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.

 

[thatparanoidguy]

No one is saying that it's bad for orcs to ever have setbacks. What I am indicating is that it's bad for the only example in the most well known and effectively default setting of dnd of orcs succeeding at nationbuilding to subsequently be unable to hold together.

It also decreases the stories that can be told about orcs in FR.

I already agreed in my the later half of my post that it would be dull of WoTC if they didn't re-establish the Kingdom of Many-Arrows. We already have enough stories of orc tribes and bands it be more interesting for them to claim a homeland for themselves.

I'm just looking at this through a optimistic lens as we can't say the Kingdom has failed nation or is simply faltering until the next book comes out. The fact they still refer to themselves as the The Many-Arrows Tribes means they haven't given up on their unity. If the Orcs unity was only a fluke and they're trying to break them up into being their own roving bands or clans they'd have abandoned the name Many-Arrows.

I also would have preferred they kept the Kingdom around but they've already long released lore that the kingdom disbanded (for now) and retconning it back it would feel cheep to me.

Instead they can use this as a opportunity to tell interesting stories of Orcs rebuilding their nation from the ashes of an old one in a world thats long been and remains unjust to them.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Is violence against men OK, like the swordfights and poisoning? How about animals, like the ROUS?

Great question!

Does the fight between Inigo and Westley represent “violence against men” to you? Does it have parallels to a problem in society where a disempowered population is systematically mistreated by an empowered group? Does it glorify this behavior? If so, you may be on to something. Maybe I’m missing it, but in another 20 years I’ll see it, too.

Likewise with the ROUS. Is “violence against giant rodents that try to eat us” an issue in our culture? Again, maybe it is and I haven’t noticed it.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Only they are not, how do you come to this conclusion? Open your Player's Handbook for 5th Edition and look at the PEOPLE called "Human". Look what Wizards of the Coast used as the standard depiction of a human being. Is this a statement of the evilness of black people? Or is it - quite the contrary - a beautiful statement that "human" is not your stereotypical white male?

Look at the description of Half-Orcs: "Half-Orcs are not inherently evil, but evil lurks within them" - the same which can be said about humans, and practically about any sort of PEOPLE. Orcs are humanoids, true, but they are in the entirety of their fantastical and historical background not identified as less monstrous than trolls, giants, dragons or whatever "monster" - plus they are not a player race. ===> But what is even better: Look at the Paladin. You (as in: you as a privileged, white male from a western country, or you as a restless warrior for the termination of racism in fantasy worlds) would guess it is a white male in a shiny armor wielding a greatsword, right? Eeeh, wrong. It is a farrucking Half-Orc (or Orc, I can't tell the difference, really - was that racist?) and not some white dude with blonde hair and blue eyes.

Let's get a little bit into the drow and their fantastical history: In the beginning - if I recall correctly from the Grand History of the Realms - they had dark hair, dark brown skin and dark eyes. After the dark elf kingdoms were attacked (UNJUSTIFIED BTW.) by the Sun Elves (so the "white" elves are the bad ones here), they summoned a demon's powers and were tricked by Lolth who was behind the demon the whole time. They were banned from the surface world after millennia of wars (called the Crown Wars) and transformed from "Dark Elves" to "Drow" with OBSIDIAN (pitch black) skin and white hair. Why? Because they followed the dark and violent way of Lolth and lost the Crown Wars. Not because they were inherently or naturally evil, the Grand History of the Realms and The Drow of the Underdark said that real loud and clear, but because they - in the context of the fake history surrounding them - CHOSE to search help from evil in a conflict and were punished for it. They did not choose a demon's or a dark goddess' help because they were inherently loving to be evil hatemongers, but because they were driven to search help from evil beings and got corrupted. And even their skin-tone was changed from something a real life person could relate to, to something that just is not a human skin-color (obsidian, dark grey, grey with shades of blue etc.).

Even in the background information in the Player's handbook it is stated that Drizzt "rejected his HERITAGE" not his NATURE. Another funny thing: Drow in Lolth worshipping or other Underdark societies believe that the other ra..PEOPLE are INFERIOR to them. And why not? Drow are depicted as more powerful than elves, in some cases more beautiful. So basically THEY have racism printed on their foreheads and because of their racist behavior are being looked upon with prejudice from the surface dwellers - all of them, even those humans with dark skin who in no way feel like those drow were in any way related to them. Which makes it also hard for the followers of Eilistraee. Did we really all forget that there is a whole drow religion that is devoted to good? And why is only Drizzt always depicted as "the one good drow". What about Liriel Baenre? What about Qilue Veladorn?

