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

And if you STILL think this is what is being discussed, after all the times that people have explained that it isn't, then you, also, are not understanding the problem.

Maybe.

From the WoTC words: 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.

Goodbye.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

BookTenTiger

He / Him
I'm having trouble understanding where the line is drawn.

Two days ago I found out that killing virtual dogs in a video game is bad, and that it shouldn't be so.

Today I found out that some D&D players consider the fact that Orcs live in tribes and are savages to be racist, as well as the fact that most Drow are evil.

I simply do not know whether tomorrow I'll find out that Mind Flayers enslaving humanoids is racist, because it is based on some dark parts of human history that should be tabooed and forgotten. Or that Yuan-Ti eating humanoids is wrong because it portrays snakes as evil and hostile creatures towards man, when they're really not based on some YouTube videos.

Yeah, it's confusing! If there was an obvious line we wouldn't be having this conversation. So it's okay to be confused!

I want to focus on this part:

Today I found out that some D&D players consider the fact that Orcs live in tribes and are savages to be racist, as well as the fact that most Drow are evil.

So remember that this thread, at least, started because WotC made an announcement about their approach to diversity and inclusion. So it's not just "some D&D players."

Now, let's talk about why WotC considers the way they have been portraying orcs and drow is troublesome.

When playing D&D, there is often a justification for why the characters can kill an enemy. Usually the enemy is dangerous or evil. We know the enemy is evil because it's been killing villagers or raising the dead or leading an evil army or is from one of the Nine Hells or something.

When we look at the historic signifiers that D&D has used to show why monstrous humanoids are evil we often find the same justifications that racists have used to dehumanize people of color.

For example, racists have said that an entire people are savages. Or tribal. Or cursed with dark skin. These are arguments and biases that have literally led to the enslavement and death of people of color in the US's past and present.

Right now a lot of people are taking a look at the work they are doing, the media they are consuming, the conversations they are having and they are asking: how can I help?

According to the announcement they made, WotC believes they can help by not perpetuating tropes and stereotypes that have been used in the real world to dehumanize and harm real people.

We can still have evil orcs. We can still have evil drow. But let's get more clever with our depictions of all humanoids so that we are not relying on the lazy, harmful stereotypes that we see hurting people in real life.

Does that help?[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]
 

Nickolaidas

Explorer
If you think that killing dogs in a video game has anything to do with this discussion, or that your fears about Mind Flayers and Yuan-Ti are a logical extension to this discussion, then you are not understanding the problem.
The problem is that people can't say or write anything in this day and age without feeling as if they're walking on egg shells. Every single word is put under a microscope and analyzed to death in order to search for signs of bigotry, racism, and I don't know what else.
 


Sadras

Legend
I think you may be mixing up morality in game and out of game.

This is literally what I said
I'm merely reflecting that these adjectives have been used throughout history and that this is a common fantasy trope.
Defend/survive against the wave of others!

The defence against this was commonality =/= morality.
The defending/surviving the wave of evil others is in game not out of game.
The murderhoboism is in game not out of game.

What am I missing that you are seeing this differently?

This conversation is about what WotC, a real company in the real world, can do in order to not perpetuate stereotypes that we literally see having a fatal effect on people of color.

Fatal. I was accused of using an emotionally charged word (capitulation) in another thread by a moderator.

As I have said upthread - I am all for enrichening the culture/lore of orcs. They are an iconic antagonist for the PCs in D&D. The objection I have is in not removing the trope that currently exists (for those that may still want it), but adding to it, since I believe the trope is popular. And this is because sometimes we just want the evil empire as the antagonist. Not everything has to be a complicated mess.

You say you do not want real world politics in your game. I would argue that real world politics have always changed our game, but you may only be noticing the ones you disagree with.

I will concede this. I have really only been active on forums for the last decade and do not live in the states so have not always been aware of the news and how it affected the creative team. I even missed the entire edition wars.

I've said it before in this thread, but when I first started with AD&D I was super embarrassed by the cheesecake depiction of women in the game. All over the rulebooks and Dragon Magazine, women were shown in ridiculous poses wearing chainmail bikinis or not much else. It was a disturbing and denigrating image that perpetuated stereotypes about women and their role in society.

Those images are thankfully gone from D&D. Why do you think that happened? I believe that the "real world politics" of gender equality had an effect on what WotC chose to put into their game.

Could you still play a woman in a chainmail bikini in your game if you want? Of course! But it doesn't have to be the default of what WotC publishes.

All true. They can have both sexes objectified - I take no issue with any of this.
I purchased a Boris Vallejo artbook back in the day. I'm certainly not going to apologise for liking the art. And I love the 5e art too.
 
Last edited:

G

Guest 6801328

Guest
Many moons ago I was, I wince to think about, pretty regressive in my thinking about a lot of these issues. My freshman year in college one of my assigned roommates was a radical activist from Berkeley. (Way to go, roommate matching algorithm!). I thought a lot of his views and objectives were ridiculous and, well, I think I sounded like, and made arguments similar to, some of the people with whom I'm now arguing with in this thread. (Also I suspected that he was just trying to get into the pants of one of the campus feminist leaders.)

One time he got so frustrated with me that he screamed in my face, "If that's the way you think THEN YOUR THINKING HAS TO BE CHANGED!"

This wasn't, of course, a very effective way to persuade me. All I could hear in that statement was a defense of communist reeducation camps.

But, all these years later, it occurs to me that a) he was right, and b) now I understand how frustrated he was.
 

JiffyPopTart

Bree-Yark
Being a good person isn't just about what you are obligated to do. Every act of true charity ever done was about doing something you weren't obligated to do.
Someone in this very thread said something to the effect of "If something you are doing is harming someone else, then stop doing it." Treating others on the board rudely or disrespectfully harms the discussion as a whole and everyone taking part in it.
 

Panda-s1

Scruffy and Determined
That the specific humanoid race isn't as advanced as other humanoid societies.
Now why exactly is that insulting? Why should I feel insulted that a fictional, reptilian race only gathers in tribes?
idk how can a sapient species have society and yet somehow can't manage to form things like cities?

Today I found out that some D&D players consider the fact that Orcs live in tribes and are savages to be racist, as well as the fact that most Drow are evil.
well yeah their description is based on how real world groups of humans were described, and such descriptions have historically been the basis for racism in our real world.
 

BookTenTiger

He / Him
But it is not a moral obligation to do so, for me. It is a pure and legitimate businnes action.

You do not need to feel obligated to make a change in order to understand why someone is making a change.

Bus boycotts were held in racially segregated states in the U.S. to protest segregated bus seats. The busses did not desegregate for moral reasons- they desegregated because they were losing money. Are you arguing they shouldn't have desegregated if they didn't feel they had the moral obligation?

I mean, it's not like a bunch of us here are making up what WotC intends to do. They made it pretty clear in their announcement.
 

Nickolaidas

Explorer
We can still have evil orcs. We can still have evil drow. But let's get more clever with our depictions of all humanoids so that we are not relying on the lazy, harmful stereotypes that we see hurting people in real life.

I don't disagree with this.

I just don't want entire species in D&D to change their behaviors, eco-systems and habitats because people feel insulted by the lifestyle of a fictional creature.

If people said that PoC are tribal creatures, they are a-holes for saying it, I'm not defending statements like these, no exceptions.

But I don't want the lore of the game I love to change simply because an a-hole said something stupid.

Anyway, I think I should refrain from saying anything else until I actually read the changes WotC will make to the races/species/ancestries/whatever.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Remove ads

Remove ads

Top