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

Olrox17

Hero
Problem is the world is quite racist. Some rightfully make a big deal out of it. A goddamn lot just endure it. And take the abuse. Talking about in a game is a step forward. Because it is a big issue. And goddamn something needs to be done about it.
Yes, it is. It is a real problem, that's why the US is facing riots in the streets. D&D has nothing to do with it though, it's an innocent bystander. It's getting unfairly scrutinized and misjudged because everyone in the US is (understandably) upset, including tabletop gamers.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


Oofta

Legend
I've always played my D&D with the knowledge that there are no races that are inherently evil and that goblinoids, orcs, drow, etc. were all products of their environment (aka nature vs. nurture). It makes an interesting moral conundrum for good aligned player characters going in and slaughtering a cave full of kobolds.

Given that I have no idea what your game is like and I can only relay my own personal experience ... as a DM I can always set up moral dilemas as a f*** you to players who want to play someone with a good alignment.

A couple of examples include living campaign mods (pre-AL) where one mod had you agree to work with an obviously evil NPC to do something incredibly questionable or the mod was over in 15 minutes. When I played, the mod was over in 15 minutes with no XP or rewards, a wasted trip and a missed opportunity to game with friends. In another case you had to ally yourself with a literal demon or devil. We chose neither and if the DM hadn't bent the rules it would have been a TPK.

So when I hear moral dilema about fighting evil, it's just not my cup of tea. Let's take an analogy. Let's suppose that there's a bowl of M&Ms. It's a big bowl, maybe a couple hundred of the sugar coated pseudo-chocolate.

But there's a catch. Only 2% of the M&Ms are not poisonous. If you don't throw them all out, someone will come along and eat the candy. Maybe they'll be lucky and eat the ones that aren't poisonous, but odds are anyone eating the M&MS will eat some of the 98% poisoned ones.

Is it a good thing to throw away all that candy knowing that you're throwing away some good ones? Heck no. It's terrible. But what choice is there? There is no realistic way to sort them out.

It's the same thing with "but some small percentage of X may not be evil". There is no good answer on how to deal with that. Send them off to boarding school to strip them of their identity? Colonialist white-washing at it's best. Let them go? Well ... that's the 98% problem, or the letting the enemy go in Saving Private Ryan issue.

To be clear: there is no corollary to the real world in this analogy. Well, except for the sweet, sweet candy. There are (rarely) times when I throw moral dilemas at my group, but I want it to be clear when that happens. If any creature that we consider a monster could be potentially not evil, or if there is no such thing as evil monsters there is no clarity.

I prefer a fair amount of clarity in my games because real life is stressful enough. I don't want to have to constantly tip-toe across moral land-mines when playing D&D, I just don't see how it adds to the game.

You do you, but what you consider a "morale conundrum for good aligned characters" is either "I'll just play a neutral character then" or a giant middle finger to my PC because there is not and never will be a good answer to me.
 

Tales and Chronicles

Jewel of the North, formerly know as vincegetorix
I wished WotC would had a little keyword next to MM orcs/drows/minotaurs/gnolls/goblins whatever to indicate they are only the ''evil take'' on a specific people. Just a single word to show that the entry represent the individual member of that people that are sworn to a dark power, not the free-willed one that is represented in the ''race'' section and that can be played by as a PC or added to an NPC block, in which case the alignment line reads ''ANY''. Then give us more example of non-evil (doesnt mean they have to be nice!) members to above peoples in fiction and art, so there's a clear comparison between both version.

