• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

D&D General WotC’s Official Announcement About Diversity, Races, and D&D

Following up on recent discussions on social media, WotC has made an official announcement about diversity and the treatment of ‘race’ in D&D.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Following up on recent discussions on social media, WotC has made an official announcement about diversity and the treatment of ‘race’ in D&D. Notably, the word ‘race’ is not used; in its place are the words ‘people’ and 'folk'.

2A4C47E3-EAD6-4461-819A-3A42B20ED62A.png


 PRESS RELEASE


Dungeons & Dragons teaches that diversity is strength, for only a diverse group of adventurers can overcome the many challenges a D&D story presents. In that spirit, making D&D as welcoming and inclusive as possible has moved to the forefront of our priorities over the last six years. We’d like to share with you what we’ve been doing, and what we plan to do in the future to address legacy D&D content that does not reflect who we are today. We recognize that doing this isn’t about getting to a place where we can rest on our laurels but continuing to head in the right direction. We feel that being transparent about it is the best way to let our community help us to continue to calibrate our efforts.

One of the explicit design goals of 5th edition D&D is to depict humanity in all its beautiful diversity by depicting characters who represent an array of ethnicities, gender identities, sexual orientations, and beliefs. We want everyone to feel at home around the game table and to see positive reflections of themselves within our products. “Human” in D&D means everyone, not just fantasy versions of northern Europeans, and the D&D community is now more diverse than it’s ever been.

Throughout the 50-year history of D&D, some of the peoples in the game—orcs and drow being two of the prime examples—have been characterized as monstrous and evil, using descriptions that are painfully reminiscent of how real-world ethnic groups have been and continue to be denigrated. That’s just not right, and it’s not something we believe in. Despite our conscious efforts to the contrary, we have allowed some of those old descriptions to reappear in the game. We recognize that to live our values, we have to do an even better job in handling these issues. If we make mistakes, our priority is to make things right.

Here’s what we’re doing to improve:
  • We present orcs and drow in a new light in two of our most recent books, Eberron: Rising from the Last War and Explorer's Guide to Wildemount. In those books, orcs and drow are just as morally and culturally complex as other peoples. We will continue that approach in future books, portraying all the peoples of D&D in relatable ways and making it clear that they are as free as humans to decide who they are and what they do.
  • When every D&D book is reprinted, we have an opportunity to correct errors that we or the broader D&D community discovered in that book. Each year, we use those opportunities to fix a variety of things, including errors in judgment. In recent reprintings of Tomb of Annihilation and Curse of Strahd, for example, we changed text that was racially insensitive. Those reprints have already been printed and will be available in the months ahead. We will continue this process, reviewing each book as it comes up for a reprint and fixing such errors where they are present.
  • Later this year, we will release a product (not yet announced) that offers a way for a player to customize their character’s origin, including the option to change the ability score increases that come from being an elf, a dwarf, or one of D&D's many other playable folk. This option emphasizes that each person in the game is an individual with capabilities all their own.
  • Curse of Strahd included a people known as the Vistani and featured the Vistani heroine Ezmerelda. Regrettably, their depiction echoes some stereotypes associated with the Romani people in the real world. To rectify that, we’ve not only made changes to Curse of Strahd, but in two upcoming books, we will also show—working with a Romani consultant—the Vistani in a way that doesn’t rely on reductive tropes.
  • We've received valuable insights from sensitivity readers on two of our recent books. We are incorporating sensitivity readers into our creative process, and we will continue to reach out to experts in various fields to help us identify our blind spots.
  • We're proactively seeking new, diverse talent to join our staff and our pool of freelance writers and artists. We’ve brought in contributors who reflect the beautiful diversity of the D&D community to work on books coming out in 2021. We're going to invest even more in this approach and add a broad range of new voices to join the chorus of D&D storytelling.
And we will continue to listen to you all. We created 5th edition in conversation with the D&D community. It's a conversation that continues to this day. That's at the heart of our work—listening to the community, learning what brings you joy, and doing everything we can to provide it in every one of our books.

