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. Notably, the word ‘race’ is not used; in its place are the words ‘people’ and 'folk'.

 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.

 

[Zardnaar]

if you can't say it because of "Forum rules" then it's probably not a good argument.

still have no idea whose wife you're talking about either.

Politics and religion against the rules. My arguement is more Economic but it overlaps with politics.

What I'm saying is if D&D doesn't take a hit or a big one you can take some good guesses as to who plays it. Economic downturn, won't hurt some groups as much as others etc.

 

[Nikosandros]

The representation of the Vistani has always struck me as deeply problematic. Maybe it's because there's a very strong prejudice and discrimination against Roma here in Italy, but I'm really glad that WotC is taking steps to rectify this (even if they could have avoided altogether that one bit of "nostalgia" when they published CoS in the first place).

I will admit that I'm one of the people who didn't really see the issue with orcs, BUT - even notwithstanding all the detailed explanations that have been given here and elsewhere - there is also, IMHO, another point. On one hand we have POC saying that this representation is harmful, on the other side is Nikosandros who hasn't given much thought about the issue because he's white.

And what will I lose with this changes? Nothing, that's what. I'll get a different take on orcs and if I really need the old fashioned marauders in some of my games, I can keep using them.

 

[Remathilis]

I don't know, because the world is not black and white? Also, there are clearly evil monsters still, they're just making the humanoids depicted more as people than "mindless killing machines" because that's not what orcs are. Orcs in lore have consciousnesses, and are like humans in most ways. Drow are the same way.

You can still have tribes of evil orcs, and Lolth worshipping-Drow enemies, but the players will also be able to play those races with more ease, hopefully.

Giving the players a boost in character options isn't taking anything away from you. Also, if you don't like these changes, just ignore them.

But... isn't that almost exactly what we have now?

Ok, lets ignore the orc intelligence penalty for a moment (it was bad both from a lore and a mechanical standpoint and shouldn't have existed). Orcs have been reprinted as a playable race in three supplements (only goblins have more reprints with four). Drow are in the PHB. It is stated, if not implied, that PCs break the mold of the "evil" versions of these races, much like how PC dwarves can be any alignment, not just LG. The section that preambles the "monstrous races" section in Volo goes into detail on how these races can be incorporated into a typical adventuring party. The Drow have a similar call-out sidebar in the PHB. It's not like these races were taboo or locked away in the DMG, they were accessible in PC-facing books with the explicit language that "you are different than the Monster Manual version".

It seems to me that leaving tribes of evil orcs and Lolth-woshipping drow as the primary NPC interactions with these races and then providing PCs greater access to PC versions that are different isn't change or progress, it's just spelling out what we have now louder for those in the back.

Which is why I'm asking what will be done to show these races aren't always either Evil Antagonists or PCs Who Break the Mold. Is Rime of the Frostmaiden going to have orc tribes that aren't hell-bent on a fight interacting positively with the Ten Towns? Will the next Forgotten Realms supplement discuss a city of Drow that aren't spider-worshipping sadists in the Underdark? Will Many-Arrows be retconned again to become a true homeland for orc PCs the way Evermeet or Gauntelgrym are for elves and dwarves? Will Drow and orcs appear as innkeepers, farmers, priests, and other townsfolk in the larger urban areas of the Sword Coast? Or will orcs be treated like the other races in Volo; "yeah they exist if the DM wants, but we don't really talk about them."

As I said before, "good orc tribes just off camera" that you never see, meet, or whatever as you hack through another warband of Gruumsh-led orcs attacking Phandalin isn't progress. Its patting yourself on the back for spelling out what you've always done.

In other words, it's fine to SAY orcs aren't beholden to be mindless cannon fodder, but what are you going to do to SHOW that, WotC?

 

[WayneLigon]

But holy hell. Is sword and sorcery simply off the table?

