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

G

Guest 6948803

Guest
Can you cite anything in my post where I was talking about removing the killing and exploring stuff from the game?

Having advanced not-african nations, non-exclusively evil societies and better lore of the Vistani DOES NOT mean the game is policed and requires to be talking with cute animals.
You asked, why WotC didn't changed stuff earlier, and in many cases (CoS f.e.) went back to older, less considerate iterations. I gave you an answer. Less considerate, more stereotype-ridden stuff is more often than not more fun to play. They knew that and simply wen't back to more fun versions, which they back off from now, because they are problematic.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

BookTenTiger

He / Him
I don't think anyone is using harmful stereotypes. What culture does orc and drow cultures remind you of?

The only problem I see is that crazy ideas like this, takes the focus away from actual real-life racial issues.

If I could challenge you on this, what about the current state of D&D do you think is spurring WotC to take action and make changes?
 

Mirtek

Hero
- Orcs have a peaceful kingdom in the north since 4e (seems to be retconned in the previews from Frostmaiden. WHY!?).
Actually it has been destroyed. It lasted for a while until a more warmongering orcish king ascended to the throne, started another war against the other northern powers and lost. The victorious alliance made sure that nothing was left of the Kingdom of Many Arrows
 

Tales and Chronicles

Jewel of the North, formerly know as vincegetorix
Less considerate, more stereotype-ridden stuff is more often than not more fun to play. They knew that and simply wen't back to more fun versions, which they back off from now, because they are problematic

They are problematic, but even then, they are more fun to you, so it would be better if we left them unchanged, even though they...problematic and make people that actually targeted by those stereotypes uncomfortable?

Go it. Impressive stuff.
 

Nickolaidas

Explorer
So basically, you won't be picking a dwarf because he's resistant to poison and has a CON/STR bonus, but you'll pick a dwarf because you want your character to look like a dwarf.

But why stop there? Why should dwarves be short and be subjected to cruel jokes and insults? Any dwarf should be as tall or short as I'd like! And why can Dragonborn breathe fire and the Drow cannot? That's not very inclusive, is it? Every character should be able to breathe fire!

And the Drow will be a morally complex species? That's awesome, will we be seeing lawful good Balors as well? If Drow are as morally diverse and complex as regular elves are, what is the purpose of choosing a Drow character over a regular elf character? Before, a character picking a Drow knew that he was picking a race which would create a lot of tensions wherever he went and he would have to work for the love of the townsfolk he saved (if he even cared). Now, will players pick a drow simply because 'they look cool'?

I get their (WotC) intention, I really do. But there's a difference between being ok to be a dwarf, a drow, an orc or whatever, and every race not have their own ability score modifiers. I fear that their need to be inclusive will generalize virtually every race and races will devolve simply to 'what do you want your character to look like'.

I hope I'm wrong and doomsaying, but until I see the actual changes in those books, I'm worried.

But I'd be lying if I didn't consider awesome the idea to have Mind Flayers openly walk in a city, being eccentric knowledge collectors with a hidden agenda, or excellent interrogators.
 

G

Guest 6948803

Guest
No, but in order to rationalize a knee-jerk reaction opposing these changes one must assume that it does mean that.

A pretty obvious pattern has emerged: anybody who thinks this announcement is a bad thing ascribes to (or, at least, presents) a parade-of-horribles argument.
O my goodness.
I am ok with the statement. I am all for more diverse D&D community.
But I think its a battle we all cannot win. Don't speak like we are enemies here.
Due to game history and nature, Wizards can either make shallow, non-quintessential changes, which in effect won't change much.
Or they can make deep, game-gutting changes which in effect make game less fun to play (as TSR did with 2nd edition).
I understand they need to do something. I hope they will choose option one. I hope they will do it with enough sense and sensibility to actually help with overall issue.
Neither really changes anything in my homegame.
 

Tales and Chronicles

Jewel of the North, formerly know as vincegetorix
Actually it has been destroyed. It lasted for a while until a more warmongering orcish king ascended to the throne, started another war against the other northern powers and lost. The victorious alliance made sure that nothing was left of the Kingdom of Many Arrows

Obould was betrayed and killed and his son was framed, right. Then the kingdom went to war against it neighbors until the Companions (yeah...them) mopped the floor with orcs and reinstated the son of Obould. Its from the SCAG IIRC.
 


G

Guest 6948803

Guest
They are problematic, but even then, they are more fun to you, so it would be better if we left them unchanged, even though they...problematic and make people that actually targeted by those stereotypes uncomfortable?

Go it. Impressive stuff.
Again. No. I am just explaining my take on wizards actions to you.
I will do with my game whatever I please. You too. No matter what WotC says, they can't "fire me from D&D" so I am not concerned.

But as I said in another thread, if you look hard enough you can see problems everywhere, so I hope, they will deal with things that are really hurtful for people, and not just gut everything in knee-jerk reaction.
 

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
I like the idea from Eberron that alignment-based outsiders* literally are incarnations of their alignment. It's possible but super-difficult to make one change alignment, but if you do their nature will fundamentally change. There's a canonical example with Radiant Idols, who are fallen angels.

* Outsider was a 3e monster type that encompassed all sorts of extraplanar beings, and in some cases non-extraplanar beings of a spiritual nature. In 5e, the creature type would cover fiends, celestials, and some aberrations, constructs, elementals, and fey.
That’s more or less how I handle it as well. Generally such changes are the result of external magical influence.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Remove ads

Remove ads

Top