• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

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

Sadras

Legend
I don't think I buy that. If you want to play against type you can always assign a lower ability score. I find it hard to believe that many people really want to play an "against type" character with a primary ability score less than 8.

I'm not suggesting an abillity less than 8 but I'm suggesting an ability score that cannot be maxed out to 20 because of mechanics backed up by in-game fiction. It is easier to select against type if there is a type that is marginalised. Jumping in with a lower score does not do it justice. I'm not sure I'm eloquent enough to make the point clearer.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

G

Guest 6801328

Guest
The dumb, savage barbarian stereotype is in no way new, it has been used to describe people of many cultures and all colors (including whites) throughout history.

Yes! YES! YES!!!!!!

Now you're getting it.

@Derren I've been catching up on the last couple of pages, and I'd like to offer answers to a couple of the questions/doubts to which you keep returning.

First, the reason "we" keep shifting the real-world group we're discussing...africans, native americans, mongols, etc...is that the language used to describe orcs (savage, unintelligent, rapidly breeding, ugly, irrational, etc.) is the language that has been used for centuries by subjugators to de-humanize people and rationalize killing them. As @Olrox17 noted, the Romans said the same thing about the Germanic people who were sacking Rome.

So it's not that orcs are meant, by anybody, to represent one of these groups. It's that in attempting to portray orcs as less-than-human "others" that heroes should eradicate it's almost unavoidable that we use language and imagery that has been used to justify slavery, colonization, and genocide.

(To address Olrox17's point: maybe some day a sense of security and the passage of time will render this language as inoffensive to everybody as it currently is to those of Northern European descent who can laugh off, or even take pride in, being called barbarians. I hope so.)

Second, regarding your question about dragons and dragonborn: I don't know. I haven't heard anybody saying those depictions are hurtful to them. I'm guessing it's because being intelligent and charismatic and clever (with really long reproductive cycles) isn't typically how oppressors described the oppressed. Is there a group that you think should be offended by the depiction of dragonborn?
 

G

Guest 6801328

Guest
I'm not suggesting an abillity less than 8 but I'm suggesting an ability score that cannot be maxed out to 20 because of mechanics backed up by in-game fiction. It is easier to select against type if there is a type that is marginalised. Jumping in with a lower score does not do it justice. I'm not sure I'm eloquent enough to make the point clearer.

But...you don't have to raise it to 20 if that's what you want. Right?

I'm genuinely not understanding the concern here.
 


Remathilis

Legend
If those orcs are still being described with the following descriptors used to justify violence and oppression against them:
  • Inferior in technology and societal structure
  • Stupid
  • Too emotional/superstitious
  • Barbaric
  • Dangerous.
Then yes. It would still be a problem! Doesn't matter if they're black, white, or fuschia! Even if they weren't orcs it would be a problem!

Please take this as a good faith argument, I really want to see what can be done to be better.

How would you describe orcs that doesn't adhere to these tropes? Assuming that we want to keep orcs a primarily antagonist for players, what do we do?

I keep coming back to this and keep getting fairly curt answers to it: it doesn't seem like the fix is to say NotAllOrcs and then do nothing. Orcs will have to change for it to mean something.

So, what changes? How do you describe an orc, it's culture, or it's outlook?

I'm not looking to you or anyone else to rewrite the MM, but a little guidances on what SHOULD be done rather than just pointing out what SHOULDN'T would be appreciated.
 

Derren

Hero
Yes! YES! YES!!!!!!

Now you're getting it.

@Derren I've been catching up on the last couple of pages, and I'd like to offer answers to a couple of the questions/doubts to which you keep returning.

First, the reason "we" keep shifting the real-world group we're discussing...africans, native americans, mongols, etc...is that the language used to describe orcs (savage, unintelligent, rapidly breeding, ugly, irrational, etc.) is the language that has been used for centuries by subjugators to de-humanize people and rationalize killing them. As @Olrox17 noted, the Romans said the same thing about the Germanic people who were sacking Rome.

So it's not that orcs are meant, by anybody, to represent one of these groups. It's that in attempting to portray orcs as less-than-human "others" that heroes should eradicate it's almost unavoidable that we use language and imagery that has been used to justify slavery, colonization, and genocide.

(To address Olrox17's point: maybe some day a sense of security and the passage of time will render this language as inoffensive to everybody as it currently is to those of Northern European descent who can laugh off, or even take pride in, being called barbarians. I hope so.)

