We wanted to acknowledge and own the inclusion of offensive material within our recent Spelljammer: Adventures in Space content. We failed you, our players and our fans, and we are truly sorry.
The campaign includes a people called Hadozee which first appeared in 1982. Regrettably, not all portions of the content relating to the Hadozee were properly vetted before appearing in our most recent release. As we continue to learn and grow through every situation, we recognize that to live our values, we have to do better.
Throughout the 50-year history of Dungeons & Dragons, some of the characters in the game have been monstrous and evil, using descriptions that are painfully reminiscent of how real-world groups have been and continue to be denigrated. We understand the urgency of changing how we work to better ensure a more inclusive game.
Effective immediately, we will remove the offensive content about Hadozee in our digital versions – and these will no longer be included in future reprints of the book. Our priority is to make things right when we make mistakes. In addition, we’ve initiated a thorough internal review of the situation and will take the necessary actions as a result of that review.
We are eternally grateful for the ongoing dialog with the D&D community, and we look forward to introducing new, engaging and inclusive content to D&D for generations to come. D&D 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, we are committed to making D&D as welcome and inclusive as possible. This part of our work will never end.
There is a thread here discussing the change, and you will better information reading the established thread than having the conversation be split across two threads.
To briefly sum, Wizards took a monkey race (a race often used in racist depictions of Africans), then had “civilised” society raise them out of their inferiority, turn them into a slave race, get freed by the good members of the “civilised” race, and then be sent back to their homeland to bring civilisation to their ancestral home.
That runs parallel to a lot of racist depictions of Africans, from the idea slavery made their lives better, some white saviour language, and up through the movement after the Civil War to send their slaves back to Africa to “bring civilisation”. It very well could have been unintentional - but it was something that really should have been caught by someone in the editing process and it is pretty darn negligent of Wizards not to have noticed the section rife with problematic tropes.
Basically, the backstory was similar to African American history and the racist whites' views of blacks (by which I mean the whites who were racist, not that whites were generally racist). In particular, they were made intelligent and enslaved by a Wizard, they're monkeys, they had the ability to be more resistant to damage and there was even art (which I haven't seen) that was too similar to a racist minstrel.
To be honest, if it was that close to racist tropes in so many ways, it does raise eyebrows how it not only was created but how it got approved to be printed.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Thanks for clarifying, guys. I can see why it was controversial and WoC decided to correct it.
Setting aside that the Hadozee had problematic narratives, visuals, and similarities to stereotypes.. speaking generally do you guys think it's okay to have a D&D race with things like enslavement in their history? Personally I like heavy story lines in my games. As an example, part of my last DM session involved a story arch where they had to uproot an organized crime ring that was involved in human trafficking, to include sex trafficking. I talked to my players first to make sure that type of content was okay with them, because you don't know everyone's past.
I like battling evil that has parallels in the real world so the players can feel closer to it, as opposed to just an evil monsters doing bad because you're evil.
Unfortunately the real world has a long history of all types of human atrocities against many peoples and cultures. I'm okay with that being put into the lore of certain races.
Please note - posting racist material here, even if you're doing so in an attempt to explain, is against our rules & guidelines - it's still racist content.
I don't know why they changed the history from the original Yazirians that were created in the 80s. I think people see what they want to see with artwork. I saw a bard, druid and a rogue. With that said, the Hamozee appear slightly more human than the originals based on these interpretations.
Please note - posting racist material here, even if you're doing so in an attempt to explain, is against our rules & guidelines - it's still racist content.
Please refrain from doing this.
Because not talking about things resolves real issues. Got it.
Please note - posting racist material here, even if you're doing so in an attempt to explain, is against our rules & guidelines - it's still racist content.
Please refrain from doing this.
Because not talking about things resolves real issues. Got it.
I was the person who posted it and, well.... let's just say that the Hadozee bard would have fit in at a dutch christmas tradition that is problematic.
Setting aside that the Hadozee had problematic narratives, visuals, and similarities to stereotypes.. speaking generally do you guys think it's okay to have a D&D race with things like enslavement in their history? Personally I like heavy story lines in my games. As an example, part of my last DM session involved a story arch where they had to uproot an organized crime ring that was involved in human trafficking, to include sex trafficking. I talked to my players first to make sure that type of content was okay with them, because you don't know everyone's past.
