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

[mmadsen]

Some of the posts especially MMadsen's last one comes across like if you're playing a fantasy RPG if you're not white you HAVE to justify your existence in the game.

I feel like you're reading in a lot of things I didn't write.

I will say, yes, if you want to play an African knight of Gondor or rider of Rohan, that takes some explaining.

If you're playing in a game world with kingdoms whose rulers live in castles, with walls covered in tapestries, and who ride out on war horses while clad in mail and carrying lances, etc., that is thematically medieval Europe, and I see nothing wrong with populating that land entirely with white people. I don't think it's racist or insensitive.

I also see nothing wrong with a made-up world with made-up races and cultures that don't closely resemble medieval Europe, etc. It gives up the resonance of Arthur's England or Tolkien's Middle Earth, but it works in its own way. You don't have to follow ERB's model of red men, black men, etc.; that's just a clear way of saying that the races involved don't correspond to real-world races and cultures.

Again though, if you go half-way and present a place like Arthur's England, but with a rainbow of different races from Imperial Britain's many colonies, that's jarring; it's "forced".

 

[eyebeams]

Perhaps you should read the whole post.

Everything doesn't have to be analogs, but if you're going to use analogs, you should probably be consistent; otherwise there's not much point.

If you are consistent, there's not much point in an analogue without Christianity, either. The inventiveness required to make something medieval Europe-like appear without it is at least equal to the inventiveness required to tweak demographics.

If you want to eschew real-world races and cultures entirely, that's perfectly fine -- but you're also giving up the obvious thematic resonance of a land like Arthur's England, etc.

That'd be the place where legends have less-pale knights, right? I mean, can anybody cite a passage in a single Arthurian legend where the ethnic demographics of the peasantry mattered at all to the story? You lose way more Arthuriana without Christianity then without Dark Ages English peasant demographics.

It's when you go half-way in between that things get silly -- a quasi-medieval English countryside with modern London demographics.

By this standard, it's equally silly without Jesus, the Normans and wars over France. There is apparently a huge amount of "silliness" people are willing to accept. Drawing the line at ethnicity is a distasteful bias.

I, personally, would like more hot tranny art in my D&D, especially Drow.

If the drow are like many other cultures with strong gender-based role segregation, it would in fact be entirely plausible to have people routinely adopt gender roles different from their physical sex, and for there to be formal traditions around doing so. It happens all the time.

 

[Wyrmshadows]

And yet Dark Sun, even with these analogs felt no need to define skin color by them. Another thing about "historic analogs" is they can be used as justification for exclusion or minimization. Analogs are just that, analogs... not historical recreations. Exalted has analogs and easily incorporates differing ethnicities, Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms, Eberron, etc. all have reasons for diversity within their settings.

No, no, no.

Don't even begin to claim that those who, like myself, desire a little versimilitude want to exclude or minimize anyone or anything. That, if I may say so, is crap. If someone were to look at the history of Athas, I would assume that different human groups became blended together in the great wars that rocked the planet many year before. I am sure that the peoples of Gulg came from somewhere other than those of Draj, Tyr and Nibenay. These groups become ethnically and culturally blended in a way that makes sense. They weren't merely arbirary add ons to the pseudo-europe that is traditional western fantasy. Athas worked preceisely because it wasn't traditional and cannot be used as an argument against my point.

Traditional western fantasy is an analogue of a medieval pseudo-european world...not of a single european nation, but of a broad fictionalized europe the same way Al Qadim was a broad fictionalized analogue of the middle east. Non traditional worlds don't have analogues and therefore can do as they wish.

What's hillarious to me is people keep pulling out a need for justification... well it's there in the campaign settings and in the description of the races in the corebooks, so why is a pseudo real world analogy necessary for it to appear in the artwork? I haven't seen anyone address this issue who keeps talking of justification and it'll shatter the simulation of psedo-europe that D&D strives so hard to emulate .

In the core books, I am all in favor of non-euro ethnic types in western gear for the sake of the demographics of the audience (asians in plate mail, africans in Gandalf's robes, etc.) *I know there are no asians and africans but I prefer these terms to just speaking in terms of skin color because some would be offended.

In settings that do have specific cultural/ethnic realities I want to see the art reflect those realities. In a book on northern barbarians, I expect to see a bunch of armor clad, axe weilding white guys and I feel the same regarding any such regional artwork.


