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.

 

[Mecheon]

but it fills me with no small amount of dread to see this as remotely necessary

I find the problem more on the other side

Its basically a consultant to say "Hey, is this going to offend or piss off anyone?" The type of thing say, White Wolf would have wanted before they accidentally almost managed to cause an international incident and get their company shut down. There's a fair chance they're just gonna look over it, find nothing, and go"Yeah all good mate". But then there's the chance they find something that is a problem and have to change something because of unintended results

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Its basically a consultant to say "Hey, is this going to offend or piss off anyone?" The type of thing say, White Wolf would have wanted before they accidentally almost managed to cause an international incident and get their company shut down. There's a fair chance they're just gonna look over it, find nothing, and go"Yeah all good mate". But then there's the chance they find something that is a problem and have to change something because of unintended results

All the incentives are for them to find an issue. Saying "it's fine" and then having things blow up on WotC is a good way to, at a minimum, not get hired again. At worst, they could get sued for damages.

But since they're specifically getting extra eyes on the Vistani, WotC already knows where at least some of the problem areas are. In some cases, they and TSR have been hearing about the issues for decades.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

Like the persons in another thread equating Drow makeup (specifically Chang’s in Community), you‘re missing part of what the problem is. It isn’t just the actions of the Ferengi that echo the stereotype of Jews, it is also their visual depictions and mannerisms. Look up the old antisemetic image of “The Happy Merchant” or Shakespearean-era costumes for jewish characters, then watch some clips of Ferengi (other than Quark, if you really want to see it).

That addition to the totality of other factors are what will make someone of Jewish ancestry ask the question.

To their credit, the question has been addressed somewhat by the creators and actors of Star Trek- especially those involved in DS9. The Ferengi are in some sense a subversion of the tropes. But to subvert the trope, you must first invoke it.

Are Ferengi Jewish? 'Star Trek: Deep Space Nine' Actor Armin Shimerman Answers

The Ferengi, who first appeared in 'Star Trek: The Next Generation' have often been accused of being pernicious "Space Jew" stereotypes. Armin Shimerman, who played Quark on 'Star Trek: Deep Space Nine,' has a different take, which he offered up during the 'DS9' cast reunion at 'Star Trek...

www.player.one

I think you might be reacting to only part of my post, and not to the discussion between myself and the Prof as a whole. If you take the entirety of the Ferengi that I am aware of (and I was not a DS9 fan, nor did I watch more than maybe 1/4 of the episodes) I view them as a reference to corporations and not Jewish people. I have never even thought to make the connection to Jewish people until it was brought up here, and even then as it was being explained my thought process just substitutes corporations where others see Jews. I can see why people would make that connection, but not everyone will do so.

This goes back to the other thread, and the artwork of the Crusade card in Magic the Gathering. A poster here found no less than 4 elements of the artwork that they find appallingly racist, whereas my mind just sees uninspired milquetoast knight in shining armor blandness that is no more racist than any of the other 4000 knight in shining armor artworks found in middle ages styled anything.

 

[Minigiant]

No. The idea of needing someone to police creative work and have a say on what's allowed and what's not based on their own perception of right and wrong and thinking they have the right to dictate creative direction to appease their own political outlooks is what I have a problem with.

It's the notion that you must include a particular kind of human being in your work, company, design team that's insulting. Not just to the creative writer, but to the very person who either got hired to meet some metric of approval and became a token that the company can show and say "See, I hired this person to be a reader, or artist, or (insert reason here). Can I join your club of approval now?"

It's wrong to use people like this for the color of their skin, or their gender, or their neurological mind just to meet the approval of a group of people who thinks that this is inclusive when it's nothing more than using a person to meet another person or groups standard of approval.

If a person wants to do a Aztec Jaguar subclass for D&D, research Aztec culture. It's not hard. Pull up Aztec mythology. Study it a bit. You don't need someone who grew up in that area of the world to write it. Maybe consider an anthropologist if you must but to think you must find a person who grew up in a very specific part of the world to write about it is ludicrous. It's actually more insulting to think you must use them because majority of the time that is what's happening... They are being used.

