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'.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Thermian. Arguments. Do. Not. Address. Out-of-universe. Textual. Criticism. Golly gee whiz with extra dijon mustard on top.

Just to address this one point; while there is an appeal to this novation (the concept of the "Thermian Argument" as a logical fallacy), it is not necessarily a gospel truth.

It is easy to construct an argument as to why Thermian Arguments* are not responsive to textual criticism that arise from out-of-universe concerns. Obviously, given that a text can be changed, good criticism** that is looking at issues that are germane, but arise from concerns outside the universe of the text (non-diegetic concerns) is certainly valid, and it should not normally be a rebuttal to say, "But that makes sense with the universe!"

Example:
A. "Hey, that Gor stuff you are reading seems misogynistic."
B. "No way! That's how the Gor universe operates! The books aren't sexist, they are just faithful to that setting!"

Ugh. It should be a truism that if a critique arises from outside the world of the text being critiqued, it is normally insufficient to simply state, "But that the way it is in this world."

But ... it's not always right either. Because it is not true, as is asserted by the people advocating w/r/t Thermian Argument, that because creative works are malleable, the only proper way to judge them is by looking at real-world concerns; what is missing here is an acknowledgement that works must contain a modicum of consistency and follow rules that have been generated from that work; sometimes, for example, that can result in works (or parts of works, or characters, etc.) that are unpleasant, revolting, or otherwise offensive in order to maintain a cohesive whole. Sometimes, they might offend, challenge, and shock.

Example:
A. "Hey, Requiem for a Dream / Lilya 4-Ever are terrible movies with casual misogyny with the debasement of women."
B. "Yes, but that's the point; the movies aren't sexist, but by being faithful to the characters and setting, they are upsetting."

I don't mean to sidetrack the conversation, as I agree with your overall point, and I understand what the person was trying to say with the Thermian Argument; really, though, this is just a fancy nerd-splained version of the circular argument fallacy.

Orcs are violent, because they were made that way. And they were made to be violent. And they are violent, because they were made that way. Etc.

(Why were they made that way?)

Once you clear away the brush, though, and get rid of the circular reasoning, you are just left with argumentum ad antiquitatem; orcs should be that way because they are that way; they are that way because they were that way, and it is right for them to continue being that way because that's how it has always been done.


*I will adopt this name., even though it comes from Galaxy Quest. I mean .... it's not exactly Latin.

**In the classic sense- a critique arising from a close reading of the work.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

I’ll simply point out that The Golden Rule* is a central tenet of most major world religions going back thousands of years, and is supported by many non-theistic philosophies as well.

IOW, it is a moral principle shared over a sizable slice of human history, cutting across cultural, ethnic and religious human constructs.

The reason the question of who counts as a "person" is so important is that, once you count as a person to somebody, their moral intuitions toward you are basically similar regardless of culture or religion: we'd be hard-pressed to find a society where one can lie to, steal from, or injure a fellow-citizen without some sort of strong justification. What constitutes justification may vary wildly, but the basic fact that these acts start with negative moral valence and require justification is something a lot of people take for granted, and if we're looking for human moral universals, we shouldn't. Unfortunately, the same moral intuitions seldom apply to nonpersons, members of the outgroup. Which is why the sorts of mass violence we're talking about in this thread -- conquest, slavery, genocide -- are invariably directed in that direction.

This is a simplification, of course. The line between person and nonperson isn't a bright one; there's a lot of blur at that border. Nevertheless, moving the line to encompass more of humanity does a hell of a lot of work in making people behave better, even before addressing any of their particular moral beliefs.

 

[Oofta]

If I could identify a serial killer walking down the street and I decided to avoid that person at all costs, I don't see how that would be racist.

We can't do that in real life, but depending on the fiction you can effectively do it in a fantasy real. If orcs were created and programmed to destroy all other races, hating them would be quite reasonable.

There is, thank goodness, no corollary to the real world. Well, at least not until cats develop opposable thumbs and no longer need us to open their cat food for them.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Once you clear away the brush, though, and get rid of the circular reasoning, you are just left with argumentum ad antiquitatem; orcs should be that way because they are that way; they are that way because they were that way, and it is right for them to continue being that way because that's how it has always been done.

