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

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
Effectively, that puts them in the same boat as aarakroca, tabaxi, goliaths, or tortles; a race that lacks a permanent "home" and just exists on the edge of the established race's lands. Occasionally encountered as an NPC, available for play as a PC with DM consent.
No, it doesn't. There isn't even a train of thought I can parse here in order to respond more fully. one just...doesn't lead to the other.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Warpiglet

Adventurer
I suspect you are being sincere here. So my disagreement is not with your intent.

However, if it is “plain,” and “obvious” that the portrayal of these made up creatures is problematic (I do not think it is) you have to explain why the authors of 5e suddenly have a problem with it.

Was it an epiphany? Suddenly they decided not to be racists? Or maybe they knew it’s how people wanted their lore it but kept quiet for other reasons such as economic ones.

In any event, the one thing that does not make sense to me is that it is patently obvious to everyone and universally is seen as harmful.

I simply do not think it is a dangerous concept. I do not believe it will materially change anything tangible now or in the future to change descriptions of monsters in a game.

That is merely an opinion. And it could be wrong but I swear it is what I think.

That being said, how would people feel about getting rid of demons and devils because it offends? Or violence? I mean the Satanic panic really was a panic. I knew some fundamentalists who really found it to be taboo behavior to pretend to deal with demons.

We had high profile people try to change the fiction as a result. And most gamers said “leave us alone, we’re playing what we want!”

If a person thinks this sounds silly, like many did as regards demons in the game during the Satanic panic, they are going to scoff at what they see as misguided efforts to change the game.

The lens people look through is potent. We can try to switch them out to an extent if only briefly. But ultimately we have to decide which one seems to be clearer.

I too can say how patently obvious my view is but it does not make it “true” for everyone else.

In the end, this is just a discussion. They are going to have more worlds with more takes on monsters. I think the game will be fine.

I do not think they are going to wholesale get rid of evil creatures including humanoids. Time will tell if they really go that far.

They have been pretty savvy to date so I suspect they will use some discretion before they chop down the whole forest. Instead they might just be planting some more trees.


Food storage. We build cities, at least very early on, explicitly and solely for food storage. Everything else came after that.

We lived in cities because we had to to protect the food, and we could spend most of our time tending the land and livestock that way.

Lizardmen certainly don't have to have cities, but when there are no lizardmen anywhere with cities or even small villages of any kind, it gets weird and tropey. Not racist, though.

Like, y'all (and by y'all I do mean the entire thread), realise that there are tribes of people in jungles IRL who have met outsiders and don't want our alcohol and tobacco and whatnot, right?

But an entire species that has no interest in anything that building permanent structures has to offer just seems weird, and like they are just there to be scary junglemen for adventurers to encounter, which can come across a bit...uncomfortable.

It may not be on the same level as the volo's description of orcs or CoS Vistani*, but it's there.


*both of which feel to many like direct, intentional, no way in hell it could be accidental, targeted racism. I think it's actually just carelessness and lack of diverse staff working on the two books in question, but it feels that way to many because it is so very, very, very clear to them, without any thought, without any desire to find something to be mad about, without any expectation of finding something upsetting in a dnd book. It's just plain as day.
 

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
Supporter
I do know there's been a noticeable amount of younger people playing 5e, as well as a considerable number of players who fall somewhere in the LGBT area. rectifying attitudes towards one marginalized group probably begets another, which might partially explain why WotC is only now taking actual steps toward addressing racism in D&D.

Yep. In fact, tomorrow I'm in a game (online) with my 16-year-old de facto goddaughter, who I taught to play. And she's... very much like that.

So, drag your heels all you want, old guys. She's worth more to WotC than all of you put together at this point.

It has been mighty refreshing playing with her. I recommend finding a younger player to work with to any old timer. Breaks you out of old bad habits and lets you see from new perspectives.
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
Was it an epiphany? Suddenly they decided not to be racists? Or maybe they knew it’s how people wanted their lore it but kept quiet for other reasons such as economic ones.
I reread my post, and turns out, yep, I already answered this.

They didn't know that what they were doing was going to be a problem, and while their response to it being pointed out to them has been slow, they've made the right decision in response.

If you read my post again, you might note that I did not say that it's obvious to everyone. I said it's obvious to many people, who immediately pointed it out when each book came out.
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
Yep. In fact, tomorrow I'm in a game (online) with my 16-year-old de facto goddaughter, who I taught to play. And she's... very much like that.

So, drag your heels all you want, old guys. She's worth more to WotC than all of you put together at this point.

It has been mighty refreshing playing with her. I recommend finding a younger player to work with to any old timer. Breaks you out of old bad habits and lets you see from new perspectives.
But! The youngins are totally rejecting all this stuff! The pendulum is swinging back the other way! Trust me!

lol sorry, reading your post reminded me of posts I saw around here for a while from someone I haven't seen in a while.

Anyway, yeah, playing with young people is the best. My friend's 14 year old kid, and the library kids I was running games for before the lockdown, are a ton of fun, and definitely change how the game gets played.
 

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
Supporter
However, if it is “plain,” and “obvious” that the portrayal of these made up creatures is problematic (I do not think it is) you have to explain why the authors of 5e suddenly have a problem with it.

Different thread. Same myopia.

They don't, "suddenly have a problem with it." They have been slowly changing representation in the game since 3e! They've been working this for decades.
 

Weiley31

Legend
Player’s Races morality check.

Honestly I don’t see any solution. all actual races can lead to racist or xenophobic behavior.
and from now it don’t pass the test. so what do we do?

I think that it may be acceptable to offer players three possibilities:
Dog, Cat and Bird.

that can allow great role play opportunities and adventure.

Since all classes don’t pass the check we got now 3 choices

Cat commoner
Dog commoner
and Bird commoner.

lets play!
Pugmire.
 

Levistus's_Leviathan

5e Freelancer
Can’t wait to read the monster stat blocks for the new butterfly collecting orc king and the Drow paperboy. Why can’t we have clearly evil monsters who do clearly evil things? Adventuring parties are typically super diverse heroes who run through dungeons looking for evil dragons to slay.
I don't know, because the world is not black and white? Also, there are clearly evil monsters still, they're just making the humanoids depicted more as people than "mindless killing machines" because that's not what orcs are. Orcs in lore have consciousnesses, and are like humans in most ways. Drow are the same way.

You can still have tribes of evil orcs, and Lolth worshipping-Drow enemies, but the players will also be able to play those races with more ease, hopefully.

Giving the players a boost in character options isn't taking anything away from you. Also, if you don't like these changes, just ignore them.
 



Status
Not open for further replies.
Remove ads

Remove ads

Top