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.

 

[Mercurius]

I was assuming, since we had been discussing orcs and you had not specified otherwise in your example, that you were talking about orcs. If you wish to analyze a more specific hypothetical setting, please provide the specifics you would like to analyze.

Conscious and critical are different things.

Your hypothetical campaign idea is too vague to meaningfully critically analyze.

By "critically analyze," I assume that you mean variations on critical theory. It is important to remember that critical theory is just that: a theoretical approach, and not one that everyone agrees upon as some kind of absolute truth. One can be "self-critical" without adhering to the specifics of academic critical theory; if that is what you mean, I agree. But I don't think one must adhere to or utilize any specific approach, academic or otherwise. Meaning, the basic problem with critical analysis is the old toolbox analogy: if the only tool you have in your toolbox is a hammer, everything ends up looking like a nail. We cannot separate our means of perception from what we perceive, but we can develop different tools of perception.

I use the word "conscious" to suggest that other paths towards the same (or similar) goals of inclusivity etc are possible, and that viewing the same phenomena from multiple perspectives are very important.

In which what are the norm?

I was referring to oppression and murder.

Yes, I do, because it is a major part of D&D. I’m not sure what you mean by “how (do I include combat in my games)... the same way as anyone else? As the rules describe? This is a non-sequitur.

You were talking about oppression and murder, so I was curious how you handled violence.

It is absolutely a misconception. “Psychopathy” is an outdated term for antisocial personality disorder, and people with antisocial personality disorder are not any more dangerous than neurotypical people. It is actually a very common mental illness, and as with most forms of mental illness, people who suffer from it are more likely to be victims of violence than to perpetrate it. The idea that “psychopaths” are dangerous and violent is a widespread misconception, perpetuated by media, especially horror media.

I think this is a matter of what school of thought you are speaking from. Psychopathy and antisocial personality disorder aren't the same thing, and are used differently. If I remember correctly, the DSM-V doesn't include psychopathy, but it is still utilized in some contexts (and the DSM is not absolute truth and is always changing; many therapists don't use it, or only use it for billing purposes--that is, for insurance coverage). I haven't looked at the data on ASPD so cannot comment on that without research, but I'm talking about psychopathy, which includes personality factors that ASPD doesn't include, which is more focused on behavior.

All psychological disorders are conceptual frameworks for describing phenomena--behavioral patterns, mostly, but also perceived psychological states. Korzybski applies: the map is not the territory. Now you may disagree with a particular map, and perhaps don't think psychopathy exists, but there do seem to be people with "psychopathic traits" that aren't adequately described by antisocial behavior.

This is another non-sequitur, but I’ll humor you. I don’t believe in evil.

Fair enough. It is an interesting topic, though, one that is not easily put to sleep. But it is relevant in this context only in that in the default D&D paradigm, evil does exist.

 

[Maxperson]

You know that actual humans made the decision, right?

And if they deliberately make one that goes against maximizing money, the shareholders sue the daylights out of them. Publicly traded companies have a fiduciary duty to maximize profit. If a company makes a decision like this, it's because they believe they will get more profit by doing so. They may personally agree with it, but money is at the heart of the company's decision.

 

[Zardnaar]

okay, for reals, I really want to understand why people are okay with racism when it doesn't involve a real group of people. why does fantasy racism get a free pass from so many of you people just because it's a fantasy?

I'm gonna take a low hanging fruit. I'm gonna go out on a limb and assume that everyone in this thread believes slavery is bad. the Atlantic slave trade is one of the worst institutions in recorded history. it was incredibly racist, I won't tolerate anyone saying otherwise.

