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'.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

The analogy doesn't quite work, because there's a lot more available data for the cops etc. I'm merely pointing out that the phrase "gamers of color" says nothing about numbers, how prevalent the complaints, how reprentative they are, etc. I here you that you're not saying "all."

The analogy does work. Wotc has the appropriate information, and has made a decision based on it.

If nearly every prominent voice amongst Black members of the community, and most POC in general within the community, are saying the same thing, it’s unlikely that somehow the majority of people who aren’t prominent in those groups think the prominent voices are full of it. Possible, but unlikely.

And folks been calling for this sort of thing for too long to dismiss it because someone doesn’t have precise numbers.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

By "humans", are:

Elves basically humans with pointy ears who live a long time, often like the woods and magic, and whom Correlion has a special fondness for

Dwarves basically short-but-broad humans with darkvision, who don't live as long as elves, who often like mining, and whom Moradin has a fondness for

Halflings bascially small humans who don't need shoes and eat a lot, live in between human and dwarf lifespans, and whom Yondalla has a fondness for

?

If so, then would a similar thing about orcs maybe be:

Larger humans with tusks who live a bit shorter lifespans and whom Gruumsh has a desire to rule? (Fondness sounds odd).

If so, seems fine. If not, basically, where's my aim most off?

Edit: I just realized I forgot to give them something general that they like :-/

I like orcs to be impulsive, but prone to bouts of deep introspection, and to basically not like extreme amounts of sensory stimulation. More emotionally intelligent than most humans, because they’re even more social, in that they’re even more affected by the actions and perceptions of their peers and elders.

Pretty similar to Halflings, to the point where wilderness dwelling nomadic halflings in my worlds are really similar to orcs in such environs, and settles orcs communities are socially very like halfling settlements.

 

[Hussar]

I was unclear: I didn't say the answer was the removal of orcs altogether, but that the change resulted in no longer having a low level 100% evil NPCs you can kill without exploring deep storytelling.
/snip

Sorry @Galandris, but, you've posted something here that I've seen a few times and I'm frankly baffled by it. No low level 100% evil NPC's? Umm, what happened to undead, aberrations, demons, devils, dragons, and some constructs?

If you want to write adventures with baddies that you can kill without any real justification other than, "they need killin'", there's a shopping list in the Monster Manual (and never minding beyond the Monster Manual) for you to use.

And of course, this ignores all the low level beasts and magical beasts that are pretty much free to kill as well.

Note, you can still HAVE evil orcs/goblins/whatever, just that like having evil humans in your game, you have to take it a step beyond, "They just need killin'".

 

[Hussar]

So then you think this is a modern association and not intended by the creators of D&D?

Oh, I'm sure it is. I really, really don't think that any of the creators of D&D specifically said, "Oh, hey, let's be racist bastards when we make our game and sell it to the American public".

No, of course not. Most of it wasn't even considered an issue when D&D was being created. In the 1970's, having one of those black jockey statues in your front lawn was perfectly acceptable. The civil rights movement wasn't even old enough to vote by that time. Fantasy and SF as a genre was pretty much entirely written by white men (yes, I know there were exceptions, but, let's be honest here). How POC might view the depiction of orcs wasn't even on the radar of considerations in the 1970's.

But, at the end of the day, what does intent have to do with anything? @Umbran's point about the dance floor still holds true.

 

[Mercurius]

The analogy does work. Wotc has the appropriate information, and has made a decision based on it.

If nearly every prominent voice amongst Black members of the community, and most POC in general within the community, are saying the same thing, it’s unlikely that somehow the majority of people who aren’t prominent in those groups think the prominent voices are full of it. Possible, but unlikely.

And folks been calling for this sort of thing for too long to dismiss it because someone doesn’t have precise numbers.

I have no problem making changes if they're deemed warranted, given adequate market research. And if what you say in the highlighted part is true, that strengthens the point. I personally don't know if that is true and am not sure how that would be determined. It also comes back to my main point--not that changes shouldn't happen, but how they should happen. Thus the other thread I started.

 

[Xenonnonex]

Except that is exactly what was happening, as I was seeing: ignoring (ahem, dismissing) degrees and nuance.

You keep throwing this word "dismissing" around, yet ironically I see that exemplified in many/most of your posts. Even when examples are repeatedly given. I try to address the examples given and ask that you do the same.

Edit: Meaning, I observe that you dismiss disagreement by saying it is dismissive. I don't find that it facillitates actual dialogue.

Really not. Giving examples and concerns have people been doing. You have been dismissing these and saying people do not understand nuance or degrees. You only present discussions in these terms. Without addressing at all the concerns and opinions people have presented. Up to you if you want to address concerns people have. Up to you whether you want take people seriously for their concerns. Or keep weaseling and saying people think it is worse than it is or that it is still no big deal.

To better understand the viewpoints of others is better. Than simply saying no it is not as bad. We become stagnate. And keep perpetuating what could be changed.