Yes - and, despite what folks like to say on these forums, so does Wizards. The recent MMM version of Githyanki preserves their origins as slaves to Mind Flayers, for example. What sets Gith and others apart - there is an element of fantasy and a lack of real world stereotypical depictions. You can have something like Mind Flayers, who enslave a race for not only labour, but for the fantastical element of food; have something like some Drow societies, who enslave everyone, regardless of their race, because they both take inspiration from the general concept of slavery, rather than utilise very, very specific real world racial stereotypes.
Please note - posting racist material here, even if you're doing so in an attempt to explain, is against our rules & guidelines - it's still racist content.
Please refrain from doing this.
Because not talking about things resolves real issues. Got it.
I was the person who posted it and, well.... let's just say that the Hadozee bard would have fit in at a dutch christmas tradition that is problematic.
My comment wasn't at you. It was at the attempt of censorship.
Pretty sure that hat and instrument can be found on other artwork in DND related to bards. The only thing that changed was race. If the artist had stayed true to the original race concept, I don't think we'd be having this discussion. With that said, coming from a company that has expressed a desire to be inclusive and sensitive, this shows a distinct lack of commitment to what those words currently mean.
Setting aside that the Hadozee had problematic narratives, visuals, and similarities to stereotypes.. speaking generally do you guys think it's okay to have a D&D race with things like enslavement in their history? Personally I like heavy story lines in my games. As an example, part of my last DM session involved a story arch where they had to uproot an organized crime ring that was involved in human trafficking, to include sex trafficking. I talked to my players first to make sure that type of content was okay with them, because you don't know everyone's past.
Yes - and, despite what folks like to say on these forums, so does Wizards. The recent MMM version of Githyanki preserves their origins as slaves to Mind Flayers, for example. What sets Gith and others apart - there is an element of fantasy and a lack of real world stereotypical depictions. You can have something like Mind Flayers, who enslave a race for not only labour, but for the fantastical element of food; have something like some Drow societies, who enslave everyone, regardless of their race, because they both take inspiration from the general concept of slavery, rather than utilise very, very specific real world racial stereotypes.
The problem is that while DND is not our world, we can't help but relate that fantasy world in terms of our own knowledge and experiences. The truth is all our experiences don't translate except on very broad terms. Humans are humans there. Racial differences and prejudices in the DND world are literally race related. Slavery in and of itself is not racism. Although just like here, racism is likely often used to justify it.
Setting aside that the Hadozee had problematic narratives, visuals, and similarities to stereotypes.. speaking generally do you guys think it's okay to have a D&D race with things like enslavement in their history? Personally I like heavy story lines in my games. As an example, part of my last DM session involved a story arch where they had to uproot an organized crime ring that was involved in human trafficking, to include sex trafficking. I talked to my players first to make sure that type of content was okay with them, because you don't know everyone's past.
Yes - and, despite what folks like to say on these forums, so does Wizards. The recent MMM version of Githyanki preserves their origins as slaves to Mind Flayers, for example. What sets Gith and others apart - there is an element of fantasy and a lack of real world stereotypical depictions. You can have something like Mind Flayers, who enslave a race for not only labour, but for the fantastical element of food; have something like some Drow societies, who enslave everyone, regardless of their race, because they both take inspiration from the general concept of slavery, rather than utilise very, very specific real world racial stereotypes.
The problem is that while DND is not our world, we can't help but relate that fantasy world in terms of our own knowledge and experiences. The truth is all our experiences don't translate except on very broad terms. Humans are humans there. Racial differences and prejudices in the DND world are literally race related. Slavery in and of itself is not racism. Although just like here, racism is likely often used to justify it.
The problems really come into play when “real world stereotypes” are placed into D&D - as was the case with the Hadozee, whose origin story is nearly congruent with real world statements of racism. Compare to the Drow, where there exists an element of racism and self-superiority in their enslavement of other races - their sense of superiority is not grounded in real world stereotyping, but seems to grow organically in the lore from their living and surviving in a very harsh environment which, by virtue of its difficulties, also means the Drow are isolated, insular, and not exposed to the best other cultures have to offer.
