Racial variety

[Turjan]

Okay, let's got through the class pics one by one:

Barbarian (Krusk): well, doesn't look like a human race (half-orc)
Bard (Gimble): Northern (gnome)
Cleric (Jozan): Hispanic
Druid (Vadania): Caucasian features, but funny colour (Half-elf)
Fighter (Tordek): Northern (dwarf)
Fighter (Regdar): African/Caucasian mix (he's definitely black in Scourge of Worlds)
Monk (Ember): African
Paladin (Alhandra): Hispanic/Arabic
Ranger (Soveliss): Hispanic/Arabic (elf)
Rogue (Lidda): Caucasian features, but funny colour (hobbit)
Sorcerer (Hennet): Caucasian, darker complexion
Wizard (Mialee): Hispanic/Arabic/African (elf)
Wizard (Nebin): Caucasian/Mediterranean (gnome)

Okay, then let's look at the racial composition of the USA from 2000:

White 75.1%, African American 12.3%, Asian 3.6%, Native Amercan 0.9%, Padific Islanders 0.1%, Other (whatever that is) 5.5%, mixed 2.4%
The percentage of Hispanic or Latino was 12.5% and is included in above statistics.

With 12 class pictures (the Barbarian does not count), there should be one and a half picture of a black/African American person. With Ember and Redgar, maybe Mialee, this seems to be fullfilled. Asian and Native Americans don't qualify (statistically, that is ), and there are none. Only the Hispanics get a bigger part than they could claim according to statistics; maybe a nod to the illegal immigrants (j/k).

Looks to me as if WotC was overly PC in this regard. Definitely no reason to complain (except as a WASP ).

Edit: I looked up what "Other" meant, and these were mostly Hispanics who were not content with "Hispanic" not being a racial category.

 

[Witness]

posted by nHammer:

So what? They're just pictures. If you read the text (which is they whole point of buying the book) you will find that the races have different skin colors. No problem...And if people base their characters appearence on what somebody else thinks a race should look like and not what the book says they usually look like, then that's their problem(or stupidity).

Well in the original situation gin described, the people in question were new to the game and likely haven't had an opportunity to read the books in detail, and shouldn't be expected to have scoured the Player's Handbook for those few lines that deal with skin color. What a newbie, or any one remotely interested in the game has done however, is picked up a PHB and flipped through the pages and seen the pictures. And if these people have had little or no experience with RPGs, much less D&D, it is no way 'stupid' for them to assume that their character should (or should not) look a certain way.

posted by Turjan:

Okay, then let's look at the racial composition of the USA from 2000:
White 75.1%, African American 12.3%, Asian 3.6%, Native Amercan 0.9%, Padific Islanders 0.1%, Other (whatever that is) 5.5%, mixed 2.4%
The percentage of Hispanic or Latino was 12.5% and is included in above statistics.
With 12 class pictures (the Barbarian does not count), there should be one and a half picture of a black/African American person. With Ember and Redgar, maybe Mialee, this seems to be fullfilled. Asian and Native Americans don't qualify (statistically, that is ), and there are none. Only the Hispanics get a bigger part than they could claim according to statistics; maybe a nod to the illegal immigrants (j/k).
Looks to me as if WotC was overly PC in this regard. Definitely no reason to complain (except as a WASP ).

First of all, noone is asking for quotas. Second of all, the debate is about NON-HUMAN races. No one is denying the diverse representations of human ethnicities in the books. Lastly, why would it, or should it be based on ethnicity in the US? D&D is played all around the world, in many countries and languages, and by people of all color. If you are going to use ethnic composition you have to look at the whole world, not just one country.

 

[LGodamus]

Lastly, why would it, or should it be based on ethnicity in the US? D&D is played all around the world, in many countries and languages, and by people of all color. If you are going to use ethnic composition you have to look at the whole world, not just one country.

