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

At what point, then, after how many portrayals, does the foot stomping become undoubtedly willful? And thus intentional?

This remains an open question generally, but with the Vistani particularly, I think it's pretty easy to draw a line after which continuing to use the old tropes was obviously racist, and that's when 5E reverted 4E's portrayal of the Vistani to those old, racist tropes.

The 4E take on the Vistani isn't perfect, but they're not a race there, but rather a nomadic culture, which anyone from any race might potentially become a part of (in a ritual). There are still significant problematic elements/tropes/imagery, but it's very distinctly less problematic than any other edition - it does sadly suggest in a sidebar that you could still use the old Vistani and suggests stats, but then leaves it up to the DM. It's in Dragon 380.

So when 5E reverted this, that was pretty weird. You'd have expected 5E to take this idea and run with it, like Shadowfell or the Feywild, or other fundamentally good ideas from 4E. But they didn't.

And at that point, yeah, no-one reasonably claim "I didn't know!"

Without that, what do they become other than just another costume?

I mean, what race couldn't you say that about? We could genuinely cut back to humans that way.

That's up to you and your setting. In Eberron that have quite an interesting role as these close-to-nature types who are very different from traditionally arrogant and pushy elves.

Star Trek essentially faced up to this with the Klingons, taking them from a simple threat to quite a complex and interesting species, over the course of TNG/DS9 even a bit in VOY/ENT/DISCO (though I frown a bit at those, S2 DISCO started to improve things though).
 

log in or register to remove this ad

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
You're probably right. And I love the idea of a wendigo curse! But...Perkins was soooo cryptic that I wouldn't be entirely surprised if there was a bait-and-switch element to the story. As in, you think the villain is Auril, but it's actually someone completely different.
I kinda doubt they'll use wendigo right now, and if they do...well, it might not be a good thing for them.
Three reasons:

1) In text, maybe, just maybe, you are wrong about them acting in bad faith. Misunderstandings happen.

2) To generally be a better person than the one acting in bad faith.

3) Because if red text has to come out, it stands in your favor. :p
Ugh. The idea of apologizing to jerks who are absolutely intentionally acting in bad faith, to any degree because one is worried about how one looks to the mods, literally turns my stomach.

As for 2, nah. It doesn't make you better than the other person. There is no ethical obligation to be nice to people who are following the rules but subverting their spirit by derail discussions with bad faith arguments.
 


doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
Whether you support it or not it exists and it is a valid playstyle of the game. Onetruewaysim much?
No. Murderhobos also aren't analogous to the topic at hand. No one is talking about the morality of actions within the game world. You're attempting to derail the discussion rather than honestly participate in it.



Apparently we cannot expand the tropes as things are now, we have to remove a popular trope of just killing orcs because they are evil and then expand for you to be happy. You cannot meet anyone halfway - and then people ask for people to listen. Listen to what? Its their way or no way.
This is wild nonsense that clearly shows you haven't been listening to anything anyone else is saying. I'm just gonna cut off future interactions with you.
 

G

Guest 6801328

Guest
Let me break it down for you how I see it.

You're offended that.....

No.

No no no.

No no no no no no no no no no no no NO.

If you still think the problem is that some people are offended, you've not been listening. Or we've been failing to explain something, despite trying sixty different ways.

And this is important, because I suspect some people (not necessarily you) keep reverting to this "causing offense" red herring, because it diminishes the weight of the issue. Trivializes it, even. (And the same thing happens in discussions about misogyny and anti-LGBTQ discrimination.)

Let me try an analogy (always a minefield, I know). Let's say we're talking about handicap accessibility. Which I think is a fair analogy, because some people roll their eyes at putting wheelchair ramps in, for example, national parks.

What would you think if you were reading a debate about this, and the person who think there are already enough ramps in the world said, "Look, I get that you're offended..."

Would that make any sense at all? Do you think the issue of wheelchair ramps is about causing offense?

You may not think these ramps will ever get used, and maybe that's a fruitful thing to discuss, but the pro-ramp people are not talking about "being offended" they are talking about an actual thing that affects real people.

You may not (yet?) see how the issue here actually affects real people. You may still think it's about people simply "being offended", as if somebody said "women's undergarments" in a Victorian garden party.

But it's not. It is real.
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
So by making Lizardfolk content on living in the swamps with their shamans and their spears, WotC are being racist?
You keep coming at things from odd angles rather than engaging directly with what people are saying.

I don't know why, but I no longer care.

Stop trying to win internet argument points and try actually listening to what people are saying, and trying to understand what they are trying to communicate.
 


MGibster

Legend
At some point during the course of a conversation the use of analogies grows so thick that the topic shifts to discussing those analogies rather than the original topic.
 


I guess something like a wiki where people put a list of products that are badly OCR'd or not OCR'd at all, That could be useful for things outside of D&D to a number of RPGs.

It seems to me, that every PDF should automatically come with a label saying if it is machine readable or not. Even required by law to include such a label, like an allergy alert on a food label.

To lack the resources to make sure something is machine readable, seems forgivable until the technology gets easier. But to fail to produce a label saying it isnt, seems legally actionable.

The PDF software itself, should probably make such a label automatically.

If the software is making the label it could probably detect approximately what percentage of the reconstructed text is recognizable words. So it is even possible to say something like 80% OCR, or 20% OCR. And each person can decide if it is worth the effort.
 
Last edited:

Status
Not open for further replies.
Remove ads

Remove ads

Top