Please note - posting racist material here, even if you're doing so in an attempt to explain, is against our rules & guidelines - it's still racist content.
Please refrain from doing this.
Because not talking about things resolves real issues. Got it.
I was the person who posted it and, well.... let's just say that the Hadozee bard would have fit in at a dutch christmas tradition that is problematic.
My comment wasn't at you. It was at the attempt of censorship.
Pretty sure that hat and instrument can be found on other artwork in DND related to bards. The only thing that changed was race. If the artist had stayed true to the original race concept, I don't think we'd be having this discussion. With that said, coming from a company that has expressed a desire to be inclusive and sensitive, this shows a distinct lack of commitment to what those words currently mean.
It is entirely possible to discuss the reprehensible nature of racism, and how everyone should be held to the highest standard when it comes to not being racist without posting racist material.
This forum is a private space, and as such D&D Beyond has the right to maintain a self and welcoming environment. This includes, but is not limited to, not allowing racist content in any shape or form. Doesn't matter if your point is "Racism is bad, and to demonstrate how bad it is, here is [RACIST IMAGE], isn't it bad?", that image has no place here.
It is that simple
This extends to all forms of hateful language or imagery
The problem is that while DND is not our world, we can't help but relate that fantasy world in terms of our own knowledge and experiences. The truth is all our experiences don't translate except on very broad terms. Humans are humans there. Racial differences and prejudices in the DND world are literally race related. Slavery in and of itself is not racism. Although just like here, racism is likely often used to justify it.
An interesting side note that has always stuck out with me, what the D&D world refers to as "races" are actually different species. Inter-world racism can certainly be a thing, like if some Wood Elves did not like Drow Elves, but then you can also have speciesism.
I feel this was a good and necessary change, I did think that the Hadozee lore presented in the new books was kind of sus because I always had it in my mind that they were never a “created” race but were a race that evolved on their own in a native environment. Another problem with the original lore arises when the Hadozee are freed by an adventurer and not by their own strength and intellect, drawing a rather unsightly parallel with another unwelcome trope in storytelling. Which doesn’t match with any of the other races with a history of being enslaved, along with the fact that it doesn’t seem reasonable for a single or group of wizards to create the entire beginning population of Hadozee.
I can see how someone would get blindsighted by this but at the same time these problems were fairly obvious. In general I’m not a fan of having “created through magic” races because it removes a certain sense of legitimacy imho. So the new lore, while simple, is a good start and a good change.
Thanks for clarifying, guys. I can see why it was controversial and WoC decided to correct it.
Setting aside that the Hadozee had problematic narratives, visuals, and similarities to stereotypes.. speaking generally do you guys think it's okay to have a D&D race with things like enslavement in their history?
Depends on how they do it, Drow are a mostly enslaved race, enslaved by their own people. Githyanki & Githzerai were enslaved by the Ithilid, they freed themselves and waged an extermination war against the Mind Flayers, which is a great background story. Having what they did with Hadozee was a lot of yikes compounded with who the hell approved this? Because their original back story wasn't this bad.
The problem is that while DND is not our world, we can't help but relate that fantasy world in terms of our own knowledge and experiences. The truth is all our experiences don't translate except on very broad terms. Humans are humans there. Racial differences and prejudices in the DND world are literally race related. Slavery in and of itself is not racism. Although just like here, racism is likely often used to justify it.
An interesting side note that has always stuck out with me, what the D&D world refers to as "races" are actually different species. Inter-world racism can certainly be a thing, like if some Wood Elves did not like Drow Elves, but then you can also have speciesism.
I have to say it this way, but actually:
species are any creature capable of interbreeding, and having viable offspring which in turn are also capable of breeding. Since every race in D&D is technically able to do this, all player races are by scientific definition the same species.