This part of our work will never end. We know that every day someone finds the courage to voice their truth, and we’re here to listen. We are eternally grateful for the ongoing dialog with the D&D community, and we look forward to continuing to improve D&D for generations to come.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

BookTenTiger

He / Him
Why? I mean that seriously. You have a problem with evil orcs, change it. I've explained my logic and reasoning repeatedly now ... I don't feel like doing it any more.

A big part of the game is killing evil monsters. Change orcs to green, call them a different species instead of race and I see no issue. I see no logical reason we can have (effectively) always evil fiends, dragons and undead but we can't have an evil monster that happens to look sort-of human.

Why not? What's the harm in it? I feel like you are participating in this thread because you want to discuss the use of races in D&D. This thought exercise is the next step.

And I'm going to reflect your second thought back at you as a question:

What would be a reason we don't want to use humanoids that are always evil?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

BookTenTiger

He / Him
But what % are evil though?

I mean, drow have had a poster-child for the "rebel fighting against the evil of his people" for decades. There is a goddess dedicated to non-evil drow. They are a PC race in the PHB. They're are probably as many examples of non-evil drow as evil ones at this point.

Yet they are still called out for being problematic.

So how many drow need to not be evil? 10%? 50%? 90%? What level makes them acceptable?

What if we free ourselves from defining a people as evil? What if we look at the drow the adventurers are going to interact with.

If you want drow as enemies, have them be a raiding party of drow, or necromancers who want to raise an undead army, or assassins. Those can all be evil drow without having to say "all drow are evil."

If you want drow as interesting NPCs, have them be in a powerful guild, or merchants who sell magic items, or an authoritarian government.

If we don't start with "how many drow are evil" and instead think about the stories we want to tell with drow, it frees us up from these archaic modes of categorization.
 

Oofta

Legend
Why not? What's the harm in it? I feel like you are participating in this thread because you want to discuss the use of races in D&D. This thought exercise is the next step.

And I'm going to reflect your second thought back at you as a question:

What would be a reason we don't want to use humanoids that are always evil?

If they are not always evil I have no need for them in my game. Their role can be filled by one of the standard PHB races, I'd be happy to winnow out another humanoid species.

I'll just make up another elf sub-race to fill their spot. :p

More seriously, do you have an issue with any other evil monsters? Are the good vampires?
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
don't see a correlation between fictional green skinned monsters and any human ethnicity just because the monsters are human shaped and can talk.
On the other hand I get tired of being told that I'm an ignorant racist because in my campaign orcs will continue to be evil or they'll just be another monster I don't ever use.
Tbh the only thing that leads me to give you the side eye in these talks, rather than just argue with you in a specifically D&D context about what the default lore is or should be, is that you insist on trying to make the discussion about your home campaign every single time, and then act the victim when people respond in the context of the thread topic every single time.

Like, why did your home game even occur to you as relevant to this topic? No one cares how you use a given game widget in your home game, outside of a thread about “how do you use XYZ in your home games?”
We are discussing the published game, not anyone’s
Nope, just fed up. I"ve participated in marches against Police Brutality of People of Color in the last several weeks. From my perspective, if someone sees a Person of Color or any Human as an Orc or Drow or Gnoll then they have to be pretty darn racist. This is like asking "why they don't eat cake?" Because they are dying in our streets here in the U.S. The whole system here is cancerous with racism and somebody thinks that this is one of the steps we needed? Someone thinks that a monster like an Orc or a Drow is associated with the monster and I'm being ignorant and snide?

I don’t know why this is hard to get, but people aren’t saying “orcs are just thinly veiled Black people stand ins”, they’re saying, “the specific rhetoric surrounding orcs makes me uncomfortable as a player of color, because it’s the same rhetoric used by slavers to justify slavery or racist cops to justify targeted brutality.” Those are very different. 🤷‍♂️

People are also saying, “it’s just not cool to correlate moral traits to a race, ever.”

Moat of the people saying these things are also marching and otherwise supporting the movement.
 

