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.

 

[the Jester]

Thinking a bit about how in fantasy worlds, the standard bad guy species (orcs, goblins, drow, etc etc) tend to be assigned cultural/visual markers (tribal life, black skin, distinctively non-human features, etc) that 'other' then from the standard good guys, who tend to adhere to more quasi-medieval-European norms (generally paler skin and humanish features, agriculture and settled townships, shops and some sort of capitalist coin-based economy, perhaps monarchy or some sort of quasi-democratic ruling council, priests and temples as opposed to shamans, etc).

Wondering a bit how you'd turn that dynamic on its head in a campaign world...

I know you brought this up with Dark Sun in mind, but I'd like to take a moment to speak to how I have done this in my home campaign.

First, since day 1 of my current setting (back in the mid-90s), I established that there was a pseudo-European, monotheistic, world-dominating human culture (with a strong element of allied dwarves), and I depicted them as self-righteous, short-sighted, racist, and basically the bad guys who think they're good. The first pcs in this new setting were a group of insurrectionists and rebels who, from the beginning, sought to undermine the forces of this empire (Forinthia). Ethnically, Forinthians were fair-skinned, tend toward blonde hair, and have a mix of Roman and Anglo-Saxon linguistics and cultural traits.

This was overlaid on an "old religion" that was nearly extinct, and was distinct from but similar to druidism.

Now, the people of other regions, who were oppressed by the Forinthians, were both other races (e.g. elves and gnomes) and other human ethnicities/lineages/cultures. One of the first human cultures that got detailed other than the Forinthians was the Thulians: dark skinned, with brown to black, straight to wavy hair, who had a culture that was still very much struggling to throw off the Forinthian yoke. Thulians had a rich civilization with multiple countries interacting in a web of alliances opposed to each other but more opposed to Forinthia. Their culture was depicted from the beginning as more tolerant and inclusive, and included two countries of half-elves (who were actually a mix of elf and human going back generations so that "half-elves" were often between 1/4 and 3/4 elf, and had dusky skin from their human contribution). There was a genetic disorder that a precious few of them had that made them born with atrophied limbs; people with this disorder (called 'thulosa', IIRC) were seen as specially blessed by and connected to the Thulian gods and held in high esteem and reverence. In addition, the Thulians showed far more respect to other religions, races/species, and women than the Forinthians did. They were set up as actual good guys instead of "white man's burden" style colonialists who thought they were helping lift everyone else out of the savagery of their own origins.

Elsewhere, there was a group of mercantile islands dominated by humans with a trade-based culture and the Free Trade Alliance, which was a major economic and naval power. The nearest continent was split by a mountain range, and orcs controlled much of the south of the continent, with dwarves in charge of most of the mountains and elves and hadozees constantly fighting over the Great Redwood Forest to the north. The orcs were struggling to be accepted into the FTA, but the humans of the isles wouldn't let them in because they were "savages" (sheer racism again). As part of their effort to be accepted, those orcs had established cities and states, and dwarven missionaries had even converted a ton of them to worship of the Forinthian sun god. So there, the dynamic was one of the downtrodden orcs trying to overcome the traditional racism of the so-called 'civilized' races.

One of the major themes of the setting has been an examination of colonialism and racism, and I've always cast them as negative. Now, the degree of 'racism' (if that's the right word, since most of it is between species, but hey) in my game is and always has been high. But I've always tried to show it as a bad thing, and to point out that there are many exceptions, especially among pcs. I often employ racism as a trait of bad guys, much like I employ slaving, murder, and other generally rotten behavior.

So some of us have been subverting the racist elements in D&D for a long time. Thinking back on it, I've had few POC in my campaign over the year, but mostly because I have largely lived in areas with few POC. I don't recall ever having an explicit discussion about it with the few that have been in it, but now I wonder how they reacted to the use of it. I have only had a few Native Americans, a few people with half- or quarter-Japanese lineage, one black person, and (super briefly) one Filippina (she was visiting, so it couldn't last); but I have often had a good number of female players and have almost always had at least one LGBTQetc person. Looking at the conversation we're having now, I wish it had occurred to me to talk to them about this and ask how they felt about how I handle it.

 

[Sadras]

It is a medieval / fantasy trope based on xenophobia, a literal fear of outsiders.

We already pick and choose what medieval tropes we want to keep or toss out in D&D. You don't see default settings now with predetermined roles for different genders, for example, even though that's a big medieval trope.

Agree and that is a fair point.

So we can also choose to have better language used to describe people and antagonists without relying on concepts embedded in racism and xenophobia.

After all, you can still have barbarians! You can still have orcs barbarians! You can still have tribes of orc barbarians! But let's drop the idea that an entire race of people are savage and stupid. Sure it might be an old trope, but that doesn't mean we have to keep using it!

Let me break it down for you how I see it.

You're offended that fantastical creatures in a game as presented by WotC may be savage and/or stupid...etc with these ideas being embedded from racism and xenophobia.

The difference between me and you is that I do not mind the caricature nature of antagonists, but that also I'm all for providing options for more complex orcs (2e and BCMI did this) but not because of past ideas on these fantastical creatures being embedded in racism and xenophobia, but because of the additional stories that the new source material will provide through inspiration.

