone. Nor does it entitle anyone to belittle me.

 

[Maxperson]

Define 'better'.

Physically and mentally more gifted. Even the least of the Middle Earth elves would have bonuses in all stats. At least the first age elves and the Noldor would.

A halfling carried and then destroyed what the mightiest of the Noldor and Edain could not even touch without being corrupted.

Not without also feeling the effects of that corruption.

 

[Scott Christian]

Let's play a quick game.

I'm developing a vampire PC race. (Ignore any issue about powers or morality for a moment, focus on ability scores). I need to have a +2/+1 ability score mod that best defines a vampire. What gets a +2 and what gets a +1?

Strength? Vampires are notoriously strong and often rely on grapples to feed.
Dexterity? They are considered graceful and agile, having superior stealth and speed
Constitution? They are hard to kill and resistant to many physical attacks.
Intelligence? Many vampires are smart, learned and cultured creatures. (Mindless spawn notwithstanding)
Wisdom: vampires are cunning, perceptive and intuitive.
Charisma? Hello, raw sex appeal and a voice that charms mere mortals?

The MM is no guide here; they are superior to mortals in everything. But for pc rules, what ability score (s) define a vampire.

And when your done, convince everyone else that your way is right.

Are you asking me to choose the attribute that BEST represents a vampire? That is what I asked.

And you are spot on. Vampires could be difficult. What setting are you going for? The old Dracula type from the 50's? If so, I would say charisma. Are you talking about team Edward? Well, he is better at everything, so he isn't really a playable race. But if you pressed the issue, and said what attribute BEST represents Edward and his style of vampire, I am forced to narrow it down to one trait. That is how the question works. (I feel like I am losing my mind here! The question reads like any other standardized test question in existence. One choice. If they wanted many traits, they would have "all of the above" as an answer.)
So to answer your question, I would think Team Edward's vampire might be strength? (I haven't read the books or seen but glimpses of the movies.) Then there are other vampires as well.
But, your question doesn't mirror mine at all. I specifically asked about orcs in the PHB because that is what we are discussing. The language represents them as strong. As physical. And lastly, yes, the ones that manage to thrive, as wise. But the creators have to choose what BEST describes them.

It is almost like the first part of my question wasn't even read. I stated very clearly, rules have to be balanced. So your vampire can't have all the plusses it should, because you want balance among the races. So again, if you wanted a vampire race, then you have to choose what BEST fits the vampire. I am pretty certain I even stated some people would not like the answer - which seemed to happen.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Odd how nobody seems to have an issue with the fact that high elves and gnomes get a bonus to intelligence which kind of implies that all humans are kind of stupid*.

Almost like gnomes are not humans but are a fantasy species (races are specifically called out as separate species in the rules BTW) that does not and cannot exist that happen to look roughly like a human.

*If you agree with the logic that an average of +1 or +2 is a significant difference. I don't.

Or, it could be that humans can get a +1 even a +2 in intelligence, so elves and gnomes don't have an advantage at all.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes you can still play against culture and what not. But if there is no mechanical downside to do something, you have absolutely no merit on what you do. Grats, your dwarven fighter is a happy go lucky friendly guy who drinks water and likes elves. Where is the struggle in that? Ho... you're a bard? Hahem... not only do you play against type but you're also playing against culture. Now that is a change that has merits on its own.

Congrats, a Dwarven Fighter has absolutely no merit in what they do. Neither does a Gnome Wizard, a halfling Rogue, or an Orc Barbarian.

After all, there are no mechanical downsides to choosing those options, so by your logic, they have no merit.

Check mountain dwarves and half-elves. It's gonna be hard to beat these.

Except that I have shown that to not be the case, repeatedly. But, you are entrenched.

 

[Scott Christian]

This part isn't about the amount, it is about the logic. People X are only born 5% smarter than People Y who are born 5% more suited for labor is going to just have those numbers taken out.

There is no way to make that logic more appealing to a wide audience, and all the calls of "but species!" isn't going to change that.

