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


log in or register to remove this ad

Panda-s1

Scruffy and Determined
Sounds like they’re entirely missing The point. Not gonna give that sort of thing any views for their monetization.
I did read it, and yeah he does miss the point. not sure why his article is being posted here as if his background as a psychology professor makes him an authority on what is and isn't racist lol
Translation: Someone who disagrees and I can't simply belittle and tell that he is wrong, better ignore him instead.
or maybe the article gives the impression that it's not good and surprise nothing he says hasn't already been said in this thread. also not sure why he's being treated as a better authority on this subject matter lol
 

Nickolaidas

Explorer
Reread what I said, then reread the AD&D alignment rules and reread Gygax's quote about how "Lawful Good" treats humanoids.

Next time, don't correct people who know what they're talking about. Don't bother replying, even to apologize.
I have no intention of apologizing to you, because I was neither rude, nor did I say something wrong.

Like I said, I've only played BECMI, 3rd and 5th. Also had read the rules of 4th a little bit. I have no experience with AD&D.

But please, by all means, point me to the rules in AD&D which give a lawful good character an XP penalty by sparing humanoid enemies.

Rules. Not Gygax's personal anecdotes when talking in an interview.

And while you're at it, explain to me why a lawful good character showing compassion to a humanoid foe who surrenders is deviating from the moral standards of their alignment.
 

Cadence

Legend
Supporter
Reread what I said, then reread the AD&D alignment rules and reread Gygax's quote about how "Lawful Good" treats humanoids.

Rules. Not Gygax's personal anecdotes when talking in an interview.

And while you're at it, explain to me why a lawful good character showing compassion to a humanoid foe who surrenders is deviating from the moral standards of their alignment.

In 1e, Lawful Good is pretty strict: "While as strict in their prosecution of law and order [as Lawful evil], characters of lawful good alignment follow these precepts to improve the common weal. Certain freedoms must, of course, be sacrificed in order to bring order; but truth is of highest value, and life and beauty of great importance. The benefits of this society are to be brought to all." "[O]rder and law are absolutely necessary to assure good, and that good is best defined by whatever brings the most benefit to the greater number of decent, thinking creatures and the least woe to the rest." So it feels like it could very well come down to what the local law was as to whether the Paladin was allowed to show mercy, and that showing mercy might not be considered good by them if it led to more trouble for more people later. However, at worst, wouldn't showing mercy be a chaotic move (to not follow the law), and thus by RAW they could seek out a 7th level LG cleric and confess there sins. If it was evil they would lose their paladinhood.

[One line in the DMG does seem to go against this, in the section above defining the nine alignments in particular - "Basically stated, the tenets of good are human rights, or in the case of AD&D, creature rights. Each creature is entitled to life, relative freedom, and the prospect of happiness."]

In 2e, LG is simiilarly "laws must be created and obeyed". The DMG under alignments does note "[A]s in all points ofdisagreement with your players, listen to their arguments when your understanding of an alignment differs from theirs. Even though you go to great effort in preparing your game, the campaign world is not yours alone - it belongs to your players as well."

In Moldvay Basic, the example combat in the book explicitly has the Lawful character (there is only L, N, or C) say that showing mercy is good: "Her god would never allow her to heal someone who killed helpless prisoners..." And the creatures being showed mercy were definitively Chaotic by RAW.
 
Last edited:

Anathema

Villager
OK, I'll reply one last time to this thread, because I do not want to leave the conversation / discussion with the bad aftertaste that I might be thought of as a racist or something, just because I do not get the problem with evil races of humanoids in Dungeons and Dragons.

