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'.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Similarly to this, I'm of Italian ancentry and am not offended by all the villains out there based on the Roman empire

Romans are not always evil - they are portrayed positively as often as they are portayed negatively.

I have heard of plenty of Italians complaining about depictions of organised crime as Italian though.

 

[dwayne]

we don't need to be dictated to by wizards of the cost about this topic, i have as a dm let players go wild and make all kinds of things. I have designed many different settings and adventures, never once have i had anyone not feel included. This whole thing is stupid, if you take offence at the imaginary races and feel they need to be changed then your just dumb. I would like to see more player race options, as a matter of fact they did back in 3x the humanoid hand book, gave many many options. The players book is a basic typical setting friendly book, start to add this and that and your going to lose new players do to the complications. After they have been in the game and learned the setting and things then like every player they look for something different and try new things. I care not for D&D adventures as all are just dry and most are not written very well in many ways and don't leave much room for flexing, characters tend to be card board like. Or on the other extreme in way over written with tons of info which 90% does not matter in the running of it and can cause a DM to loses where he was in the material. I have a setting that elves hate humans and dwarves don't care much ether, and nether one are a player race, gnomes are all evil and havlings well they don't leave their birth places. The thing is the first rule is have fun, also the DM can basically change anything he wants, like having wild magic every where or everyone is only 3 feet tall, it is his world and he can make it how ever he wants. So go ahead with the bull crap they are spinning for what ever motivations they have to put them in the spot light as to say look look at me i am supportive and inclusive. You have lost all my respect wizards because this is just pandering plain and simple and was just uncalled for.

 

[Hussar]

I don't really agree with this. Frost Giants are based off of Vikings, and I'm descended from them, and I don't get offended with their depictions as stupid, evil, enslavers.

If dwarves' depictions are offensive in some way, change that, but I don't really see how it is.

Since when are Frost giants stupid or enslavers?

Frost giants in D&D are depicted as smart, powerful, challenging dragons for territory (heck, at least one module has frost giants wearing dragon hide cloaks), and with a robust, interesting culture. They are not shown as stupid and never have been. Again, as a "racial" depiction, it would be pretty hard to find offense here. Hey, your culture is strong, powerful, masters of their domain, feared by pretty much anyone. Yeah, not really a negative depiction.

 

[Hussar]

Honestly curious: who is tying orcs to any ethnic group? I'm not talking about the Tolkien letter, which I don't think is all that relevant, nor am I talking about the connection drawn by a guy on twitter to racist stereotypes, which is him making the connection. Those are pejorative words that multiple cultures have used to speak of other cultures. Unfortunately that sort of racism has existed for thousands of years, and isn't the sole purview of any particular group. But is there any published D&D work or passage that you feel clearly ties orcs to a real ethnic group?

Ok, going to answer this one honestly. Going back into the history of the depiction of blacks, particularly from Africa, we see people being compared to beasts, lacking intelligence, incapable of self control, animalistic, etc. Even if the depiction of orcs isn't meant to echo that, it, in fact, DOES echo that depiction. Orcs are beastial, stupid, incapable of self control, animalistic, etc. There doesn't need to be a "smoking gun" work or passage which ties orcs to real ethnic groups. The tie is there, regardless of whether it's intended or not.

I talked about this before, but, look at how Klingons are depicted in Star Trek. Original Trek had them as evil, bad, violent, dangerous, etc. But, then TNG expanded on Klingons to an incredible degree. Gave them all sorts of culture, background, differentiation, etc. Now, you can still have bad Klingons. Fair enough. But, the bad Klingons are bad because they do bad things. They are no longer bad just because they are Klingons.

People have asked if we remove the "bad guy, okay to kill" sign above orcs and other humanoids, what adventures can we write. Well, for one, instead of just killing those orcs just because they are orcs; make them justifiable targets. They are evil cultists, they are dangerous raiders/slavers, they work for Baron McEvilton and he's a right bastard, so on and so forth. If the only reason that you are killing orcs (or whatever) is because they happen to be there, then, well, that's problematic.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

This whole thing is stupid, if you take offence at the imaginary races and feel they need to be changed then your just dumb.

Just because you personally were not aware that they were giving offence, doesn't mean that they were not actually being offensive.

I mean ogres are generally depicted as loud, fat, violent, boorish brutes. They steal homes from other cultures, mistreat and casually kill non-ogres, and often value weapons over any other loyalty, even the lives of fellow ogres.
That's one accent and a stetson away from being an offensive stereotype even if they are imaginary.

