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


log in or register to remove this ad

Mercurius

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

Imagining myself as a hypothetical player in such a framework, my issue wouldn't as much be with the genocide of orcs, but the idea of genocide itself.

That stems from my personal dislike of playing evil characters - I simply take no pleasure in play-acting things that I find extremely objectionable IRL. This doesn't mean that I take issue with killing in D&D, but that--for me--it has to be warranted, as part of some greater goal that my character feels is justified.

So while I'll happily play characters that are quite different from myself, there is a line that I don't enjoy crossing. This doesn't mean that I think players who play evil characters are evil--no moreso than actors who play evil roles--but that it is something that I personally don't enjoy.
 



MGibster

Legend
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.


You're right that it's more complicated than not wanting to offend their customers. But not giving offence and wanting to sell a product to a particular group are not mutually exclusive ideas. And I would imagine many of their customers are also happy to see that WoTC thinks they're important enough to take into account in their marketing.
 

Mercurius

Legend
Why shouldn’t they? Aren’t complex villains generally considered more interesting than one-dimensional ones?

Not to step into your dialogue--ok, I'm stepping in ;-)--but "complexity" and "exact same capability and affinity" aren't mutually exclusive. Orcs can be complex in an orcish way, although I think part of the D&D game has been the assumption that humans are the most diverse and non-specialized race, so it makes sense that orcs--as a non-human race--have a narrower range of complexity.

If we make orcs too similar to humans then they stop being orcs, which only strengthens the racial stereotypes that we all (or most!) would rather not see being made.
 

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
Not to step into your dialogue--ok, I'm stepping in ;-)--but "complexity" and "exact same capability and affinity" aren't mutually exclusive. Orcs can be complex in an orcish way, although I think part of the D&D game has been the assumption that humans are the most diverse and non-specialized race, so it makes sense that orcs--as a non-human race--have a narrower range of complexity.

If we make orcs too similar to humans then they stop being orcs, which only strengthens the racial stereotypes that we all (or most!) would rather not see being made.
I don’t think I disagree with what you’re saying here. Orcs can (and in my opinion should) be complex in different ways than humans are. But if they’re universally evil, they aren’t. There’s no complexity to be found there.
 

Oofta

Legend
...
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.
....

You may assume that. It may be true in certain campaigns. The rule books do not say that anywhere. I have no idea where this "rule" comes from because the MM defines humanoid as:

Humanoids are the main peoples of the D&D world, both civilized and savage, including humans and a tremendous variety of other species. They have language and culture, few if any innate magical abilities (though most humanoids can learn spellcasting), and a bipedal form.​
I'm not picking on you per se, I just keep hearing the same thing repeated but it's not supported by the rules. Different campaigns will, of course change things up as they see fit.
 

Mercurius

Legend
I don’t think I disagree with what you’re saying here. Orcs can (and in my opinion should) be complex in different ways than humans are. But if they’re universally evil, they aren’t. There’s no complexity to be found there.

Yes, agreed, with the caveat that maybe orcish culture could be evil as a whole, but there's no reason why individual orcs couldn't be non-evil, provided a different environment, a spiritual revelation, etc.

That said, there is the notion of the psychopath, which seems to be inherent, at least in some (extreme) cases. I see nothing wrong with a fantasy race that is inherently psychopathic. Although this also almost demands the idea of an individual(s) that breaks the mold. Imagine that campaign: PCs as non-psychopath members of a psychopathic species. Maybe the psychopathy can be healed by some artifact, and the PCs go on a quest for said artifact, having to navigate a world in which everyone is psychopathic/evil.
 

But... different species do share common origins.

That's not the point. The point is that the relatedness of species is defined by the proximity of their most recent common ancestor. So yes, humans share a common ancestor with apes and fish and even the tree in your backyard and are related to them to some degree. Humans do not share a common ancestor with elves or orcs however, and therefore are not related to them at all.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Remove ads

Remove ads

Top