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.

 

[Staffan]

• the way orcs are described (bloodthirsty savages) has been used in history to describe people of all colors and cultures (gauls, germans, huns, vandals, goths, saxons, berbers, africans, mongols, turks, it's a long list);

The difference is that today's Frenchmen, Germans, etc. don't generally suffer from the oppression of the Romans, at least not in any way they would recognize as suffering. Black people today are suffering from colonialist prejudice and white supremacy – both directly (more likely to be targeted by police and treated worse by them) and indirectly (racist policies that have made it very hard for black people to acquire useful generational wealth).

 

[clearstream]

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.

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.

So I think your concerns are 1) narrative opportunity to play against type, and 2) internal consistency (giants have giant strength, for example, not halfling strength).

Addressing 2) first. When it comes to characters generated using dice or arrays, we agree that for mechanically-minded players their ability scores are often a combination of the numbers assigned to each ability that they ended up having + their class. The internal consistency is that fighters are strong, wizards are clever, bards are charismatic.

On the other hand, when it comes to narratively-minded players, the sample over which consistency is sustained is small (the characters that are played at the table) and highly variable. I don't think any conclusion could be drawn based on orc player-characters, that would be consistent enough to apply to the entire species. Your playing-against-type sentiment endorses that point of view.

On the other hand, when it comes to orcs in the background world, like you I might well like them to be stronger than average. Just as I might like to say that halflings are typically lucky. For humanoids, being consistent on positives is unproblematic. That elves are dextrous and have darkvision is not problematic. What is problematic is that black elves are all evil. Being consistent on negatives like that is extremely problematic, moreso when those negative depictions mirror (intentionally or unintentionally) narratives that enabled dismaying harms, such as brutal dispossession of resources, freedoms, and ways of life. When you think about it, the flipside of "being consistent" is "sweeping generalisation", and that needs to be better considered.

I don't believe that this question needs to be answered simplistically or without nuance. For example, we can have complex positives like fiendishly clever which is kind of bad, kind of good. Strong orcs that are kind and fair, tolerant of others and careful in their actions, is likely okay. e're also most concerned with intersections that impact negatively on our fellow players. Maybe bonuses/penalties are a bad idea altogether, and we should have incommensurables - luck versus darkvision - it's hard to say which is better: both are positive. Or if we keep bonus/penalties, maybe we split them across class, background and race. That would be consistent - giant martial blacksmiths are stronger than giant arcane sages.

tl;dr What the game rules need to do is not bake-in such negatives - to stop reinforcing negative-generalisations.

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

Reversing what I said, yes, I agree with you that words are important and evoke feelings, and can even overrule facts. That's part of why this conversation is so important: the words in the rulebooks do matter.

 

[clearstream]

I want to add one more thing, then I'm going to take a break for a while.

I joined with this debate with a strong intuitive sense that I agreed with WotC, but hadn't applied any rigorous thinking to it. Although I don't think anybody has been persuaded to change their minds in this thread, in either direction, participating in it has caused me to think deeply about the why, and I feel my own understanding has increased as a result.

So I've got that going for me. Which ish nishe.

Have you been drinking!?

 

[BookTenTiger]

Sure, it's a start. Personally, I would go the Warcraft way:
Orcs were just a race of people. Perhaps they had some innate anger issues, compared to other humanoids, but nothing serious, they could be of any alignment.
Then one day, 95% orcs were tricked by their corrupt leaders into making a blood pact with demons. They became super strong, but also chaotic evil.
Many decades of bloody wars later, a sizable portion of the orcs were able to unshackle themselves from the blood pact, and went back to their original ways...mostly. Many of them were scarred for life by what they did and experienced in their time as basically demons.

Substitute "demons" with Gruumsh. Orcs tribes that are under the iron fisted influence of Gruumsh, are your classic old school chaotic evil orcs. Those that manage to distance themselves from it, are free willed.

Cool! And nowhere in your description are you saying "all orcs are ___" or using language currently used to oppress other people. Nice!

So do you agree now that WotC can remove the stereotype that "all _ are _" without making the game less fun, or removing the "scary invader" as a possible antagonist?

 

[BookTenTiger]

I want to add one more thing, then I'm going to take a break for a while.

I joined with this debate with a strong intuitive sense that I agreed with WotC, but hadn't applied any rigorous thinking to it. Although I don't think anybody has been persuaded to change their minds in this thread, in either direction, participating in it has caused me to think deeply about the why, and I feel my own understanding has increased as a result.

So I've got that going for me. Which ish nishe.

I agree!

I honestly feel sad that some people could no longer contribute to the thread because I think discussions like this are really important. They introduce ideas to everyone participating!

Let's hope WotC is having similar discussions!

 

[ZeshinX]

I agree!

I honestly feel sad that some people could no longer contribute to the thread because I think discussions like this are really important. They introduce ideas to everyone participating!

Let's hope WotC is having similar discussions!

I suspect that has been, and continues to be, a discussion that occupies most (or all) of their collective talents at present.

 

[Nickolaidas]

Good question, and one I'm definitely mulling over.