On the flip side, if you are truly confused about something that you're working on and you've exhausted your own research and creative mindset and you think you need a consultant about something specific that you do not know what to do about it, then sure, get a consultant to help. Find a person who has real knowledge about it. Find a legit scholar and academic if you have to, someone who is neutral as much as possible. Or someone with a lot of experience. But do it out of respect, do it because the person would legitimately be a good partnership.

Do it with honor.

Needing a sensitivity reader for the sake of it to meet approval or some kind of public enforced standards of expectation isn't honorable. It's policing creative design.

The point is that they would have someone paid to doublecheck them fr errors. The onus would be on the "sensitivity reader" to find the experts for you as that's what they'd be paid to.

The designer's job is to design cool stuff not chat with history buffs.

It's like having a proofreader and editor.

 

[the Jester]

It was in 1st too (table in the back of the DMG, I don't have any of the monster books to check there). Even just second was 11 years long - just over 1/3rd of my life when 3e hit.

Just for the sake of accuracy, THAC0 was functionally different in 1e than it was in 2e. The attack matrices in 1e repeated the 20 six times before ascending to 21, while 2e did not.

...Okay, back to the discussion at hand!

 

[ZeshinX]

Imagine what it's felt like to be a member of a minority whose voice was ignored for decades, centuries or even longer. "Orwellian" is a walk in the park in comparison.

I can't even begin to, nor would I remotely suggest I even have the capacity to do so on such a scale.

Do I object outright to an additional pair of editorial eyes? Not in the least. Exploring better ways to approach staple mechanics that offer a more inclusive method that abandon racist-born concepts I'm all for. My concern is strictly a hope that these efforts do not fall down the rabbit hole so many of these types of initiatives have a tendency to do.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I think you might be reacting to only part of my post, and not to the discussion between myself and the Prof as a whole. If you take the entirety of the Ferengi that I am aware of (and I was not a DS9 fan, nor did I watch more than maybe 1/4 of the episodes) I view them as a reference to corporations and not Jewish people. I have never even thought to make the connection to Jewish people until it was brought up here, and even then as it was being explained my thought process just substitutes corporations where others see Jews. I can see why people would make that connection, but not everyone will do so.

This goes back to the other thread, and the artwork of the Crusade card in Magic the Gathering. A poster here found no less than 4 elements of the artwork that they find appallingly racist, whereas my mind just sees uninspired milquetoast knight in shining armor blandness that is no more racist than any of the other 4000 knight in shining armor artworks found in middle ages styled anything.

Reread what I wrote.

IMHO, you’re stopping at “corporations” precisely because you are not taking the “entirety of the Ferengi” into account. Looking at the antisemetic imagery of the past few hundred years and the stereotypical poses, postures and mannerisms seen in theater and film, it’s EASY to see why those of Jewish ancestry would ask about the inspirations behind the race. (Especially when you see the Ferengis’ earliest depictions in ST:NG: they even lampshade it a bit in DS9.)

 

[Professor Murder]

I think you might be reacting to only part of my post, and not to the discussion between myself and the Prof as a whole. If you take the entirety of the Ferengi that I am aware of (and I was not a DS9 fan, nor did I watch more than maybe 1/4 of the episodes) I view them as a reference to corporations and not Jewish people. I have never even thought to make the connection to Jewish people until it was brought up here, and even then as it was being explained my thought process just substitutes corporations where others see Jews. I can see why people would make that connection, but not everyone will do so.

This goes back to the other thread, and the artwork of the Crusade card in Magic the Gathering. A poster here found no less than 4 elements of the artwork that they find appallingly racist, whereas my mind just sees uninspired milquetoast knight in shining armor blandness that is no more racist than any of the other 4000 knight in shining armor artworks found in middle ages styled anything.

I did wish to further clarify my position with a parable.

