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

Remathilis

Legend
Honest question: Are you ok with the Mind Flayers being depicted as a species seeking to dominate everyone in the multiverse?

If yes, why do you have an issue with all orcs being depicted as tribal raiders?

One could look at it from the aspect that mind-flayers are alien minds and thus do not see morality or ethics in the same viewpoint as we do. There is certainly a prescient for non-natural species to have thought processes that are so utterly different to a human's that they do not view their actions as any sort recognizable moral lens. To them, killing a human is like stepping on an ant; we don't consider crushing an ant homicide nor do we consider the pain of a tree when we chop it down for wood, so why would a mindflayer see us as different?

The orc, on the other hand, we assume has the same capacity for good, evil, love and fear as any other humanoid. That's why they are categorized as humanoids and not aberrations or monstrosities. Even reducing an orc down to its "savage evil" trope, an orc still understands that human loves its family and will exploit that as necessary to have power over them. An orc understands that allies help it be a better warrior and that allies demand loyalty in return for loyalty, even if the concept of friendship is contemptable to them. They understand, but don't necessarily agree with such notions.

The next logical question then is; what if there are orcs who do agree. That do question the need for conquest and blood for the blood god. That seek a peaceful end rather than a warrior's death. Do orcs look up at the stars and ask "what if I was born an elf?" Old School D&D said it never happened. Modern D&D has said it is rare. Going forward, the answer seems to be "yes, in larger quantities than previously thought".
 

log in or register to remove this ad

So then D&D should have just ceased entirely when it came off as offensive and unpleasant to a great many religious people?
I'm unsure where you're getting "ceased entirely" from my post.

But it behooves the writers of D&D to decide on the level of religious disturbance or racism that they wish to display in their product, and to change it if necessary. They did then, and they are doing it now.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
Except that no, I can't, because the D&D rules state that showing honor and compassion to humanoid enemies is objectively morally wrong, and prior to Fourth Edition-- every version of D&D that I care to play-- had mechanical penalties for deviating from the moral standards of your alignment.

What was the general penalty in 3e? I can't think of one. In 1e and 2e you got an exp penalty that every group I played with ignored.
 

5atbu

Explorer
If they leave the old stuff alone, whatever. If it is one way in one book and a different way in another, no skin off my teeth.

I can buy what suits me.

If they go all in with all products, I am gonna buy less. The game is still going to sell but it would be really sad fiction if we can’t have monolithic evil.

More options cool. Baby with the bath water? Weak sauce.
A culture can be evil.
Not all within it need be.
But surely Nazi levels of compliance and evil should suit most people?
 

MGibster

Legend
No, what they hired is not a consultant, but a PR specialist to make this character especially attractive to their target demographic. They just call it consultant because it sounds better and less corporate.

They're trying to avoid offending one of the demographics they'd like to market to. A PR specialist can be a consultant by the way.
 

G

Guest 6801328

Guest
Religious people may have offended, but the offending material was not part of an ongoing systemic injustice affecting religious people. Offense is not the issue.

You’d think this would be easier to grasp. It’s unbelievable how circular this has become.

Then again, letting go of the idea that it’s about offending people would instantly erase 90% of their complaints.
 

Zardnaar

Legend
The representation of the Vistani has always struck me as deeply problematic. Maybe it's because there's a very strong prejudice and discrimination against Roma here in Italy, but I'm really glad that WotC is taking steps to rectify this (even if they could have avoided altogether that one bit of "nostalgia" when they published CoS in the first place).

I will admit that I'm one of the people who didn't really see the issue with orcs, BUT - even notwithstanding all the detailed explanations that have been given here and elsewhere - there is also, IMHO, another point. On one hand we have POC saying that this representation is harmful, on the other side is Nikosandros who hasn't given much thought about the issue because he's white.

And what will I lose with this changes? Nothing, that's what. I'll get a different take on orcs and if I really need the old fashioned marauders in some of my games, I can keep using them.
What was the general penalty in 3e? I can't think of one. In 1e and 2e you got an exp penalty that every group I played with ignored.

There wasn't but LG paladins, non L barbarians and L only monks were a thing.
 

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
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.
You’ve had the good fortune of being able to do so because you are not part of the groups negatively affected by the racist rhetoric D&D uncritically parrots.

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,
The issue isn’t that anything is unfair to goblins (cause goblins aren’t real). It’s that the justifications used to allow players to kill goblins guilt-free are the same as those used to justify real-world atrocities against ethnic groups, and uncritically repeating that rhetoric normalizes it.

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'?
No, it won’t make you a white supremacist. But it will certainly alienate players.
 

Warpiglet

Adventurer
A culture can be evil.
Not all within it need be.
But surely Nazi levels of compliance and evil should suit most people?

Totally. I think we have it with drow heroes and half orc heroes and lizard folk heroes and most of Volos, etc etc
 

Derren

Hero
They're trying to avoid offending one of the demographics they'd like to market to. A PR specialist can be a consultant by the way.
Considering sentences like:
So I decided to limit my thoughts down to just one thing: How would I, as a black woman, feel about playing this character? What do I want to see from Kaya? What have I not seen from black women characters in other media?
I don't believe that the goal was to not offend, but to sell this character to their target group.
This is of course a very valid thing for a company to do, but I would prefer if WotC would be open about their business practices instead of pretending that it is not only about money.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Remove ads

Remove ads

Top