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.

 

[Sadras]

It’s actually a good point. That is who most resembles dragons.

But billionaires haven’t been colonized, enslaved, and wantonly murdered by the state

Much like dragons, they may have to be slayed (metaphorically speaking)
We do need to redistribute some of that hoard.

EDIT: My comment was referring to the likes of Gates, Bezos and those who wealth continues to grow widening the gap between the them and anyone else by astronomical margins but hey you will see what you want to see.

 

[Sadras]

She doesn;t mean billionarires per se. Look at the rest of it - billionaires, globalists. I'm surprised she didn't add bankers to the usual tropes for anti-semitic crap.

Grief! Racist and an anti-semite now.
Can anyone just give me the old Nazi - just so we can call it a day.
Then my work is done.

 

[Olrox17]

That sounds nice and simple doesn’t it.

And yet you are opposed to modifying a make-believe game about dragons and elves.

I'll rephrase and expand on my previous point.
Generally speaking, blacklisting media (speech, images, etc) to fight a wrong ideology that has, to some degree, appropriated that piece of media, is counterproductive.

An example: remember Pepe the frog? It was a funny meme. At some point, some extremists started having their fun with the meme. Controversy ensued, leading to a condemnation and cancellation of the meme from many internet spaces.
A lot of online memers were outraged by this. Obviously, they didn't blame the extremists groups using the meme, they blamed those that cried for censorship.
Cui Prodest? Who ended up benefitting from this "scandal"? Who ended up getting sympathy, and who ended up getting hate?

 

[Cadence]

what would your suggestions be then - Re Orc and Drow
3) Removal of Penalties/Bonus to Abilities associated with Race/insert other word

I think my only issues for me in the above list would be 2 and 3.
(3) Because of just plain Logic

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...

I don't need a lot of verisimilitude, but I would like a bit. A large creature that works on being strong will be much stronger than a small version of that creature that works on being very strong; a halfling that can beat many half orcs or dragon born arm wrestling seems a thing, one that can withstand the heavy weights who come in to challenge that when word gets out seems bizarre (without some magical helps). It seems similar to me for the most enduring lightfoot halfing and a pretty enduring dwarf, or most agile dwarf and pretty agile elf.

Should the size penalty for using Heavy weapon's also be removed so that the small fighters can use the 2d6 and d12 weapons without a size penalty?

I guess it makes me sad that a big argument for getting rid of the differences is so that we can stop de facto penalizing role-players because the roll-players are min-maxing. I know, I know, there's no one true way, but it still annoys me.

I can see more reasons the mental ones are problematic and less reasons to be against their removal - they literally aren't as visible, and there are examples in my favorite literature that go strongly against type. And don't think we lose much by renaming INT and WIS as knowledge and awareness or somesuch.

In any case, if it was my decision, I'd probably keep the physical ones and remove the mental ones. It's not a hill I'm going to die on.

 

[Var]

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! YES! YES!!!!!!

Now you're getting it.

@Derren I've been catching up on the last couple of pages, and I'd like to offer answers to a couple of the questions/doubts to which you keep returning.

First, the reason "we" keep shifting the real-world group we're discussing...africans, native americans, mongols, etc...is that the language used to describe orcs (savage, unintelligent, rapidly breeding, ugly, irrational, etc.) is the language that has been used for centuries by subjugators to de-humanize people and rationalize killing them. As @Olrox17 noted, the Romans said the same thing about the Germanic people who were sacking Rome.

So it's not that orcs are meant, by anybody, to represent one of these groups. It's that in attempting to portray orcs as less-than-human "others" that heroes should eradicate it's almost unavoidable that we use language and imagery that has been used to justify slavery, colonization, and genocide.

(To address Olrox17's point: maybe some day a sense of security and the passage of time will render this language as inoffensive to everybody as it currently is to those of Northern European descent who can laugh off, or even take pride in, being called barbarians. I hope so.)