I'm all for more. D&D has never been a game in a state of permanency. It has always evolved. That is why when I create combat challenges I do my research on the antagonists/monsters I place - checking previous editions to see what cool ideas were floating around then.

I'm not a fan of RW politics though being the primary influence of my fantasy game.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

And yet they are the same attributes used to describe all others all over the world all throughout history.
When the barbarians, heathens were attacking the Greeks, Romans or Byzantine Empire the same were said about them.

It is a medieval / fantasy trope that has resonated throughout humanity's timeline.

So what?

Does that make them less bad because it has been applied to a lot of human cultures? Its a tradition and a trope and should be kept?

 

[Stefano Rinaldelli]

As a friend of mine says way too damn much, 'ere's da ting. Removing it makes the game less unwelcoming for a lot of Black players particularly, but also Native and Latin American players.

I agree with you that some of people could feel unwelcome. But the attack is not in the written word, is in the mind of those people. And I'm no way responsible for that. Thus I have never to change anything. If those people are sensitive about those words, is because there are true bastards around that threat them bad for their origins. Keep condemn them please.

And all of this is out of topic, because WoTC revise orcs to avoid "sentient fictional races genetically less intelligent" possible in the game. And this is even worst from a logical point of view.

 

[Stefano Rinaldelli]

I think this is a great opportunity to say "I do not understand why this is harmful, but I understand that it can be harmful."

As a fork can be harmful if you don't know how to use it, even a written word can be harmful if you don't know how to contextualize and interpret it.
Remove the fork from universe?

 

[Sadras]

Does that make them less bad because it has been applied to a lot of human cultures? Its a tradition and a trope and should be kept?

Absolutely YES! BUT, one can/may add more tropes.
Also read my post above.

 

[Stefano Rinaldelli]

Yes, because that overlap causes harm to people of color.


You used it correctly, I was just making the argument that it doesn’t matter if the harm is intentional or not. If you step on someone’s foot, it is still just as stepped on whether you did it intentionally or not.


You absolutely are responsible for the things you say. Sometimes, the things we say can hurt people, even when we don’t mean for them to. When that happens, the appropriate response is not to insist that you aren’t responsible, but to apologize and discontinue the harmful activity.


Words mean different things to different people. Just because you don’t mean words harmfully doesn’t mean they don’t cause harm.

You are putting words in my mouth. I do not say "words are not harmful" I say i'm not responsible if my innocent word cause you harm, because there was no harm intention in my word choosing, I'm not even speaking of you in my words.

 

[Nickolaidas]

I think you might be focusing on the wrong thing.

To say that a group of people live in a tribe is not harmful.

To describe an entire "race" as tribal can be harmful, in the modern context of how we now understand race.

Since WotC uses the same term ("race") to describe humans, elves, and orcs, they want to be sure they are not using the same language and stereotypes used in racist depictions of real human beings to describe anyone.

So yes, you can have orcs and goblins and lizardfolk living in tribes. That's not the point.

How WotC chooses to describe an entire race of people is the point.

Lizardfolk were always depicted as a primitive species (not stupid, just not socially and technologically advanced when compared to demihumans) who always formed tribes. Now they will be retconned into forming cities and nations as well as tribes, for the sake of not insulting players who will read their description in Volo's Guide?

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

Absolutely YES! BUT, one can/may add more tropes.
Also read my post above.

So keeping elements of game that are unpleasant from some actual fellow gamers that are directly targeted by these hurtful elements should be kept because ''its a tradition to threat people badly''?

 

[Greg Benage]

And they are the same attribute used to describe minorities all over the world in the past.

This must be changed. Let's think about how to do it. You have the physical description:

"Orcs are savage raiders and pillagers with stooped postures, low foreheads, and piggish faces with prominent lower canines that resemble tusks."

What do we need to change here? The word "savage"? "Low foreheads," yes. I assume the porcine features are okay, but I'm open to being corrected on that. Actually, "raiders and pillagers" isn't properly part of their physical description, so let's get rid of that here. If we rewrite as:

"Orcs have stooped postures and piggish faces with prominent lower canines that resemble tusks."

Do we think that would be an unproblematic physical description of orcs?

On to culture:

"Orcs gather in tribes that exert their dominance and satisfy their bloodlust by plundering villages, devouring or driving off roaming herds, and slaying any Humanoids that stand against them. After savaging a settlement, orcs pick it clean of wealth and items usable in their own lands. They set the remains of villages and camps ablaze, then retreat whence they came, their bloodlust satisfied."

This reminds me of monastic depictions of Scandinavian raiders in the Early Medieval Period. Or maybe contemporary depictions of European colonizers. Actually, most real-world human cultures throughout much of our history probably would have earned such a description any time they migrated into (or were migrated into by) other tribes.

That said, the same kind of depiction has been used against non-European cultures in ways that continue to be harmful to real human beings today, so it should be changed. I don't think we want to remove "raiders" from D&D, so perhaps the problematic aspect of this is that it's really all there is to orc culture (i.e. they're stereotypes of aggressive human tribal behavior). Their gods? Raiders. Their settlements and social organization? Those most suitable for raiders. Geographic locations? Close enough to civilization to go raiding. So that's an open question: Is the problematic aspect of orc culture simply that the depiction offers nothing beyond the "raider" stereotype?