D&D General WotC’s Official Announcement About Diversity, Races, and 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

Sadras

Legend
Well, that's a hetero normative slice of nonsense.

Proclivities exist, one can always exercise their inner ostrich and stick their head in the sand while ignoring facts.

EDIT: My statement was not a value judgement statement. You and some others are attempting to make it one.

Sociologically speaking, women (you know, rather than "girls" or the somewhat Ferengi "feemaaales"), like the rest of us are more inclined towards social scenarios where they are represented and supported rather than being seen as an outlier: as the majority, it's incumbent on us to be accessible and welcoming rather than demanding newbies conform to our nonsense shibboleths.

Never have I said that we shouldn't be accessible or welcoming. I have 3 ferengi femaaaales and 4 klingons between my two tables. I suggest one finds offense elsewhere.
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

Sadras

Legend
Gone with the Wind’s removal was not permanent. It was temporarily sidelined in order to give it a new intro to put the racist stereotypes in proper historical context.

I suspect some of the others may likewise return with similar contextual reframing.

Yes, thanks - another poster informed me as such.
I'm not sure all the shows removed will receive the same treatment as Gone with the Wind.

OTOH, school boards all over the USA ban To Kill a Mockingbird because it makes people uncomfortable about inequitable race relations here...which is kind of the book’s point.

That is sad. That was one of our setwork books here in South Africa too.
 

clearstream

(He, Him)
The problem is that people can't say or write anything in this day and age without feeling as if they're walking on egg shells. Every single word is put under a microscope and analyzed to death in order to search for signs of bigotry, racism, and I don't know what else.
I think in truth what people say or write has always been scrutinised against various ideas of what should constitute the permissible. What is discomforting is when such scrutiny falls on things one has grown used to, and that perhaps enable one's privileges.

Or to put it another way: it's easy for me not to notice problems that don't affect me.
 
Last edited:

Panda-s1

Scruffy and Determined
Yeah, in retrospect that post did not at all come off the way I meant it to, and I do apologize. This thread moves fast, I was skimming, and posted without fully understanding the context of the conversation thread I was chiming in to. It was certainly not my intention to suggest that Muslims in general have grown more conservative since the 90s, nor any Muslims specifically, and it’s not something I believe - I admit I don’t really know much about Muslim religion or culture at all. Of course, I am a strong believer that effects matter more than intent, so if anyone was hurt by what I said, I apologize, and if there is anything I can do to try and make up for it, please let me know. I’d be happy to edit the post, if that would help.
It was my post you originally replied to. It's all good, although the frequency this has happened to me (oddly challenging post for no apparent reason or cause that sometimes even back up what you were saying) in the past few days is why I am no longer discussing anything having to do with orcs or racism.

It's a shame, I think it's an interesting discussion. Maybe one best left for sitting around a table, though.

I appreciate the apology, have no need for editing, and wish you the best in this discussion.

If you want to learn something fascinating....look online for pictures of Iran before and after 1979. You can see a very clear division of what moderate and conservative Muslim communities would look like with a huge change happening in just one year.
a certain someone asked hypothetically "I wonder if Muslims would get into D&D, as well as [people defined by ethnicity/race, like okay]" and a certain other someone (who one of you replied to) said probably not 'cause their one Muslim friend said magic is Haram ('cause y'know the magic in D&D is super real).

one poster replied that magic is also frowned upon in Christianity but that doesn't stop Christians from playing D&D, and another who actually lives in a Muslim majority country brought up the gaming scene in Malaysia and Indonesia. honestly I kinda find it funny you replied to a post that old, though I can't say I didn't enjoy it lol.
Yeah.

My personal impression was always




This thinking, on the other hand, troubles me.

None of our leaders had anything to do with it. We weren't born yet. I didn't vote for them. The oldest living american was born 50 years after slavery ended.

Furthermore I'm sure there's a lot of Americans where even if you look at their their ancestors their family didn't even come to the USA until after the civil war was over. So even if we take "you" to mean "you and all your ancestors" it still doesn't apply to many. For example, my ancestors were all still in Italy until the early 20th century..
okay, no one alive now was around when slavery was still legal, but there are still a lot of people alive today who were around when segregation was still legal, and segregation was begat by the end of slavery in America. there are still people alive today who voted for politicians specifically because they advocated for continuing segregation. you think after segregation ended people just up and stopped being racist?

even if your specific ancestors weren't around for slavery, they still might have benefited from segregation and fully accepted it as a reasonable policy. or if not in a place that was segregated still saw no reason to see African Americans as equals and might've supported laws and policies that perpetuated this idea.
I am curious why exactly Drow and Orcs are the races that are supposedly the most "racially profiled" in the Realms?
What about Goblins? Heck, what about Gnolls? I was actually quite annoyed about the 5E portrayal of Gnolls, where now they are demon-spawn of Yeenoghu, created from hyenas who feast on the remains of the Demon Lord's victims. So Gnolls, unlike the other races who could have been Neutral or Good before as even the sourcebooks detail it, are literally "Always Chaotic Evil"...