So go ahead with the bull crap they are spinning for what ever motivations they have to put them in the spot light as to say look look at me i am supportive and inclusive. You have lost all my respect wizards because this is just pandering plain and simple and was just uncalled for.

Since when is "not being rude" regarded as "pandering"?

 

[Zardnaar]

Ok, going to answer this one honestly. Going back into the history of the depiction of blacks, particularly from Africa, we see people being compared to beasts, lacking intelligence, incapable of self control, animalistic, etc. Even if the depiction of orcs isn't meant to echo that, it, in fact, DOES echo that depiction. Orcs are beastial, stupid, incapable of self control, animalistic, etc. There doesn't need to be a "smoking gun" work or passage which ties orcs to real ethnic groups. The tie is there, regardless of whether it's intended or not.

I talked about this before, but, look at how Klingons are depicted in Star Trek. Original Trek had them as evil, bad, violent, dangerous, etc. But, then TNG expanded on Klingons to an incredible degree. Gave them all sorts of culture, background, differentiation, etc. Now, you can still have bad Klingons. Fair enough. But, the bad Klingons are bad because they do bad things. They are no longer bad just because they are Klingons.

People have asked if we remove the "bad guy, okay to kill" sign above orcs and other humanoids, what adventures can we write. Well, for one, instead of just killing those orcs just because they are orcs; make them justifiable targets. They are evil cultists, they are dangerous raiders/slavers, they work for Baron McEvilton and he's a right bastard, so on and so forth. If the only reason that you are killing orcs (or whatever) is because they happen to be there, then, well, that's problematic.

That's you making the association not the game. That's on you.

The really blatant stuff should be fixed. Hell they knew this in 1989 with Hobgoblin art.

We don't need cheesecake art anymore (3pp can do it if they wish). Doesn't mean I'm going to get bent out of shape over art from the 70s or whatever from before I was born nor destroy the books I already have.

If someone's using Orcs as a stand in that's on them. I'm guessing they'll still do it.

I look at diversity as variety. That includes stuff you don't like (within reason).

It's a jackass thing to depict ethnic groups in a stereotypical negative light. They're not doing that with orcs.

But I think they need to have the ye old raider type orcs along with anything new they come up with.

And maybe release updated old stuff because they're only focusing on new stuff so they are excluding people because they're not really making a variety of stuff.

They don't need to reprint old art that's just common sense.

As I said if you go through D&D with a fine tooth comb you'll find all sorts of things you can associate in all sorts of ways.

Vikings for example. Slavers and they appeal to those obsessed with 1930s dictators born in Austria.

Yuan To gonna be bad guys next game. Elves evil lite. But yeah they're there to get stabbed basically. Or fireballed. It's D&D.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

People have asked if we remove the "bad guy, okay to kill" sign above orcs and other humanoids, what adventures can we write.

I am not sure if I am People, but I haven't claimed that I can't write any adventure without a "bad guy, OK to kill" sign. I have pointed out that SOME adventure would no longer be valid, especially the ones who led to the sentence "kill them and take their stuff" to become iconic in the D&D community.
It's perfectly possible (and preferable) to have multidimensional villains. But sometimes, the players want to just kill things. This particular kind of adventures would become more difficult, until higher levels where irremediably evil opponents (mind flayers, giants...) are available.

Well, for one, instead of just killing those orcs just because they are orcs; make them justifiable targets. They are evil cultists, they are dangerous raiders/slavers, they work for Baron McEvilton and he's a right bastard, so on and so forth. If the only reason that you are killing orcs (or whatever) is because they happen to be there, then, well, that's problematic.

Rats lack free-will, they are only bound by instinct. I have no problem with players killing a pack of rats that would eat the crops on which villagers are relying to live through the winter. This doesn't mean that I would be OK to have a PC randomly kill any rats he saw. I mean, he would be regarded as very odd by the surrounding NPCS and probably most of the PCs... Same with orcs and other monsters lacking free will. If the crops aren't threatened by rats but by a group of bandits, who you know are just monster-like extension of the will of dark god (one-dimensional) it's OK to kill them. On the other hand, you wouldn't go after a group of bandits (wether humans, elves or free-willed orcs) and kill them all because they stole crop from a village.

