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

Ash Mantle

Adventurer
I do feel that's a step in a positive direction. What's troubling is the coupling of certain races to evilness, but having said that, 5e's distancing from objective alignments is also moving into a positive direction, as well as the decisions involving the orcs. Perhaps we could decouple races from alignments altogether? I do like the terms of ancestry or species or folk, as well as ethnicity. Perhaps we could do away with these terms altogether and just call them dwarf or mountain dwarf, or elf or high elf, or human or vistani, et al?
With the subraces and subcultures, I like how Eberron assumes languages based on where you grew up, rather than the races you belonged to, perhaps we could go even further and have where you grew up influencing your ability scores as well, in that a halfling living amongst humans might use human traits.
The question also becomes, how far would they be willing to go?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

We know some slaves worked for Scarlett O'Hara, but she was not racist, for her they were members of the family. The slavery in the Greco-Roman culture was worse. Do you know nothing about the crypteia, the little secret genocide against the ilota slaves?


There is a good reason to explain a race can't be totally evil because no empire can survive betrays and civil wars, or it will happen like the fitna of al-Andalus.



* Most of drows aren't totally evil, or at least willing hostiles, they don't want troubles but living with their own business. The true guilty is the deep state who rules them.

* I say it again, today we are talking about drows and orcs, but in a future it will be about the trope of the sinister ministers
 
Last edited:

Ash Mantle

Adventurer
Slavery exists even today, even all around us, because we dehumanise workers in some countries in giving them horrendously low pay and poor working conditions, and because we dehumanise prisoners and have them make items for horrendously little pay, not to mention absolutely disgusting sex trafficking. All because others want to profiteer, motivated by callousness and extremely despicable greed.
 



Inchoroi

Adventurer
I mean, you can technically reflavor Dragonborn and the Wildemount variants as Half Dragons if ya want. Or even reflavor Tieflings/Dragonborn as a "Crossbreed" Priscilla. I've been toying with the idea of reskinning Half-Elf lately as a Kitsune since the stats bonuses fit with it.

I've got homebrew stats for Kitsune if you'd like!
 

Again, I didn’t invent the slogan. If I had, it would probably be worded differently. But it is what it is, and it’s silly to dismiss the content of an argument because you don’t like the quippy way it’s been sloganized.
There is a difference between dismissing the content of an argument and pointing out that a person attempting to advance an argument is shooting themselves in the foot. I'm not going to touch on the content of the argument, because that's waaay outside the scope of this thread. But I am going to urge you, if you think your response to the troll there was productive, to consider the ways it might not be.

I’d call that a vast oversimplification of the issue, and in fact, I would say that the term used for the various groups of humanoids being “races” is actually the least of the problems with the way said groups are handled in D&D.
I'm not only referring to the term. The PHB presents the races in a certain way. We've got page after page here of people speculating about less-objectionable ideas which might be behind that presentation. And these are probably somewhere close to the mark; I don't think anybody here suspects the WotC crew of intentionally trying to cause harm. But if somebody were to say, "The actual idea behind orcs is a nuanced one. I didn't decide how the PHB is written. If I had, it would probably be written differently. But it is what it is, and it's silly to dismiss the actual idea of orcs because of the simplistic way they're presented", I feel like a response of "No, the presentation of this idea is important too!" would be appropriate.
 

Magister Ludorum

Adventurer
Grendel doesn't have to be born a monster for the story to be heroic fiction.

And I cna't speak for everyone, but my table has never had "defeat the monstrous 'other' that threatens the in-group" as part of the game. At all.

This sums up my groups completely. When I was young and didn't know better, I ran games where all orcs were evil. I stopped back in the 1980s.

We fight evil aplenty, but evil people rather than evil peoples. When the players hunt down raiders, those raiders include orcs, hobgoblins, elves, humans, etc ....

When they apprehend the bad guys, they usually take them in for trial.

No need for othering entire ethnicities, races, species (whatever term you prefer).
 

There is a difference between dismissing the content of an argument and pointing out that a person attempting to advance an argument is shooting themselves in the foot. I'm not going to touch on the content of the argument, because that's waaay outside the scope of this thread. But I am going to urge you, if you think your response to the troll there was productive, to consider the ways it might not be.


I'm not only referring to the term. The PHB presents the races in a certain way. We've got page after page here of people speculating about less-objectionable ideas which might be behind that presentation. And these are probably somewhere close to the mark; I don't think anybody here suspects the WotC crew of intentionally trying to cause harm. But if somebody were to say, "The actual idea behind orcs is a nuanced one. I didn't decide how the PHB is written. If I had, it would probably be written differently. But it is what it is, and it's silly to dismiss the actual idea of orcs because of the simplistic way they're presented", I feel like a response of "No, the presentation of this idea is important too!" would be appropriate.
Remaining archaic. Or moving forward.
 

Minigiant

Legend
Supporter
Drow dont come from Norse myths.

The Norse myths about "Black Elves" or "Dark Elves" have nothing to do with skin color. (The black elf is pale with black hair.)

Heh, as a citizen of racist America, Gygax assumed that "black" referred to skin color, but he completely misunderstood that text.

It is precisely the context of American racism that made Gygax not even realize the mistake.
I said it was was a mock up.
I didn't say it was racist.
High elves are inspried by Light elves and thus fairskinned.
The point is that there was no racist intent by the Germanic peoples characterization. Their Black Elves were not based on Black People.

If it came form Egypt instead, there 1000% would be a problem as Dark Elves would have been based on Africans. And then the utter stupidity that are Drow would be attributed to Black People.


It's sorta like Leonin in Theros.
Being Lion people and based a Greek inspired world,if the Leonin were always evil slavers dressed in SubSaharan garb, I'd be offended as a black man.
 
Last edited:

Status
Not open for further replies.
Remove ads

Remove ads

Top