I doubt very few people would enjoy a roleplaying scenario where you play people actively involved in slave trading (and I mean roleplaying like you're the individual people, not like playing a strategy game where you control a nation involved in slavery).

now I'm gonna make a really bad proposition (and I apologize in advance to the moderators): what if there was a D&D setting where there was an elvish slave trade by humans? like almost part for part the same as real world slavery? would you not consider that racist? remember, elves aren't "a real world race or group", so is it still racist? if there was an adventure written where the players had to help the slavers out, would you not find it racist? is it not problematic if the adventure rewarded the players for helping them out, but didn't really expect them to fight against this system? also the NPCs in this hypothetical adventure will give you reasons for why doing this to elves is actually a good thing in case your character is having second thoughts, but is that not bad?

like please, the idea that racism isn't "actually" racism if the group isn't real is mind boggling to me, I really want to know where the line is here.

P.S. I know slavery has already been explored in similar ways in different fantasy stories and games, you don't need to tell me about them, I'm just trying to come up with a very objectionable scenario that's incredibly hard to justify as not racist.

uh, the 5e PHB manages to present humans as a vastly diverse people in 3 pages. elves have more pages than humans. let's not get carried away here.

I've run games where the Elves slave trade in humans.

It's not so much fantasy racism but if I wanted to play in a liberal democracy with modern day values I would walk out my front door.

Trying to be a slavery will likely get you kicked from my game but slavery exists. Bad things happen.

Next game is happy pirates. Guess what the unhappy pirates are into? Sentient beings are slaves and food source for the Yuan Ti.

 

[Maxperson]

Sure, but plenty of companies make the immoral choice at times like these. To think that wotc is doing this purely “because money” is ridiculous.

If the moral one makes less money, they are obligated by law to make the immoral decision. Unless it is also illegal. They have no duty to make illegal decisions. Those decisions fully belong to board members without personal morals.

 

[MGibster]

like please, the idea that racism isn't "actually" racism if the group isn't real is mind boggling to me, I really want to know where the line is here.

I'm thinking of The Treachery of Images by surrealist René Magritte. The caption in the painting below reads, "This is not a pipe." You can't put tobacco in it and have a smoke so the statement is true. Your example of slave trade in elves is not actual racism because there are no elves or even real humans iinvolved. What you have is a representation of racism at best.

But I'd still find the scenario distasteful because I don't want my characters (representing heroism and good) to help out a representation of racism and evil.

 

[Warpiglet]

Deleted

 

[Maxperson]

okay, for reals, I really want to understand why people are okay with racism when it doesn't involve a real group of people. why does fantasy racism get a free pass from so many of you people just because it's a fantasy?

Because it's not real. Fantasy racism is just as okay as fantasy murder hoboing. If it's not a part of the real world, then there's nothing inherently wrong with it. Each group make make the personal choice on whether to include racism, murder, rape, theft or what have you. We don't need the company to do it for us.

I'm gonna take a low hanging fruit. I'm gonna go out on a limb and assume that everyone in this thread believes slavery is bad. the Atlantic slave trade is one of the worst institutions in recorded history. it was incredibly racist, I won't tolerate anyone saying otherwise.

Sure. Real slavery is horrific. My people(Jews) have been made slaves multiple times over the millennia.

I doubt very few people would enjoy a roleplaying scenario where you play people actively involved in slave trading (and I mean roleplaying like you're the individual people, not like playing a strategy game where you control a nation involved in slavery).

I personally would find that distasteful. I have played in campaigns where slaves existed, though. One of my characters once took out a slave caravan and freed the slaves. Other characters have spent time as slaves to NPC groups and had to escape.

now I'm gonna make a really bad proposition (and I apologize in advance to the moderators): what if there was a D&D setting where there was an elvish slave trade by humans? like almost part for part the same as real world slavery? would you not consider that racist? remember, elves aren't "a real world race or group", so is it still racist? if there was an adventure written where the players had to help the slavers out, would you not find it racist?

Pretend racist, sure. Real racist, no.

is it not problematic if the adventure rewarded the players for helping them out, but didn't really expect them to fight against this system? also the NPCs in this hypothetical adventure will give you reasons for why doing this to elves is actually a good thing in case your character is having second thoughts, but is that not bad?

No, it wouldn't be bad as it's all pretend and has no relation to the real world. Unless of course a player or players had issues with that sort of play, in which case I'd expect the game to be different.

