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'.

 

[TheSword]

Do you apply the same criteria to the privileged white men who are saying that depictions of orcs is racist, like the twitter guy who started the kerfuffle, or Christian Hoffer, who wrote the follow-up article on comicbook.com? Or the numerous white people who say that depictions of orcs are racist? The point should be obvious: if you negate one person's view on racism because they are white, you should negate any and all white peoples' views (I'm not suggesting this is what we should do, just that your logic should be applied consistently).

Yes, there is a risk we look very stupid if we lecture the black or Asian community on what is or isn’t racist. However this isn’t a case of a guy on twitter making the case. We are an industry that is overwhelmingly ran, created and played by white people who are being told by cultural consultants (Some of whom are POC or from minority groups) that some of what you’re doing is going to put POC off playing and potentially cause some offense. So why not stop that.

However there is very little representation in the hobby so it’s right those opinions be shared to prevent them being shouted down by large numbers of privelaged white folks who think strangers from outside the hobby are coming to take their orcs/Drow/hobgoblins.

It’s the same as the white men who justified painting women in chainmail bikinis. “It’s art, it’s a game, they’re not real women, I like women really, you’re destroying the fun, you don’t even play the game...” We got over it now we have 39%+ women playing d&d.

It was the same when Paizo started adding gay characters to their adventures and later Wizards of the Coast did. Straight white men said “You’re just being PC, don’t being this into my game, It’s a game for children, why does it have to be in your face etc etc.”

In short yes white people can argue amongst themselves but they shouldn’t tell people of colour what is and isn’t racist. They shouldn’t tell gay people what’s homophobic and they shouldn’t tell women what’s sexist.

 

[Mercurius]

Except the underlying assumptions are there. D&D orcs are Tolkien orcs to all intents and purposes - monolithically evil, savage, tribal, dumb but cunning, fecund, and generally dark skinned

They're derived from Tolkien (who derived them from mythology), but they have no connection to Asian cultures. They are usually depicted as gray or green-skinned, which don't exist in our world.

It is also worth pointing out that only about 15% of the world's population is considered "white," so if we want to make fantasy worlds somewhat based on Earth, then the vast majority of races and cultures would be non-white.

Also yes D&D has changed, there is far better representation among the good guys. Which is awesome.

How ever the monstrous humanoids have changed little. Google hobgoblin 5e and ask yourself what stereotypes this warlike, savage, conquering, ruthless humanoid is based on.

As far as hobgoblins are concerned, I see no problem with characterizing them as "evil samurais." This doesn't imply that all Japanese are evil or even samurai.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Racism has levels and degrees, no? Part of the problem I see with this issue is that we're mashing everything together. Calling the LotR "a racist work" is a sloppy characterization that avoids any nuance.

It's not sloppy at all, it's a true statement. A punch is violent. WWII was violent. The fact that WWII is a lot more violent doesn't make the first statement "sloppy". TLotR is racist. The Turner Diaries are racist. The fact that the latter is more racist than the former doesn't make the first statement untrue. All concise statements may be expanded upon ad infinitum. That does not make them sloppy.

I also don't agree that LotR was "intended to have a single meaning"

We're in agreement here I think, I'm saying TLotR was not intended to have one meaning. TLotR is not an allegory.

 

[TheSword]

They're derived from Tolkien (who derived them from mythology), but they have no connection to Asian cultures. They are usually depicted as gray or green-skinned, which don't exist in our world.

It is also worth pointing out that only about 15% of the world's population is considered "white," so if we want to make fantasy worlds somewhat based on Earth, then the vast majority of races and cultures would be non-white.
As far as hobgoblins are concerned, I see no problem with characterizing them as "evil samurais." This doesn't imply that all Japanese are evil or even samurai.

How do you know where Tolkien derived them from, or how Gygax et al adapted them. We know that Tolkien considered the racist stereotype at least once and that some of the other earlier creators had some very unpalatable opinions.

Yes reinforcing a stereotype that already exists does perpetuate the idea that a group of people are warlike or ruthless or savage, or promiscuous, or violent, or untrustworthy.

If we allow these to be the stories we tell ourselves and society then we do nothing to correct those perceptions.

Yes 15% of the worlds population may be white. However in the societies in which games these are played, power and wealth are overwhelmingly controlled by white men.

 

[Mercurius]

Yes, there is a risk we look very stupid if we lecture the black or Asian community on what is or isn’t racist. However this isn’t a case of a guy on twitter making the case. We are an industry that is overwhelmingly ran, created and played by white people who are being told by cultural consultants (Some of whole are POC or from minority groups) that some of what you’re doing is going to put POC off playing and potentially cause some offense. So why not stop that.

However there is very little representation in the hobby so it’s right those opinions be shared to prevent them being shouted down by large numbers of privelaged white folks who think strangers from outside the hobby are coming to take their orcs/Drow/hobgoblins.

It’s the same as the white men who justified painting women in chainmail bikinis. “It’s art, it’s a game, they’re not real women, I like women really, you’re destroying the fun, you don’t even play the game...” We got over it now we have 39%+ women playing d&d.

It was the same when Paizo started adding gay characters to their adventures and later Wizards of the Coast did. Straight white men said “You’re just being PC, don’t being this into my game, It’s a game for children, why does it have to be in your face etc etc.”

In short yes white people can argue amongst themselves but they shouldn’t tell people of colour what is and isn’t racist. They shouldn’t tell gay people what’s homophobic and they shouldn’t tell women what’s sexist.

None of which I disagree with on face value. WotC should be (and generally has been, to an increasing degree) mindful of different portrayals and I'm all for representing different sexualities, genders, and ethnic groups, although would suggest that if the intention is to be representative, they should be somewhat accurately representative to the actual populace.