Samples ideas: Sworn, Beholden, Sycophant, Corrupted, Cursed

Something like:

Orc
Medium humanoid (sycophant orc), chaotic evil

or

Drow
Medium humanoid (sycophant drow), neutral evil

As for the FR setting itself, I think they can keep the rampaging orc warbands if they want, but could benefit by putting the spotlight on the actual non-mindless-evil orc culture that actually existed in 4e: the Kingdom of Many-Arrows and the orc citizenry of Thesk. Same with the drows: ok, Memzoberanzan and its empire can play the role of the ''evil empire'', beholden to Lolth, in an underdark setting. But give us, at the same time, information of the drow nations from the South, those who actually have working relationship with the dwarves and gnomes of the Great Rift. The Crinti of Dambrath (err....just dont re-use ''shadow amazons''...that's cringey) have a lot of interesting ideas in them, but would benefit from having a post-civil war lore that remove the ''evil matriarchy rule by SM priestesses: the Loviatar edition'' to create a more nuanced culture based around the willing mix of drow and human blood to form a topside kingdom of drow ancestry because the drows are actually tired of living under the earth and use the bloodline of Dambrath to acclimate themselves over many generations, clashing with the willingly lycan-afflicted natives of the region.
 

G

Guest 6801328

Guest
I think people are spotting racism where there is none, which is hardly surprising in the current american climate. When everyone on the news and on the streets is talking about racism, people might end up seeing it where they never saw it before.
The satanic panic became a witch hunt. I hope the "racism panic" won't.

And a LOT more fail to see it where it exists.
 

Yes, it is. It is a real problem, that's why the US is facing riots in the streets. D&D has nothing to do with it though, it's an innocent bystander. It's getting unfairly scrutinized and misjudged because everyone in the US is (understandably) upset, including tabletop gamers.
Catalyst for good changes should be encouraged. Bad faith actors should be ignored.
 

Aldarc

Legend
As a general reminder, this thread stems from D&D lead developer saying that he and other staff at WotC are sympathetic to and have a similar persuasion as people who voiced the opinion that D&D’s handling of some of its races and cultures is problematic. Please tell me how this situation is like the Satanic Panic again?
 
Last edited:


G

Guest 6801328

Guest
Religion/politics. What are you *doing*? Don't post again in this thread please.
Given that I have no idea what your game is like and I can only relay my own personal experience ... as a DM I can always set up moral dilemas as a f*** you to players who want to play someone with a good alignment.

A couple of examples include living campaign mods (pre-AL) where one mod had you agree to work with an obviously evil NPC to do something incredibly questionable or the mod was over in 15 minutes. When I played, the mod was over in 15 minutes with no XP or rewards, a wasted trip and a missed opportunity to game with friends. In another case you had to ally yourself with a literal demon or devil. We chose neither and if the DM hadn't bent the rules it would have been a TPK.

So when I hear moral dilema about fighting evil, it's just not my cup of tea. Let's take an analogy. Let's suppose that there's a bowl of M&Ms. It's a big bowl, maybe a couple hundred of the sugar coated pseudo-chocolate.

But there's a catch. Only 2% of the M&Ms are not poisonous. If you don't throw them all out, someone will come along and eat the candy. Maybe they'll be lucky and eat the ones that aren't poisonous, but odds are anyone eating the M&MS will eat some of the 98% poisoned ones.

Is it a good thing to throw away all that candy knowing that you're throwing away some good ones? Heck no. It's terrible. But what choice is there? There is no realistic way to sort them out.

It's the same thing with "but some small percentage of X may not be evil". There is no good answer on how to deal with that. Send them off to boarding school to strip them of their identity? Colonialist white-washing at it's best. Let them go? Well ... that's the 98% problem, or the letting the enemy go in Saving Private Ryan issue.

To be clear: there is no corollary to the real world in this analogy. Well, except for the sweet, sweet candy. There are (rarely) times when I throw moral dilemas at my group, but I want it to be clear when that happens. If any creature that we consider a monster could be potentially not evil, or if there is no such thing as evil monsters there is no clarity.

I prefer a fair amount of clarity in my games because real life is stressful enough. I don't want to have to constantly tip-toe across moral land-mines when playing D&D, I just don't see how it adds to the game.

You do you, but what you consider a "morale conundrum for good aligned characters" is either "I'll just play a neutral character then" or a giant middle finger to my PC because there is not and never will be a good answer to me.

Oofta is channeling Don Jr.

 

Oofta

Legend
Oofta is channeling Don Jr.


Seriously? There is no corollary between a fantasy monsters and the real world. I was explicit about that.

If you want to remove literal monsters from your world feel free.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Remove ads

Remove ads

Top