That might be a huge clue that a lot of older literature was created in a time when casual racism was so pervasive that it was indistinguishable from the mainstream culture (1). You've apparently missed a tremendous amount of discussion about how problematic a lot of Howard et al is. It doesn't mean not reading it or using it for inspiration but it does mean not using it without some careful examination. Think of walking across a nice field, not knowing about the landmines laid there generations ago.

Here and on FB (say it ain't so!), I see a huge amount of privilege showing. It's a terribly hard problem to recognize and overcome, because it's like the air you breathe. You and your friends and your family are so used to it that you don't even see it. The only time you even notice it is when something changes.

Dealing with and defeating cultural majority privilege isn't something where you read a couple of memes and you're better. It's something you struggle with every day in every way, because again it's everywhere.

As a would-be writer, it's hugely important for me to pay attention to it so I don't make casual assumptions about, well, everything that exists outside my bubble. Ignoring this is how politicians and executives ruins careers, by being casually blind to various issues.

(1) Making it no different from now, and we still have a long way to go. But go read some popular fiction or even newspaper articles from, say, 1925 America. I mean, damn.

 

[Warpiglet]

That might be a huge clue that a lot of older literature was created in a time when casual racism was so pervasive that it was indistinguishable from the mainstream culture (1). You've apparently missed a tremendous amount of discussion about how problematic a lot of Howard et al is. It doesn't mean not reading it or using it for inspiration but it does mean not using it without some careful examination. Think of walking across a nice field, not knowing about the landmines laid there generations ago.

Here and on FB (say it ain't so!), I see a huge amount of privilege showing. It's a terribly hard problem to recognize and overcome, because it's like the air you breathe. You and your friends and your family are so used to it that you don't even see it. The only time you even notice it is when something changes.

Dealing with and defeating cultural majority privilege isn't something where you read a couple of memes and you're better. It's something you struggle with every day in every way, because again it's everywhere.

As a would-be writer, it's hugely important for me to pay attention to it so I don't make casual assumptions about, well, everything that exists outside my bubble. Ignoring this is how politicians and executives ruins careers, by being casually blind to various issues.

(1) Making it no different from now, and we still have a long way to go. But go read some popular fiction or even newspaper articles from, say, 1925 America. I mean, damn.

Certainly get all that and understand the cringe feeling that comes about when we read things that are simply from another time.

However, where does our caution stop in our make believe games? Will we have a cool game left?

Missionaries “put people to the sword” for not converting in the Americas.

So no longer can we have evil clerics conquer? No more good clerics winning hearts?

We should not have characters clear territories of evil monsters and establish a keep? Going this far seems absurd to me.

And I think perhaps people are reading too far into Crawford’s statements and are projecting their version of “appropriate” on the game.

One thing I note too is how dismissive of older players some are in the name of inclusion. Well, you don’t matter from a business perspective, etc etc.

To each their own. There is a place for gritty fantasy and more traditional takes on a lot of tables. Those are the tables that offer the best fun for me certainly. If the next generation of players sanitizes the game they will get the game they want in many instances too.

As long as a diversity of products are offered I won’t sweat it.

 

[oreofox]

I've always had problems with the always evil races just there for slaughter. It honestly reminds me of European colonialism/imperialism. As a white guy, this never sat right with me. You have the PC races (always been humans, dwarves, elves, half-elves, and halflings with mentions of gnomes) usually shown with pale skin, in civilized countries with walled cities, farming villages, etc. Then there's the evil bastards with their non-pale skin (typically shown as green) living in ramshackle huts made of mud and sticks and animal skins rampaging and raiding the civilized pale-skins because they are typically too stupid to be anything but hunters and gatherers (or in the case of goblins and kobolds, using their slightly higher intelligence, but still dumber than the average human, on making traps).

It is fine to include a culture of orcs or goblins or gnolls that are similar to this. But EVERY SINGLE orc or goblin being this way? That's problematic. Has been that way for me for the last 20 years since getting into D&D. That was one of the best things about Eberron, having the always evil monsters not being always evil. Including the dragons. It was nice to see good red dragons and evil silver dragons. I liked seeing a nation of monsters not being shown as rampaging raiders only existing for the pale-skins to slaughter without thought. If humans can have varied cultures, with good nations and evil nations, the same should be true for every humanoid, not just humans, pointy-eared forest humans, short bearded mountain humans, even shorter farmer humans, and super short faerie humans.

