Racially diverse artwork in D&D...does it influence you?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Anyway, my point was not that all non-whites should be expunged from quasi-medieval fantasies, just that it would be silly to include 21st-century American demographics in such a setting.
I don't believe the Dungeons & Dragons settings published these days are or should be quasi-medieval.

The moor as a traveler makes sense, handwaving that Morgan Freeman's people were as native to England as Locksley's kin would be absurd. It would be absurd unless there was the assumption of a migration of tropical people to England in bygone days. If so, fine. But the handwaving of things for the sake of an artificial diversity isn't diversity at all.
Let me ask you this: do you require players who want to play a blond or redheaded character in a D&D analogue of medieval England to "justify" why someone with such an egregiously non-native ethnic appearance was around, or do you just accept that their ancestors showed up a couple of hundred years earlier?
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

Here's the thing:

* The quote that won the thread, won the thread.

* Even if you dismiss that, there are many, many instances where less-pale folks traveled to and lived throughout much of Europe -- more than is commonly believed, it seems. Plus of course, the medieval European cultural sphere included many places that were pretty cosmopolitan, and there were cosmopolitan areas that bordered it. The idea that one could not construct a varied demographic in a fantasy setting when the sources are there is ludicrous -- and that's assuming quasi-historicity is important to you, which is a questionable motive when there are elves and teleportation and an odd form of polytheism that never really existed and would have created a vastly different society if it ever did.

* Our current conception of race is relatively recent (and informed by appalling history and its vile cultural remnants, no less), making it very difficult to make definitive statements in a number of instances where people in the past did not think as we did. Europeans didn't even use the word "black" to talk about the specific range of skin tones we often assume. They didn't pay much attention to skin tone or ethic accuracy in art, either, and didn't spend a lot of time writing about it.

* In general, a lot of things some people think they know, they don't know. While a relatively fixed selection of people travelled regularly in the Middle Ages, they travelled a lot, and cultures were not as isolated as people often assume. Also, they were close to your average height and probably had better teeth than you for most of the period.

* There's been a ton of goalpost shifting in this thread. Apparently, to justify black dwarves we must now examine the panoply of human history to find a suitable parallel. What's the motive for this? It bugs me.

* The "black samurai" thing also bugs me because it's rhetorical dirty pool. Japan was unique in closing its borders for centuries, so it's not a fit example for the argument. Plus, people almost never mean "samurai" when they use it in an RPG character context. They mean a dude with a katana -- just like nobody really means "knight" in the sense of the very expensive, feudally obligated, part-human weapons system.
 

Here's the thing:

* Even if you dismiss that, there are many, many instances where less-pale folks traveled to and lived throughout much of Europe -- more than is commonly believed, it seems. Plus of course, the medieval European cultural sphere included many places that were pretty cosmopolitan, and there were cosmopolitan areas that bordered it. The idea that one could not construct a varied demographic in a fantasy setting when the sources are there is ludicrous -- and that's assuming quasi-historicity is important to you, which is a questionable motive when there are elves and teleportation and an odd form of polytheism that never really existed and would have created a vastly different society if it ever did.

There were less pale folks living in Europe in the Dark/Middle Ages but if they were natives of Europe they varied in skin tone between fair skinned nordics and darker mediterranians. These types were native to Europe because of the climate of Europe. Others dwelling in Europe at the time were a miniscule minority compared to the natives and the ancestors of the non-natives themselves developed in climates and environments different than that of Europe ergo they looked different.

* Our current conception of race is relatively recent (and informed by appalling history and its vile cultural remnants, no less), making it very difficult to make definitive statements in a number of instances where people in the past did not think as we did. Europeans didn't even use the word "black" to talk about the specific range of skin tones we often assume. They didn't pay much attention to skin tone or ethic accuracy in art, either, and didn't spend a lot of time writing about it.

* There's been a ton of goalpost shifting in this thread. Apparently, to justify black dwarves we must now examine the panoply of human history to find a suitable parallel. What's the motive for this? It bugs me.

Lets not call into question the motives of those of us who prefer not to handwave differences in coloration and culture and have our fantasy cultures blended together into a homogenous brew that would actually make the entire setting, from nation to nation and place to place the same. You can go with the "gods did it" I'll go with tribal/cutural migration patterns.

* In general, a lot of things some people think they know, they don't know. While a relatively fixed selection of people travelled regularly in the Middle Ages, they travelled a lot, and cultures were not as isolated as people often assume. Also, they were close to your average height and probably had better teeth than you for most of the period.

