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.

 

[Sadras]

No. Murderhobos also aren't analogous to the topic at hand. No one is talking about the morality of actions within the game world. You're attempting to derail the discussion rather than honestly participate in it.

Oh yes we were - we were talking about defending/surviving against a race of evil others. You then raise morality about the trope within a fantasy game and when I slap you back with Murderhoboism and you retreat with "attempting to detail the discussion"
One can certainly see who is being dishonest in this conversation.

This is wild nonsense that clearly shows you haven't been listening to anything anyone else is saying. I'm just gonna cut off future interactions with you.

Wonderful, now on this we can agree.

 

[thatparanoidguy]

Great. The savage low-browed large mouthed primitives who are better off when taken from their kin and raised by civilized people in an actual society can't ever keep a real civilization going. Checks out. Not at all reminiscent of the racist rantings of secessionists and people opposed to the independence of Carribean states after slave revolts. Not at all.

If we bar the Orcs from ever suffering any set backs in their Kingdom because it suffers from real world connotations would make for boring story telling.

Though I agree that making them only ever suffer setbacks would be even worse but that's not what happened in lore.

The Kingdom of Many-Arrows had a uninterrupted reign for 113 years (1371 DR - 1484 DR) as far as I can tell they only suffered a minor colapse as yes while the kingdom is disbanded their remains a confederation of Tribes and a willingness to unite once more under the right leader.

If WoTC have them trapped in a cycle of uniting and falling apart as a nation then I'm with you on calling it out as that's just lazy writing.

We'll see ultimately how its handled once the book is out.

Personally I hope they PCs the option to ensure peace between Ten Town and the Orcs but then have to worry about resource allocation between the two factions and find ways to resolve that or fight off what they view as the aggressors and ensure resources for Ten Towns but lose out on what would have been a vital ally for securing the regions overall stability.

But whatever they do they need to ensure the Many-Arrow Kingdoms return as we have enough orcish raiders in other parts of the world. I'd love to see Icewind Dale in a three way struggle for resorces instead of just Ten Towns against the Nomads.

 

[Panda-s1]

Oh yes we were - we were talking about defending/surviving against a race of evil others. You then raise morality about the trope within a fantasy game and when I slap you back with Murderhoboism and you retreat with "attempting to detail the discussion"
One can certainly see who is being dishonest in this conversation.

uh I'm pretty sure the discussion here has to do with the depiction of certain groups in the game. being an adventurer (and by extension a murderhobo) is a choice, being an orc isn't.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Star Trek essentially faced up to this with the Klingons, taking them from a simple threat to quite a complex and interesting species, over the course of TNG/DS9 even a bit in VOY/ENT/DISCO (though I frown a bit at those, S2 DISCO started to improve things though).

The Klingons are just humans in costumes, though. Figuratively as well as literally. There's nothing particularly alien about their psychology or culture. It is a complex and interesting fictional culture, to be sure, I'm not criticizing the writing there, but it could plausibly be a human culture on a fantasy world.

Contrast, say, the Borg.

 

[Nickolaidas]

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?

That the specific humanoid race isn't as advanced as other humanoid societies.
Now why exactly is that insulting? Why should I feel insulted that a fictional, reptilian race only gathers in tribes?

Now, what is it you are having trouble understanding?

I'm having trouble understanding where the line is drawn.

Two days ago I found out that killing virtual dogs in a video game is bad, and that it shouldn't be so.

Today I found out that some D&D players consider the fact that Orcs live in tribes and are savages to be racist, as well as the fact that most Drow are evil.

I simply do not know whether tomorrow I'll find out that Mind Flayers enslaving humanoids is racist, because it is based on some dark parts of human history that should be tabooed and forgotten. Or that Yuan-Ti eating humanoids is wrong because it portrays snakes as evil and hostile creatures towards man, when they're really not based on some YouTube videos.

You keep coming at things from odd angles rather than engaging directly with what people are saying.

I don't know why, but I no longer care.

Stop trying to win internet argument points and try actually listening to what people are saying, and trying to understand what they are trying to communicate.

I'm not trying to win an argument, because it's clearly a lost cause based on some replies I got.

And since you don't care, I see no reason to explain.

 

[Stefano Rinaldelli]

No, if you are harming someone, your intention is irrelevant. You need to stop harming them. The end.

