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]

Dude, Flamestrike is right on the money. He is speaking (purposefully?) from a scientific perspective. Take any anthropology or sociology "101" course for the same perspective. Culture isn't separate from ethnicity, it is a part of it. Of course, the lines between cultures, are just as fluid and a continuum as ethnicity is.

You claim that culture is a choice? How many folks "choose" their culture? You are born into a culture. Later, as you grow, you can choose to try and move away from your culture and/or adopt a different culture . . . but can you ever really fully leave your birth culture behind?

Yes it is a choice. Watch the excellent Netlix drama Unorthodox. It doesnt mean the choice is an easy one.

It also may time to change a culture. For instance if I move to France I get to decide what language I raise my child to speak, whether to celebrate Bastille day as a family or cook french cuisine or send back to England for Hovis and Heinz beans. These are all influenced by my choices.

Children are the future and also give me the greatest hope that as time goes on things will get better. I've seen it across the last forty years in the UK.

 

[SkidAce]

I still recall it wasnt that long ago that DnD (and other games) had actual human races (as in, differing human ethnicities), and literally assigned ability score modifiers to each.

White skinned folk modelled on European peoples had bonuses to Wisdom and were depicted as being the good guys and civilised. Black skinned folk or Russians were invariably given bonuses to Strength and were depicted as being savage and the bad guys.

Birthright was a notable example of this.

And of course it wasnt that long ago that gender (in addition to race) also played a part in ability score modifiers (and by extension, class limits).

Personally I hate the term 'race'. Elves are not a different 'race' they're a different species. Even among humans, the term race is often used in a naive way, and ignorant of the fact that 'race' or 'ethnicity' is a social construct (and not a discrete biological distinction with inherent traits).

It's been problematic for years in the game, and Im glad its been moving in the right direction. I welcome this announcement.

I agree with you. And wonder, is there any real difference if we do use "species" and then continue to say "Elves are wise and dextrous?"

 

[Envisioner]

Yes it is a choice. Watch the excellent Netlix drama Unorthodox.

Not everyone can afford Netflix. If we're going to be social-justicey in here, let's remember the fact that a huge number of people are dirt-poor and don't get to indulge in a lot of luxuries, like "entertainment". Most of them aren't playing D&D at all, but some of them are into it because it's a game they can play at public gathering spots (or they could pre-pandemic) and borrow everything from their slightly more prosperous friends. So maybe don't be elitist and just assume that everybody can go watch a movie when you think they should.

 

[GlassJaw]

I've also largely removed alignment from my games.

That said, why isn't it ok for a sentient fantasy species (like orc) to be inherently predisposed to taking resources, food, goods, money, etc from other sentient species by force, of which is essentially considered "evil" by most people's definition?

I've read through most of this thread and my main takeaway is that it seems it's being argued that if a creature is sentient, it will only resort to "evil" acts if it's suffered great physical, mental, or emotional trauma or has a mental illness.

While I agree that is largely true in humans (the nature vs. nurture argument, although there are theories that some people are predisposed to "evil" from birth), I'm trying to understand why that can't be the case in a fantasy game, never mind that it's been the case in mythology and literature for thousands of years?

I ask these questions not to antagonize - I'm trying to understand the core issue here.

 

[Minigiant]

D&D isn't real life and real life doesn't have to be reflected in D&D.

However it is harder to Roleplay as a player or DM if the world lacks beings with stable mindsets and sensible cultures.

 

[commandercrud]

As long as they made a LG death slaad...

 

[The Glen]

Who is against Miles Morales? (Wait, that's rhetorical, I don't want to know, because that would make me sad ....)

I like Peter Parker as much as the next person, but Miles Morales is a great Spider-Man!

Oh that's easy Wilson Fisk.

 

[Envisioner]

I agree with you. And wonder, is there any real difference if we do use "species" and then continue to say "Elves are wise and dextrous?"

Yes, yes there absolutely is. Cockroaches are a different species, and I defy you to find anybody so fluffy-bunny that they balk at murdering cockroaches. Some other species are more dextrous than us (not so much wise, except in the sense that Wisdom governs perception). And some species - pretty much all species - are less intelligent than us, and some species are inherently savage and violent and aggressive and so forth. If orcs are a species instead of a "race", there is absolutely no problem with saying that they are absolute dyed-in-the-wool monsters deserving of no sympathy whatsoever.

 

[Haldrik]

I have always hated the word "race" in D&D but I tolerated it because D&D has always been clear that there is only one "human race" and the other races are nonhumans.

However, the argument that the other "races" draw inspiration from reallife ethnic groups is true − and problematic. Even if D&D tends to blend two or more ethnic groups to create one "new" "race", behind it all are reallife ethnic groups and the tropes associating with them. When these lampshaded ethnic groups get demonized as Evil, it seems inherently problematic.

The ethical concerns about using "race" as a fundamental gaming construct seem inevitable.

 

[commandercrud]

But what about the gnoll babies?