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

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.
Complications arise in that a foot is an objective physical object that you either stepped on or you didn't, whereas the meaning of a fantasy scenario is a matter for interpretation. Going the other way, if somebody were to claim that orcs carry a lot of cultural signifiers of medieval Germanic invaders and therefore their presentation is actually harmful to white people, I do not expect you would spare this concern much consideration (nor should you). When we encounter an interpretive claim of harm, we do inescapably have to exercise some judgment over whether that interpretation is significant; we can't rely on a blanket rule to believe such claims. So when somebody judges a certain claim not to be significant when you judge it to be, that requires a conversation about what makes it so.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Panda-s1

Scruffy and Determined
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?
sure. why not? what's so offensive about having lizardfolk cities? coming up with ideas for a lizardfolk city seems way less boring than "lol they live in tribe in swamp, except this tribe has SWORDS O:".
So by making Lizardfolk content on living in the swamps with their shamans and their spears, WotC are being racist?
"content" oh boy.

but also, if you're gonna make a group of humanoids have a society, but then only confine that society to tribes what does that imply?
 

BookTenTiger

He / Him
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?

Do you really think this is an equivalent argument? That's just silly and I think you know it.

Let me give you an equivalent argument:

When I was a kid we played a game where one kid threw a ball in the air, and someone caught it. Then we'd all try to tackle the kid who caught the ball.

This game had a homophobic name. I'm not even going to type it out here, but know that a word in the name is a word that was used at the time as a harmful way to describe someone who is gay.

What is the solution to this problem? Do you really think anyone is arguing for the kids to not play this game?

No. When we were taught that the name was harmful, we changed the name.

WotC has stated that certain depictions of races, and in fact the use of the term races, has carried forward harmful stereotypes.

What do you think an easy solution could be?
 

BookTenTiger

He / Him
So by making Lizardfolk content on living in the swamps with their shamans and their spears, WotC are being racist?

I would love to answer questions you have about WotC's announcement and ways we can reduce bias and racism in the game we love.

I will not play into a conjecture based on nothing. In no way did WotC or anyone in this thread suggest such a thing.

Now, what is it you are having trouble understanding?
 

Sadras

Legend
Commonality =/= morality. Obviously. Very, very, very, obviously.

Murderhobo PCs.
You want to talk about morality in D&D. Grief!

No, it doesn't. Whataboutism literally never excuses a behavior. Period.

This is not whataboutism. This is a common medieval trope about a fantasy roleplaying game.
I love how its all keep your realism out of my game, its magic, my halfling is as strong as a minotaur but now hey, orcs are real people and we cannot slaughter them willy nilly because they aren't all evil, otherwise we are being racist. The hypocrisy is next level.
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
Murderhobo PCs.
You want to talk about morality in D&D. Grief!



This is not whataboutism. This is a common medieval trope about a fantasy roleplaying game.
I love how its all keep your realism out of my game, its magic, my halfling is as strong as a minotaur but now hey, orcs are real people and we cannot slaughter them willy nilly because they aren't all evil, otherwise we are being racist. The hypocrisy is next level.
I don't support murderhobo PCs either, what's your point?

And yes, it is whataboutism. it's literally directly and exactly that. And absolutely not one single person has ever claimed that orcs are real people.

Your bad faith arguments don't make you look good.
 

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
Supporter
What is wrong with you people?

I cannot speak to any individual here, but there are some true general points about human begins that may apply - in this topic, or in any heated discussion. They amount to: humans are not nearly as logical as they think they are.

1) Humans are social animals - and that means social status matters to us. In general, admitting we are wrong is losing - and we feel like that also means losing social status, so, we strongly resist admitting we are wrong. We'll do a whole lot to avoid admitting we are wrong. In cases like this, it means not only that someone was wrong, but also admitting that they have been actively or complicit in hurting people - that's wrong and guilty, and we'll resist that like the plague. Twist, turn, move goalposts, use logical fallacies, lie, make things up, they may all be on the table.

2) In some cases, like this thread, admitting we are wrong means admitting some part of a fundamental belief is incorrect, and needs to be changed. Changing yourself is hard. And extremely uncomfortable. Humans will, in general, do a whole lot to avoid having to change fundamental beliefs. We are strongly attracted to things that seem like they affirm a fundamental belief, and we strongly reject things that challenge one of our fundamental beliefs.

Note: these phenomena happen no matter what the fundamental belief may be - this is a basic human thing, not correlated to culture, political leanings, religion, or whatever.
 

BookTenTiger

He / Him
Murderhobo PCs.
You want to talk about morality in D&D. Grief!



This is not whataboutism. This is a common medieval trope about a fantasy roleplaying game.
I love how its all keep your realism out of my game, its magic, my halfling is as strong as a minotaur but now hey, orcs are real people and we cannot slaughter them willy nilly because they aren't all evil, otherwise we are being racist. The hypocrisy is next level.

I think you may be mixing up morality in game and out of game.

This conversation is about what WotC, a real company in the real world, can do in order to not perpetuate stereotypes that we literally see having a fatal effect on people of color.

This has nothing to do with whether you can fight orcs or not in your D&D game.

You say you do not want real world politics in your game. I would argue that real world politics have always changed our game, but you may only be noticing the ones you disagree with.

I've said it before in this thread, but when I first started with AD&D I was super embarrassed by the cheesecake depiction of women in the game. All over the rulebooks and Dragon Magazine, women were shown in ridiculous poses wearing chainmail bikinis or not much else. It was a disturbing and denigrating image that perpetuated stereotypes about women and their role in society.

Those images are thankfully gone from D&D. Why do you think that happened? I believe that the "real world politics" of gender equality had an effect on what WotC chose to put into their game.

Could you still play a woman in a chainmail bikini in your game if you want? Of course! But it doesn't have to be the default of what WotC publishes.
 

Sadras

Legend
I don't support murderhobo PCs either, what's your point

Whether you support it or not it exists and it is a valid playstyle of the game. Onetruewaysim much?

And yes, it is whataboutism. it's literally directly and exactly that. And absolutely not one single person has ever claimed that orcs are real people.

Apparently we cannot expand the tropes as things are now, we have to remove a popular trope of just killing orcs because they are evil and then expand for you to be happy. You cannot meet anyone halfway - and then people ask for people to listen. Listen to what? Its their way or no way.

Your bad faith arguments don't make you look good.

They are not bad faith arguments to me and I couldn't care less what you think of me.
 

Oofta

Legend
I agree that the art for orcs (I prefer green skin/3.5 depiction) and wording for orcs could/should be fixed. I think Volo's "if an orc is domesticated they might not be completely evil" is ... well let's just say problematic.

Given all of that, what role do orcs play if they are not evil? Because in my campaigns they're an existential threat to society. Similar to zombies in a sense, except of course they are intelligent. An orc isn't interested in conquering to simply gain more resources, they want to annihilate humans, dwarves and especially elves because that's what Gruumsh created them for. Their entire purpose in life to destroy according to the lore from the MM.

Without that, what do they become other than just another costume?
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Remove ads

Remove ads

Top