I also agree that a white person shouldn't lecture a POC on what constitutes racism. But I wouldn't equate having an opinion as lecturing, nor would I exclude someone from the conversation based upon their ethnicity or gender.

Furthermore, it is important to remind ourselves that black and Asian people aren't monolithic in their views, nor are cultural consultants the holders of some kind of absolute knowledge.

It is a tricky business because on one hand, just about anything could be considered offensive by someone. My view is that WotC's task is like threading a needle: preserving D&D heritage on one hand, but being culturally mindful on the other. I think both can be accomplished, but the solution likely won't please extremists on either end of the spectrum.

Meaning, their task is to find the line, and I'm not sure there is a right answer. I think the conversation is worth having, though, and that everyone should have a voice, and that both goals in the paragraph above should be considered.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I've come to this discussion late, and I really don't want to read 100 pages to see if it's been discussed, but I have a question: I absolutely understand what is insensitive about the portrayal of the Vistani, but I don't get the problem with orcs. Surely they are not based on any real-world peoples. Can someone explain to me what is the problem with orcs?

Read Volo’s guide description of them. If what’s wrong isn’t obvious, fair enough. Not everyone knows about the history of such language as “even the most domesticated [member of XYZ race]” rhetoric.

The shortest possible primer is, it’s the same language used to dehumanize Black and Indigenous people to excuse their enslavement and eradication and removal. It sucks to read that in a game book when you’re from a group who has had those words used to justify your ancestors slaughter and enslavement, and more subtle variations still used to this day by white supremacists.

 

[Mercurius]

It's not sloppy at all, it's a true statement. A punch is violent. WWII was violent. The fact that WWII is a lot more violent doesn't make the first statement "sloppy". TLotR is racist. The Turner Diaries are racist. The fact that the latter is more racist than the former doesn't make the first statement untrue. All concise statements may be expanded upon ad infinitum. That does not make them sloppy.

You don't think degrees matter?

A punch and WWII are both violent, but not only are there different degrees of punches--from playful pats to Mike Tyson-level blows that would kill most normal human beings--but punches and world wars are vastly different on orders of magnitude that are meaningful and hugely important.

 

[Mercurius]

Read Volo’s guide description of them. If what’s wrong isn’t obvious, fair enough. Not everyone knows about the history of such language as “even the most domesticated [member of XYZ race]” rhetoric.

The shortest possible primer is, it’s the same language used to dehumanize Black and Indigenous people to excuse their enslavement and eradication and removal. It sucks to read that in a game book when you’re from a group who has had those words used to justify your ancestors slaughter and enslavement, and more subtle variations still used to this day by white supremacists.

You do realize that the quote mentioned was brought up by a white Welsh guy? He found the text offensive, and it was elaborated in an article by another white guy, and we're off to the races (no pun intended). For this to be a meaningful connection, we'd at least have to take a survey of Black and/or Indigenous people to ascertain to what degree they feel the text applies to them in a meaningful way. It is, at the very least, problematic for some random white guys to say to POC, "Look! This language applies to you!"

One a side note, here's an interesting idea for a campaign. The PCs are members of a colonizing empire who discover a new land inhabited by "savages." The PCs are hired by the crown to eradicate the "evil and brutish" natives, who allegedly worship evil gods and such. As the PCs enter the land, they start realizing that they were duped, that the natives are not evil and brutish as a group, but simply have a very different worldview and culture. The PCs then make an about-face to become freedom fighters and fight the empire.

Now of course I'd be careful about the "white savior" trope, so would make the natives as a playable race--or perhaps this could be rectified by one or more of the PCs having native heritage, perhaps they felt they needed to hide, and of course the PCs don't need to be "white" at all (or human). There are other issues that could arise, but as a campaign premise, it could be quite interesting.

 

[Weiley31]

hobgoblins are concerned, I see no problem with characterizing them as "evil samurais.

I've always applied a Klingon aspect to their Martial ideals and stuff. Of all the Goblinoids, the Hobgoblins are more likely to "talk" and negotiate instead of being be total slaughterers when it comes to beating their enemies. "Some" Hobgoblins are more evil than like that though. Still the Hobgoblins are no strangers to war.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

You do realize that the quote mentioned was brought up by a white Welsh guy? He found the text offensive, and it was elaborated in an article by another white guy, and we're off to the races (no pun intended). For this to be a meaningful connection, we'd at least have to take a survey of Black and/or Indigenous people to ascertain to what degree they feel the text applies to them in a meaningful way. It is, at the very least, problematic for some random white guys to say to POC, "Look! This language applies to you!"

One a side note, here's an interesting idea for a campaign. The PCs are members of a colonizing empire who discover a new land inhabited by "savages." The PCs are hired by the crown to eradicate the "evil and brutish" natives, who allegedly worship evil gods and such. As the PCs enter the land, they start realizing that they were duped, that the natives are not evil and brutish as a group, but simply have a very different worldview and culture. The PCs then make an about-face to become freedom fighters and fight the empire.

Now of course I'd be careful about the "white savior" trope, so would make the natives as a playable race--or perhaps this could be rectified by one or more of the PCs having native heritage, perhaps they felt they needed to hide, and of course the PCs don't need to be "white" at all (or human). There are other issues that could arise, but as a campaign premise, it could be quite interesting.

So, you think wotc read an article and change the course of how the present orcs?

Really!?


You don’t think they used their immense social platform to figure out what gamers of color thought of the issue?

Also, the issue has been soemthing gamers of color have been telling wotc for as long as they’ve owned D&D , and the specific passage in Volos since that book was released.

No one is basing their position on an article.