True but it was a very, very small number of well traveled cosmoplitan types compared to the number of people who never traveled more than a few miles from their villages. I have said in multiple posts on this thread that great trading centers would be ideal for a diverse blending of human racial/ethinic groups and customes. Outside of the centers of trade, nations were far more homogenous than not.


* The "black samurai" thing also bugs me because it's rhetorical dirty pool. Japan was unique in closing its borders for centuries, so it's not a fit example for the argument. Plus, people almost never mean "samurai" when they use it in an RPG character context. They mean a dude with a katana -- just like nobody really means "knight" in the sense of the very expensive, feudally obligated, part-human weapons system.

It doesn't matter, the european references are rife throughout all of D&D fantasy. Just because there are wierd anomalies like the monk and a katana or two in the settings there is no doubt that the primary cultural assumptions of the core D&D experience is western ie. European fantasy a la Tolkien, Howard, Lieber, etc. A token weapon, class, piece of armor, etc. does real cultural blending make. There are knights, kings, dukes, western armor types, primarily western weapons (outside of those that are fantastic and even they cannot be assigned to another culture outside of the western imagination), Tolkienish elves, dwarves, orcs. There are the western folklore trolls, ogres, goblins, hobgoblins, gnomes, etc. There are of course those fantastic creatures outside the folklore of any culture and the random token critter from another land ie. the ogre mage which would have been an oni. Even the golden dragon has gotten away from the wingless oriental creature it once was.

I am not saying that D&D's western european vision is in any way accurate, but I am saying that is still strongly and primarily a western ie. european fantasy vision. This is neither good nor bad, it simply is the reality.

Would anyone really want to see a reissue of Oriental Adventures of Rokugan with a bunch of white guys dressed up like shou lin monks, kensai, and samurai? Would anyone want to see the creation of an Aztek/Mayan setting made to be inhabited by Asians (I know these folks came over the land bridge from asia but you get my meaning)? Maybe you would, but I would bet that such abominations would not sell. Al Qadim was Al Qadim because it was Arabic (with some African types in the art as well because of the historic proximity of such cultures/ethnicities). I don't want the great sultan of the desert nomads to be white for the sake of diversity. If he is going to be white make it something interesting because he is an oddity.

Why can't the various racial/cultural groups be valued unto themselves in a fantasy millieu instead of being artificially and arbitrarily made to fit into western fantasy/folkloric realities. The real world had enough examples of ethnic mixing where there was trade between peoples where such interchanges were both believable and satisfying. There is no reason to toss out real diversity just because it is fantasy. All good fiction, even fantasy has a baseline of plausability in regards to things that are non-fantastic.


Let me ask you this: do you require players who want to play a blond or redheaded character in a D&D analogue of medieval England to "justify" why someone with such an egregiously non-native ethnic appearance was around, or do you just accept that their ancestors showed up a couple of hundred years earlier?

In the game settings we have all used (the published ones anyway) had histories of tribal migrations and a semblance of reality regarding ethnic distributions of humans. Greyhawk, Harn, Kalamar, FR, etc. all had notes as to the distribution of various tribal groups and by default the distribution of human racial characteristics.

The exception is not the rule and it is silly for folks to try to rationalize everything through the exception to the rule. Even in blondest communities there are brunettes and vice versa. African, European and Arab lands do NOT ever "pop out" random full blooded Asians...doesn't happen unless there is a mixed ethnic reality which will lead to cultural mixing as well. I am pretty sure that the entire world isn't fantasy quasi-europe so in any ethinically mixed society we should see evidence of other CULTURES coming together and not just randomly placed europeans who just happen to have different skin colors. The cosmopolitan hubs that are sparked by cross-culteral trade are the exception and not the rules. Most nations are homogenous outside of trade capitals and great cities.

If we are going to be diverse, be diverse with some depth and not just the United Colors of Benneton aound Arthur's Round Table. Lets see the actual influence of various cultures in clothing, custom, armor, weapons, laws, etc. (just having katanas lying around isn't Asian culture) and not just non-europeans in western fantasy (faux medieval european) armor/clothing. Lets see lords in a western based society picking up customs like the harem. How about eastern meditative spiritual practices adapted and adopted by priests of Bahamut (not the monk...real clerics with that flavor). Lets see the the influence of actual cultures on the traditional D&D settings and not just the token non-european face here and there.

In my setting, where there is high degrees of mixing between human ethnicities, it isn't just black, yellow, red, and brown faces mixining with white faces, it is actual cultural realities. The exchange of customs, mores, and paradigms is what makes this mixing more than a PC tolerance exercise. This honors both a sense of believability in the settings as well as honoring real diversity.



