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

Doug McCrae

Legend
But Tolkien orcs? Why? Because Mordor is to the East relative to most of the map in the book?

Most of my posts about Tolkien are in the other thread. Post #733 provides the relevant quotations. See also posts #2132 and #2152.

How do DnD's Barbarian tribes (more Vikings) and eastern Human "Asian inspired" Empire fit in there when the racist slot is already taken?
It doesn't work like that. There's no slots. Tolkien derived the appearance of orcs from East Asian people. That doesn't mean there must be a one-to-one relationship between them such that a second derivate from East Asians would push the orcs out of that slot.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Var

Explorer
Many of your questions are answered in the links you quoted as well as elsewhere in this thread.
Yet it ignores the both more closely related direct human analogies, who are in itself definitely problematic by today's standards. Looks entirely like someone swooping in in a different time period complaining about stuff that wasn't a problem during the author's time.

Yet he was somehow supposed to be preemptively know that some random guy would go off the deep end in 2020 and call him a racist for trying to build a world with the inspiration he had available.


The funny part is on why that ended up being someone mellow like Tolkien rather than someone considered racist by the press and standards of his time like H.P. Lovecraft.
 

Doug McCrae

Legend
call him a racist
I'm not calling Tolkien a racist.
The funny part is on why that ended up being someone mellow like Tolkien rather than someone considered racist by the press and standards of his time like H.P. Lovecraft.
I talk about Lovecraft's racist use of the word "mongrel" and its subsequent use in 1e/2e D&D in post #2156 of the other thread.
 

Yet it ignores the both more closely related direct human analogies, who are in itself definitely problematic by today's standards. Looks entirely like someone swooping in in a different time period complaining about stuff that wasn't a problem during the author's time.

Yet he was somehow supposed to be preemptively know that some random guy would go off the deep end in 2020 and call him a racist for trying to build a world with the inspiration he had available.


The funny part is on why that ended up being someone mellow like Tolkien rather than someone considered racist by the press and standards of his time like H.P. Lovecraft.


Ohhh, trust me, Lovecraft has been called out over the last few years, many, many many times - and rightfully so. Some of the things he wrote (in his letters especially) are nausea-inducing.
And I really like his stories. But the man himself...damn, not someone I would be friends with. Nope.
 

Var

Explorer
Most of my posts about Tolkien are in the other thread. Post #733 provides the relevant quotations. See also posts #2132 and #2152.

It doesn't work like that. There's no slots. Tolkien derived the appearance of orcs from East Asian people. That doesn't mean there must be a one-to-one relationship between them such that a second derivate from East Asians would push the orcs out of that slot.
Yeah man, no internet at the time.
Has it ever occurred to you that you might be over interpreting a simple lack of effort to flesh out the orc society and eastern humans in the LOTR universe?
He build a pretty big world and didn't have time to flesh out everything in detail, some stuff is very superficial and obviously based on the real world and what he knew about it.
The world wasn't anywhere near as globalized an well integrated as today. You end up blaming someone for growing up closer to British Empire times and with less ubiquitous access to information than yourself.

Ohhh, trust me, Lovecraft has been called out over the last few years, many, many many times - and rightfully so. Some of the things he wrote (in his letters especially) are nausea-inducing.
And I really like his stories. But the man itself...damn, not someone I would be friends with. Nope.
Yes he has, but in this particular witch hunt that apparently slipped through the cracks.
Nothing to comment about his person, he might have been a very likeable dude if he grew up with some friends. The guy likely needed some help and support with his rather rampant mental health issues.
It's easy for us to say "boah man look at this dude and all the nasty stuff he published".

Bottom line is we don't know, and the lesson to learn is ours not his.
 

Sadras

Legend
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.

Cool. (y)

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.

Agree with you on the two broad player behaviours.

The point where we disagree is in the 2nd one. If there are no penalties, there is no appeal to play against type.
So for instance, orcs having a lower intellect or charisma, appeals to me to play against type by playing a wizard or a sorcerer. The character has inherence limitations which provides an immediate mechanical challenge, nevermind the social interactions that can ensue from there. It also provides the DM so many possibilties for storyline.

Why did this character succeed in areas where orcs generally fail? Perhaps reverse the limitation through in-game fiction? Perhaps the highest level of spell power is not attainable due to the interest/charisma score (1e/2e house rules)? Perhaps there is a deeper secret to this intellect penalty which is waiting to be uncovered, and the truth will be shocking, have concequences?

Drizzt is popular because he plays against type.

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?

Logic, realism, internal consistency exist so as not to subvert immersion. I expect my orc to be physically strong. Can I play a weak Orc - sure ask the DM.

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.

For me it begins with simple words based on feelings. Feelings start to overrule facts...
We can agree to disagree on this issue.
 

Yes he has, but in this particular witch hunt that apparently slipped through the cracks.
Nothing to comment about his person, he might have been a very likeable dude if he grew up with some friends. The guy likely needed some help and support with his rather rampant mental health issues.
It's easy for us to say "boah man look at this dude and all the nasty stuff he published".

Bottom line is we don't know, and the lesson to learn is ours not his.

I agree. He was a very anxious, scared man with no worldly experience and few worldly connections. However, spitting vitriol over other peoples because their idiosyncrasies scare you is, in my opinion, objectively wrong.
Still, as one of the most influential genre fiction writers of the 20th century, I treasure his works - although I think Clark Ashton-Smith and Robert E. Howard had far better writing styles.
 
Last edited:

Mirtek

Hero
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).
We already have all of those. The atheist drow City was close to dominate all others during lloth's silence, due to having the strongest arcane and psionic people
 


G

Guest 6801328

Guest
If there are no penalties, there is no appeal to play against type.

I don't think I buy that. If you want to play against type you can always assign a lower ability score. I find it hard to believe that many people really want to play an "against type" character with a primary ability score less than 8.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Remove ads

Remove ads

Top