D&D 3E/3.5 Diversity in D&D Third Edition

With 3rd Ed, our main goal was to return D&D to its roots, such as with Greyhawk deities and the return of half-orcs. By staying true to the feel of D&D, we helped the gaming audience accept the sweeping changes that we made to the rules system.

With 3rd Ed, our main goal was to return D&D to its roots, such as with Greyhawk deities and the return of half-orcs. By staying true to the feel of D&D, we helped the gaming audience accept the sweeping changes that we made to the rules system.

One way we diverged from the D&D heritage, however, was by making the game art more inclusive. People of color, for example, were hard to find in earlier editions, and, when they did make appearance, it wasn’t always for the best. Luckily for us, Wizards of the Coast had an established culture of egalitarianism, and we were able to update the characters depicted in the game to better reflect contemporary sensibilities.

dnd-party.jpg

A few years before 3E, the leadership at Wizards had already encouraged me to go whole-hog with the multicultural look of the RPG Everway (1995). In this world-hopping game, we provided players and Gamemasters with scores of color art cards to inspire them as they created their characters and NPCs. The art featured people and settings that looked like they could have come from fantasy versions of places all around the earth, and the gender balance was great. I once got an email from a black roleplayer who said that Everway had forever changed the way he roleplayed, so I know that the game’s multicultural look was meaningful to some gamers out there. With D&D, we took the game in the same direction, but not nearly as far. The core setting has always resembled medieval Europe, and we expanded the diversity of the characters while still maintaining the medieval milieu.

The characters that players see the most are the “fab four,” the four iconic characters that we used repeatedly in our art and in our examples of play. Two are men (the human cleric and the dwarf fighter) and two are women (the elf wizard and the halfling rogue). Given the demographics of gamers in 2000, the implication that half of all D&D characters are female was a bit of a stretch. The only complaints we got, however, were about the introductory Adventure Game, where the characters were pregenerated, with names and genders assigned to them. Some young men would have preferred fewer female characters and more males to choose from. None of us worried too much about those complaints.

In addition to the main four characters, we also assigned a particular character to represent each of the other classes, with that character appearing in examples of play and in art. The four human characters comprised a white man (the cleric), a white woman (the paladin), a black woman (the monk), and an Asian man (the sorcerer). The remaining four nonhuman iconics were three men and one woman. It was a trick to strike the right balance in assigning fantasy races and genders to all the classes and to assign ethnicities to the human characters, but the iconic characters seemed to be a big hit, and I think the diversity was part of the appeal.

Somewhat late in the process, the marketing team added Regdar, a male fighter, to the mix of iconic characters. We designers weren’t thrilled, and as the one who had drawn up the iconic characters I was a little chapped. My array of iconic characters did not include a human male fighter, and that’s the most common D&D character ever, so the marketing team gave us one. We carped a little that he meant adding a second white man to the array of characters, but at least he was dark enough to be ambiguously ethnic. Regdar proved popular, and if the marketing team was looking for an attractive character to publicize, they got one.

Back in 1E, Gary Gygax had used the phrase “he or she” as the default third person singular pronoun, a usage that gave the writing a legalistic vibe that probably suited it. In 2E, the text stated up front that it was just going to use “he” because grammatically it’s gender-neutral. Even in 1989, insisting that “he” is gender neutral was tone deaf. By the time I was working on 3E, I had been dealing with the pronoun issue for ten years. In Ars Magica (1987), we wrote everything in second person so that we could avoid gendered pronouns. The rules said things like, “You can understand your familiar” instead of “The wizard can understand his/her/their familiar.” In Over the Edge (1992), we used “he” for the generic player and “she” for the generic gamemaster, which felt balanced and helped the reader keep the two roles separate. That sort of usage became standard for Atlas Games’s roleplaying games. Personally, I use singular-they whenever I can get away with it, but 20 years ago that was still generally considered unorthodox. For 3E, I suggested that we tie the pronouns to the iconic characters. The iconic paladin was a woman, so references to paladins in the rules were to “her.” I thought we’d catch flak from someone about this usage, but I never heard fans complaining.

One topic we needed to settle was whether monsters that were gendered as female in folklore, such as a lamia, should be exclusively female in D&D. I figured we should ditch gender limits wherever we could, but an editor argued that gender was important for the identity of a monster like the lamia. I asked, “Is that because it is in woman’s nature to deceive and destroy men?” Luring and destroying men is a common trope for female-gendered monsters, with the lamia as an example. “Yes, it is” said the editor, but she was laughing, and I had made my point. You can see an illustration of a male lamia in the 3E Monster Manual.

While we incorporated Greyhawk’s deities into 3rd Ed, we had no intention of picking up Greyhawk’s description of various human ethnic groups, corresponding more or less to ethnicities found on Earth. For gamers who cared about the Greyhawk canon, the Asian sorcerer would be from a lightly described territory to the west and the black monk would be a “Touv” from the jungles of Hepmonaland. Touvs in 2E were defined as having a penalty to their Intelligence scores, and we sure didn’t want to send any players in that direction. In 3E, the Asian and black characters were just humans, full stop.

The good news is that the gaming audience rolled with the iconic characters featuring people of color and women. With 5th Ed, the design team picked up where we left off and have pursued diversity further. The diverse cast of characters goes a long way in making D&D look modern and mature.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Jonathan Tweet

Jonathan Tweet

D&D 3E, Over the Edge, Everway, Ars Magica, Omega World, Grandmother Fish

Bacon Bits

Legend
I'm just not seeing how including women and minorities in art is equivalent to this.

Because we're not just talking about art in books. At least I'm not. I'm talking about alllll the discussions that happen here and elsewhere.