Also, guess it is only a matter of time before Lolth is removed too because an all-female all-evil priesthood ruling over Drow who constantly backstab and vie for power is a misogynist depiction of women? Or maybe they won't, because removing females in power from canon IS misogynist? I don't envy the people in charge at WotC. No decision they make will be the right one. There is no pleasing this particular crowd.
hmmmmmmmm, tell me, exactly what crowd would this be? 🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔

if I had to give you an answer: Drow became popular because of Drizzt. Orcs are popular because of pop culture and they're low level. Gnolls aren't popular because of opposite reasons.
the matriarchal society of Drow is supposed to be both a novelty and a case of being weird because they're the "opposite" of what people typically think of society. yes, a society where women in power are all backstabbing is fairly misogynistic, but no removing a problematic element that represents a minority doesn't create some sort of paradox for you to be like "Gotcha!", it's still problematic.
Great post. Indeed, why don't Duergar or Goblins get a hero character like Drizzt? Duergar are basically victims of the Illithid, same as the Gith, and feel (arguably rightfully) betrayed by their pantheon.
At least Beholders are kinda "humanized" with Xanathar who while still being basically a James Bond villain, is someone you can have a work relationship with (even if he tends to disintegrate people whom he gets paranoid about). Plus there are Spectators, who are not evil and rather curious and friendly.
I think it was Eberron that tried the whole "Dragons can be any alignment" thing regardless of being Chromatic or Metallic. I have not read enough of it to see if it worked. They also made Drow worship a scorpion god and live on the surface, though I am not sure if that made them any less evil.
Duergar aren't popular for the same reason gnolls aren't. Goblins are popular due to their status as low level enemies, but due to their perceived incompetence as well as a softened image in other fantasy games they're slowly becoming the other other halfling alternative.

not sure how "Dragons can be any alignment" can't work, and last I checked in the most recent version of Eberron it's still canon.
 

Derren

Hero
Sounds good. Why would my first option be to kill them? A dragon has enslaved them. I'm not gonna kill slaves if I don't have to.

Why would you kill the dragon? The same reason why orcs are not kill on sight anymore would also apply to them. Intelligent, can create offspring with humans, etc.
 


Mirtek

Hero
It depends on whom the table belongs to, does it not.

Sword and Sorcery themes are at best amoral, and at worst immoral.

Conan, Kills whom he wants, Takes what he wants, and Conan does not care about the consequences.

Conan also did not rank people as good or bad, based off the textual depiction of his thoughts (REH as the narrator is a different matter), Conan just thought of people as “Foe”, or “Mark”, and sometimes a vague sense of “Friend”.

So even in a Conan story, not all Stygian people are bad, and Kill on Sight. Conan’s foes are his foes not because of being evil, but through dint of being obstacles to Conan’s desires.

So Sword and Sorcery is still a great vessel, in my view, for creating great NPC with complex motivations and interactions.

Much richer then, all Orcs are evil, because they are Orcs.

Superimposing a moral narrative on Sword and Sorcery, just misses the point of the genre, to me at least.

Restraint and Compassion, exercised by society members, allow free societies to function.
Oppression and Coercion, can keep the gears running for a time.

Sword and Sorcery as a genre typically does not center around themes of Restraint and Compassion.

This is not a normative criticism, but an observation.

Now if you feel some humanoids must be monolithically evil, to distract yourself from the wanton destruction you are shared/pretending/acting.....then philosophically I have some issues with that, personally.

To paraphrase William Burroughs, I believe in Naked Lunches, where the true cost of the ingredients is calculated....a free lunch, that ignores the cost of production is not free.

Conan, as a fictional person is beyond Good and Evil.....most of us, alive today are not.

I mean, one would not want one’s babysitter having the behaviors or mindset of Conan, by Crom!
Except you know those tribes of people which are based on racist sterotypes of black cannibals.


 

Mirtek

Hero
I couldn't agree more. We've got a whole generation of D&D players who cut their teeth on games like World of Warcraft where orcs and trolls aren't automatically evil bastards. Garrosh Hellscream was an evil git, yes, but we've also got Thrall as well. And beyond other games, these younger people were influenced by media that wasn't available during my formative years. I wonder what impact Dragon Ball Z has had in the expectations of what heroes can do.
And yet we indiscriminately slay Centaurs, Murlocks, Gnolls, Quilboar, .... in WoW.

Just because it elevated some races from the "kill X of them on sight for quest rewards" it's still choke full of such races
 

Mirtek

Hero
You used narration to explain the behavior of the illithid race, which I agree with.

By that logic however, orcs are made from an evil god who only wants to conquer and plunder. To quote the 5th edition manual:

"Grasping his mighty spear, Gruumsh laid waste to the mountains, set the forests aflame, and carved great furrows in the fields. Such was the role of the orcs, he proclaimed, to take and destroy all that the other races would deny them. To this day, the orcs wage an endless war on humans, dwarves, elves and other folk."

The narration tells me there's nothing redeemable about orcs and it gives me an in-lore reason to believe it, just like it gives me an in-lore reason to believe that Mind Flayers cannot be redeemed (dietary reasons and alien mindset).

I just don't get why one is ok and the other is not.
Creations have a tendency to slip from the controll of their creator. Especially deities in myth and fantasy are famous for losing control over what they once unleashed for entirely different purposes
 

G

Guest 6801328

Guest
Care to elaborate? 'cause I can't see how that would NOT be the next step they take. It's logical.
And just after we got a great insight into Drow and how Lolth betrayed Correllon in Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes.


What the heck are sensitivity readers? Is this basically a new form of censorship, except done to prevent anyone from being offended by an accidental remark?


Aaaasnnnnddd....we are back to page 1.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Remove ads

Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Recent & Upcoming Releases

Top