So everything in this article, I applaud. And I hope this isn't just lip service.

Also, ASI at character creation should have been tied to class, not race. That's what they first tried in the playtest, but I guess people didn't like that. So I changed to that, giving +2 stat from class, and a floating +1 from race, to indicate the PC is exceptional among their racial group.

 

[DammitVictor]

But holy hell. Is sword and sorcery simply off the table?

I hate to try to wrest the discussion away from more important matters to grind my own personal axe-- but there are a lot of things that adventurers do that are pretty terrible, but would be a hell of a lot less offensive to most people if the game and its authors did not stand in the background with signs proclaiming that these actions are Morally Obligatory and Objectively Good.

Maybe I'm not the guy to ask, since I'm whitish and straightish and thoroughly male... but I don't actually want the D&D worlds to be less racist, for there to be less racism in the fiction of the D&D settings. I just want the D&D rules to stop telling me that certain kinds of people are morally inferior by birth and that finding that horrific makes me a bad person.

 

[MGibster]

At the end of the day what's the big deal? I'm fine with orcs or drow always being evil but I'm also fine with them running that gamut from good to evil. I've certainly played enough games where trolls, orcs, goblins, and other "evil" races were more complex than that with plenty of good people. If D&D is a abandoning the old always evil model I'm fine with that. We're still going to see good gaming. Maybe better settings.

 

[Bohandas]

It is fine to include a culture of orcs or goblins or gnolls that are similar to this. But EVERY SINGLE orc or goblin being this way? That's problematic. Has been that way for me for the last 20 years since getting into D&D. That was one of the best things about Eberron, having the always evil monsters not being always evil. Including the dragons. It was nice to see good red dragons and evil silver dragons. I liked seeing a nation of monsters not being shown as rampaging raiders only existing for the pale-skins to slaughter without thought. If humans can have varied cultures, with good nations and evil nations, the same should be true for every humanoid, not just humans, pointy-eared forest humans, short bearded mountain humans, even shorter farmer humans, and super short faerie humans.

Why should they be written as if they were human and as if they were all the same when they're literally different species than humans and different species than each other?

I thought that you didn't want them to be a stand-in for race, but your argument turns them into literally just different types of humans

 

[doctorbadwolf]

okay, then what makes Keep on the Borderlands "a lot more complex"? are orcs getting ready to invade a city? or is the party just literally tasked with killing monsters for no reason other than they're nearby? it's one thing if there's an immediate threat that needs to be taken care of, but you didn't describe the adventure this way so I'm guessing that's not the case.

In the DDO version, there is a cult of evil chaos that is influencing the various people of the wilds into attacking the Keep and the civilization beyond it. Still not great. Lots of eye rolling while accepting quests. “Go kill all the kobolds!” Ugh.
The Gnoll quest is funny tho, bc the daughter of the chieftain of the Gnolls helps you in exchange for you killing her mother and the cultists so the tribe can go back to the wilds, and then it turns out to be a trick so she can be with another female Gnoll from another, enemy, tribe.

But the original module, pretty much only “good” from a nostalgia perspective.

If they do it probably gives you a fairly good clue what socioeconomic group is playing the game.

What I'm saying is if D&D doesn't take a hit or a big one you can take some good guesses as to who plays it. Economic downturn, won't hurt some groups as much as others etc.

Not really. We aren’t gonna see a new Great Depression, and if we did only a segment of the rich would be unaffected.

Every D&D player I know is or has been struggling to get by. Doesn’t stop any of us playing D&D.

Back when we were all broke, we just practiced some black market socialism and shared everything, including the cost of new stuff. These days I don’t ask for anything for my Master Sub at dndbeyond, or the books I purchase there so everyone can use them.

Point being, your posit that D&D is mostly a middle+ class game is false, far as I can tell.