Wyrmshadows

 

[mmadsen]

If you are consistent, there's not much point in an analogue without Christianity, either. The inventiveness required to make something medieval Europe-like appear without it is at least equal to the inventiveness required to tweak demographics.

The Arthurian tales go from pagan tales of great warriors to Christian tales of pious knights, but, sure, you'd want a "knights in shining armor" setting to involve pious knights who fight in the name of a merciful god. That has always been the point of the D&D paladin -- although I'll agree that the polytheistic setting assumptions don't work well with it.

I mean, can anybody cite a passage in a single Arthurian legend where the ethnic demographics of the peasantry mattered at all to the story?

What could anyone conceivably provide you that would satisfy you on that point? Seriously. Of course the peasant demographics aren't mentioned in any story, because everyone knows the peasants are dirty, white farmers.

If we injected some black sharecroppers into an Arthurian tale, they would be laughably out of place.

By this standard, it's equally silly without Jesus, the Normans and wars over France.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this.

Another thing about "historic analogs" is they can be used as justification for exclusion or minimization.

I hope you realize how insulting that is. Playing in, say, a "white" Middle Earth is just an excuse for exclusion or minimization?

Who are these sinister people whose primary agenda in producing an RPG setting is to exclude and minimize other races? And why do these same people often enjoy playing non-white characters in games set in non-white settings?

 

[Imaro]

No, no, no.

Don't even begin to claim that those who, like myself, desire a little versimilitude want to exclude or minimize anyone or anything. That, if I may say so, is crap. If someone were to look at the history of Athas, I would assume that different human groups became blended together in the great wars that rocked the planet many year before. I am sure that the peoples of Gulg came from somewhere other than those of Draj, Tyr and Nibenay. These groups become ethnically and culturally blended in a way that makes sense. They weren't merely arbirary add ons to the pseudo-europe that is traditional western fantasy. Athas worked preceisely because it wasn't traditional and cannot be used as an argument against my point.

Traditional western fantasy is an analogue of a medieval pseudo-european world...not of a single european nation, but of a broad fictionalized europe the same way Al Qadim was a broad fictionalized analogue of the middle east. Non traditional worlds don't have analogues and therefore can do as they wish.




In the core books, I am all in favor of non-euro ethnic types in western gear for the sake of the demographics of the audience (asians in plate mail, africans in Gandalf's robes, etc.) *I know there are no asians and africans but I prefer these terms to just speaking in terms of skin color because some would be offended.

In settings that do have specific cultural/ethnic realities I want to see the art reflect those realities. In a book on northern barbarians, I expect to see a bunch of armor clad, axe weilding white guys and I feel the same regarding any such regional artwork.


Wyrmshadows

First Wyrmshadow, my above comment wasn't directed at you but a comment on how these types of things (like minimization) can be justified with arguments of verisimilitude even when we're talking about fantasy that isn't based in those tropes, like D&D.

I mean the hardest thing I'm having trouble grasping is those using the "it's not realistic to medieval europe" argument... especially since by the descriptions in the 4e book it isn't medieval europe and the difference in skin color is for the default (and in fact most campaign settings) of D&D very much justified. I am not talking about a person's individual homebrew...I am talking default D&D, so again I ask why would diversified art break peoples suspension of disbelief in the D&D corebooks or generic supplements

 

[Wyrmshadows]

If you are consistent, there's not much point in an analogue without Christianity, either. The inventiveness required to make something medieval Europe-like appear without it is at least equal to the inventiveness required to tweak demographics.

Religion is not a genetic reality the way racial variance is. Racial/ethnic variance is dependant on climate and geography while religion, Christianity is a case in point, can transcend its origins and through cultural pressures become a more universal spiritual expression.

Any religion can take root anywhere depending on the times and social climate.

That'd be the place where legends have less-pale knights, right? I mean, can anybody cite a passage in a single Arthurian legend where the ethnic demographics of the peasantry mattered at all to the story? You lose way more Arthuriana without Christianity then without Dark Ages English peasant demographics.

Much of the basic socio economic realities of the medieval period would have exsited even if Christianity didn't. It isn't Christianity per se, but the medieval church and its value system that matters. Any fantasy religion with similar values could be hot swapped with Christianity with similar resuts.

By this standard, it's equally silly without Jesus, the Normans and wars over France. There is apparently a huge amount of "silliness" people are willing to accept. Drawing the line at ethnicity is a distasteful bias.