On Twitter, if I follow WotC or Crawford or Mearls (which I do) then I get their tweets about how diverse and inclusive they're making the brand. But I also see stuff about how WotC is apologizing for Chandra/Nissa in War of the Spark: Forsaken. I also see stuff about LGBT from ACLU and other political organizations I follow. And from friends, celebrities, actors, YouTubers, and other content creators, some of whom are very active in expanding diversity. Everybody talks about how open and inclusive they are and what they're doing for that. And it's great! I agree with all of it. I see people on both sides being ridiculously toxic and repellent, too, and that really sucks and I wish I didn't see half of what I do.

Sometimes I come here to get away from that. I come here when I'm not interested in that message anymore. I go someplace I can talk about running campaigns or designing new mechanics or talking about new classes and spells.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


Azzy

ᚳᚣᚾᛖᚹᚢᛚᚠ (He/Him/His)
Because we're not just talking about art in books. At least I'm not. I'm talking about alllll the discussions that happen here and elsewhere.

Okay, fair enough. I admit I haven't seen a lot of threads about this here.
 


billd91

Not your screen monkey (he/him) 🇺🇦🇵🇸🏳️‍⚧️
"Concerted effort" and "passive" are mutually exclusive.

On that you are utterly wrong. You’re not taking into account perspective, which Azzy fairly clearly described. It’s a concerted effort from the perspective of the company - its art directors, designers, editors. It’s passive from our perspective as consumers.
 

Azzy

ᚳᚣᚾᛖᚹᚢᛚᚠ (He/Him/His)
No, I think he's saying that he's tired of this sort of crap. I think he's saying he's tired of people at the very first opportunity that they can accusing him of being what is literally the most socially unacceptable thing that you can accuse people of, and that being culturally and socially "Ok" and people are afraid to even call people on it unless they are the target of the same sort of behavior. I think he's tired of people in power, part of the dominate culture, acting as if this behavior is some sort of bravery on their part when it's really no more than rudeness masquerading as virtue. And I think he's saying that even when you declare your agreement with the goals, if you criticize any part of the platform having to defend yourself from the now ubiquitous charge of "racism" is just as tiring as it is ridiculous. We're in a society where you can get away with just about any sort of infamy save the tinge of "racism" and where everyone is accused of it all the time. And it's all so much obvious hypocrisy and not actually any superior care and concern for people, but just an argumentative technique to justify what you already believe by linking it all together in one big mass where questioning any bit of it gets immediate charges of "racism".

One of the big problems that leads to this, though is that actual racists (and the like) make concerted efforts to come across as "reasonable" and "sensible" in their arguments when they're really just trolling—see sealioning. It also comes across a lot like gaslighting—making attempts to be more progressive seem like a bad thing because it offends certain people. So, it's very easy to lump someone (whow may have legitimate concerns) as being a racist/whatever because their arguments sound too much like those racists/whatever that argue in bad faith.
 

billd91

Not your screen monkey (he/him) 🇺🇦🇵🇸🏳️‍⚧️
Because we're not just talking about art in books. At least I'm not. I'm talking about alllll the discussions that happen here and elsewhere.

On Twitter, if I follow WotC or Crawford or Mearls (which I do) then I get their tweets about how diverse and inclusive they're making the brand. But I also see stuff about how WotC is apologizing for Chandra/Nissa in War of the Spark: Forsaken. I also see stuff about LGBT from ACLU and other political organizations I follow. And from friends, celebrities, actors, YouTubers, and other content creators, some of whom are very active in expanding diversity. Everybody talks about how open and inclusive they are and what they're doing for that. And it's great! I agree with all of it. I see people on both sides being ridiculously toxic and repellent, too, and that really sucks and I wish I didn't see half of what I do.

Sometimes I come here to get away from that. I come here when I'm not interested in that message anymore. I go someplace I can talk about running campaigns or designing new mechanics or talking about new classes and spells.

Sometimes you have to put up with it. You may inhabit a space in which you face the issue from many directions. But not everyone does. Some people will only really interact with it here, some just with the ACLU, some from some other single source. I’m certainly not going to ease up just because you’re getting this elsewhere - avoiding these threads, if you’re feeling over saturated, is your responsibility.
 

On that you are utterly wrong. You’re not taking into account perspective, which Azzy fairly clearly described. It’s a concerted effort from the perspective of the company - its art directors, designers, editors. It’s passive from our perspective as consumers.
The effort isnt passive. The consumer is not what was specified.
 

One of the big problems that leads to this, though is that actual racists (and the like) make concerted efforts to come across as "reasonable" and "sensible" in their arguments when they're really just trolling—see sealioning. It also comes across a lot like gaslighting—making attempts to be more progressive seem like a bad thing because it offends certain people. So, it's very easy to lump someone (whow may have legitimate concerns) as being a racist/whatever because their arguments sound too much like those racists/whatever that argue in bad faith.
Here's a novel thought. The opposed view WAS reasonable.

Another novel thought racists/sexists arent wrong by default. So if someone was identified as one, their argument would not be invalidated.

Should your argument be ignored because you accidentally used two slurs (which you assuredly did)? I think not.

Dont use "racist" and "sexist" to dismiss arguments. Its weak.

Clarification:
Racism and sexism are of course bad. This is not support for either. Do not misconstrue it as such.
 
Last edited:

generic

On that metempsychosis tweak
Here's a novel thought. The opposed view WAS reasonable.

Another novel thought racists arent wrong by default. So if someone was identified as one, their argument would not be invalidated.

Should your argument be ignored because you accidentally used two slurs? I think not.

Dont use "racist" and "sexist" to dismiss arguments. Its weak.
Those are dangerous words... I understand what you mean, but perhaps edit your post to clarify what arguments you are talking about, rather than just saying "racists can be right".

Dangerous, dangerous words...
 

Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top