What I am trying to say is: Cool down. WotC did already - in my opinion - everything to make sure that the color of the skin is not a factor to determine one player "race"'s alignment. So I really do not see the urgency of this action, as it is clearly that if you are a rational person, you will see that neither drow nor half-orcs are "evil by nature" because of their "race" or even worse their "skin tone". Drow were corrupted and half-orcs are a cross-breed between the monstrous spawn of the evil god Gruumsh and humans (no matter their skin color). The whole thing seems a little bit like impulsive action or actionism to me, because of recent events. Sometimes an orc is just an orc and me as a white male from Germany did not one second think about orcs or drow as depictions of dark-skinned human beings that serve my (non existing) racial prejudices.

Relax.

A few observations.

Firstly, you joining the forum just today to respond to my post raises a red flag.

Secondly, that flag goes even higher when you start inferring I need to relax or cool down, which I am neither upset or wound up. That's an ad hominem because you're going after me personally rather than the actual argument.

Thirdly, the flag goes even higher when you resort to yet another fallacy, that being "any rational person" would see it your way.

And fourthly, you are simply incorrect in many of your assertions. In the beginning, drow were black skinned versions of elves evil to the core (the AtG series). None of that background existed until years later. And orcs are a playable race. In not one, but two official WoTC books for 5e. Also, I shouldn't have to point out how fundamentally flawed it is to argue that since WoTC put out human representations of color, then "they already did everything" and somehow that magically means that all of the associations between orcs/drow/black people went instantly away.

 

[Nickolaidas]

no, you're missing the point, why do humans need to make cities when they don't need them? why can't lizardfolk make cities that take advantage of their abilities? it's weird to just say they're "primitive" and worse to call them "content".

But that's the thing. The majority of humans needed to make cities in order to protect themselves.

Lizardfolk don't make cities because they would hamper their abilities instead of complimenting them. They swim a lot better and faster than humans do (granting them underwater mobility) and breathe underwater.

How the heck does barricading themselves in four walls benefits them in any way?

What's next? Asking druids to live inside metal domes?

 

[Stefano Rinaldelli]

So what? If you've caused harm, intentionally or not, you caused the harm. Apologising for it isn't some weakness, it's the right thing to do.

For rethorical purposes, you are describing this whole depiction of Orcs as a gaffe made against PoC. But your metaphore is not completely adherent, for me. Description of Orc is something completely disjointed by PoC in the intention and purpose, and it is by a complaint made by PoC if this is now consider a gaffe. So to adjust the metaphore we should say: I built a table putting it in a very safe place and somebody, clumsily hit it harming his feet. So, I have to beg his pardon?

 

[Panda-s1]

Is violence against men OK, like the swordfights and poisoning? How about animals, like the ROUS?

I'm sorry, I didn't realize Buttercup was in a slap fight with Westley, or that that he felt compelled to poison Vizzini because he's a man lol

Now we're getting again to close to RL, but since that is the question, the asnwer is that these humans in those situations don't do this things. Even today they do not do them.

do what things, live near swamps? I'm pretty sure there are people today who still live in and around areas like swamps.

It's not that lets say the inhabitants of sentinal island may be xenophobic, but otherwise are just as eagerly awaiting their society's next gen console like we're waiting for the PS5

the people of Sentinel Island are xenophobic for a reason, it's not like they just up and hated all people who visited, they do not have a good history with British colonists.

 

[BookTenTiger]

For rethorical purposes, you are describing this whole depiction of Orcs as a gaffe made against PoC. But your metaphore is not completely adherent, for me. Description of Orc is something completely disjointed by PoC in the intention and purpose, and it is by a complaint made by PoC if this is now consider a gaffe. So to adjust the metaphore we should say: I built a table putting it in a very safe place and somebody, clumsily hit it harming his feet. So, I have to beg his pardon?

A more apt metaphor:

You made a table and painted it with designs that are historic racist symbols.

Would you not repaint the table?

No one "clumsily hit" racist stereotypes in D&D. They have been there for decades and were originally chosen by fantasy authors to support racist ideologies endemic to their cultures. It is no accident that drow have black skin, that orcs are "savage." These are old racist ideas about what makes someone good or bad!

Let's get rid of them!

 

[Remathilis]

Hell, you could use orcs that way in a 4e forgotten realms game that sticks to the canon. They just wouldn't be the only orcs in the world.

Which does lead to the next question: where are those other orcs?