 

[Zardnaar]

I am not sure if I am People, but I haven't claimed that I can't write any adventure without a "bad guy, OK to kill" sign. I have pointed out that SOME adventure would no longer be valid, especially the ones who led to the sentence "kill them and take their stuff" to become iconic in the D&D community.
It's perfectly possible (and preferable) to have multidimensional villains. But sometimes, the players want to just kill things. This particular kind of adventures would become more difficult, until higher levels where irremediably evil opponents (mind flayers, giants...) are available.



Rats lack free-will, they are only bound by instinct. I have no problem with players killing a pack of rats that would eat the crops on which villagers are relying to live through the winter. This doesn't mean that I would be OK to have a PC randomly kill any rats he saw. I mean, he would be regarded as very odd by the surrounding NPCS and probably most of the PCs... Same with orcs and other monsters lacking free will. If the crops aren't threatened by rats but by a group of bandits, who you know are just monster-like extension of the will of dark god (one-dimensional) it's OK to kill them. On the other hand, you wouldn't go after a group of bandits (wether humans, elves or free-willed orcs) and kill them all because they stole crop from a village.

I had a halfling champion who killed rats. His name was Rats and he ate them. That was before my last PC.

Rat stew, sauted rat, rat roast. Urchin background developed a taste for them.

Last time I do random race, class and back ground and a quirk.

 

[Bertil]

Since I’m new here I want to introduce myself. I work as a paralegal for a union, helping working folks to stand up against oppressive and bigot employers. I’m also an elected official for a far-leftist party. So I spend most of my hours awake trying to act for a just society with equality for all.

I have degrees in sociology and political science, and like to think I have a pretty good grasp of the poststructuralistic theoretical foundation for the current postcolonial and identity political movement.

First of all, I fully support WOTC’s actions for a more inclusive game. For them as a company it’s a no-brainer to not exclude potential customers, and for us as gamers to expand the hobby and get more gaming friends is win. And in my experience at the table, the game becomes more fun with players that can contribute from true diverse experiences and backgrounds.

With that said, from an intellectual perspective I find it problematic to apply real world morals to a fantasy game of pretend. Foremost the problem is consistency. Lets say we extend real world morality to the orc problem. Orcs are no longer implicitly evil, since that might offend or alienate a group of people from the game and mirror oppressing structures from the real world. Cool, few of us have any objections to that.

At the same time one of the cornerstones of D&D specifically is killing sentient beings and taking their stuff. We are encouraged to play religious zealots who – no matter what alignment – do pretty horrific atrocities in the name of our god. We play druids who slaughter whatever to keep nature pure from corrupting civilization. Or we play ”heroes” spreading the glory of civilization and the true faith to ”poor indigenous folks” who we presume can’t fend for themselves – or we just kill them so we can move on to the BBEG. All are actions that for sure are offensive and alienating to a pretty large percent of the world population.

My point is this: Making sure that the default lore of the game doesn’t mirror oppressive structures and phenomena from the real world is great! But trying to argue the orc and drow question from an isolated moral standpoint – like many in this thread do – while the whole premise of the game is doing pretty awful stuff from a real world perspective is hypocrisy imho.

It’s complicated to live in the real world with no absolutes. Good and evil are floating abstracts depending on perspective, context and a gazillion personal experiences, and learning to view the world through many different glasses is necessary to illuminate and fight against oppressing structures.

Therefore, my D&D is a world where moral absolutes exist. Sentient beings – not only celestials and fiends – can be implicitly good or evil. They can be physical manifestations of philosophical ideas, religion and art. And it is ok to act like a conquistador in the name of good if you so choose. I believe that it’s beneficial to be able to step into a bad beings shoes to explore what makes them tick, to have oppressive structures in-game to explore their mechanisms, and to twist and turn philosophical concepts such as good and evil – all in the safe zone that is D&D. Me and my mainly leftist friends like to believe the game makes us more empathic and help in our real world work for equality for all. We can’t put up real world moral ramifications for the game – that would make the whole basis for the game moot if we were to implement it consequently.

So, I think using moral arguments to exclude certain lore and mechanical aspects of the game, while the whole premise of the game is a low moral swamp, is problematic. Aspects of colonialism, imperialism, zealotry and violence are all parts of core D&D. That rpgs is sensible to real world developments and clean out old oppressive garbage is good – maybe the hobby at large should take point in the progression to make the world a better and more inclusive place for all, and clean out even more morally dubious stuff from the pretend worlds to be consequent. But then I don’t think there would be much left of most games.

