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. Notably, the word ‘race’ is not used; in its place are the words ‘people’ and 'folk'.

 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.

 

[Olrox17]

Cool! And nowhere in your description are you saying "all orcs are ___" or using language currently used to oppress other people. Nice!

So do you agree now that WotC can remove the stereotype that "all _ are _" without making the game less fun, or removing the "scary invader" as a possible antagonist?

They can absolutely remove all_ are_. They kinda did that already in 5e, with the Obould Many Arrows sidebar. I'm ok with them being a little more explicit.
...I still like the "scary invader" concept being there though, as the default Gruumsh-worshipping orc.

What do you think is being banned?

The concept of chaotic evil, non-free willed orcs. I believe they have a place in the game.

 

[Olrox17]

Good question, and one I'm definitely mulling over.

As I said before, there's really no clear line. I think for certain races in the Monster Manual it's pretty obvious, such as drow and orcs. But Gnoll seems to be right on that line, right?

I am not the head of the D&D creative team (though that's what my mom thought my job would be when I was a kid). I'm an elementary school teacher.

But here's what I'd do with gnolls, just for fun:

I would have Humanoid gnolls and Fiendish gnolls.

Humanoid gnolls don't have a stat block, instead you find them in the Monster Manual under Raider, Mystic, etc.

Fiendish gnolls, however, have been corrupted by their evil gods. They ARE monsters. In the MM I would list story ideas that would set up the Fiendish gnolls to be antagonists.

Interestingly enough, what you are proposing for gnolls is almost exactly what I'm proposing for orcs.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

Y'gotta understand that I come at D&D from my video-game history, with NWN. But, rather I think its very relevant because it shows us something: Orcs, humans and elves are not dissimilar enough that it is impossible to just apply a different texture and call one another


Orcs are very human. They are bipedal beings with 2 sets of limbs, using the upper ones (We'll call them 'arms) to wield weapons. We have a grand total of one other being alive that does this. Its called humans. So taking this, we can infer that either there is some reflection of humans in orcs, or, if orcs were to be completely inhuman, then they have miserably failed to ludicrous degrees

By that logic you have to roll every single bipedal tool using creature from DnD I to the discussion , like Mind Flayers, demons, treants, etc.

 

[BookTenTiger]

The concept of chaotic evil, non-free willed orcs. I believe they have a place in the game.

I don't think that's being banned, at least based on what WotC has said so far. It's just that not ALL orcs, in published WotC materials, will be Chaotic evil and non-free-willed.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Honestly ... I'm conflicted.

I just read Elfcrusher's aarakocra example, and the Witcher games came to mind.

In case you're not familiar with the Witcher books / video games, demihumans there are portrayed as 2nd class citizens and victims of racism. This isn't meant as a low poke on real-life minorities, but as a way of showing you how hard said minorities are having it, how many hardships and prosecution they have to endure. This leads to deep characters and storytelling.

Now, imagine people being offended with the material and demand the game's devs of removing the offensive material, making demihumans no different in treatment than humans. This would immediately cripple the narrative and the potential for deep storytelling the Witcher games have.

Personally, I think racism in a medieval setting provides ample opportunities for the players to feel like true heroes. Imagine the PCs trying and succeeding in turning goblins from a human kingdom's slaves and serfs into true citizens. Or proving to a human baron that the orcs living a few miles away can be allies, and not the savage raiders everyone thinks they are.

If the rules turn every race in a 'everything goes' species, or if the notion of racism is removed from campaigns, isn't there a risk of removing material to create some truly heartwarming and memorable campaigns which will make the players feel they changed the old ways of thinking the kingdoms had, instead of just 'you've slain the dragon' moment?

The difference is in the treatment. Presenting racism as a bad thing and using it as a way to point out how unlikable a character is (because they are a racist, and racism is bad) is entirely different from presenting racism as an unquestioned, unchallenged status quo.

And when you mention racism as an opportunity for heroics... all I have to ask is: which published campaign or adventure focuses on that? I'm asking with the singular form there because I genuinely doubt there is even one, while I'm certain there are numerous examples I can quickly go find where the adventure presents the same goblins or orcs as the enemy without any explanation of why that is the case beyond "because they are goblins and orcs."

 

[Nickolaidas]

Good points! Here are my thoughts:

In stories like the Witcher, the second-class citizenship of demihumans is being portrayed as unjust. It is using the themes of racism to tell a story in which the beliefs of characters are not necessarily narrative truths.

In D&D, "all _ are _" is being used to justify killing anyone of that type. It is a rule that creates a narrative truth.

Imagine, instead, that the Witcher portrayed demihumans as second-class citizens, and used that to justify the Witcher himself slaying them. And at no point ever questioned his ability, or rightness, in doing so. That would be perpetuating racist thinking.

D&D can absolutely have racism. But it doesn't need to justify racism in its rules.

We should have stories in which the characters fight orc and gnoll raiders.

But based on the current rules of D&D, if those orcs and gnolls were having a vegan picnic, characters would still be justified in slaying them because orcs and gnolls are chaotic evil.

WotC can set a better default in their rules by removing or changing language that defines "all _ are _"

This still provides opportunities to tell stories in which race has caused conflict. This, however, would not justify the PLAYERS using race as a signifier for if a humanoid is evil or not.

I agree with everything!

My concern, and conundrum, is what happens if players complain about the racism displayed in the Witcher, because it reminds them of the oppression they deal with in real life and makes them depressed or uncomfortable, and ask for a change? What should happen then?

Even if displayed in a way to show you it's wrong it's still being displayed.

 

[Olrox17]

I don't think that's being banned, at least based on what WotC has said so far. It's just that not ALL orcs, in published WotC materials, will be Chaotic evil and non-free-willed.

If that's their goal, I have no issue with it. Again, they kinda did that already, Obould has been a thing for decades. We'll see how exactly they'll implement that.

 

[BookTenTiger]

Interestingly enough, what you are proposing for gnolls is almost exactly what I'm proposing for orcs.

It is as if, when people of good faith come together in honest and open discussion, we can reach shared conclusions.

 

[Remathilis]

In your opinion, should all creatures be re-written like the orcs and drow? Even Gnolls? Or only races which are possible candidates for PCs?

That's a point I've been considering as well.

Consistency would say that ALL humanoids, regardless of PC viability, should be treated the same. That includes the traditional PC races as well, with dwarf raiders and elf raiders in the MM.

A more interesting question arises from non-humanoids, like ogres, trolls or giants. What about them? An ogre is every orc trope, just supersized, so what then? What about centaurs, minotaurs, medusas or other monstrosities? What about sentient undead and lycanthropes? Dragons color-coded to their alignments?

I'm not saying it should or shouldn't be done, but it's going to a much bigger project if consistency is at all a priority. This is 6e "re-write the Monster Manual" big.

 

[Nickolaidas]

That's a point I've been considering as well.

Consistency would say that ALL humanoids, regardless of PC viability, should be treated the same. That includes the traditional PC races as well, with dwarf raiders and elf raiders in the MM.

A more interesting question arises from non-humanoids, like ogres, trolls or giants. What about them? An ogre is every orc trope, just supersized, so what then? What about centaurs, minotaurs, medusas or other monstrosities? What about sentient undead and lycanthropes? Dragons color-coded to their alignments?

I'm not saying it should or shouldn't be done, but it's going to a much bigger project if consistency is at all a priority. This is 6e "re-write the Monster Manual" big.

Dungeons and Dragons: Fixing our monsters one Edition at a time.