Ok, from a world-building perspective (a minor concern in the grand scheme, but here me out) the notion that orcs are no longer "evil tribal savages" creates several implications for D&D settings. Because it implies the existence of "good peaceable civilized" orcs. Orcs that settled in one place and began a more agrarian or at the very least became hunter-gatherers who live in relative co-existence with their neighbors. They would have land holdings, possibly develop some manner of governance, and form a nation or city-state. They would trade with others and possibly form mutual defense pacts, or at least some non-aggression agreements with neighbors. Of course, resources are always limited and conflict would break out, resulting in everything from espionage to outright war. It could also lead to things like conquest, displacement, or oppression, but if we're trying to break the "orc as minority stand-in" we should probably avoid making them a conquered or oppressed people.

You would, ideally, repeat the process above for most of the humanoid races: orcs, goblinoids, kobolds, gnolls, xvarts, bullywugs, grungs, giths, lizardfolk, sahuagin, etc. Now some of them (much like rarer PC races) wouldn't need massive holdings or nations; there is no more a need for a grung kingdom than there is for a goliath one. But if we assume the larger races are diverse enough warrant multiple examples of non-evil origins, then some will need representation on a macro-scale. Simply put, if you intend to break the stereotype of the savage evil tribesman orc, you need enough counter-examples to make an impact. You need a nation of them.

Now, Eberron lucked out here because they broke the mold long before breaking the mold was cool. They gave orcs both thier traditional role (savages in the Mhor Hold) and a nontraditional one (non-aggressive druidic mystics) and have focused on the latter quite successfully. Similarly, Wildemount has an entire Empire made out the classic "evil monster" humanoids working in relative harmony. However, it is a much bigger problem in classic settings like Forgotten Realms and Greyhawk, were orcs have mostly filled the savage raider role. I guess it might be possible to retro-fit the land of Many Arrows in Faerun to being a home for non-evil orcs and its possible the Bright Desert on Oerth could fill a similar role, but both will be changes to the setting as known. A lot of ink is going to have to be used to create places for these new orcs and such to come from.

(Other settings have different degrees of luck avoiding the trope; Ravenloft hates all humanoids and lacks native orcs, Dragonlance likewise lacks orcs but arguments about draconions might be an issue. Birthright lacks orcs but has goblins in spades. Mystara has an orc land (Thar) that would work for non-evil orcs, and nobody bats an eyelash at an orc in Sigil)

Of course, this is assuming WotC is serious about shying away from the racist stereotyping of orcs and drow. If future books continue to only place them in the role of antagonists, then all the "orcs are as free to choose thier destiny as elves" is just screed. They will have to appear in non-antagonistic roles. Orc villages. Drow tavern-keepers. Goblin trader caravans. They will (at the very least) have to be given the same treatment as tieflings, half-orcs and dragonborn are now. The line between "monstrous" humanoid and "PC humanoid" is going to blur.

It will be interesting to see how such notions change things like campaign settings, adventure writing, and sourcebooks going forward.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Secondly, that flag goes even higher when you start inferring I need to relax or cool down, which I am neither upset or wound up. That's an ad hominem because you're going after me personally rather than the actual argument.

That's a standard rhetorical technique among that crowd.

 

[Mirtek]

The fact they still refer to themselves as the The Many-Arrows Tribes means they haven't given up on their unity. If the Orcs unity was only a fluke and they're trying to break them up into being their own roving bands or clans they'd have abandoned the name Many-Arrows.

I also would have preferred they kept the Kingdom around but they've already long released lore that the kingdom disbanded (for now) and retconning it back it would feel cheep to me.

Instead they can use this as a opportunity to tell interesting stories of Orcs rebuilding their nation from the ashes of an old one in a world thats long been and remains unjust to them.

The problem is that the orcs lack the land to rebuild the kingdom. The orc tribe of many arrows predates the kingdom of many arrows. That could only been forged when their leader managed to ally or conquer a large number of neighouring tribes to forge a giant horde much larger than anything the many arrows could muster on their own.

Together the surged south and conquered the lands that would become the kingdom of many arrows for a little over a century.

Eventually the drow manipulated their nobles and after some regicide, ursurping and another huge war, the orcs of many arrows were on the losing side and the victorious powers did not allow them to retain and rebuild the lands of many arrows that they had conquered a century early.

Now the are back at the holdings the had just before marching south and from the adventure description it seems that the orcs formerly of different tribes have split of into those tribes of old again.

So while there is still a many arrows tribe and dark arrow keep still exists, this is merely the state they were in before they got their kingdom.