Second, regarding your question about dragons and dragonborn: I don't know. I haven't heard anybody saying those depictions are hurtful to them. I'm guessing it's because being intelligent and charismatic and clever (with really long reproductive cycles) isn't typically how oppressors described the oppressed. Is there a group that you think should be offended by the depiction of dragonborn?

Well the Romans were a scourge to about any culture who would have liked be be left to their own devices but had the misfortune to live in vicinity of the Mediterranean. Sure the survivors got a technology boost if they didn't end up dead or slaves, rather big if though.
And I'm fine with the vast majority of all comments about Romans related to their achievements not their ethnic cleansings of Carthage or Sarmatia.
That's the difference in between somewhat recent history and history from long long ago.

The longer ago, the more filters got applied to the source material, the less people consider themselves directly affected and have strong opinions about it. Also helps that the dark age provided a reset button for European memory.

Back to Orcs they're the savage wild barbarian stereotype incarnate. They're notably not human on purpose and usually have distinct characteristics that actually mark them as definitely not part of humanity. Pointy ears, a skin color quite impossible for humans (not necessarily dark), hunched backs, massive jaws and otherwise non human anatomy. I can't attribute those traits to any specific part of humanity. They're pretty much all animal traits grafted on a humanoid to make it bestial and very clearly not directly related to humans to begin with.
It is the same thing that happens with racism though. Dehumanizing your enemies, painting them with monstrous traits and playing at the people's Lizard brain that makes them fear things with animal kingdom predator traits. The night is dark and full of terrors and all that.
History's losers are as guilty of that than the other way around, where the victors left records intact, demonizing invaders is common place. Survivor's bias just means we get so see significantly less of the flip side.
You can take a look at both Allied and Axis propaganda for WW2, you'd be surprised how similar they are in their contents. Painting the enemy soldiers as monsters is about the baseline.


Elves are generally better, faster, smarter, live longer etc. They're pretty much the "superior" race that stands above other humanoids. They're much less distinctive than orcs, mostly passing for a very pretty human with pointy ears on the surface level. As far as ideological traits go Elves are more problematic and directly play at one race being better than the rest of them.

Have you seen anyone getting worked up over Elves so far?
Not from what I have seen. Most people wouldn't mind to be compared to Fantasy Elves. No one cares if it's about sneering at lower lifeforms from above. Elves also tend to be massive racists in about every setting. Drow just effectively distract from that by turning it up to 11 with the slavery and worshiping a demoness in DnD.

If you want to look at Orcs as a summary on how people have been dehumanized in the past, Elves are a statement on how the same people put themselves above the others in comparison.
A feeling of "we X are superior to them Y" is a common thing in all of human society.
"Oh no all those heathens will go to hell, poor them, nothing they can do about it" is pretty indiscriminately condescending on anyone who isn't part of that particular group.

As much as this whole thing deserves a critical look, it should be that, critical.
There has to be a cut somewhere in how much is DnD History and how much has implications bad enough to warrant changes.
Every comment on reasonable scope has been met with some yelling on how bad minor detail 23 for invented fantasy race C reflects on ethnic group Y.


No one here can expect a reasonable discussion if we're not willing to move an inch from our opinion the second after hitting "Post reply".

Your forum nick makes for a great example for "where to draw the line?". Elfcrusher definitely has in universe racist implications.
I don't care. But looks like your standpoint would be the one outspoken against invoking violence against a particular race. Guess we can agree it's alright to have an Orc with the title or nickname of Elfcrusher in a DnD game without starting a heated debate?

 

[generic]

If anyone is raging about this to the extent that they're going into diatribes against WotC for "wokeness", I would like to remind them that these changes in no way mean that Drow and Orcs are being removed, nor that Vistani are being "sanitized".

I disagree with any characterization between real peoples and cultures, and fantasy races, but if parallels have been drawn by others, and I can still change what I wish to change for my home game, this affects me little, and is a positive change in the realm of D&D

This will not ruin Drow or Orcs. It will, simply put, make them more akin to Human societies in that they will be driven by motivations other than society-scale evil.

Protesting against this change because it will "ruin" Drow and Orcs is illogical.