 

[Mercurius]

Really not. Giving examples and concerns have people been doing. You have been dismissing these and saying people do not understand nuance or degrees. You only present discussions in these terms. Without addressing at all the concerns and opinions people have presented. Up to you if you want to address concerns people have. Up to you whether you want take people seriously for their concerns. Or keep weaseling and saying people think it is worse than it is or that it is still no big deal.

To better understand the viewpoints of others is better. Than simply saying no it is as bad. We become stagnate. And keep perpetuating what could be changed.

OK, Xenonnonex. I hear that's how you interpret my contribution. I obviously disagree, but I'm not interested in defending myself against you for a variety of reasons. I would only suggest that we stay focused on the actual topics rather than the rhetorical styles of others, which veers into the personal and becomes a distraction from the actual topics. Feel free to engage with me on actual ideas, but if you want to critique me on my rhetoric, I'm not interesed. I'll try to do the same, myself.

 

[Xenonnonex]

OK, Xenonnonex. I hear that's how you interpret my contribution. I obviously disagree, but I'm not interested in defending myself against you for a variety of reasons. I would only suggest that we stay focused on the actual topics rather than the rhetorical styles of others, which veers into the personal and becomes a distraction from the actual topics. Feel free to engage with me on actual ideas, but if you want to critique me on my rhetoric, I'm not interesed. I'll try to do the same, myself.

I will ask again. Find another way to egage and discuss the actual concerns and issues raised. Not dismiss people by saying they do not understand the degrees or nuance of their concerns or issues. That is simply unhelpful. That brings nothing constructive. That brings nothing relevant.

 

[Haldrik]

That all orcs are evil. ALL orcs.
Also, Tolkein explicitly said orcs are based on Asian peoples.
And then D&D orcs are based on Tolkein.
So...

And while D&D distances Evil Orcs from East Asians, it repeats the same error moreorless with East Asian Evil Hobgoblins. Tropes echo and resurface in unexpected ways.

The only solution is to make human-like creatures have freewill and diverse cultures.

So no reallife culture or blend of reallife cultures becomes the Evil killable one.

 

[Haldrik]

Here's the thing; I don't think very many creators of all sources, including Ed Greenwood, Peter Jackson, Gary Gygax, Perkins or Crawford, WoW, is intentionally trying to tie certain races to certain ethnic groups.

All of these races however pull from mythic sources, such as Viking, Celtic, Roman or other mythology (or Tolkien, who was a little racist), which are all intentionally tying certain "evil" monsters directly to the "outsiders." D&D is built using primarily myths from Europe (dragons for example match the European design, not Asian). So drow are inspired by races like the Dokkalfar, who are more evil in comparison to the Ljosalfar, whose complexion is brighter than the sun (this is Viking myth).

Myths call the Dokkalfar "blacker than pitch" and Gygax said "Drow are mentioned in Keightley's The Fairy Mythology, as I recall (it might have been The Secret Commonwealth—neither book is before me, and it is not all that important anyway), and as Dark Elves of evil nature, they served as an ideal basis for the creation of a unique new mythos designed especially for the AD&D game."

Was Gygax intentionally making the same connection that the myths were, that "the darker the skin, the more evil the creature"? Probably not; he read a book, thought it sounded cool and ran with it. However, those same comparisons continue despite everyone not trying to make these connections purposefully. So the dark-skinned drow are evil, the fair-skinned elves are not; and that should make us all uncomfortable.

Remember, elves with black skin is an American Gygax thing, not a Viking thing. In America, skin color matters to Americans, and is an ethnic marker for white Americans and black Americans, and sometimes extending to brown, red, and yellow, American pan-ethnicities.

However, when the Vikings did color coding (like Erik the Red), they meant brunette, blond, and redhead.

The hair colors all existed within the same ethnic group. The Vikings believed that the color coding of hair expressed an individuals personality type.

I will even venture to compare Viking hair color to Hellenistic humors. Temperments.

- blond phlegmatic, in the sense of blissful and calm, often rational and eloquent. Baldr, elves, rational women.

- brunette melancholy, in the sense of aggressive and calm, often serious, earthy, brooding, even cruel. Cruel ("grim") is a quality that Vikings admire in warriors.

- redhead choleric, in the sense of aggressive and volitile, often fiery, passionate, and dangerous. Thor, Loki, Erik the Red.

- grayhaired sanguine, in the sense blissful and volitile, often mystical ecstasy, authority, and reminds me of a mad scientist. Odin, maybe elders generally in the sense of awareness of death and viewing the world from a perspective beyond it.

Regarding temperments, it is important to focus on both costs and benefits, to understand better what a temperment is.



Anyway, Viking haircolor coding usually refers to personality typing. Of course connecting hair color to personality is bad science, but it is what they were doing and it made sense to them within their own worldview. Surprisingly, haircolor personality typing even happens today, albeit the tropes themselves are somewhat different today.