Wyrmshadows
 
Last edited:

In my own fantasy setting work, I try to mix things up as best I can and make sure things make sense, while providing an identification outlet, particularly since I hope to eventually publish with it.

I have made an effort to establish distinct cultures with the non-human races as well as the various ancestries of humans, all of it being wholly non-mechanical, of course, but for humans I have four "mega-cultures," which roughly correspond to their appearance, but with a great deal of bleed-through due to migrating populations. There are numerous cosmopolitan centers, almost to the point of being a rule once you have a full-sized city, with tribalism being stuck more with, well, tribes. Within them, they range from small, primitive villages, to epic civilizations, from mudhuts to crystal palaces, as it were. The four human cultures run, roughly, as follows:

Culture 1: Tan-skinned and brown-haired, with a broad range and a tendency for freckles and other interesting mottling, this culture formed from an island-hopping, boat-based lifestyle, in temperate to subtropical waters. Their pigmentation is thus in the middle ground, because while they can get a lot of sun exposure at sea, they also have plenty of access to shady island foliage. Their eyes are generally blue, to better handle the glaring blue of the sea.

Culture 2: Pale-skinned but quick to tan, blond but occasionally red-haired, and universally green-eyed, this culture's appearance largely results from the severity of their cultural habits -- the culture is based on a deep self-loathing for their own humanity, which generally leads them to either adopt totem animals, or to worship an ideal along the lines of immortality through petrification. They wear masks, cover their bodies at least in paint, but cloth when they can, and the culture is largely split between jungle-dwelling hunter/gatherers, and those who dwell in stone-carved cities in which they stride around in robes, like something out of the Neverending Story. Their bodies basically just gave up on persistent pigmentation due to the rarity of good and proper sun exposure, and the lack of effect that coloration could have on general survival.

Culture 3: Dark-skinned, dark-haired, eye color tending toward brown but having plenty of variety, this culture dominates the blazing-hot, arid planes and steppes, where horses and minerals are abundant. As a middle finger to the historic spite of the farmer's tan in all cultures, dark skin is a mark of prestige in this culture, because it's proof that you don't spend all your days digging in the mines or covered in armor. It's also associated with the richness of soil and general good health and prosperity, while paleness is associated with bones and death and poverty. Their culture tends to range between ancestor worship and prestige worship, ala Ancient Greece.

Culture 4: Pale-skinned, dark-haired, gray-eyed with that tell-tale almond shape to reduce fog glare, this culture is, quite simply, inspired by those Frazetta pictures of women holding spears while hanging out with large cats. They dwell on a long, foggy coastal area, with their society tending to be more complex as it goes inland and uphill, to where the mists are pierced by their towers. Their pale skin helps get in what sun is available when the fog parts, while their dark hair is vaguely useful for making them more visible in the fog, which is rather useful since their culture tends to rely on spears and halberds -- you don't want to accidentally poke someone in the back of the head. Their culture tends to revolve around patience, due to fishing and having to walk slow carefully to keep from falling into holes, relaxation, and the arts that can survive constant moisture in the air. Scarves of various length are a culture-wide accessory, with various patterns, and are often treated like Scottish tartan patterns, and came about due to the ancient use of netting as an extra layer of clothing for those chilly early morning fishing trips. They also ride large cats, ala He-Man, though they have to feed them red meat to get them big enough - the all-fish diet that commoners give their cats don't get them any bigger than large dogs, leaving the battlecat cavalry in the hands of royals and the rich. Which is just fine because jousting is nasty business on a foggy beach.

Copyright me etc. :P

And, of course, if a player wants another option for appearance, guess what, daddy wore a mask and momma rode a horse and so yes you can have mocha skin and flaming red hair or whatever else.

It shouldn't be hard to pick out the references to real world cultures there, but nobody could accuse me of pigeon-holing anyone into a niche. The whole "It's like a stereotype of the dark ages near London, but different!" thing doesn't appeal to me unless we're actually playing a game IN London.
 

Christians were captured by two methods. First, there was the seizing of ships by straightforward piracy. The ship itself became a prize along with its crew and passengers. Second, there were raids on the coasts of European countries. Spain, France, and Italy were worst affected, but the pirates sometimes ventured further afield. In 1627 they kidnapped 400 men and women from Iceland.

