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.

 

[Derren]

Seriously?

Ever heard the phrase “nothing new under the sun”? Creatives don’t invent new stuff out of thin air; it comes from the ideas in their heads. And we don’t always know where those ideas came from originally, or what connotations they might have among different groups.

Take the example of fecundity up-thread. I’m sure the original author wasn’t consciously doing this, but he was still channeling an idea founded in white supremacist ideology.

Now, I didn’t know this, prior to this thread. I might easily have written something similar.

A good sensitivity reader would have alerted me to this, before I published something I regretted.

Yes, seriously.
Because in my eyes a sensitivity reader for a fictional race and culture, especially one which is not a copy and rename of an existing one, is in my eyes mostly finding things to justify his employment.

 

[Panda-s1]

Why should they be written as if they were human and as if they were all the same when they're literally different species than humans and different species than each other?

I thought that you didn't want them to be a stand-in for race, but your argument turns them into literally just different types of humans

Orcs (and also elves, dwarves, halflings, etc) are a seperate a species from humans (and from the others I listed, who are also distinct from each other) and came about as the result of a special act of creation by their god. To give them the same psychology as humans would br not only implausible, but also literally deus ex machina.

One, that's what's called a Thermian argument-- the in-universe narrative justification for a bad thing in a work of fiction doesn't excuse that bad thing for its meaning outside of the narrative. Saying that it's morally good for "superior people" to eradicate "inferior people" and take their land in the universe because the gods you created made it that way doesn't make it okay; it just raises the question of why you want it to be okay so badly.

Two, that's literally how historical colonialists and modern white supremacists justify their behaviors and ideologies. It's word for word exactly what they preached in their pulpits and taught in the universities and wrote in books of "racial science" that we laugh at today; it's word for word exactly what they print in their propaganda pamphlets and their underground magazines today. If you've been paying attention at all, this is the problem. It isn't that orcs' bodies or cultures are modeled after any real ethnic groups, it's the fact that the language used to describe their bodies and their cultures is the exact same language that various groups of tyrants and bigots have used to denigrate and justify violence against various subjugated peoples.

Repeating that propaganda is the opposite of justification.

How can you have sensitivity readers for fictional races and cultures that do not exist?

Having less always evil races is ok, as long as WotC doesn't make them too sugary and politically correct. History is full of people and nations who are technically not always evil but are still huge jerks (to avoid stronger words) who murder and plunder their way through the countryside and get treated as such.


Also, rolleyes at the reason given by WotC. That smells like virtue signalling for marketing purposes now that racism is a big topic. And if they are really serious about that, where do they stop? Mind Flayers? Dragons?

y'know I think it's best that we hammer in the point that colonialists, especially early colonialists, did not consider indigenous people the same species at all. like even before racism there was the question of whether or not these people were even actual humans to begin with.
so yeah it's a little messed up to say "it's okay, they're not humans!", especially in the context of humans in D&D canonically being able to have children with orcs and elves who in turn are entirely fertile, like ech...

 

[Nickolaidas]

I never had an issue with fictional species be irredeemably evil.

Maybe it has something to do with growing up with shows like Thundercats - where all Mutants were raiders and criminals. Or playing video games like Star Control where the Ilwrath and the Thraddash were evil and violent in nature and I didn't have any qualms blasting them to atoms.

In the end, I always pictured D&D as a game to gather with some friends and have fun while slaying cool looking monsters. I didn't bother with politics, hidden messages, agendas and supposed innuendos. I have enough problems in my real life and the last thing I need to bother my head with is 'are all D&D goblins evil, or is it unfair to them, because causing a fictional genocide on a fictional race will make me think and act as a white supremacist where a tabletop game is concerned'?

 

[Sadras]

I'm asking how the module stands on its own.

Fairly well considering its rankings I believe.

yes, women are incapable of having their own interests and only follow what the menfolk do.

This is an incredibly shocking reply. You're doing a Cathy Newman. I was referring to proclivities which exist.

not sure why the delineation goes "religion, ethnicity, ethnicity, ethnicity" here.

