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'.

 

[Warren Ellis]

You can’t expect a human to be able to portray a creature that doesn’t think like a human. All humanoids are necessarily reflections of humanity no matter how much Gygax or anyone else professes otherwise because they are written, acted, and directed by humans.

Then frankly we shouldn't roleplay at all except in purely human fantasy, or science fiction, settings I assume?

It strikes me as the same mess with vampires in Vampire the Masquerade, where despite the text saying you're creatures of the night who have to fight to not turn into predators who treat normal humans as walking Happy Meals, everyone plays them as superheroes with fangs.

Except now we're claiming VtM wants you to think they're superheroes with fangs. To push the analogy farther.

 

[GreyLord]

Doesn't this imply that instead of trying to humanize these races or something, by claiming they're similar to real world ethnicities, instead we should treat them as genuinely alien in thought and biology instead?

Like from what you're saying, it seems like the fault is completely the players and that this entire thread is kind of complaining about nothing because there are genuine, real biological differences with honestly alien thought processes and that instead, to pretend they represent real world ethnicities is speciesist toward them by claiming they're all human in some way.

I'm not certain I understand your comment, but I'll try.

Gygax already tried to claim they were basically alien in thought processes (and how they act, their culture, the way the felt, everything about them in fact) in AD&D. He failed. Since then the way they have been portrayed in PHB's have evolved to simply represent them more in line as different humans with different looks. Basically, he failed (and look at how many don't understand WHY there were level limits in the first place, not just from a balance viewpoint, but from the humanocentric viewpoint. Humans were a single race in the base AD&D 1e PHB. There were no other races for human, except...human. They were equal in ability if they had the same ability scores [though albeit there were other problems I won't address here]. Players did not understand what he was saying or trying to say, or if they did, did not want to play that way and wanted more Tolkien and less Lang in their games).

In short, his presentation failed. His idea of monsters as he thought of them...failed. His thought on the idea was the minority, and the majority of players and gamers chose to do something different.

Because of that, the way D&D races were portrayed has changed over the years (and not just the races, monsters too, especially humanoid ones).

By the time we get to 5e, they way they are talked about and portrayed makes them basically humans with different looks and occasionally preferences. The very way they are written up in the PHB is basically human with different looks. We are at the point that the game promotes this style of play. To change that we'd have to change the very portrayal of them and the way the play style is pushed. They represent more different races in D&D 5e akin to how some see different races of humans in the real world today, rather than creatures alien to human thought and ability.

In that case, if they are already portrayed and played like that, perhaps it really should be a time to step back and apply more equality of representation and presentation so that instead of promoting racism between creatures, we present a fantasy were all have equal opportunity and equal chances for advancement and treatment as well as respect.

 

[Warren Ellis]

But does the basic text of dwarves, elves, or even orcs in 5e really represent what humans would think?

Elves and dwarves, for example, have always struck me as being too good and content to be human. Things like having little or no crime (I see that in so many fantasy elf depictions) and being so content with everything strikes me as honestly alien to basic human sensibilities.

Like the only human part about most elves in fiction, to me at least, is that they kind of look human and maybe share some commonish values, but beyond that they're kind of idealized and weird.

 

[Aldarc]

Going back to my previous post (hard to believe that there has already been 13 pages of comments since lunch!), I did a little bit of work on what "Ancestry Traits" would look like in 5E.

A few core assumptions:

• All characters start with 6 Ancestry Points. The DM should adjust that number up or down depending on how much they want a character's family tree to matter in their game.
• Each Ancestry Trait costs 1 point unless otherwise noted.
• You cannot choose the same Ancestry Trait, even if it's on multiple lists. If you chose the "Dexterity Increase" trait from the Elf Ancestry list, you cannot choose it again from the Human Ancestry list.

Then, you spend these points on some ancestry traits from any number of races. Some DMs might restrict the number of ancestries a character could choose; more than 2 would start to really stretch things IMO but you might disagree.

Spoiler: Human Ancestry Traits

• Strength Increase: your strength score increases by 1.
• Dexterity Increase: Your Dexterity score increases by 1.
• Constitution Increase: Your Constitution score increases by 1.
• Intelligence Increase: Your Intelligence score increases by 1.
• Wisdom Increase: Your Wisdom score increases by 1.
• Charisma Increase: Your Charisma score increases by 1.
• Skill Versatility: you gain proficiency in two skills of your choice.
• Polyglot: you gain one language of your choice.
• Feat (costs 3 points): you start the game with one feat of your choice.