Race as defined: any one of the groups that humans are often divided into based on physical traits regarded as common among people of shared ancestry
Since Humans are included in player races, and because every race can mate have children and whose children can mate and have children, by the basics of definition Race is the correct term. Even more so in One D&D, as back long ago in other editions some of the races could not intermix, ie Lizard Folk & Gnomes
species are any creature capable of interbreeding, and having viable offspring which in turn are also capable of breeding. Since every race in D&D is technically able to do this, all player races are by scientific definition the same species.
That's not accurate. For example, Neanderthals are not the same species as us, yet we have Neanderthal DNA in us (well, most of us do) because they interbred with our ancestors, despite being different species. Ligers, the offspring of a male lion and a female tiger, are also fertile. There are other examples of fertile offspring from cross species procreation, but that's enough to show the definition is incorrect. It's a simplification made by teachers to get the idea across, but biology isn't that straightforward and clean edged at all. Usually, there is an additional caveat that the two organisms also have to have similar charscteristics, hence a lion, while capable of interbreeding with a tiger and producing a fertile offspring, is not the same species as a tiger. Homo Sapiens is not the same species as Homo Neandarthalensis either, despite being interfertile. In that same vein, a Dragonborn is not the same species as a Halfling. Or indeed, a dragon and a human.
Not that I think D&D is overly concerned with genetics and so forth.
Regardless, this is off-topic and we should let it return to
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
The problem is that while DND is not our world, we can't help but relate that fantasy world in terms of our own knowledge and experiences. The truth is all our experiences don't translate except on very broad terms. Humans are humans there. Racial differences and prejudices in the DND world are literally race related. Slavery in and of itself is not racism. Although just like here, racism is likely often used to justify it.
An interesting side note that has always stuck out with me, what the D&D world refers to as "races" are actually different species. Inter-world racism can certainly be a thing, like if some Wood Elves did not like Drow Elves, but then you can also have speciesism.
I have to say it this way, but actually:
species are any creature capable of interbreeding, and having viable offspring which in turn are also capable of breeding. Since every race in D&D is technically able to do this, all player races are by scientific definition the same species.
Race as defined: any one of the groups that humans are often divided into based on physical traits regarded as common among people of shared ancestry
Since Humans are included in player races, and because every race can mate have children and whose children can mate and have children, by the basics of definition Race is the correct term. Even more so in One D&D, as back long ago in other editions some of the races could not intermix, ie Lizard Folk & Gnomes
Speciation is a bit more gray than that. It also includes species that don't normally interbreed, even if they're genetically similar enough to have viable offspring. An example of this would be lions and tigers. They're considered separate species, but ligers are actually a thing. And it can be even more gray than that. Humans and Neanderthals are considered separate species of hominids, yet we know from DNA evidence that humans and Neanderthals interbred and produced offspring.
Also, as far as I know D&D lore only has humans intermixing with certain races, like half elves or half orcs. I'm unaware of races like halfling-orcs or dwarf-leonin, etc.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Does anyone know what the controversy was? I don't have Spelljammer and I had not heard anything about it.
https://dnd.wizards.com/articles/statement-hadozee
We wanted to acknowledge and own the inclusion of offensive material within our recent Spelljammer: Adventures in Space content. We failed you, our players and our fans, and we are truly sorry.
The campaign includes a people called Hadozee which first appeared in 1982. Regrettably, not all portions of the content relating to the Hadozee were properly vetted before appearing in our most recent release. As we continue to learn and grow through every situation, we recognize that to live our values, we have to do better.
Throughout the 50-year history of Dungeons & Dragons, some of the characters in the game have been monstrous and evil, using descriptions that are painfully reminiscent of how real-world groups have been and continue to be denigrated. We understand the urgency of changing how we work to better ensure a more inclusive game.
Effective immediately, we will remove the offensive content about Hadozee in our digital versions – and these will no longer be included in future reprints of the book. Our priority is to make things right when we make mistakes. In addition, we’ve initiated a thorough internal review of the situation and will take the necessary actions as a result of that review.
We are eternally grateful for the ongoing dialog with the D&D community, and we look forward to introducing new, engaging and inclusive content to D&D for generations to come. D&D 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, we are committed to making D&D as welcome and inclusive as possible. This part of our work will never end.
There is a thread here discussing the change, and you will better information reading the established thread than having the conversation be split across two threads.
