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
A tree? What the? For goodness sake, you're not one of those primary preception cranks are you?

And why shouldn;t orcs have alien minds? They are, if anything, even less related to humans than the mind-flayers are

Nope. Just reiterating that your life means as much to a mind flayer as a tree's does to you.

And ifv you want to make orcs am utterly inhuman mind akin to the xenomorphs or daleks, be my guest. Might make half-orcs harder to explain though...
 

log in or register to remove this ad


Mercurius

Legend
We all do, whether we can see it or not

That is one philosophical perspective. But unless you're a nihilist, meaning is a part of life--and even nihilists apply meaninglessness as their framing of meaning.

I think the approach of existentialism is hard to refute: that we apply our own meaning, whether we're nihilists, theists, what-ists of any kind. The point being, whether or not it is intrinsic to reality is aside from the fact that every person has some kind of meaning or sense-making (i.e. how we make sense of the world).
 

Morrus

Well, that was fun
Staff member
Not a single word I stated was wrong. Perhaps it's time to start venturing outside of carefully curated RPG forums that work hard to ensure content reflects the moderators politics?
If you don’t like it here, you CAN always leave.
I'll add to this. Rygar, getting bored of this little repetitive refrain from you. I think you might consider leaving. Let's face it, it's gonna end up that way anyway; it's not like you're gonna stop doing it, and it's mainly all you post. Not really sure why you're here.
 

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
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.
I’d certainly be fine with some Orcish cultures being evil, perhaps even most of them. But orcs should not have a monoculture.

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.
No, that’s just piling stigmatization of mental illness on top of the racism,
 

ZeshinX

Adventurer
I really, really hate it when people fire this off like it's actually a solution to something. It isn't a solution. It solves nothing.

First, you're assuming that when I am the DM, I am not already doing this. Of course I'm already doing this in my games.

Second, you're assuming that any and every DM I choose to play with is going to play ball with me on this-- one, this has not been my experience, and two-- crucially-- people who don't think there's a problem, like people who say "if you don't like the rules, just break them" are going to be the people least likely to cooperate on solving the problem, for reasons that should be fairly self-evident.

It's an option then. If it works in the games you run, then by most definitions, a solution. Temporal to that game, certainly, but workable. I'm merely offering an option that can conceivably result in a potential solution, temporary or otherwise. If you're not a fan of such an option, for reasons you've presented, cool, totally your prerogative, and then further suggested an option to narrow your preferred style of group to those more open to such discussions.

If you choose to play with DM's that are more interested in RAW than exploring alternatives, then your undesirable experience rests solely upon you for the informed choice you made. No one owes you anything because you made a personal choice and ended up unhappy (in whatever measure) with the results of said choice.

Hate the suggestion all you wish if that is your desired view of it. Frankly I don't care how you feel. That's your business.
 
Last edited:

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
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.
Right, which is one of many reasons species is a poor choice of words to describe them.
 

Mercurius

Legend
I’d certainly be fine with some Orcish cultures being evil, perhaps even most of them. But orcs should not have a monoculture.

No, that’s just piling stigmatization of mental illness on top of the racism,

I don't see the racism in the hypothetical campaign idea, because it is not based in any way on a real world race or group.

But that's kind of the point: exploring the idea that "evil" is a mental illness. Fantasy--and moreso science fiction--has a long tradition of being a context for such speculative explorations, and the exploration of such ideas is not inherently an act of racism or stigmatism.
 

Remathilis

Legend
I’d certainly be fine with some Orcish cultures being evil, perhaps even most of them. But orcs should not have a monoculture.

Question: how do you feel about elves and dwarves and other PHB races been fairly monoculture? Elves are all woodlands and magic and attitude, dwarves are gold and mining and dourness. What should be done about that?
 

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
I don't see the racism in the hypothetical campaign idea, because it is not based in any way on a real world race or group.
How many times does it need to be said that the issue is not of orcs being “based on” a particular real-life race before you’ll stop bringing up this non-sequitur?

But that's kind of the point: exploring the idea that "evil" is a mental illness. Fantasy--and moreso science fiction--has a long tradition of being a context for such speculative explorations, and the exploration of such ideas is not inherently an act of racism or stigmatism.
Yes, “exploring the idea” that evil is a mental illness is absolutely inherently ableist, and I’m kind of shocked you could genuinely think it wasn’t. Fantasy and scifi to a greater extent (and for that matter, horror to an even greater extent) have a long tradition of ableism.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Remove ads

Remove ads

Top