My players sometimes play good PCs, evil PCs, neutral PCs, good PCs that aren't out to be heroes, and many other types. If one of the bad groups decided to aid the slave trade, so be it. While I personally wouldn't want to play a slaver, I'm not going to tell them no or penalize them for it. If it exists in the game world, the PCs can interact with it however they wish. I'm going to assume that in that scenario my players don't have an issue with that sort of play as if they did, they wouldn't be trying to help them out. I don't know for sure how they feel about it, since it hasn't come up in more than 20 years of play.

like please, the idea that racism isn't "actually" racism if the group isn't real is mind boggling to me, I really want to know where the line is here.

The line for me is if it's actually connected to the real world in some way. For example, if there were dark skinned humans in the game and the players wanted to go target those humans only, that would cross the line for me. It also crosses the line if someone doesn't enjoy that sort of play and the game goes there anyway. We are all out to enjoy the game and it's not cool to ruin that for any player, including the DM.

 

[Catulle]

By "critically analyze," I assume that you mean variations on critical theory. It is important to remember that critical theory is just that: a theoretical approach, and not one that everyone agrees upon as some kind of absolute truth. One can be "self-critical" without adhering to the specifics of academic critical theory; if that is what you mean, I agree. But I don't think one must adhere to or utilize any specific approach, academic or otherwise. Meaning, the basic problem with critical analysis is the old toolbox analogy: if the only tool you have in your toolbox is a hammer, everything ends up looking like a nail. We cannot separate our means of perception from what we perceive, but we can develop different tools of perception.

I use the word "conscious" to suggest that other paths towards the same (or similar) goals of inclusivity etc are possible, and that viewing the same phenomena from multiple perspectives are very important.



I was referring to oppression and murder.



You were talking about oppression and murder, so I was curious how you handled violence.



I think this is a matter of what school of thought you are speaking from. Psychopathy and antisocial personality disorder aren't the same thing, and are used differently. If I remember correctly, the DSM-V doesn't include psychopathy, but it is still utilized in some contexts (and the DSM is not absolute truth and is always changing; many therapists don't use it, or only use it for billing purposes--that is, for insurance coverage). I haven't looked at the data on ASPD so cannot comment on that without research, but I'm talking about psychopathy, which includes personality factors that ASPD doesn't include, which is more focused on behavior.

All psychological disorders are conceptual frameworks for describing phenomena--behavioral patterns, mostly, but also perceived psychological states. Korzybski applies: the map is not the territory. Now you may disagree with a particular map, and perhaps don't think psychopathy exists, but there do seem to be people with "psychopathic traits" that aren't adequately described by antisocial behavior.



Fair enough. It is an interesting topic, though, one that is not easily put to sleep. But it is relevant in this context only in that in the default D&D paradigm, evil does exist.

Your underwears... They are aflame. Well, that or you don't seem to understand critical theory all that well. Either/or.

 

[Enevhar Aldarion]

We’re getting dangerously close to explicitly discussing politics here, which is against the forum rules. I’ll just say, the statement that capitalism is neither moral nor immoral is far from an uncontroversial statement. A lot of people from across the political spectrum would disagree strongly with this.

Nice generic non-answer. There are multiple forms of capitalism, so you should probably say which kind you don't like. And no, capitalism is not about politics, unless you make it about politics. Anyone who believes in taking in more money than they put out is in some way a capitalist. Even Non-Profits. They are called that because they cannot keep the extra they take in, not because they are not capitalist in some form.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Nice generic non-answer. There are multiple forms of capitalism, so you should probably say which kind you don't like. And no, capitalism is not about politics, unless you make it about politics. Anyone who believes in taking in more money than they put out is in some way a capitalist. Even Non-Profits. They are called that because they cannot keep the extra they take in, not because they are not capitalist in some form.

They were avoiding breaking the forum rules. Discussing whether capitalism is moral is a political, and off topic, discussion.