My group consists of a woman and six men, including our DM.
  • 4 of us are basically "German" with the individual Jewish, Romanian and Hungarian ancestor here and there
  • 1 is half Greek, half Cypriot
  • 1 is Russian
  • 1 is Croatian

We are all pretty left wing in our political beliefs and I dare say none of us ever considered the skin tone, the religious beliefs, the sex or the sexual orientation of any person any time a reason to like her/him less, not even to speak about hating people because of such things. Yes, we are all white, still I think we are a considerably diverse group of people with a wide array of social and cultural backgrounds. And still none of us ever considered Orcs or Drow problematic, because we all know that these are MADE UP races or species or whatever you want to call them. Additionally, I have to say that in German the word "Race" or "Rasse" has a pretty dark history when being applied to human. No German in her/his right mind would call a black person or an asian person as a different race than a white person. "Rasse" was used by the Nazi's to make jewish, black, bascially any "non-aryan" person a...non-person.

That being said: Using the word "race" for another human being is in my eyes unacceptable. And there is the point: None of my buddies would ever consider an Orc or a Drow or a Tiefling something similar as a human. Humanoid is defined in the Monster Manual of the 5th edition as follows:

"Humanoids are the main peoples of the D&D world, both civilized and savage, including humans and a tremendous variety of other species. They have language and culture, few if any innate magical abilities (though most humanoids can learn spellcasting), and a bipedal form. The most common humanoid races are the ones most suitable as player characters: humans, dwarves, elves, and halflings. Almost as numerous but far more savage and brutal, and almost uniformly evil, are the races of goblinoids (goblins, hobgoblins, and bugbears), orcs, gnolls, lizardfolk, and kobolds."

This definitely sets them apart from humans themselves. It even states other "SPECIES", so according to the rules Orcs and Drow are not only NOT HUMAN, they are other species and in that context species is the same as race.

---

My question now is: Can please somebody give me a clear answer to the question WHY it is problematic to use the word "race" in a fantasy context where it is perfectly fitting and why it is problematic that two species that are ultimately designed to be evil and that are ultimately and definitely described as NOT HUMAN but HUMANOID (which basically means: two legs, upright walk, certain intelligence) are SO SO SO problematic that an entire game design needs to be rewritten? I really want to understand the point of view why this is something that was overdue.
 


MGibster

Legend
My question now is: Can please somebody give me a clear answer to the question WHY it is problematic to use the word "race" in a fantasy context where it is perfectly fitting and why it is problematic that two species that are ultimately designed to be evil and that are ultimately and definitely described as NOT HUMAN but HUMANOID (which basically means: two legs, upright walk, certain intelligence) are SO SO SO problematic that an entire game design needs to be rewritten? I really want to understand the point of view why this is something that was overdue.

I'm not quite sure as the word race isn't taboo here in the United States for the most part. The US census still asks participants to identify what race they are. Companies with more than 15 employees who do business with the federal government are required to complete the EEO-1 report annual (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission). To complete the EEO-1, employers ask their employees to self-identify what racial group they belong to so the company can report it to the government.

This is one area I'll probably never adapt to. I will likely continue to refer to different species, kin, or whatever they're called as race. I tend to do the same when playing games where they give NPCs or the DM some special term instead of the ones I'm used to. I don't really care if WotC or other game companies change the words. I just don't think I'm going to care enough to adapt.
 



G

Guest 6801328

Guest
My question now is: Can please somebody give me a clear answer to the question WHY it is problematic to use the word "race" in a fantasy context

Because, as you point out, "race" has dark baggage, so if there are viable alternatives why not just avoid that problem?

where it is perfectly fitting and why it is problematic that two species that are ultimately designed to be evil and that are ultimately and definitely described as NOT HUMAN but HUMANOID (which basically means: two legs, upright walk, certain intelligence) are SO SO SO problematic that an entire game design needs to be rewritten?

I'm not sure what game your are talking about where the "entire game design needs to be rewritten".

But in D&D 5e, they're talking about tweaking some language to avoid some unnecessary stereotypes.

I really want to understand the point of view why this is something that was overdue.

Because people who who have for centuries been terrorized by the state, and/or terrorized by fellow citizens while the state stands idly by, have been pointing these things out for decades, and those of us with the good fortune to not be in that situation have utterly failed to understand what they have been talking about all this time. But we're starting to figure it out.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Remove ads

Remove ads

Top