Two people meet to discuss a work of art. Both are white. One says the work is racist. The other disagrees. Who is correct? The answer is if the one who states it is racist can provide reasoning to view it as racist, it likely is. But it can still appear to be a debate.

Two new people meet to discuss another work of art. One is white, who says the work is not racist. The second person is not white, and says the work is racist, directed at them. Who is correct? The second person. There isn't a debate. Their living experience is better evidence that the first person's.

Now I am sure people can concoct an elaborate corner case in an attempt to refute the second part of my little parable, but let's pause a moment and ask ourselves, why do so? Why work so hard, mentally, to give people a pass when all that is really needed is to stop, listen to an aggrieved party, and actually believe them, at least on some level.

It is dangerous to think that raw intellectualism can determine what is racist. We call them "dog whistles" for a simple reason. They are not heard, but they make a sound.

 

[BookTenTiger]

My concern is strictly a hope that these efforts do not fall down the rabbit hole so many of these types of initiatives have a tendency to do.

What other initiatives are you thinking of?

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

First, I agree with your statements in general, but this post is to nit-pick the things I don't like:

• Evil monsters serve a purpose in the game. They give me as a DM and a player a creature I can fight without qualms. Sometimes I just want to chew bubble gum and kick ass and I'm all out of bubble gum. Sometimes I want to not think for a few hours about all the insanity and messiness that the real world throws at us. So yes, sometimes I just want to be pointed at the bad guys and roll some dice.

Evil monsters serve a purpose in my game too, but you can still have evil monsters without having evil races.

• Orcs are not human, they are a separate species and do not serve a different role in the game than any other evil monster (i.e. trolls, vampires, beholders, dragons and so on).

Orcs aren't human, except in Eberron, Exandria and other worlds where they actually have agency. Sure, they're a different species, but genetics doesn't make someone evil. Serial killers weren't born to be serial killers, they just had experiences in life as well as genes that pushed them to that.
I was born with autism and am a sociopath, but I didn't have experiences in life that made me be a serial killer. The same applies to orcs. Sure, maybe their genes make them more passionate and fiery, but they aren't evil and murdery unless they were raised that way, or worship something that makes them that way.

• Therefore I have no problem with evil orcs in my campaign. If they are not evil monsters, quite simply I don't really have a use for them (not that I use them very often now). There are already too many humanoids running around for me, which is why I don't allow dragonborn or tabaxi or ... well whatever.

I agree with this. Having orcs be evil in your campaign is not wrong. People in general like simplifying complicated answers in D&D games like racial prejudices. Simplicity is good in your D&D games if you like it.

• If they want new campaign settings to have more diversity, great. I'll probably just ignore it.

Okay. That's kind of how I feel about this. Great, I'm glad they're doing this, but it doesn't effect me a ton. I'm happy for the people who wanted this. I like the Ability Score Increase swapping.

• I don't see why it's okay for fiends (i.e. succubi) to be consistently evil while orcs cannot be.

Because fiends are attached to alignments. They're bodily forms of evil, while humanoids aren't. If in your games, Orcs are personified chaos and evil and also humanoids, fine. In general, fiends are irredeemable, humanoids are people and can be changed.

• Saying that everyone from a specific culture or that shares a specific religion are evil is in many ways worse than saying a non-human monster is a monster.

Not really, because religion in most D&D worlds is proven to be real. Lolth is actually a giant spider queen that lives in the abyss. Same with Gruumsh and the other gods. They can actually communicate with the world and have more of an influence than we're used to on Earth.
If worshipping Bhaal means that you have to murder people, that's makes the religion evil. Same with Gruumsh, Lolth, and the others. It's not bad to say that these religions are bad, because they truly are evil.

I think it's a good idea for WOTC to take cultural diversity into consideration. 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.

You shouldn't be called racist if you just want black and white, bad and good races in D&D. I certainly started out that way while DMing. I personally prefer orcs not being required to be evil, but you do you.