To briefly sum, Wizards took a monkey race (a race often used in racist depictions of Africans), then had “civilised” society raise them out of their inferiority, turn them into a slave race, get freed by the good members of the “civilised” race, and then be sent back to their homeland to bring civilisation to their ancestral home.
That runs parallel to a lot of racist depictions of Africans, from the idea slavery made their lives better, some white saviour language, and up through the movement after the Civil War to send their slaves back to Africa to “bring civilisation”. It very well could have been unintentional - but it was something that really should have been caught by someone in the editing process and it is pretty darn negligent of Wizards not to have noticed the section rife with problematic tropes.
Enworld had a discussion, but it was locked. The first post there gives some more details about the issues.
https://www.enworld.org/threads/new-wotc-racism-allegations-regarding-hadozee-and-spelljammer.691134/
Basically, the backstory was similar to African American history and the racist whites' views of blacks (by which I mean the whites who were racist, not that whites were generally racist). In particular, they were made intelligent and enslaved by a Wizard, they're monkeys, they had the ability to be more resistant to damage and there was even art (which I haven't seen) that was too similar to a racist minstrel.
To be honest, if it was that close to racist tropes in so many ways, it does raise eyebrows how it not only was created but how it got approved to be printed.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Thanks for clarifying, guys. I can see why it was controversial and WoC decided to correct it.
Setting aside that the Hadozee had problematic narratives, visuals, and similarities to stereotypes.. speaking generally do you guys think it's okay to have a D&D race with things like enslavement in their history? Personally I like heavy story lines in my games. As an example, part of my last DM session involved a story arch where they had to uproot an organized crime ring that was involved in human trafficking, to include sex trafficking. I talked to my players first to make sure that type of content was okay with them, because you don't know everyone's past.
I like battling evil that has parallels in the real world so the players can feel closer to it, as opposed to just an evil monsters doing bad because you're evil.
Unfortunately the real world has a long history of all types of human atrocities against many peoples and cultures. I'm okay with that being put into the lore of certain races.
Please note - posting racist material here, even if you're doing so in an attempt to explain, is against our rules & guidelines - it's still racist content.
Please refrain from doing this.
Pun-loving nerd | Faith Elisabeth Lilley | She/Her/Hers | Profile art by Becca Golins
If you need help with homebrew, please post on the homebrew forums, where multiple staff and moderators can read your post and help you!
"We got this, no problem! I'll take the twenty on the left - you guys handle the one on the right!"🔊
I don't know why they changed the history from the original Yazirians that were created in the 80s. I think people see what they want to see with artwork. I saw a bard, druid and a rogue. With that said, the Hamozee appear slightly more human than the originals based on these interpretations.
Because not talking about things resolves real issues. Got it.
I was the person who posted it and, well.... let's just say that the Hadozee bard would have fit in at a dutch christmas tradition that is problematic.
Yes - and, despite what folks like to say on these forums, so does Wizards. The recent MMM version of Githyanki preserves their origins as slaves to Mind Flayers, for example. What sets Gith and others apart - there is an element of fantasy and a lack of real world stereotypical depictions. You can have something like Mind Flayers, who enslave a race for not only labour, but for the fantastical element of food; have something like some Drow societies, who enslave everyone, regardless of their race, because they both take inspiration from the general concept of slavery, rather than utilise very, very specific real world racial stereotypes.
My comment wasn't at you. It was at the attempt of censorship.
Pretty sure that hat and instrument can be found on other artwork in DND related to bards. The only thing that changed was race. If the artist had stayed true to the original race concept, I don't think we'd be having this discussion. With that said, coming from a company that has expressed a desire to be inclusive and sensitive, this shows a distinct lack of commitment to what those words currently mean.
The problem is that while DND is not our world, we can't help but relate that fantasy world in terms of our own knowledge and experiences. The truth is all our experiences don't translate except on very broad terms. Humans are humans there. Racial differences and prejudices in the DND world are literally race related. Slavery in and of itself is not racism. Although just like here, racism is likely often used to justify it.
