• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

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

Coroc

Hero
To explain it differently; if someone you know is making an argument to justify their own selfish/immoral POV, you're free to disregard their argument as they aren't actually making it in good faith; their making the argument not because they actually agree with it (it doesn't even matter if they do), they are making it so that they can continue their selfish immoral ways.

Darth Sidious argues that the Jedi and Republic are fragile and innefective at providing peace and stability to the galaxy. But he doesn't actually care about peace or stability (he is literally the architect of a civil war that kills millions), what he cares about is being in charge. So whether or not he's actually correct is irrelevant, because he's a very bad man and should get thrown into a reactor.

A cannibal can argue that eating humans is a very good source of protein and nutrients, and that it would help cut back on overpopulation. But he's making that argument because he wants to keep eating people, not because he actually cares about overpopulation. If his argument was incorrect, he'd just find a different one to justify his underlying beliefs.

I like your examples, but there is one point I miss and that is probably what @Son of the Serpent wants to say:

You are judging (rightfully) the bad intentions of Darth Sidious and the cannibal to be covering up for their evil acts.

Still, this does not make their claims invalid or untrue, because peace and stability is overall considered a good thing, and the analysis of Jedi and Republic are fragile is to the point.
And although it is very amorally to think about cannibalism as a way to reduce overpopulation and human meat as a protein source, the facts presented are nevertheless true (Although morally absolutely questionable).

In a discussion it is the facts presented if you want to convince a logic thinking individual, it is never the person presenting the facts. If the facts presented by an unhonest individual are true nevertheless it would be foolish to ignore them just out of principle.

Let us take this further, you got two sides discussing, one is known to have a good reputation upstanding morales and be truthful, the other is the opposite.

And for whatever reason the truthful side has got the facts for the specific topic wrong, be it of misinformation, strong dogma or whatever. Furthermore the opposite side got the facts right and presents them with or without second thought, it does not matter.
Both sides try to convince two different neutrals observing the dispute which is about something totally morally neutral.
One of them is a logic thinker the other a individual relying on his instincts.
Then a logical thinking observant will be able to conclude that the "evil" side has got the facts right.
The observant who relies on his inner feelings or dogma or something other will judge the book by its cover and take sides with the "good" side, no matter the facts presented are wrong.

If those two observers start to dispute afterwards, the logical thinker will tell his analysis of the facts to be true, whereas the instinctive observer will try to convince the logical thinker that he is in the wrong, basically because the (Still true) facts were presented by an evil individual not trustworthy etc.

I do not know if this is a fact, it is just my personal experience, which has shown me that more often than not, people rely on their instincts rather than logics, in other words people are sometimes easily fooled by wrong facts because it is the easy and "feel good" option.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
Supporter
You are judging (rightfully) the bad intentions of Darth Sidious and the cannibal to be covering up for their evil acts.

"The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong. But, that's the way to bet."

In a discussion it is the facts presented if you want to convince a logic thinking individual, it is never the person presenting the facts. If the facts presented by an unhonest individual are true nevertheless it would be foolish to ignore them just out of principle.

It is also foolish to approach a discussion as if we are on the planet Vulcan, because we aren't. Humans are not really all that logical in our moment-to-moment thinking.

Moreover, we are not generally seeing "facts" presented here. We are seeing assertions and opinions. It is reasonable (and arguably logical) to base provisional acceptance of unsupported assertions upon the measure of trust you have in the speaker.

If the speaker has revealed that they think the Earth is flat, they have shown their judgement to be questionable. A reasonable and rational person should, in terms of risk assessment, take further assertions by such a person with a grain of salt.

From there, all we really need is to alter how we report that - "I'm sorry, but since you say X, I have a hard time believing Y without seeing further independent support."
 

Let us not pretend that fantasy content is not written and consumed in the context of a real world, and a reader with experiences. Fantasy world are not truly alien, and the authors are making use of the cultural contexts of the reader, either through comparison or contrast with that real world.