The argumentum ad antiquitatem isn't entirely invalid in this context, though. There was a pretty big revolt against an entire edition of D&D because it didn't do things the way they had always been done. Players are, to a greater or lesser extent, looking for continuity with the past of the game, and I think at least some of the reactions we're seeing here are rooted in the concern that WotC are going to radically change the status quo in their game worlds.

 

[Maxperson]

Why do you need an entire race to hate another entire race?

You don't NEED it, which is why I think some settings should have this sort of thing for those who want it, and some settings should have very different orcs and drow, if they have those races at all. Let's include everyone.

In your narrative, why does it need to be absolute? What purpose in the narrative does this absolutism serve that is not served by it being a sub-group of the race/culture in question that hates?

In my game some orcs are bit different. As a race they are evil, as in the vast majority of them are evil. As tribes, though, some of them are neutral and don't have the same issues. I don't have good groups or orcs, though some individuals are good.

 

[Maxperson]

Just to address this one point; while there is an appeal to this novation (the concept of the "Thermian Argument" as a logical fallacy), it is not necessarily a gospel truth.

It is easy to construct an argument as to why Thermian Arguments* are not responsive to textual criticism that arise from out-of-universe concerns. Obviously, given that a text can be changed, good criticism** that is looking at issues that are germane, but arise from concerns outside the universe of the text (non-diegetic concerns) is certainly valid, and it should not normally be a rebuttal to say, "But that makes sense with the universe!"

Which is not my argument, by the way. That's a Strawman of my argument. I'm saying that the in-game reasons don't line out with real world associations, not that it's okay simply because it's in game.

That should have been apparent to @PsyzhranV2 when I acknowledged the Vistani issue, but not the orc issue.

 

[Cadence]

If I could identify a serial killer walking down the street and I decided to avoid that person at all costs, I don't see how that would be racist.

If orcs were created and programmed to destroy all other races, hating them would be quite reasonable.

The two ifs at the beginning of the sentences seem important to me. How certain are you of those facts?

Are orcs are near human race that that has been described in ways that are very similar to the way real human groups are othered to justify their subjugation and killing, a race that in reality is not invariably evil and could have good members (a PC even), a group described as humanoid instead of monstrous and subject to charm person (and in some systems a reincarnation spell), and something that has offspring with humans that are counted as people if given a fair chance?

If it's a vampire or mind-flayer or werewolf or particular individual serial killer you saw on a local wanted picture, then run and call the constabulary.

If its a person that looks different than you and you call the constabulary, or use your own missile weapons, because you feel threatened... well, I can find lots of news stories about that in real life.

 

[Umbran]

Mod Note:

Everyone, listen up!

This thread is up towards 120 pages. Its sister, on pretty much the exact same topic, is about 70 pages. And the arguments are getting... repetitive. Very. Repetitive.

There was some value in allowing discussion to be held, to allow folks to work through thoughts and perspectives on the matter. When the threads cease generating new material, though, this purpose has run its course. So, do prepare for these threads to close.

 

[Oofta]

The two ifs at the beginning of the sentences seem important to me. How certain are you of those facts?

Are orcs are near human race that that has been described in ways that are very similar to the way real human groups are othered to justify their subjugation and killing, a race that in reality is not invariably evil and could have good members (a PC even), a group described as humanoid instead of monstrous and subject to charm person (and in some systems a reincarnation spell), and something that has offspring with humans that are counted as people if given a fair chance?

If it's a vampire or mind-flayer or werewolf or particular individual serial killer you saw on a local wanted picture, then run and call the constabulary.

If its a person that looks different than you and you call the constabulary, or use your own missile weapons, because you feel threatened... well, I can find lots of news stories about that in real life.

I am 100% certain that in some fictional universes orcs are always evil. I guarantee that in some campaigns orcs are not and never will think like humans because they are not human any more than a vampire or a balor.

 

[Cadence]

I am 100% certain that in some fictional universes orcs are always evil. I guarantee that in some campaigns orcs are not and never will think like humans because they are not human any more than a vampire or a balor.

I would hope in those universes the PCs would act appropriately and not make silly choices that got them dead.

I'd rather it not be the default universe.

I imagine whatever the default is, that campaigns where that is true will continue to be out there, hopefully in the interest of telling good stories and keeping the players enjoying the setting.