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.

 

[Mecheon]

And what modders do in a video game is irrelevant.

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

And for the record, the only reason some people think orcs are not inhumane enough is their arbitrary and fictional ability to create offspring with humans.

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

 

[Derren]

If you don't believe that racism is a socially pervasive thing that is happening right now, that needs to be handled with active steps, I don't see how I am going to convince you by talking about orcs and dragons. I can't teach you how to spell if you don't believe in letters.

That would be correct no matter whom you talked to as orcs and dragons have nothing to do with socially pervasive racism.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Ehm, no. Nothing on that page addresses how the description of dragons repeat the derogatory terms which have been and are still used for jews.

Ah, sorry, I misunderstood you.

I don't think dragons are racist toward Jews because they are very inhuman, magical creatures that do not physically resemble Jews. There's nothing to link them with anti-Jewish stereotypes other than greed.

This shows that I don't think "everything is racist"!

 

[Derren]

Ah, sorry, I misunderstood you.

I don't think dragons are racist toward Jews because they are very inhuman, magical creatures that do not physically resemble Jews. There's nothing to link them with anti-Jewish stereotypes other than greed.

The same way I thing that orcs (you know, huge tusks) physically don't resemble humans

 

[Sadras]

okay now that I've thought about it, I have a better reply to this post: why the flying...f is it that everyone's "enjoyment" of this game is always about doing bad and evil stuff? people murder and rape in real life all the time (also "grab a tavern wench's ass" and get away with it a lot). in D&D I can do stuff like find a lost relic and return it to it's rightful people, or take down a corrupt noble by force and become a local hero. in real life? being an archaeologist requires a degree and a lot of travel, and if I try to loot and burn down a racist politician's house I might get killed by the police. which are the real fantasies here? lol

So different people get their kicks off in a variety of ways. I'm generally the DM, my two active tables play the standard generally heroic type of games - currently doing ToD/SKT mashup.

But, I have another group of mates who would like me to run morally bankrupt games - where intimidation, looting, killing, lying, swindling and other unsavoury elements are common place. The game is run by the seat of my pants with little to no planning, as you are gauranteed your adventure will get derailed, but other interesting opportunities do arise. My object as DM in those games (few and far between) is to challenge the PCs, in the general evasion of the law but more importantly to force through moral dilemmas - where like Jaime Lannister, they begin bending towards good. That is the challenge and the fun part for me as DM by placing them in those appealing positions where they can atone and shift onto the path of redemption and become the Heroes. You can get some great roleplaying experiences from those types of sessions. These campaigns for what it is worth are short-lived.

 

[TheIdeaOfGood]

This is still going on? Wow...
I already made my point on the stat issue( to reiterate, I think it would be cool to have a set of choices of ancestry abilities for each species, sort of like subraces but more customizable, kind of like Zweihander did it, to make sure that each ancestry still has things they are known for in general but is about as diverse as humans within their own group).

What I do not understand is...what exactly is lost if Drow and Orcs and maybe Goblins no longer have a fixed alignment listed?
Let's have a look at history...there are so many examples of people getting into conflict and going to war without one side being absolutely irredeemably evil. Were the Romans evil? Or the Gauls?

Were the Anglo-Saxons evil when they took land in Britain? Sure, some might say yes, but these people had loved ones, had things they cared about, told wonderful tales and had a rich and varied culture.
And yet, they were fierce, oftentimes brutal raiders. As well as explorers, shrewd and cunning merchants and so much more.

You can still have tales about orcish raiders. It's just harder to justify genocide against them.

And with the drow ...maybe Lolth does not hold sway over every single city. Maybe there are cities down there that follow different gods...or have no gods whatsoever (damn...an atheistic drow society that turned away from everything divine because they saw what damage the gods caused to their people is actually quite a neat idea. I'll keep that in mind).
Given how dangerous the Underdark is, they would still be very cautious, maybe even xenophobic.
So the lone drow who ventures to the surface world could still be an outcast or a "rebel" and be faced with prejudice because of the bad reputation the Lolth-worshippers have.

Or you could just keep things the way you want at your table.

In the end, does it really take anything away giving these people a more nuanced depiction? In a game where you can easily change things around at your table however you want? What's the fuss about?

 

[Var]

I've covered why I think orcs and other evil humanoids are racist in many posts in this and the other main thread. This post #425 is a reasonable summary.

Post #472 in this thread and post #1559 in the other thread provide examples of the similarity to the ideas of racists. Post #1177 in the other thread covers the human-ness of orcs.

Tolkien's orcs are racist toward Asians. D&D orcs most closely resemble a racist's idea of black people. D&D goblins and hobgoblins reference Asian people.

I have. I participated extensively in a thread on a similar topic in March 2019 and made similar points.