Spoiler: Elf Ancestry Traits

• Dexterity Increase: Your Dexterity score increases by 2.
• Wisdom Increase: Your family line has mingled with the Wood Elves. Your Wisdom score increases by 1.
• Intelligence Increase: You trace your elvish ancestry back to the High Elves. Your Intelligence score increases by 1.
• Charisma Increase: You are descended from the Eladrin or the Drow. Your Charisma score increases by 1.
• Fey Ancestry: you have advantage on save throws against being charmed, and magic cannot put you to sleep.
• Trance: You don't need to sleep. Instead, you meditate deeply, remaining semiconscious, for 4 hours a day. After resting in this way, you gain the same benefit that a human does from 8 hours of sleep.
• Languages: You can speak, read, and write Common and Elvish.
• Extra Language: you can speak, read, and write one extra language of your choice.
• Darkvision: you have darkvision to a range of 60 feet.
• Drow Magic: your Drow lineage has given you the innate gift of magic. You know the dancing lights cantrip. When you reach 3rd Level, you can cast faerie fire once with this trait and regain the ability to do so when you finish a long rest. When you reach 5th level you can cast darkness once with this trait and regain the ability to do so when you finish a long rest. Charisma is your spellcasting ability for these spells.
• Elf Weapon Training: You have proficiency with the longsword, shortsword, shortbow, and longbow.
• Cantrip: you know one cantrip of your choice from the Wizard spell list. Intelligence is your spellcasting ability for it.
• Drow Weapon Training: You have proficiency with rapiers, shortswords, and hand crossbows.
• Superior Darkvision: You have darkvision to a range of 120 feet. However, you have disadvantage on attack rolls and on Wisdom (Perception) checks that rely on sight when you, the target of your attack, or whatever you are trying to perceive is in direct sunlight.
• Fleet of Foot: your base walking speed increases to 35 feet.
• Mask of the Wild: you can attempt to hide even when you are only lightly obscured by foliage, heavy rain, falling snow, mist, and other natural phenomena.

Spoiler: Dwarf Ancestry Traits

• Strength Increase: your strength score increases by 2.
• Constitution Increase: Your Constitution score increases by 2.
• Wisdom Increase: your Wisdom score increases by 1.
• Dwarven Toughness (costs 2): your hit point maximum increases by 1, and it increases by 1 every time you gain a level.
• Stalwart: your base walking speed is 25 feet. Your speed is not reduced by wearing Heavy Armor.
• Darkvision: you have darkvision to a range of 60 feet.
• Dwarven Resistance: You have advantage on saving throws against poison, and you have resistance against poison damage.
• Dwarven Armor Training: You have proficiency with light and medium armor.
• Dwarven Weapon Training: you have proficiency with the batteaxe, handaxe, light hammer, and warhammer.
• Tool Proficiency: you gain proficiency with the artisan's tools of your choice: smith's tools, brewer's supplies, or mason's tools.
• Stonecutting: whenever you make an Intelligence (History) check related to the origin of stonework, you are considered proficient in the History skill and add double your proficiency bonus to the check.
• Languages: you speak, read, and write Common and Dwarvish.

And so on. I didn't spend a whole lot of time on it; I just wanted to put enough ideas down to get the ball rolling. The idea here is that a "half elf" wouldn't necessarily be the offspring of an elf and a human; it might be the offspring of an elf and a dwarf, or a drow and a wood elf.

There was a similar idea that I saw bounced around on Twitter by a user named GabeJamesGames. His angle though was attaching ability score improvements to class rather than race. When presented with the class, the players are asked in a mini-questionnaire how they would solve problems as the class, and that provides the associated ability score bonuses. I like it because - to pull from the earlier example of minotaurs and halflings - if we assume that most minotaurs are fighters and barbarians, then that explains why they have higher Strength, while halflings choosing rogues and bards would explain a higher Dexterity.

But is portraying orcs differently because there is a different evil race in Eberron? Because that is almost always the case in any fantasy - there has to be some type of existential threat to the protagonists.

I'm not sure if it's "because" there are different evil forces at work in Eberron. I think it was just a conscientious desire to depict a multitude of orc societies rather than a monolithic one. On the continent of Khorvaire alone, orcs not only vary between regions and cultures, but also within regions and cultures. Eberron does place a greater emphasis on political intrigue, as they just came out of a civil war between once-united-nations. There are existential threats, but these are from cultic factions and otherworldly fiends, aberrations, and dream monsters.

Doesn't this imply that instead of trying to humanize these races or something, by claiming they're similar to real world ethnicities, instead we should treat them as genuinely alien in thought and biology instead?

Except the point is that it failed because as human players we naturally humanize these things.

 

[GreyLord]

I don't think anyone is talking about putting one or the other down or making them the enemy just because they look or act differently.

How many orcs have died in D&D 5e games? How many goblins?

We don't even need to refer to monster manual creatures...how many Drow (a playable race)?

These are races players play. These PC's act like humans normally, think like humans normally, AND...ADVANCE like humans normally. An Orc Barbarian is going to put most of their points in Strength or Constitution first. They will value the same thing a player playing a human barbarian would value in level ups. An Orc Sorcerer would be played the same way. They don't value different ideas and things normally, they are played and advance in the same fashion.

