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

I personally would prefer if they called them "Species" and the subraces become "races". That's how we, as the Homo Sapiens Sapiens, are a distinct species from Neanderthals, but I, a Caucasian male, is a different race from someone from India.
Unfortunately, Species, from the biological point of view, describe people that are fecund and create individuals that are indefinitely fecund. So for this definition, an Orc and a Human or a Human and an Elf are of the same Species. Otherwise Race means a fenotypical group without biological significance, so even race is not good for our purposes. If we accept a common ancestry, we can say Species for Races saving the possibility of breeding. But then an Orc and an Halfling are not of the same Species.
Guys, the truth is that this is a game. Relax.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

So I'm not quite sure how you'd get 1/2 Tieflings when they are already 1/2 to begin with.

Tieflings aren't "half-demon" or even "quarter-demon". In 2E, they have some demonic ancestry, but it's definitely less than half. In later editions, it remains less than half, and may not be ancestry at all, but being "planetouched" (as in Eberron), or cursed, or whatever. So you could certainly have a half-Tiefling. They'd be a Tiefling.
 

No, they're corrupted elves, nothing really racist there in a story about good vs evil.

The fact that Tolkien himself said he thought of them as looking like "Mongols" (his word) and then said some pretty racist things about Mongols really super-undermines "Tolkien orcs aren't racist!" claims. I'm sure it wasn't meant in an aggressively nasty way, Tolkien wasn't like that, but it was passive and creepy racism nonetheless.

Google it, before you ask me to find the quote for you, or deny it.
 

Urriak Uruk

Gaming is fun, and fun is for everyone
I bet that it would not sell at all. Such a world would be bland and boring. If I want a sword and sorcery game, every one in it will be humans and they will either fight other humans or monsters/demons just like Conan does. If you have multiple races, you must then have evil races. Otherwise, what is the point?

What unimaginative world building.
 

Actually, you're not - you're both "caucasians", race-wise. Americans misuse "caucasian" to mean "white" thanks to racist usage early in the 20th century, but an anthropological and archaeological sense, it refers to a particular population wave. Europeans, Indians, Arabic, Semitic and Persian peoples and so on are all "caucasian". Genetically, those groups are somewhat more similar to each other than they are to other groups, too, generally speaking.

Races are nonsense anyway, but if you're going to claim the "caucasian" race, let's at least get as close to a scientific meaning as possible. Many American "caucasians" have significant Native American and other non-"caucasian" (by any meaning of the term) ancestry too, complicating matters.

Cultures would probably be better than "races", and species is too dry a term ("peoples" or something might work better). Cultures makes more sense, though, because you don't have Elven weapon proficiencies from being born an elf, you have them from being trained by that culture. You (probably) don't have the Wood Elf vanish from being "born that way", but rather being trained that way. And so on.

There are too many biological differences to call them Cultures. But the fact that Orcs and Humans and elves can breed collide with the definition of Species.
 

Weiley31

Legend
I don't think there is such a rule anymore. From the MM:

"The alignment specified in a monster's stat block is the default. Feel free to depart from it and change a
monster's alignment to suit the needs of your campaign."

As for classes, alignment restrictions are gone in 5e.

Actually now that you mention class restrictions you made me realize that the only true racist leftover is that druids still freaking can't use metal shields and armor!!! 🤬
Mielikki got ya back!
 

I wonder what solution could be the best, or the worse. I agree with your analysis but:
1. start to paint them white? LOL
2. retcon with the fact that there are also good dark elves communities? difficult without making material aimed at that
3. give a great and memorable example of their not ontologically cruelty with an iconic png that is a good and powerful hero? DONE

Actually I have quite good answers here:

1. They've already started painting them grey, rather than black. This is a smart compromise.
2. Retcon? No. They already established this at length in 2E. The retcon was when 3E and to some extent 5E overwrote this and tried to shove it back under the carpet.
3. Doesn't work until community stops taking giant dumps on every single person who wants to play a good Drow and abusing them. We need a non-Drizzt example.
 

Urriak Uruk

Gaming is fun, and fun is for everyone
The fact that Tolkien himself said he thought of them as looking like "Mongols" (his word) and then said some pretty racist things about Mongols really super-undermines "Tolkien orcs aren't racist!" claims. I'm sure it wasn't meant in an aggressively nasty way, Tolkien wasn't like that, but it was passive and creepy racism nonetheless.

Google it, before you ask me to find the quote for you, or deny it.

Personally I didn't know this, and totally agree with you on this. It does lead back to the point that the concept of orcs isn't racist (they're not born evil, they become evil when corrupted), but their depiction (looking like Mongols) is very racist.
 

The images are not very grotesque are they? Sinister, yes!
These were the exact images I was expecting....

Drow can still be Demon Worshipping Dark Elves, but not all Dark Elves are Drow.

No one was playing a Drow PC in the original modules....times changed.

Here are some quotes from Robert e Howard’s Solomon Kane stories....anyone who has read the actual tales, knows these are not the most incendiary nor openly Racist aspect of those stories.

From the Moon of Skulls:
“The black people who thronged that mighty room seemed grotesquely incongruous. They no more suited their surroundings than a band of monkeys would have seemed at home in the council chambers of the English king.“

From the Hills of the Dead
“The girl was a much higher type than the thick-lipped, bestial West Coast negroes to whom Kane had been used. She was slim and finely formed, of a deep brown hue rather than ebony; her nose was straight and thin-bridged, her lips were not too thick. Somewhere in her blood there was a strong Berber strain.“

From Red Shadows
“A giant negro stalked into the space between them. He was the hugest man that Kane had ever seen, though he moved with catlike ease and suppleness. His arms and legs were like trees, and the great, sinuous muscles rippled with each motion. His apelike head was set squarely between gigantic shoulders. His great, dusky hands were like the talons of an ape, and his brow slanted back from above bestial eyes. Flat nose and great, thick red lips completed this picture of primitive, lustful savagery.“

This folks is the actual history and attitudes of fantasy, and directly inspired D&D.

I don’t advocate erasing history, merely looking at it from a more inclusive view.

D&D traditions have racist antecedents. So saying “Tradition is Tradition and Must be Upheld”, might be saying a bit more then you think.
 
Last edited:

Personally I didn't know this, and totally agree with you on this. It does lead back to the point that the concept of orcs isn't racist (they're not born evil, they become evil when corrupted), but their depiction (looking like Mongols) is very racist.
Different historical periods. Mongols in Europe were a big nasty problem, guys. I remember their incursions, women and children crudely abused, young man killed, split apart by their horses. I myself almost died by their hands. Racist is not good, but the Mongols were really nasty.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Remove ads

Remove ads

Top