As I said before, there's really no clear line. I think for certain races in the Monster Manual it's pretty obvious, such as drow and orcs. But Gnoll seems to be right on that line, right?

I am not the head of the D&D creative team (though that's what my mom thought my job would be when I was a kid). I'm an elementary school teacher.

But here's what I'd do with gnolls, just for fun:

I would have Humanoid gnolls and Fiendish gnolls.

Humanoid gnolls don't have a stat block, instead you find them in the Monster Manual under Raider, Mystic, etc.

Fiendish gnolls, however, have been corrupted by their evil gods. They ARE monsters. In the MM I would list story ideas that would set up the Fiendish gnolls to be antagonists.

But overall, I would make sure to avoid lazy tropes, and I would check in with people from different backgrounds to make sure my own subconscious biases are not negatively effecting the game.

Anyways, that's how I might go about it. What would you do?

Honestly ... I'm conflicted.

I just read Elfcrusher's aarakocra example, and the Witcher games came to mind.

In case you're not familiar with the Witcher books / video games, demihumans there are portrayed as 2nd class citizens and victims of racism. This isn't meant as a low poke on real-life minorities, but as a way of showing you how hard said minorities are having it, how many hardships and prosecution they have to endure. This leads to deep characters and storytelling.

Now, imagine people being offended with the material and demand the game's devs of removing the offensive material, making demihumans no different in treatment than humans. This would immediately cripple the narrative and the potential for deep storytelling the Witcher games have.

Personally, I think racism in a medieval setting provides ample opportunities for the players to feel like true heroes. Imagine the PCs trying and succeeding in turning goblins from a human kingdom's slaves and serfs into true citizens. Or proving to a human baron that the orcs living a few miles away can be allies, and not the savage raiders everyone thinks they are.

If the rules turn every race in a 'everything goes' species, or if the notion of racism is removed from campaigns, isn't there a risk of removing material to create some truly heartwarming and memorable campaigns which will make the players feel they changed the old ways of thinking the kingdoms had, instead of just 'you've slain the dragon' moment?

 

[Olrox17]

How often do we have to go into this? Folks who are not the subject of abuse don't get to tell those who are what is offensive. Your declaration of this does not make it true.

I get it. But I don't like when bad people take possession of something, and the rest of us have to ban something else because it's tangentially related. I don't want them to gain power over what I do.
In any case, I've already proposed some possibly reasonable (IMO) changes in previous posts.

From what we know, this does not match what WotC will be doing.

Specifically, you can have scary invaders all you want. They just won't be setting up entire humanoid species to ONLY BE scary invaders in their books.

Tbh, I've had heroic orcs in my own games for years. Heck, one my longest, most successful campaigns was in a Warcraft setting. Players played Horde. We loved it, I still have some badass artwork my players made for the campaign. Great stuff.

 

[BookTenTiger]

In case you're not familiar with the Witcher books / video games, demihumans there are portrayed as 2nd class citizens and victims of racism. This isn't meant as a low poke on real-life minorities, but as a way of showing you how hard said minorities are having it, how many hardships and prosecution they have to endure. This leads to deep characters and storytelling.

Now, imagine people being offended with the material and demand the game's devs of removing the offensive material, making demihumans no different in treatment than humans. This would immediately cripple the narrative and the potential for deep storytelling the Witcher games have.

Personally, I think racism in a medieval setting provides ample opportunities for the players to feel like true heroes. Imagine the PCs trying and succeeding in turning goblins from a human kingdom's slaves and serfs into true citizens. Or proving to a human baron that the orcs living a few miles away can be allies, and not the savage raiders everyone thinks they are.

If the rules turn every race in a 'everything goes' species, or if the notion of racism is removed from campaigns, isn't there a risk of removing material to create some truly heartwarming and memorable campaigns which will make the players feel they changed the old ways of thinking the kingdoms had, instead of just 'you've slain the dragon' moment?

Good points! Here are my thoughts:

In stories like the Witcher, the second-class citizenship of demihumans is being portrayed as unjust. It is using the themes of racism to tell a story in which the beliefs of characters are not necessarily narrative truths.

In D&D, "all _ are _" is being used to justify killing anyone of that type. It is a rule that creates a narrative truth.

Imagine, instead, that the Witcher portrayed demihumans as second-class citizens, and used that to justify the Witcher himself slaying them. And at no point ever questioned his ability, or rightness, in doing so. That would be perpetuating racist thinking.

D&D can absolutely have racism. But it doesn't need to justify racism in its rules.

We should have stories in which the characters fight orc and gnoll raiders.

But based on the current rules of D&D, if those orcs and gnolls were having a vegan picnic, characters would still be justified in slaying them because orcs and gnolls are chaotic evil.

WotC can set a better default in their rules by removing or changing language that defines "all _ are _"

This still provides opportunities to tell stories in which race has caused conflict. This, however, would not justify the PLAYERS using race as a signifier for if a humanoid is evil or not.

 

[BookTenTiger]

I get it. But I don't like when bad people take possession of something, and the rest of us have to ban something else because it's tangentially related. I don't want them to gain power over what I do.

What do you think is being banned?