A LOT of this is because the game is fashioned that way...and then...they turn around and slaughter an entire tribe of Orcs because...why?

Orcs are evil? An Orc tribe is raiding a human or other settlement? An Orc group is under the sway of an evil spellcaster? And this justifies the wholesale slaughter of a race that can be played by PC's?

This is how we traditionally have handled these things...and even I play it that way in many instances (and certainly, there are those that do not, but I feel those are the minority of players rather than most)...

But is that really the RIGHT way we should be handling things today with enlightenment on how the real world is going or should there be a better way to do things?

 

[Warren Ellis]

Does the modern default adventures still push orcs and such like they were in say 1e as walking experience points or something?

I thought a lot of this stuff had been pushed by the wayside for some time?

We don't even need to refer to monster manual creatures...how many Drow (a playable race)?

Except I've seen enough monster and creature manuals that depict human town guards to be creatures as well.

And the issue with say drow or orcs, in Forgotten Realms at least, is that most of them are born into particular cultures, and made to worship horrific deities, which pushes them to start violence and others to respond back in self-defense, it seems to me.

 

[Helldritch]

And that is problematic with what we see with racial relations today, especially in looking at the real world. If all race is in D&D are different looking humans, than portraying a race (such as Orks) as ugly or lesser simply because...has direct implications on how we see race in the real world as well. In light of HOW we play races and monsters today as PC's, perhaps it IS time for a change where we seriously consider what we are portraying, because if all they are in play are different looking humans, than we should focus more on the equality of representation of those different races and monsters rather than putting one or the other down or making them the enemy just because they look or act differently.

And this probably why we have so much different opinions in here. I believe that you nailed it correctly.

I once, long ago, made a campaign made only for elves. They did the same adventure five times. It was called:" The caves of Cradmos"
1st time there were goblins and thse were threathening a local elven village. The second time, 75 years later, orcs were using the caves as a stage area to mount raids into elven territories.
The third times, an evil wizard was attempting to do the same with various humanoids as troops. This was 200 years later.
The fourth time, undead were creeping out of the caves and the elven forest was besieged. Again, 50 years had passed.
The last time, they discovered that a lich was hiding in the caves in a secret location they had missed. It turned out that the lich was the wizard they had vanquished long ago but that they had let live.

It showed my player a bit of the mindset of elves. We had even introduced adventuring weariness for long lived race as for them, time is not of the essence...

 

[Minigiant]

One RPG that succeeded in keeping their nonhuman races as nonhuman is Warhammer Fantasy. Greenskin Orcs literally can't understand not fighting. Dwarves never let things go and scrutinize all progress. Lizardmen have reptile brains and cannot step away from the Great Plan.

Ironic to since Games Workshop's game had a ton of possibly racist stuff and a few actual. To the point it hindered its expansion outside of Europe. But they succeeded in making its races feel inhuman.

 

[Flamestrike]

As I said in an other post, the setting determines the view point that should be adopted. In my Greyhawk campaign, all orcs (and humanoids described as evil in the MM of all editions) are evil to the core.

Many factors can change what is good and what is evil. Yes there are basic things that are accepted as defining for the concepts. But these quickly go down the drain when faced with annihilation.

So if both sides of the coin (Good and Evil) are engaged in a pitiless merciless war of genocide against the other, where they take no prisoners or slaughter the ones they do have, butcher children and the elderly, and seek to eradicate the other from existence... what separates them? What makes one side different from the other side?

Surely if one side is ethically Good, and the other side is ethically evil, thats what separates them. The fact that the Good guys demonstrate mercy, compassion and altruism, while the evil guys do not.

There is a saying attributed to Neitzche 'He that fights with monsters, should take care not to himself become a monster.' I feel as if the moral of that saying is lost on you.

I would have no problems with a purportedly LG society turning to genocide or total war to defeat an enemy (particularly one that presents an existential threat to its existence). However when it does so, it ceases being LG.

 

[Benjamin Olson]

Orcs are evil? An Orc tribe is raiding a human or other settlement? An Orc group is under the sway of an evil spellcaster? And this justifies the wholesale slaughter of a race that can be played by PC's?

If it weren't them the players would be slaughtering generic human bandits wholesale, which is one of the other core 1st level encounter tropes. It's basically a game where problems are frequently solved with violence and players typically kill their enemies to a man. If it too often being Orcs who get to be the villains bothers you than have the low level heroes respond to a call for aid from a peaceful Orcish farming community constantly being raided by vicious, barbaric Halflings or something.

I find the best way to make players not murder people is to have those people be unarmed and non-threatening, or at least not all armed and threatening. Once you put any group in a warcamp with no non-combatents, and probably no people not wearing their armor and holding their weapons 24/7 (because adjusting statblocks is a pain) then the PCs have basically been given a license to kill by the conventions of every game they've ever played.