I don't like universal statement. I think that you have to evaluate what means to you to stop harming and how serious is the harm you produce.
Starting from the fact that ORC is not PoC, and this is a fact, we can evaluate how many people, in a totally irrational way, say that are harmed by a parallel that doesn't exist in facts. If are many many people having this complaint and changing Orc is not a problem for you, then it's ok to change. But if you take your statement literally, you must stop to go skating if there is someone who is hurted by people go skating... and it makes no sense. And if people irrationally hurted by skating will be the majority, then this attitude will produce censorship and absurd laws. It is called witch hunting and become easily dictatorship.

Keep in mind that even if is reasonable to avoid offending even if the offense was not intentional, if you change orc on the basis of irrational identification with PoC, you are suddenly admitting a fault that you don't have.

 

[Haldrik]

I don't think it's an old / young thing per se, it's more of a bigot / nonbigot thing, and thankfully a lot of younger people are eschewing the bigotry of yesteryear. There are still some young bigots out there, unfortunately (the alt right crowd are mostly young), but some of us oldsters are, and always have been, on the progressive side of the aisle.

Broflakes is my chosen term for the alt right bigot crowd that get het up by even minor changes that reflect humanity rather than inhumanity to our fellow people.

I consider words like "broflakes" to be hatespeech.

The moment we use words to dehumanize the other, we become exactly what it is that we are trying to combat.

Humans can do idiotic things, even terrible things. But humans remain human. We can mourn the loss of missed opportunities to express our own humanity. We are still humans.

The solution to all of our conflicts is to keep in mind (and remind ourselves) of our common humanity.

The differences between us, that make one person unique, or one community unique, are cool, and are making possible the exploration of different ways to be human.

Sometimes because of limited resources, we can come into conflict with others who would use such resources differently. We have to deal with such conflicts honestly. At the same time, we are humans of equal dignity.



To avoid hatespeech is a spiritual discipline. Because it is difficult to guard ones own tongue − especially when one is passionate or in conflict. But also spiritual because it matters so much. Helpful speech versus harmful speech has enormous consequences that exit our personal control. What we say influences our children and influences strangers on the other side of the planet.

Remember our common humanity.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Oh yes we were - we were talking about defending/surviving against a race of evil others. You then raise morality about the trope within a fantasy game and when I slap you back with Murderhoboism and you retreat with "attempting to detail the discussion"

No. Nothing in this discussion has anything to do with the morality of choices made by players at the table, or even choices made by the DM in describing his/her world.

If you believe it does, then you are not understanding the problem.

That the specific humanoid race isn't as advanced as other humanoid societies.
Two days ago I found out that killing virtual dogs in a video game is bad, and that it shouldn't be so.

Today I found out that some D&D players consider the fact that Orcs live in tribes and are savages to be racist, as well as the fact that most Drow are evil.

I simply do not know whether tomorrow I'll find out that Mind Flayers enslaving humanoids is racist, because it is based on some dark parts of human history that should be tabooed and forgotten. Or that Yuan-Ti eating humanoids is wrong because it portrays snakes as evil and hostile creatures towards man, when they're really not based on some YouTube videos.

If you think that killing dogs in a video game has anything to do with this discussion, or that your fears about Mind Flayers and Yuan-Ti are a logical extension to this discussion, then you are not understanding the problem.

Starting from the fact that ORC is not PoC, and this is a fact, we can evaluate how many people, in a totally irrational way, say that are harmed by a parallel that doesn't exist in facts.

And if you STILL think this is what is being discussed, after all the times that people have explained that it isn't, then you, also, are not understanding the problem.

I'm willing to keep giving people the benefit of the doubt that they just don't understand. But at what point does the ignorance become willful, because they simply don't want to have to address the actual topic at hand?

 

[Guest 6801328]

I consider words like "broflakes" to be hatespeech.

I don't know if it qualifies as "hatespeech" but I agree that, as tempting as it is to fight fire with fire, I don't think it's productive to dehumanize those with whom we disagree.

 

[Stefano Rinaldelli]

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?

In your example, stop to call the game in that way. In Orc question, sincerely, ignore the fact until the cost/benefit ratio suggest you to bend to irrational complaints based on nothing more than a simple assonance. Maybe WoTC has already done this cost/benefit evaluation, in this case is doing well. But it is not a moral obligation to do so, for me. It is a pure and legitimate businnes action.