A lot of mental gymnastics going on here to make those points "work".
How are Tolkien's orcs racist towards Asians, if the Harad, Khand, Umbar as well as Eastlings exist?

You know the in universe people of non European ethnicity who threw in their lot with the bad guys.

I'd understand if the in universe humans inspired by African and Asian cultures would be interpreted as racist (I'd call it naivety, gotta draw your inspirations somewhere and you'd need to be aware copy pasting traits could be problematic to begin with pre Internet). But Tolkien orcs? Why? Because Mordor is to the East relative to most of the map in the book?


Raising a flag and picking a hill to die on while ignoring the circumstances the other side was operating under is a recipe for disaster.

BTW which misguided soul came up with Orcs depicting Black people to begin with?
They're raiding and pillaging folks from the northern wastes with superhuman strength and endurance. Barbarians and heathens so to speak. The direct analogy here would quite obviously be stereotypical depiction of Viking/Scandinavian culture/people.
Hobgoblins have eastern and Roman references. Are they racist against Italians as well? Why is no one defending them?

How do DnD's Barbarian tribes (more Vikings) and eastern Human "Asian inspired" Empire fit in there when the racist slot is already taken?


Man the amount of hoops we are willing to jump through to make sure things suit our point at times....

 

[Raduin711]

Many of your questions are answered in the links you quoted as well as elsewhere in this thread.

 

[clearstream]

@Doug McCrae what would your suggestions be then - Re Orc and Drow

1) Good and Evil Orcs
2) Removal of the word Race
3) Removal of Penalties/Bonus to Abilities associated with Race/insert other word
4) Alter or allow for more varied descriptions
5) Have intelligent Orcs
6) Have civilized (technology savvy) Orcs
7) Dark-skinned halings in the Core Books (there were Peks of Colour in Willow)
8) Have an evil white Drow race (perhaps beneath the Icy Tundra)

I cannot comment on the Vistani issue because it is not something I have delved into. The only thing I do know is that the Evil Eye is a cool power inspired by its belief by the Romani, many Mediterranean, Eastern European and Middle Eastern people and probably others I'm not aware of.

I think my only issues for me in the above list would be 2 and 3.
(3) Because of just plain Logic
(2) Because if this word offends you in D&D I do not think the activists pushing this will stop there as they will keep censoring, seeing racism everywhere - as Shelby Steele, Thomas Sowell and Jason Riley note in their interviews Uncommon Knowledge with the Hoover Institution.

As for the rest 1 and 4-8, that is all fluff and enrichment that I could possibly use in my games.

Regarding 3) I'm curious how that is "plain Logic" as I do not see any logical grounds for retaining it, and from a game design point of view I think going in another direction could be well justified. I'll try to explain that below, admitting up front that I am far from having this well worked out. It's just a starting point... or a sketch for a design.

I notice two broad player behaviours oriented toward ability scores in my games. A mechanically-minded group decide their class first, and then narrow race choices to those that benefit their class. For example, if they decide on Warlock they will choose a race with a Charisma modifier. The other group is more focussed on narrative: they will navigate toward a character concept based on a plethora of considerations... often quite whimsical. Ability modifiers are not too important to the second group, and as often they will want to shore up a weakness as double-down on a strength.

• The mechanically-minded group could as well have penalties/bonuses attached to class, as to race.
• The narratively-minded group don't come into it with preset concerns. They might enjoy as much having penalties/bonuses attached to, say, backgrounds, as to race.

So the mechanic I might assay is to attach bonuses/penalties to class and background. That isn't a logical argument, and I don't really see how logical modes of argumentation even apply here. Perhaps you mean in terms of consistency? Avoiding internal contradiction or obvious fallacy? I do not see how those concerns impinge on my suggestions. And they represent just one concept for detaching bonuses/penalties from class, while keeping them in the game.

As for 2), I currently feel that it is irrelevant, on the grounds that a rose is a rose by any other name. Lineages. Ancestries. Origins. My personal opinion is that it risks trivialising the discussion to overly focus on the label. Labels - and signs generally - are important and can be impactful. So I am entirely supportive of changing the word, I just do not see how one might substantiate a slippery-slope argument from there. One might easily go with "origins" without further alarm.

 

[Olrox17]

BTW which misguided soul came up with Orcs depicting Black people to begin with?
They're raiding and pillaging folks from the northern wastes with superhuman strength and endurance. Barbarians and heathens so to speak. The direct analogy here would quite obviously be stereotypical depiction of Viking/Scandinavian culture/people.

I've been saying that the first thing that comes to my mind when talking about d&d orcs is ancient celtic and germanic tribes, or at least their depiction by greek and roman contemporaries.

The dumb, savage barbarian stereotype is in no way new, it has been used to describe people of many cultures and all colors (including whites) throughout history.