That is a very fair statement.

I've done that. About 20 times as well I've talked about the benefits to lore. I've tried talking about the benfits to the lore, with you, involving Star Gnome Druids and Orc Clerics.

And every time you have, I stated that I like the idea of those races having exactly that. But you need a separate setting. I like the idea of having a gnome in a specific setting being a star gazer, communing with nature, and gaining a +2 wisdom. Love it. But make them distinct from the other subraces. If you want to debate that they got the forest gnome wrong with what attributes BEST represent it, I'd listen. In fact, I think you are already right.

And I've just been told I'm wrong for most of this discussion. Or that, okay, they can grant that one thing, but we still lose far more than we gain. What are we losing? Archetypes, everything will become homogonized... and no matter how many times I try and show differently, it doesn't matter.

Italics: Yes, many (including myself) have granted your requests over and over. The called it compromise.
Bold: You get it. Good.
Underlined: That is what I have asked for. If it homogenized how does it help lore? If it removes archetypes, how does that help lore? (To be fair, you did say it would help certain players, and explained specifically how. And guess what? The other side agreed with you.)

So you didn't want my opinion, you wanted me to say you were right. I laid out multiple paths to support my interpretation, worked in their lore, their culture, their structures and you dismiss it all as a lack of empathy.

Your argument lacks empathy for the people saying they are losing something. And again, in the PHB, there is a line, I concede, that hints at wisdom. 100% agree. But when you read the text as a whole, it is clear that the BEST attribute to represent them is strength. Yet, you can't even concede that. The designers gave them a +2 because they know the language used BEST represents them being physical and strong and hardy. I have no qualms if you read the Eberron orc and chose to argue that they got the ASI's wrong. Again, I would agree with you.

Are they a tribal people who observe the world closely, have a deeply religious culture and habits that would encourage tracking and animal husbandry? Yes.

But they are big and angry so it doesn't matter, strength is the right answer.

Again take the reading in the PHB as a whole. Most who read it will not get what you are getting. They will read it and understand orcs are strong, passionate, physical, and hardy. They will also get that they are poor, rough, and get by on their sheer determination. Then they might also get that some are wise. So if it were a test, asking for the BEST attribute, wisdom would not be most people's first choice. Can you debate it is. Sure. But the amount of language and evidence against you is greater. But you won't concede that it is. Do me a favor, hand the PHB to someone who doesn't play D&D and ask them what the half-orc is like. See if they say wise.

I'm reminded a bit of the line following the one you quoted, because it came up a lot when discussing the orcs and the problems with their representation.


"The most accomplished half-orcs are those with enough self-control to get by in a civilized land."

Interesting choice of words isn't it. The big, scary and strong native and the most accomplished ones are those with enough self-control to tame their inner nature and live like civilized people. Maybe 90% of people who know what an Orc is are okay with that. Maybe they want to keep the big strong brutes with burning passion and simple lives who need to control themselves to be civilized.

Maybe it isn't.

It is a good line. It makes me think of a few of them being tempered. Using wisdom to do it? I could argue against that, and say it's constitution. But I won't. I would just say it implies that not a lot of half-orcs can do that. So be it nature or nurture, many can't do it. Yet, the language for strength seems to encompass most half-orcs.

 

[Scott Christian]

Thus the question to ask is "what kind of themes does this worldbuilding and narrative encourage, and what does it suggest its ideological underpinnings are?"

This would encompass any fantasy or science fiction piece. Thousands of books. Thousands of authors. Thousands of art pieces. Probably even thousands of episodes of TV shows and hundreds of movies. All of them could lead down that dark road.

I sometimes think twenty years from now, we'll have the same argument about culture and the language used to categorize culture that we are about races. It's a shame the focus only seems to look at groups now, not individuals. Of course, in a game with made up races and attributes that try to categorize, and that doesn't want their rulebook to be 20,000 pages long, that is what is needed. I just hope no one thinks only six attributes could describe a real person.