Second, regarding your question about dragons and dragonborn: I don't know. I haven't heard anybody saying those depictions are hurtful to them. I'm guessing it's because being intelligent and charismatic and clever (with really long reproductive cycles) isn't typically how oppressors described the oppressed. Is there a group that you think should be offended by the depiction of dragonborn?

And yet I don't feel in any way discriminated by the description of orcs even though I also belong to a group of people who once were described as backward savages which, as you pointed out, applies to pretty much every culture in the world at one point or the other.
If your goal is to remove all "bad words" from the game then in the end you would not have a game left as negative emotions and with it words are part of humanity and you can't have any believable society, much less a game that needs antagonists, without them. Maybe as some dystopia police state but that itself would also be negative and probably derogatory to North Koreans.
It also raises the question if you really intend to do a complete removal of all negativity then why only stop with racism, no matter how far fetched, and not include all the other negative aspects in D&D you know the plunder, murder, etc.

As for dragonborn, I never mentioned them. What I did mention was dragons because the same logic how people supposedly see a link between orcs and - someone - applies to them.
Greedy, wealthy, sit on their money, control thing from the shadow (well, some dragons in D&D do that). Thats pretty much the stereotypical and derogatory description of jews. They can also breed with humans, so the same reasoning why orcs are related to humans exist too.
So if you are serious with removing descriptions which mimic the ones used in real life as derogatory terms you would need to change dragons too. Do you think this must be done? And if not, why?
 
Last edited:

Sadras

Legend
But...you don't have to raise it to 20 if that's what you want. Right?

I'm genuinely not understanding the concern here.

I have played thematically weaker characters i.e. playing a young teenager priestess, so not a powerful cleric type, and that was easy to do as I just dropped her STR, didn't/couldn't wear decent armour or wield heavy weapons. I had serious vulnerabilities, so all good.

However this is where it is different:
You cannot play against type if the the type is not an issue.
If for instance Orcs have no ability penalties then ANY class is type (open).
If however Orcs have penalties on X ability, then playing an Orc with any class which relies on X ability = playing against type.

Hope I'm making sense here.
 

DEFCON 1

Legend
Supporter
So if you are serious with removing descriptions which mimic the ones used in real life as derogatory termy you would need to change dragons too. Do you think this must be done? And if not, why?
If it mattered to that many people, then sure, WotC can change the default assumption of how dragons are in their books. I don't care. NO creature in D&D is so sacrosanct that we can't change their description of it in order to make the game more inviting and less insulting to people.

I mean come on... it's a couple paragraphs of text that somebody just made up at one point. If the people who made that text up want to change it so as to not insult people inadvertently, then who cares? Go right ahead! Why in the heck should it matter to me that they wish to try and make up in just a small way for hurting someone unnecessarily?

You seem to think that if what was written shouldn't be considered really hurtful (by your definition)... then the text should be kept so that YOU aren't inconvenienced. Well, you know what? Too freaking bad. It's not like you get any say in the matter anyway. Because you didn't write the text in the first place, nor do you control how if/how/or why the text gets re-written when it does. So complain all you want. The rest of us will just be over here rolling our eyes and shaking our heads.
 

Derren

Hero
If it mattered to that many people, then sure, WotC can change the default assumption of how dragons are in their books. I don't care. NO creature in D&D is so sacrosanct that we can't change their description of it in order to make the game more inviting and less insulting to people.

I mean come on... it's a couple paragraphs of text that somebody just made up at one point. If the people who made that text up want to change it so as to not insult people inadvertently, then who cares? Go right ahead! Why in the heck should it matter to me that they wish to try and make up in just a small way for hurting someone unnecessarily?

You seem to think that if what was written shouldn't be considered really hurtful (by your definition)... then the text should be kept so that YOU aren't inconvenienced. Well, you know what? Too freaking bad. It's not like you get any say in the matter anyway. Because you didn't write the text in the first place, nor do you control how if/how/or why the text gets re-written when it does. So complain all you want. The rest of us will just be over here rolling our eyes and shaking our heads.

WotC can and do change what they want. It would be nice if they are open about why they are doing it. In this case marketing to exploit the current events for a quick and cheap PR boost and not invent some far fetched racism reason.
 


Status
Not open for further replies.
Remove ads

Remove ads

Top