And maybe that wouldn’t be bad. If we are sincere about wanting to make the world a better place for all of us, perhaps we have better things to do than to play imaginary violence.

I don’t know. It’s complicated. And I still want to play D&D.

 

[TheSword]

Since I’m new here I want to introduce myself. I work as a paralegal for a union, helping working folks to stand up against oppressive and bigot employers. I’m also an elected official for a far-leftist party. So I spend most of my hours awake trying to act for a just society with equality for all.

I have degrees in sociology and political science, and like to think I have a pretty good grasp of the poststructuralistic theoretical foundation for the current postcolonial and identity political movement.

First of all, I fully support WOTC’s actions for a more inclusive game. For them as a company it’s a no-brainer to not exclude potential customers, and for us as gamers to expand the hobby and get more gaming friends is win. And in my experience at the table, the game becomes more fun with players that can contribute from true diverse experiences and backgrounds.

With that said, from an intellectual perspective I find it problematic to apply real world morals to a fantasy game of pretend. Foremost the problem is consistency. Lets say we extend real world morality to the orc problem. Orcs are no longer implicitly evil, since that might offend or alienate a group of people from the game and mirror oppressing structures from the real world. Cool, few of us have any objections to that.

At the same time one of the cornerstones of D&D specifically is killing sentient beings and taking their stuff. We are encouraged to play religious zealots who – no matter what alignment – do pretty horrific atrocities in the name of our god. We play druids who slaughter whatever to keep nature pure from corrupting civilization. Or we play ”heroes” spreading the glory of civilization and the true faith to ”poor indigenous folks” who we presume can’t fend for themselves – or we just kill them so we can move on to the BBEG. All are actions that for sure are offensive and alienating to a pretty large percent of the world population.

My point is this: Making sure that the default lore of the game doesn’t mirror oppressive structures and phenomena from the real world is great! But trying to argue the orc and drow question from an isolated moral standpoint – like many in this thread do – while the whole premise of the game is doing pretty awful stuff from a real world perspective is hypocrisy imho.

It’s complicated to live in the real world with no absolutes. Good and evil are floating abstracts depending on perspective, context and a gazillion personal experiences, and learning to view the world through many different glasses is necessary to illuminate and fight against oppressing structures.

Therefore, my D&D is a world where moral absolutes exist. Sentient beings – not only celestials and fiends – can be implicitly good or evil. They can be physical manifestations of philosophical ideas, religion and art. And it is ok to act like a conquistador in the name of good if you so choose. I believe that it’s beneficial to be able to step into a bad beings shoes to explore what makes them tick, to have oppressive structures in-game to explore their mechanisms, and to twist and turn philosophical concepts such as good and evil – all in the safe zone that is D&D. Me and my mainly leftist friends like to believe the game makes us more empathic and help in our real world work for equality for all. We can’t put up real world moral ramifications for the game – that would make the whole basis for the game moot if we were to implement it consequently.

So, I think using moral arguments to exclude certain lore and mechanical aspects of the game, while the whole premise of the game is a low moral swamp, is problematic. Aspects of colonialism, imperialism, zealotry and violence are all parts of core D&D. That rpgs is sensible to real world developments and clean out old oppressive garbage is good – maybe the hobby at large should take point in the progression to make the world a better and more inclusive place for all, and clean out even more morally dubious stuff from the pretend worlds to be consequent. But then I don’t think there would be much left of most games.

And maybe that wouldn’t be bad. If we are sincere about wanting to make the world a better place for all of us, perhaps we have better things to do than to play imaginary violence.

I don’t know. It’s complicated. And I still want to play D&D.

I think newer adventures move away from this. There are excellent adventures that don’t revolve around around killings ‘less civilized folk and taking their stuff.’ In fact now I come to think of it, not many do now.

The general parsing down of magic items has meant it isn’t always the case that we just loot tombs. Looting a tomb often comes with a curse or a negative effect. In one notable published campaign the spirits of tombs gift their items to players.

Also lots of campaigns actually involve fighting the evil oppressive overlords, or involve fighting otherworldly threats. I particularly liked skull and shackles which involved becoming freeing a press ganged sailors. My players then used their ship to attack the slavers of the Aspis consortium and the evil Chellaxian empire that was trying to colonize the islands.