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

Levistus's_Leviathan

5e Freelancer
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.
Making money is immoral now? How? I mean, it's immoral to drain money or steal money, but WotC employees are people that need money to survive.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Nickolaidas

Explorer
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.

Because TSR/WotC designed this game to be narratively 'simple', in order to be easily approached by people of all ages. Talking out of my ass now, but they probably didn't want the game to be morally complex 'by default', so that people wouldn't find it daunting to role-play.

Game: "Orcs bad. Go kill, be hero."
12-13 year old kids: "YAY!!"
 

Levistus's_Leviathan

5e Freelancer
I'm saying D&D is a game where killing creatures who are labeled as 'bad' by the lore is ok.
And that is the problem there. Orcs aren't "creatures", they're people. They're a people. They have civilizations, culture, religion, free will, and can be good.
Sure, you should be able to kill "creatures" that are bad, but labeling orcs as creatures is not "ok".
 


G

Guest 6801328

Guest
Making money is immoral now? How? I mean, it's immoral to drain money or steal money, but WotC employees are people that need money to survive.

I don't often defend Max, but he's not even remotely saying that.

He is saying that board members of publicly traded companies are obligated by law to make decisions in the best fiduciary interest of the shareholders. Morality is not supposed to factor into it, and in fact it is illegal to prioritize morality above profit. (There's still wiggle room, of course, for example if you can argue that the moral choice is in the best long-term financial interest of the company.)
 

G

Guest 6801328

Guest
Thermian. Arguments. Do. Not. Address. Textual. Criticisms.

How many times do we have to repeat this?

I'm guessing as often as we have to repeat that:
  • It's not about orcs being african american.
  • It's not about "offending" people.
  • Nobody is policing how you play the game at your table.
  • An example of multiculturalism from 2nd edition is not proof that the problem was addressed a long time ago.
  • You still get to kill orcs.
 

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
In D&D however, good and evil aren't abstract philosophical notions. They are a true force which compels and creates angels and devils.
Yes, and I enjoy that particular bit of make-believe. Orcs are not angels and devils, however. They are sapient mortal beings with thoughts and feelings and families that are free to make their own choices, and should therefore (in my opinion) not be treated as culturally monolithic, nor as inherently and indelibly marked as evil, any more than humans are universally good, or elves universally chaotic, or whatever. Sapient mortal beings’ alignments should be determined by their actions. Outsiders such as angels and devils’ actions are determined by their alignment. Aberrations are a special case because their origin is a place beyond the known cosmos that may (and probably does) function by different metaphysical laws; their morality is not just blue and orange, it’s gjnsen and swtbrv.
 


Levistus's_Leviathan

5e Freelancer
Okay, since Mind Flayers were brought up, let's talk about Mind Flayers. Let's show their views on humans:
  • Inferior in technology and societal structure
  • Stupid
  • They have too many emotions and gods that cloud their judgements and make them act rashly
  • Focus too much on strength of arm and not enough on strength of mind
  • Barbaric
  • They're dangerous
And from this they conclude that they're free to do as they wish to humans, because of their inferiority.

Now let's compare that to how humans view orcs:
  • Inferior in technology and societal structure
  • Stupid
  • Their emotions and devotion to gods cloud their judgement.
  • They focus too much on muscle, and not on tactics.
  • They're barbaric
  • They're dangerous.
And, they come to the same conclusion about orcs that mind flayers conclude about humans. The other race is weaker and a hazard, and is therefore it is okay to view them as inferior, and slay them as you wish.

Does this clear anything up, @Nickolaidas?
 
Last edited:

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
So whiping out evil tribesmen gives you white supremacy vibes, but a race who considers all other creatures inferior and only serve purpose as cattle and slaves doesn't?
The first part is a blatant mischaracterization of what anyone here is saying, but I'll just assume you know that and are just being flippant.

The second part, I mean, yeah. I'm fine with there being nazis in dnd. Illithid, IMO, aren't humanoids, they're aberrations, which might as well be a kind of fiend. Having nazi-devils would be perfectly fine with me.

But I also wouldn't care if there were Illithid who weren't necessarily evil. If Illithid were described using Yellow Peril rhetoric, combined with more current stereotypical language surround Asians as the "model minority", ie, inherent intelligence and logical nature, etc, we would also want that changed. But since almost no one wants to play illithid, we wouldn't be also talking about making them not always evil, except for the couple people who always bring fiends into these discussions and act like there isn't a genuine and meaningful difference between them and humanoids.

But, for what feels like the millionth time, the race being evil isn't actually the main problem. The problem is that orcs and drow and vistani are described using language that has also been used for hundreds of years to dehumanize real peoples and justify crimes against them, and that oppression continues today, with white supremacists still using much the same rhetoric.

I just don't understand what is so hard to understand, here. How is it not getting through to some folks that this isn't "orcs are fantasy Black people and that's racist", but "orcs are described as innately stupid, boorish, violent, rapacious, and only relatively safe when 'domesticated' by being removed from their culture and raised by 'good sorts of people', and that is word for word the same rhetoric used against Black people for the last several hundred years, up to and including right now in the countries where DnD is most played."

How on Earth or any other world does it not compute for y'all that those are different things!?
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Remove ads

Remove ads

Top