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...

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.


636252771691385727.jpg


@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'.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


log in or register to remove this ad


Minigiant

Legend
Supporter
And that, I believe, is as lame as removing/renaming demons and devils during the satanic panic.

There could also be pressure due to their recent issues with race on the MTG side as well.
It all sounds like fear of a blacklash due to not being proactive before.
 

DEFCON 1

Legend
Supporter
I suppose I’m wondering overall whether these changes are really serving the real-world goal of addressing racism, or if these genre changes are change for changes’ sake.
Does it matter?

Some people feel as though the orc was Tolkien's veiled use of the people and cultures he fought against in his time in the Great War. And we can see throughout this thread and in all the articles that have been linked as to WHY some people feel that way. Now if someone reads all these things and doesn't feel convinced? Fine. That's your prerogative.

However... if the people who design and write this game called Dungeons & Dragons feel as though the people who are making these statements have a point... then they might very well go ahead and make changes to the game because they think it's the right thing to do (even if particular individuals within the company do not necessarily go along with the idea.) Now will some think it was "change for change's sake"? Sure. But so what? Things have been changed for "change's sake" in this game throughout the entire history of its life. Armor Class now goes up! Some people suggested there was a strong and important reason for that change... others thought it was change for change's sake and that the people who couldn't understand downwards AC were just not trying very hard.

Guess what? Most of us got over it. And those that didn't? They kept playing their earlier editions and kept things the way they wanted. And there's not much wrong with that. So if anyone here has this massively strong belief that orcs and evil and always evil and should never be written to have a flexibility like a lot of the other humanoid races do... then they can play their original 5E as-is and just ignore whatever updated or Variant rules get added going forward that doesn't treat orcs that way. I mean if we were all willing to move on to these new editions of D&D where they no longer had art of women in ridiculously gratuitously skimpy outfits... I'm pretty sure we can move onto a new version of D&D where orcs are not written as an entirely savage and evil race and instead... some are and some aren't, based upon what they believe, rather than what is ingrained.
 
Last edited:


DEFCON 1

Legend
Supporter
And that, I believe, is as lame as removing/renaming demons and devils during the satanic panic.
Yeah, well... if in 10 years after they made a change regarding orcs they discover it was unnecessary, then they'll just put them back the way they were in 6E, like they did with devils and demons back in the 80s.

Are those 10 years of having to read in the new books a potentially different version of orcs from editions past going to be so difficult for you? If so... then just use the books you have. And then in 10 years time if they write them back the old way you can tell us all "Ha! Told ya so!" I'm pretty sure if we've reached a point in society where real-life racism has changed to the point where there isn't seen a connection between "evil humanoids" and real-life peoples across the globe... we'll be so happy about that that we won't care that you were trying to dunk on us. ;)
 

Olrox17

Hero
There could also be pressure due to their recent issues with race on the MTG side as well.
It all sounds like fear of a blacklash due to not being proactive before.
Right, that also happened. Removing a card because it "destroys all black creatures". As if MtG mana colors ever had any correlation with ethnicities.

Only card I can kinda agree with them removing, is the one that had weird cultists with pointy hoods. That looked like an intentional and insensitive reference to a real life group.
 

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
Supporter
Yes, in my experience D&D players solve virtually every problem with lethal force.

When all you have is a hammer, every problem becomes a nail. D&D rules depth for things other than use of force is not great. If you want a game in which other solutions are to be considered, you need mechanics to support that with as much depth as they approach use of force.


Stepping into an only-tangentially related aside....

A couple years back, a friend of mine had me run a D&D campaign to teach his daughter how to play. I used Lost Mine of Phandelver. She loved it enough that she went on to run games for her peers, and my game fell by the wayside, as the girls wanted to play with their peers, not adults, which is totally reasonable.

Some time passed, and this same friend realized he wants to try his hand at running a game, including his daughter (who's 15 to 16 years old), my wife, and myself as players. He is using Dragon of Icespire Peak, and started with the premise that he wanted to keep it to "standard D&D morality". So, orcs are BAD, and you can kill them without worrying, and so on.

It has been interesting to watch his stance change as the game has gone on. It became clear that, running a game for his own daughter, that generalization... just wasn't good enough. He very quickly moved into the mode in which every villain was telegraphed as being specifically bad ahead of time - the orcs raided a farmstead, killing almost everyone. Or, they were part of a cult, that had already done X, Y, and Z before we got there. So, our moral choices are still uncomplicated, and we use force to solve most problems, but there's a clear justification for typical D&D use of force.
 

WOTC wants to keep Orcs and Drow dark skinned so they don't want to associate one of the iconic darkskinned races as brutish dumb monsters and the other as sexist evil backstabbers during a time of increased visblility to African Americans.

Dark skinned races are always stupid, evil or both. Fair skinned races are usually beautiful and smart or both.

Even Tolkien wasn't immune from this bias. Heck leaving aside the Orc v Arayan elves argument, the Dunedain and Rohorrim were fair skinned noble good guys while the Dark skinned men from the east rode elephants and worshipped Saurom.
 

Minigiant

Legend
Supporter
Got a reference for that? Because in 5E they can (rare as it may be).

Says so in the entry for Fiends in the monster manual.

Page 7 of the MM
"If an evil celestial is rare, a good fiend is almost inconceivable."

Right, that also happened. Removing a card because it "destroys all black creatures". As if MtG mana colors ever had any correlation with ethnicities.

Only card I can kinda agree with them removing, is the one that had weird cultists with pointy hoods. That looked like an intentional and insensitive reference to a real life group.
Not that

The part that WOTC almost NEVER promotes minority MTG pro players to the point have people rarely can name 2 black MTG pros.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Remove ads

Remove ads

Top