We are taking about analogues...not recreating historical events. Actually discussions of ethnicity/race have much more to do with fundamental issues of anthropology than with history because humans are assumed to be humans no matter what the setting...the histories are different, but the nature of humanity generally stays the same.



Wyrmshadows

 

[Cadfan]

If we injected some black sharecroppers into an Arthurian tale, they would be laughably out of place.

No one is disagreeing with this per se. We're disagreeing with your insistence upon declaring generic Dungeons and Dragons to be inextricably Arthurian, and then using that to justify whitewashing a fantasy world.

It is sad that even in an imaginary world, this guy is just too much for people to handle.

 

[ShinHakkaider]

I feel like you're reading in a lot of things I didn't write.

Okay.

ME: Some of the posts especially MMadsen's last one comes across like if you're playing a fantasy RPG if you're not white you HAVE to justify your existence in the game.

YOU:

I will say, yes, if you want to play an African knight of Gondor or rider of Rohan, that takes some explaining.

ME:Some of the posts especially MMadsen's last one comes across like if you're playing a fantasy RPG if you're not white you HAVE to justify your existence in the game.

YOU:

If you're playing in a game world with kingdoms whose rulers live in castles, with walls covered in tapestries, and who ride out on war horses while clad in mail and carrying lances, etc., that is thematically medieval Europe, and I see nothing wrong with populating that land entirely with white people. I don't think it's racist or insensitive.

NOTE: Thematically medieval Europe. Not actually medieval Europe. Either way you've pretty much said that it's a world that would be closed off to my character.

ME:Some of the posts especially MMadsen's last one comes across like if you're playing a fantasy RPG if you're not white you HAVE to justify your existence in the game.

YOU: Bolded for Emphasis.

I also see nothing wrong with a made-up world with made-up races and cultures that don't closely resemble medieval Europe, etc. It gives up the resonance of Arthur's England or Tolkien's Middle Earth, but it works in its own way. You don't have to follow ERB's model of red men, black men, etc.; that's just a clear way of saying that the races involved don't correspond to real-world races and cultures.

So if I want to play a character that looks like me, it's better off that he's a made up race and not a real world race? Gotcha.

ME:Some of the posts especially MMadsen's last one comes across like if you're playing a fantasy RPG if you're not white you HAVE to justify your existence in the game.

YOU:

Again though, if you go half-way and present a place like Arthur's England, but with a rainbow of different races from Imperial Britain's many colonies, that's jarring; it's "forced".

I dont see how am I misunderstanding your point.

I'd like to play a character who looks like me in a D&D fantasy RPG. You've said repeatedly that my character would seem forced in anything that would resemble "Arthur's England" or "medieval Europe". So by your own admission if the world that my character is in is close to those two, his existence needs to be justified or his existence in these worlds are "forced".

 

[Cadfan]

Religion is not a genetic reality the way racial variance is. Racial/ethnic variance is dependant on climate and geography while religion, Christianity is a case in point, can transcend its origins and through cultural pressures become a more universal spiritual expression.

Any religion can take root anywhere depending on the times and social climate.

Of course religion isn't a genetic reality. You know what else isn't a genetic reality? The correspondence between plate armor and lances with caucasian skin.

 

[mmadsen]

We're disagreeing with your insistence upon declaring generic Dungeons and Dragons to be inextricably Arthurian...

I have explicitly said the opposite:

I will say, yes, if you want to play an African knight of Gondor or rider of Rohan, that takes some explaining.

If you're playing in a game world with kingdoms whose rulers live in castles, with walls covered in tapestries, and who ride out on war horses while clad in mail and carrying lances, etc., that is thematically medieval Europe, and I see nothing wrong with populating that land entirely with white people. I don't think it's racist or insensitive.

I also see nothing wrong with a made-up world with made-up races and cultures that don't closely resemble medieval Europe, etc. It gives up the resonance of Arthur's England or Tolkien's Middle Earth, but it works in its own way. You don't have to follow ERB's model of red men, black men, etc.; that's just a clear way of saying that the races involved don't correspond to real-world races and cultures.

Again though, if you go half-way and present a place like Arthur's England, but with a rainbow of different races from Imperial Britain's many colonies, that's jarring; it's "forced".​

It is sad that even in an imaginary world, this guy is just too much for people to handle.

Too much to handle? The character just doesn't fit. If you want to create a fantasy world where sub-Saharan African blacks wear plate armor in the style of medieval French or English knights, go right ahead, but it's obviously jarring -- and it's presumably intended to be.