Whizbang Dustyboots

Gnometown Hero
I don't agree with all the changes but it's a bit of a hyperbole to say that there's absolutely no reason for them. D&D changes constantly. The D&D of 1977 wasn't the same as it was in 1987 which wasn't the same as it was in 1997. I expect D&D of 2030 will not be the same as it is today. I realized a few years ago that time marches on and to remain relevant WotC is going to appeal to the next generation of consumers. I have made my peace with that. If I'm still playing D&D in 10 years I'll probably adapt to whatever rules/settings they have.
We also live in an era where it is easier than it's ever been to play with older versions of the rules or remix them as you wish. I can't imagine they're going to get that genie back in the bottle that Ryan Dancey opened with the OGL. (Thanks again, Ryan!)
 

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
Supporter
A big part of the game is killing evil monsters. Change orcs to green, call them a different species instead of race and I see no issue. I see no logical reason we can have (effectively) always evil fiends, dragons and undead but we can't have an evil monster that happens to look sort-of human.

So, as previously noted - I'm only talking about the published works. What you do at your table at home, I don't really care much about.

But, if you are a white guy... maybe your not seeing the issue is not really that important? As far as the published works are concerned, are you unwilling to accept that maybe a publisher is right to bow to someone else's sensibilities now and then?
 

BookTenTiger

He / Him
If they are not always evil I have no need for them in my game. Their role can be filled by one of the standard PHB races, I'd be happy to winnow out another humanoid species.

I'll just make up another elf sub-race to fill their spot. :p

More seriously, do you have an issue with any other evil monsters? Are the good vampires?

Yeah, I have a big problem with enemies that should be fought just because they're evil. If I were to rely on that, I would think of myself as a pretty lazy storyteller.

What I like is motivation. The demon might be Chaotic Evil, but that's not why the characters will fight it. They'll fight the demon because it's stealing children to sacrifice to its demon god.
 

Blacksad

Explorer
I have been the subject of ethnographic observations from an outsider. It's weird. You imagine being the lab rat in front of a biologist.

Thing is, the outsider perspective tends to be more readable, and it's purpose is to instruct others. While insider ethnographic studies have sometimes been self serving ; not all of them, but enough to have some defiance by default

I say this, because I think that having the Romani consultant and sensitivity reader next to each other in WotC text might have lead to a negative reaction. The Romani consultant is to treat a specific issue : the presence of a secondary human race in DnD.

And I hope that the sensitivity reader won't have to be of the background they are supposed to be sensitive to. Otherwise, while WotC had a good strategy for gender getting to a 50/50 ratio, I fear that for cultures it could backfire and fragment the community (cue the promotion of regional identity in Ethiopia and its side effects).

I'm also curious if there are any people not from the five eyes working at WotC. I have the impression that TSR was more open to working with foreigners (Froideval comes to mind), while WotC is more open to U.S. diversity.
 

Whizbang Dustyboots

Gnometown Hero
So legitimate question: based on what Crawford said are they talking about retconning everything or merely having a variety of worlds where things are different?
No.

As has been said repeatedly, any existing evil NPC -- including whole cities of bondage fetishist drow -- can remain that way. Any changes would be to say that "but not every drow is necessarily that way."

Every setting, every adventure is still accurate. But the orcs in the slavers stockade (A2, for oldsters like me) don't mean that every orc is an evil slaver.
 

Oofta

Legend
Tbh the only thing that leads me to give you the side eye in these talks, rather than just argue with you in a specifically D&D context about what the default lore is or should be, is that you insist on trying to make the discussion about your home campaign every single time, and then act the victim when people respond in the context of the thread topic every single time.

Like, why did your home game even occur to you as relevant to this topic? No one cares how you use a given game widget in your home game, outside of a thread about “how do you use XYZ in your home games?”
We are discussing the published game, not anyone’s

We aren't? I've never said once that I have an issue with a change from MM assumption to FR, Eberron or any other campaign setting. So why so much push back when I explain my personal preference?
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Top