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'.

 

[Urriak Uruk]

and the slippery slope is a real concern.

Personally I hate the "slippery slope" argument, especially for this kind of stuff... the people in control of WotC are clearly quite smart and conservative (small c) in what actions they take, they're not going to make any wild changes fast.

 

[Xenonnonex]

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.

Frankly. That is a very bad comparison.

 

[Mecheon]

But what I'm concerned with is the slippery slope. I don't see this as being recognized or addressed in any meaningful way by those who are, to reverse the over-simplisitic characterization, "seeing racism everywhere" (I realize that no one is doing that, but you take my point). Where do you draw the line? If a single person complains, should what they complain about be changed? Or is there a certain number? And to what degree?

Simple: Slippery slopes are logical fallacies.

If something needs looking at, it'll gain momentum

 

[Oofta]

Frankly. That is a very bad comparison.

Thanks for sharing. Care to contribute anything other than neener neener you're wrong?

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

Granted. And many of those cultures, notably, did not expressly follow the golden rule. Some did, though. But it does not follow that their subjective takes on cannibalism, sacrifice or slavery were moral.

In some case, the situation is more complicated. Though I share the idea that "treat other like you would be treated" has merit, it can lead to complication when one has peculiar idea on how to be treated. Maya culture certainly had unwilling human sacrifice, but many were actually voluntary and conflict was "staged" to create oportunity to capture people for sacrifice when a captured warrior was needed. So basically, you had part of the Mayan population who could be both proponent of human sacrifice AND adhering to this principle, since they would have no problem being sacrificed. From an utilitarian point of view, it was totally ethical for them to practice human sacrifice as it was needed for the world to continue to exist. So the trade off of some lives joining with the gods vs all life being wiped out was acceptable. Their view of human sacrifice was uninformed (human sacrifices stopped and the world did'nt end, so maybe their fundamental assumption was flawed) but ethical. I admit it's a peculiar case, but as I am arguing against the idea that morality is absolute and unchanging, bringing border case is useful.

We can note, for instance, that many of those cultures prefaced those practices on the premise that their victims were less than human, little better than animals. Dehumanizing their victims thus allowed them to treat other people in ways they would not consider moral for “real“ people.

In some case, actually worse. IIRC, the Hammurabi code valued a slave less than an ox. But the problem arise because they were dehumanizing humans. Can Neanderthal be dehumanized? Can a pig that we kill for food?

Knowing as we do that their victims WERE humans, we can fairly judge this hypocrisy for what it is.

To be hypocritical, it's not US who must know that their victims were human, but them. If we know something that was not known, we can say that they were uninformed, but not hypocritical. Slave owners in the 19th century had all the information available to be sure that their slaves were human (and were hypocritical because their interest simply trumped their morality), but I am not sure it was that evident from your average Middle East denizen that Sea People were the same as them.

Others simply handwaved away the obvious conflict between their professed ethos/religion/philosophy and the various methods they had of reducing humans to livestock. Worse, some twisted their beliefs to justify mistreating their fellow man. IOW, there was fiction-based hypocrisy built into their practices.

Fiction, or faith?

 

[Xenonnonex]

Thanks for sharing. Care to contribute anything other than neener neener you're wrong?

Have said that is a very bad comparison.
Implication is that your statement links race to whether someone acts as a serial killer.
Would avoid the last bit entirely. And replace it with -> I would avoid that person entirely.

 

[Maxperson]

Granted. And many of those cultures, notably, did not expressly follow the golden rule. Some did, though. But it does not follow that their subjective takes on cannibalism, sacrifice or slavery were moral.

Or vice versa. Just because many do follow the golden rule doesn't make their morality objective.

We can note, for instance, that many of those cultures prefaced those practices on the premise that their victims were less than human, little better than animals. Dehumanizing their victims thus allowed them to treat other people in ways they would not consider moral for “real“ people.

Many societies sacrificed their own children to their gods. I doubt they viewed those kids as less than human and little better than animals. Many societies ate their own dead to venerate them. I guarantee you that they didn't view their grandfather as less than human and little better than an animal. Many societies at the dead warriors of their enemies to gain those enemies' strength and ferocity. You don't do that to an enemy you view as less than human or little better than an animal.

There were societies that dehumanized others to commit atrocities, yes. There were a lot who didn't, though. They just viewed what we now consider to be horrendous and immoral acts as moral and right.

Others simply handwaved away the obvious conflict between their professed ethos/religion/philosophy and the various methods they had of reducing humans to livestock. Worse, some twisted their beliefs to justify mistreating their fellow man. IOW, there was fiction-based hypocrisy built into their practices.

The bold is where the issue lies in my opinion. WE view it as a twisted belief and justification, because of our modern morals. We are incredibly biased by how we were raised. They didn't have to twist any beliefs or justify anything, because those acts were genuinely right and moral to them.

At the end of the day an objective morality has to exist outside of humanity. If we are the ones to decide what is and is not moral, however we make those decisions, then morality is subjective. Objective morality that exists outside of mankind would have sprung into being during the Big Bang I suppose. I just don't see any reason to believe that swirling among all that matter and energy was a bunch of morality that mankind(and aliens as they would all be subject to the same objective morality) would one day learn about.

 

[Mercurius]

Simple: Slippery slopes are logical fallacies.

If something needs looking at, it'll gain momentum

It can be used as a logical fallacy, but they actually do exist.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

What is your opinion on PoC who do not support BLM and other such organisations or PoC who do not support the change made to Orcs for example. Are they self-racists?

There are always people like that. There were women who disagreed with suffrage for women, LGBT folk who argued against gay rights, and Candace Owens.

Their existence isn’t a prop for you to use to try and dismiss issues being raised by other POC.

 

[Maxperson]

It's not; no culture is actually like this. It does however, sound a lot like the description of certain real-life groups that real-life racists describe.

Not in those example below.

Take for example, a quote by President Andrew Jackson on Native Americans;

“They have neither the intelligence, the industry, the moral habits, nor the desire of improvement which are essential to any favorable change in their condition. Established in the midst of another and a superior race, and without appreciating the causes of their inferiority or seeking to control them, they must necessarily yield to the force of circumstances and ere long disappear.”

Orcs do not kill others due to any kind of belief that the others have lower intelligence, lower industry, poorer morals, lack of desire to improve or due to any belief that the other races are inferior.

Orcs hate others because those others want to deny orcs what they feel that they are entitled to.

The other races are defending against a race that attacks them. They are not killing orcs due to a feeling of superiority over orcs, to control orcs, because orcs lack any desire to improve, because orcs are dumb, because orcs are not industrious or due to clashing with orc morality.

Your example assumes a lot about orcs and the other races that isn't there.

And Chief Justice John Marshall;

“The tribes of Indians inhabiting this country were fierce savages, whose occupations was war, and whose subsistence was drawn chiefly from the forest… That law which regulates, and ought to regulate in general, the relations between the conqueror and conquered was incapable of application to a people under such circumstances… Discovery gave an exclusive right to extinguish the Indian title of occupancy, either by purchase or by conquest.”

This is closer, but still fails to be close to the same. No race in D&D is trying to justify attacking orcs as a justification for conquest or to push orcs out of land that those races want. Nor are they trying to buy the orcs out. Orcs are depicted as savage and warlike, but that's not enough to link them to the real life native tribes.

Do real-life orcs exist (or ever did)? No. But did real people treat real-life races like how orcs are treated? Yes.

Do you have any examples of that? Your first example missed by a mile and your second missed by a few hundred yards. I've never in any game that I've played, seen played at a con, or heard of outside of threads where I can't really trust all the claims, seen orcs treated like these two examples depict. Not even close.