The victims in either case would be taken back to one of the Barbary ports — the main ones were Algiers, Tunis, and Tripoli — and sold in a slave market, by auction. They ended up either as the domestic slaves of private persons, or as slaves owned by the state, to be put to work rowing galleys, or constructing public works. The first of these two fates was usually preferable, as there was some chance of humanity from a private owner. Prof. Davis’s account of the lives of galley slaves is hard to read, and state slaves employed on public works were not much better off. There was no large-scale private-enterprise slavery as in the plantations of the Old South. The North African states had little commercial culture.


I'm already thinking of how I'm going to spend my reparations.
 

I am personally multi-racial (African American, Caucasian, and Cherokee) and I think that a decent amount of racial diversity in artwork is a good thing.

However, let me say upfront that if I am running a game in a traditionally Europeanesque Western Fantasy setting than I am going to presuppose that most of the NPCs are white people. In the heartlands of FR, Greyhawk, and most every fantasy setting the default is caucasian European features as the baseline.

I am ok with this because it adds versimilitude if one is running with the European default assumptions of the standard D&D/Western fantasy campaign.
Agree. However I'd like to point out that Greyhawk isn't a "white world." The original continent of Oerik was inhabited by the Flan (hence Flanaess) who are not white. So the common playing territory isn't a white continent. It's a shared (not really, humans don't share) continent. The Amedio jungle is populated by the Olman while the jungle island of Hepmonaland is populated by the Touv. The Free City of Greyhawk has a population of Renee wanderers (gypsies) that are unrelated to any human race on Oerth. It's also important to note that Kara Tur was stolen from GH like all of the nonhuman deities.
 

We both know there is a geographical and climatalogical reason for different skin colors and I see no reason to pretend that those realities aren't part of anything but the most absurd fantasies.

Well, you can use fantasy logic rather than real-world logic; like the Wilderlands' blue-skinned Avalonians with affinity to water & ice or green Viridians descended from a water god. Maybe humans descended from the god of the day have white skin and humans descended from the god of the night have black skin. Maybe when they interbreed their children have stripey zebra skin! :cool:

Let me ask you this: do you require players who want to play a blond or redheaded character in a D&D analogue of medieval England to "justify" why someone with such an egregiously non-native ethnic appearance was around, or do you just accept that their ancestors showed up a couple of hundred years earlier?

There are blond and red headed indigenous folk in England. Red is more common on the Celtic fringe, blond is found throughout.
 
Last edited:

Anyway, my point was not that all non-whites should be expunged from quasi-medieval fantasies, just that it would be silly to include 21st-century American demographics in such a setting.

Oh, i agree with this. My whole point is that there should be more minority characters in the foreground. Things like demographics and racial population breakdown... those are background details, they're really utterly insignificant in most cases. We can assume, if we like, that even though the artwork in the rulebooks features people who look african and asian and persian and so on, that pretty much everyone in the background is whatever color you like.

But when we're talking about the heroes, the actual stars, the people being focused on, they should be multicultural. Because they should in some way represent the audience.

I don't want to come to anyone's house and tell them that they have to have every village filled with diverse ethnicities. All I'm saying is the rulebooks should have ethnically diverse artwork if they want to attract an ethnically diverse audience.
 


Well, you can use fantasy logic rather than real-world logic; like the Wilderlands' blue-skinned Avalonians with affinity to water & ice or green Viridians descended from a water god. Maybe humans descended from the god of the day have white skin and humans descended from the god of the night have black skin.

This is what I was thinking, why the heck does a skin colour have to have a scientific reason for being where they are? people with dark skin in an artic environment their hunters use a natural flower pigment to blend in against the snow.

A pale skin race could exist in the desert and not be bothered by the excessive sun, but why the melonin!! I hear you cry, pffft tis magic or things just don't work like that :p

People look like whatever you want them to look like, if your going for a campaign setting your producing you can go the whole jarring (according to our stereotypes and preconceptions see my post on page 9), dark skinned people in kimono's, who wear metal plate armor, have a Theocracy based society, and a didgeridoo style instrument is the height of musical entertainment, there is simply no way this couldn't happen :)

but then again you can go for a human culture of pale skinned humans who wear plate armor, and go hunting and celebrate victorys with massive feasts, they are ruled by a Monarchy.

Both can exist, this isn't the case of one is right and the other is not.

Yet again I say there is no reason not to have racially diverse art depicted in the core rulebooks of D&D (it is a fantasy game after all), however a campaign setting can and should have its own flavour, either leaning on stereotypes or blowing conventions out of the water or somewhere inbetween :p
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Remove ads

Top