 

[Guest 6801328]

They're pretty much all animal traits grafted on a humanoid to make it bestial and very clearly not directly related to humans to begin with.

Yes, you nailed it. That is exactly what colonizers/oppressors/slaves do. That is precisely how white supremacists tried to justify slavery.

Your forum nick makes for a great example for "where to draw the line?". Elfcrusher definitely has in universe racist implications.
I don't care. But looks like your standpoint would be the one outspoken against invoking violence against a particular race. Guess we can agree it's alright to have an Orc with the title or nickname of Elfcrusher in a DnD game without starting a heated debate?

This is an illustrative example, actually. I had an orc character named Elfcrusher, which is why I used this name. It was actually a World of Warcraft character, but let's suppose it was a D&D character. And let's suppose this orc HATES ELVES with a blind, unreasoning hatred. He is, in many ways, a racist.

Nobody is saying you can't play a character like that. Or have an NPC like that. Nobody is even saying you can't make all orcs hate all elves in your campaign world, and vice versa.

All that is going on is that WotC is going to try to stop using the language, imagery, and tropes that have historically been used to justify slavery, colonialism, and genocide.

Please explain to me how anybody who understands that could be opposed to it.

 

[Eric V]

One of the things my group has appreciated by moving to 13th Age is how the bestiaries offer ideas on how to present the various antagonists found within. So for drow, for example, they offer several really interesting portrayals in addition to the spider-demon-worshipping variety. Orcs have an icon, the Orc Lord, and it's through that icon's influence that Orcs tend to be bad guys...an orc away from the Orc Lord has no alignment tendencies.

Good, because in a game where orcs are evil and that's it, one has to justify NOT killing orc babies, hunting them down in their sleep, poisoning their foodstuffs...if they're INEVITABLY evil, then...? It would be stupid to KNOW those evil Orcs are going to do evil things to us or other innocents and NOT do something about it.

Of course, 13th Age doesn't officially have alignment, either. That's probably something that has outlived its usefulness, no? Not just because there's no agreed-upon definition or how the different alignments work, but because, IIRC, there's not much of the way of mechanics for them either.

Of course, "evil" would still be a concept. Someone, (@Oofta I think) mentioned how making drow and orcs not "always evil" but allowing it for other things (gnolls, demons) just shifts the problem. That's probably true, if we're going to have official lore that has angels becoming devils, devils becoming demons, etc. If an Outsider can change alignments, then really, anybody can under certain circumstances.

So, this would effectively mean NO creature is to be subject to killing "just because it's evil" (assuming PCs are not evil themselves).

What does the game lose because of this? It's wrong to say "nothing." The game definitely loses simplicity. I think it was @Zardnaar who described the game as essentially "Killing things and taking their stuff." In the simplest games, that's true. A dungeon crawl to get rich. Nice and simple.

Of course the phrase "Killing things and taking their stuff" is morally problematic. One couldn't describe one's behaviour that way today and claim the moral high ground.

I can understand one wishing for a simple game wherein one dungeon crawls, gets loot, uses that to tackle harder dungeons, rinse repeat. All the while not feeling bad about slaughtering the "always evil" antagonists within.

But the official game simply cannot be that, nor can it endorse that officially in any way. Not in 2020.

13th Age also has ability score increases based on class, as well as race, and each with options (and no penalties). So you never have to play a wizard without an INT bonus, and you don't have to have a STR bonus if you're a half-orc. It's not perfect, but it's definitely a step in the right direction.

 

[Olrox17]

Here's video of one of the founders of Black Lives Matter stating they are a Marxist organization. (Around 3 to 4 minute mark)

I’m not sure that’s relevant to the topic at hand. Also, you’re probably not allowed to post it on this forum.

 

[Vexorg]

All that is going on is that WotC is going to try to stop using the language, imagery, and tropes that have historically been used to justify slavery, colonialism, and genocide.

Please explain to me how anybody who understands that could be opposed to it.

Nobody in western civilization is currently engaging in slavery, colonialism, or genocide. Removing language that justifies it accomplishes nothing.