Maybe because D&D originated and is produced in American and its' largest audience remains...wait for it.....................America

 

[Turjan]

First of all, noone is asking for quotas.

No, but this is an accurate way to solve the problem. Or do you want a special PHB for each and every RL human race?

Second of all, the debate is about NON-HUMAN races. No one is denying the diverse representations of human ethnicities in the books.

Look at my list. The elves in the PHB are not depicted as Northern Caucasians.

Lastly, why would it, or should it be based on ethnicity in the US? D&D is played all around the world, in many countries and languages, and by people of all color. If you are going to use ethnic composition you have to look at the whole world, not just one country.

I think you overestimate the spread of D&D over the world. D&D is more or less a U.S. game. The whole D&D background oozes typical U.S. culture. It's more or less Wild West with swords and armour. Maybe as an American you don't see that, but everyone else notices. There are not so many translations into other languages available. In Germany, for instance, it usually takes them years to bring out a translation of the core books, and it's definitely not the most popular RPG (I suppose that award goes to DSA). Depending on English language books, this obviously narrows down the spread of the game to foreign countries substantially.

 

[tarchon]

Look at my list. The elves in the PHB are not depicted as Northern Caucasians.

Like Laz or Abkhazians?
(Sorry "Caucasian" always strikes me as being an incredibly stupid way of saying "people with pale skin".)

 

[Hypersmurf]

Like Laz or Abkhazians?
(Sorry "Caucasian" always strikes me as being an incredibly stupid way of saying "people with pale skin".)

Wasn't it something like - at the time the term was coined, the inhabitants of the Caucasus were used as the definitive example of the 'type'?

-Hyp.

 

[Turjan]

Like Laz or Abkhazians?
(Sorry "Caucasian" always strikes me as being an incredibly stupid way of saying "people with pale skin".)

I just try my best to keep this discussion as PC as possible. In principle I share your view that this is somewhat ridiculous. It makes calling seniors old an insult, although it's a simple matter of fact.
Anyway, calling Caucasians "white" doesn't fit the bill. Actually, Caucasians show all skin colours, from pale white to pitch black. Just think of the dark brown of East Indians or the pitch black of Ethiopians.

 

[tarchon]

Wasn't it something like - at the time the term was coined, the inhabitants of the Caucasus were used as the definitive example of the 'type'.

Johann Blumenbach coined the term - the basic category is no longer considred to be biologically meaningful by most anthropologists, but it persists in the popular imagination (http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/full/125/8/675). Blumenbach had some weird "thing" about people from the Caucasus, which led him to take them as the fundamental model for the "race." I recall reading somewhere that there was one skull of a Caucasian women to which he had a peculiar attachment.

 

[tarchon]

I just try my best to keep this discussion as PC as possible. In principle I share your view that this is somewhat ridiculous. It makes calling seniors old an insult, although it's a simple matter of fact.
Anyway, calling Caucasians "white" doesn't fit the bill. Actually, Caucasians show all skin colours, from pale white to pitch black. Just think of the dark brown of East Indians or the pitch black of Ethiopians.

So how do you know who's a "Caucasian" and who isn't?

 

[Turjan]

So how do you know who's a "Caucasian" and who isn't?

I think, you can either use morphological or genetical approaches. If you look at face morphology, you will see that Ethiopians don't differ from other Caucasians, it's just a dark skin colour.
The genetical approach is much easier. I think, most researchers agree on the African origin of the human species. Because the African continent has harboured humans for the longest time of all continents, Africans (as a race, i.e. referring to black people) are genetically very diverse. They would qualify as several different race groups. Caucasians on the other hand are genetically nearly identical. This reflects the relatively short time of their development from one single ancestor group. Asians are genetically closely related to Caucasians. The genetical difference between Asians and Caucasians is negligible compared to the large variety among African peoples.
Btw., genetically Ethiopians are about an even mix of Caucasian and Negroid genes. This means, you can place them into both groups, if you so desire.