Did you even understand my comment or are you implying something.

also not sure why Muslims wouldn't play D&D, yeah magic is involved, but as FaerieGodfather pointed out Christianity very much frowns upon magic as well. they frowned upon it so much that Christians even had an entire cultural movement against D&D. I wasn't really alive for it, but others in this thread sure seem to remember it rather vividly.

You're very much mistaking me for another poster/ I made no mention of magic being frowned upon within Islam or within Islam exclusively.

I disagree. 100%. we live in an age where it's easier than ever to get into D&D.

That the books are easier to access, whether legally or illegally, than in the past is true. But both me and @Zardnaar do not live in the US and given the amount of hobby shops that have closed down in my area, thus limiting exposure, and the effects of the exchange rate in the last 20 years I agree with him that D&D by large remains a mid-to-high class hobby. Certainly in my country.

 

[Nickolaidas]

That the books are easier to access, whether legally or illegally, than in the past is true. But both me and @Zardnaar do not live in the US and given the amount of hobby shops that have closed down in my area, thus limiting exposure, and the effects of the exchange rate in the last 20 years I agree with him that D&D by large remains a mid-to-high class hobby. Certainly in my country.

In my country, tabletop D&D is a lot more difficult to come by - not because of economic reasons, but mainly because there isn't a market for it. My countrymen tend to avoid 'nerd-culture' like the plague up until a few years ago, and it was only recently with the internet/netflix bloom that some of them are getting in on nerdier stuff.

Right now there are basically only two online stores devoted to tabletop rpgs in my country. In order to learn about D&D in Greece, you either have to ACTIVELY look for it (because you learned about it via a video game), or watch Stranger Things.

 

[Derren]

so yeah it's a little messed up to say "it's okay, they're not humans!", especially in the context of humans in D&D canonically being able to have children with orcs and elves who in turn are entirely fertile, like ech...

I made a thread about this a while ago and the response I mostly got was thats ok because D&D would be an unfun place if it weren't like this.
And lets be honest, D&D will always have "Its not human so its ok to kill them".
WotC can try to cross orcs off that list (although we have to see how long this lasts in their adventures) but then its simply something else like bugbears, gnolls, evil dragons, evil giants, aboleths, mind flayers, etc.
At some point it will again be considered ok to kill them on sight or for XP and loot even though the same reasons why orcs supposed to not be on that list (intelligent, can have children with humans, etc) applies to (some of) them.

 

[Sadras]

I really appreciate you post because is reasoned and not a collection of universal statement. But in this case I must dissent. The trope of Civilzation vs the Uneducated Savage Brute is a trope, is not inspired from humanity's racist history, but from a very real set of things happened at the crush of Roman Empire during the Barbarian Invasions. And there were real situation in which brute humans with a tradition of raiding and violence invaded civilized land.
Just to be fair with facts. Not a critic to your argument.

I think I may agree with you except if you will permit me to add additional words to your statement, the first two are the most important. Quoted below with the bold words being my addition.

The trope of Civilzation vs the Uneducated Savage Brute is a trope, is not only inspired from humanity's racist history, but also from a very real set of things which occurred, for example the crush of the Roman Empire during the Barbarian Invasions. And there were real situations in which brute humans with a tradition of raiding and violence invaded civilized land.

 

[Carlsen Chris]

Yes, seriously.
Because in my eyes a sensitivity reader for a fictional race and culture, especially one which is not a copy and rename of an existing one, is in my eyes mostly finding things to justify his employment.

Do you believe that academic inquiry shouldn't be pursued?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Yes, seriously.
Because in my eyes a sensitivity reader for a fictional race and culture, especially one which is not a copy and rename of an existing one, is in my eyes mostly finding things to justify his employment.

You’ve misunderstood the issue. No one is talking about sensitivity readers for fictional peoples.

 

[Derren]

Do you believe that academic inquiry shouldn't be pursued?

I don't consider it an academic inquiry when someone is paid to find problems with how fictional races and cultures are described. As his job depends on him finding problems I do have my doubts that many findings in this case will actually be problematic because there is no one to feel offended to begin with.

You’ve misunderstood the issue. No one is talking about sensitivity readers for fictional peoples.

I was unaware that WotC released any historic settings for D&D recently.