The problems really come into play when “real world stereotypes” are placed into D&D - as was the case with the Hadozee, whose origin story is nearly congruent with real world statements of racism. Compare to the Drow, where there exists an element of racism and self-superiority in their enslavement of other races - their sense of superiority is not grounded in real world stereotyping, but seems to grow organically in the lore from their living and surviving in a very harsh environment which, by virtue of its difficulties, also means the Drow are isolated, insular, and not exposed to the best other cultures have to offer.
It is entirely possible to discuss the reprehensible nature of racism, and how everyone should be held to the highest standard when it comes to not being racist without posting racist material.
This forum is a private space, and as such D&D Beyond has the right to maintain a self and welcoming environment. This includes, but is not limited to, not allowing racist content in any shape or form. Doesn't matter if your point is "Racism is bad, and to demonstrate how bad it is, here is [RACIST IMAGE], isn't it bad?", that image has no place here.
It is that simple
This extends to all forms of hateful language or imagery
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
An interesting side note that has always stuck out with me, what the D&D world refers to as "races" are actually different species. Inter-world racism can certainly be a thing, like if some Wood Elves did not like Drow Elves, but then you can also have speciesism.
I feel this was a good and necessary change, I did think that the Hadozee lore presented in the new books was kind of sus because I always had it in my mind that they were never a “created” race but were a race that evolved on their own in a native environment. Another problem with the original lore arises when the Hadozee are freed by an adventurer and not by their own strength and intellect, drawing a rather unsightly parallel with another unwelcome trope in storytelling. Which doesn’t match with any of the other races with a history of being enslaved, along with the fact that it doesn’t seem reasonable for a single or group of wizards to create the entire beginning population of Hadozee.
I can see how someone would get blindsighted by this but at the same time these problems were fairly obvious. In general I’m not a fan of having “created through magic” races because it removes a certain sense of legitimacy imho. So the new lore, while simple, is a good start and a good change.
Depends on how they do it, Drow are a mostly enslaved race, enslaved by their own people. Githyanki & Githzerai were enslaved by the Ithilid, they freed themselves and waged an extermination war against the Mind Flayers, which is a great background story. Having what they did with Hadozee was a lot of yikes compounded with who the hell approved this? Because their original back story wasn't this bad.
I have to say it this way, but actually:
species are any creature capable of interbreeding, and having viable offspring which in turn are also capable of breeding. Since every race in D&D is technically able to do this, all player races are by scientific definition the same species.
Race as defined: any one of the groups that humans are often divided into based on physical traits regarded as common among people of shared ancestry
Since Humans are included in player races, and because every race can mate have children and whose children can mate and have children, by the basics of definition Race is the correct term. Even more so in One D&D, as back long ago in other editions some of the races could not intermix, ie Lizard Folk & Gnomes
That's not accurate. For example, Neanderthals are not the same species as us, yet we have Neanderthal DNA in us (well, most of us do) because they interbred with our ancestors, despite being different species. Ligers, the offspring of a male lion and a female tiger, are also fertile. There are other examples of fertile offspring from cross species procreation, but that's enough to show the definition is incorrect. It's a simplification made by teachers to get the idea across, but biology isn't that straightforward and clean edged at all. Usually, there is an additional caveat that the two organisms also have to have similar charscteristics, hence a lion, while capable of interbreeding with a tiger and producing a fertile offspring, is not the same species as a tiger. Homo Sapiens is not the same species as Homo Neandarthalensis either, despite being interfertile. In that same vein, a Dragonborn is not the same species as a Halfling. Or indeed, a dragon and a human.
Not that I think D&D is overly concerned with genetics and so forth.
Regardless, this is off-topic and we should let it return to
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Speciation is a bit more gray than that. It also includes species that don't normally interbreed, even if they're genetically similar enough to have viable offspring. An example of this would be lions and tigers. They're considered separate species, but ligers are actually a thing. And it can be even more gray than that. Humans and Neanderthals are considered separate species of hominids, yet we know from DNA evidence that humans and Neanderthals interbred and produced offspring.
Also, as far as I know D&D lore only has humans intermixing with certain races, like half elves or half orcs. I'm unaware of races like halfling-orcs or dwarf-leonin, etc.