They are not truly alien, but gender and racial segregation aren't truly alien to our historical culture either. You could be a female warrior in the Middle Ages (Joan of Arc) but it was certainly more difficult to join an army than if you were male. As BrokenTwin pointed out, if there is no setting, having art depicting the wide possibilities of the toolkit is a good (and even expected) thing, but if there is a setting, it shouldn't depict real life's expectation, it should depict the setting'. If playing during WWI in the trenches, it's safe to expect the default soldier to be depicted as male and the default nurse as female. Such pictures would say nothing of the mindset of the author and drawer with regard to the current, real world.

The same should then follow for groups of people - they are fantasy people, but we have reasonable expectation for them to be relatable - like the real world. Or, that lack of relation to the real world explained in some way.

And if your explanation isn't there, or doesn't hold together, that's a problem.

Indeed, the explanation must match the setting description and the accompanying picture. When people are playing in fantasy middle ages, my guess is that they are projecting what they know of the middle ages to the fantasy society, seldom adjusting for fantasy races and magic being real. I guess many are basically imagining a faux-medieval world with added fireballs. There was no She-Knight of the Round Table and we don't find the Arthurian cycle unrelatable. Most D&D fantasy settings, on the other hand, takes an explicitely egalitarian approach and emphasize gender equality: based on this premise, it's logical that they depict much more mixed groups. And that's to be expected. And it would be expected that the setting doesn't depicts female warriors as Eowyn-like characters overcoming the social conventions, since they are in a world where equality is the norm.

It's not only gender, it's also race: if the setting states that Elfs and Dwarves hate each other, I would find strange to see most adventuring group featuring and Elf AND a Dwarf in the illustration of the game.
 
Last edited:

Oofta

Legend
They are not truly alien, but gender and racial segregation aren't truly alien to our historical culture either. You could be a female warrior in the Middle Ages (Joan of Arc) but it was certainly more difficult to join an army than if you were male. As BrokenTwin pointed out, if there is no setting, having art depicting the wide possibilities of the toolkit is a good (and even expected) thing, but if there is a setting, it shouldn't depict real life's expectation, it should depict the setting'. If playing during WWI in the trenches, it's safe to expect the default soldier to be depicted as male and the default nurse as female. Such pictures would say nothing of the mindset of the author and drawer with regard to the current, real world.



Indeed, the explanation must match the setting description and the accompanying picture. When people are playing in fantasy middle ages, my guess is that they are projecting what they know of the middle ages to the fantasy society, seldom adjusting for fantasy races and magic being real. I guess many are basically imagining a faux-medieval world with added fireballs. There was no She-Knight of the Round Table and we don't find the Arthurian cycle unrelatable. Most fantasy settings, on the other hand, takes an explicitely egalitarian approach and emphasize gender equality: based on this premise, it's logical that they depict much more mixed groups. And that's to be expected. And it would be expected that the setting doesn't depicts female warriors as Eowyn-like characters overcoming the social conventions, since they are in a world where equality is the norm.

It's not only gender, it's also race: if the setting states that Elfs and Dwarves hate each other, I would find strange to see most adventuring group featuring and Elf AND a Dwarf in the illustration of the game.
D&D campaigns are not set on medieval earth. Magic will change society.

For example in my campaign I assume that hedge witch's potions and poultices actually work. Life expectancy is significantly higher because less children die and fewer women die in child birth. So, yes, in my campaign world women are less tied to hearth and home.

Add in long-lived races where a female elf could have decades between having children and it would be odd if their society developed similar to our own. As far as races "hating" each other, that's not a given assumption. Dwarves and elves mistrusted each other in Tolkien's universe because of past events, not because it was an ingrained aspect of their nature.

Not sure we can ever really know what a society with magic would truly be like, but to assume it would be exactly like earth's doesn't make a lot of sense either.
 

Not sure we can ever really know what a society with magic would truly be like, but to assume it would be exactly like earth's doesn't make a lot of sense either.

That's why I prefer settings like Eberron that try to tackle with this difficulty and explore the ramification of magic being real, rather than just glossing it over. And even settings that try to do it sometimes fail (to account for demographics in presence of disease-curing magic).
 

Urriak Uruk

Gaming is fun, and fun is for everyone
I like your examples, but there is one point I miss and that is probably what @Son of the Serpent wants to say:

You are judging (rightfully) the bad intentions of Darth Sidious and the cannibal to be covering up for their evil acts.

Still, this does not make their claims invalid or untrue, because peace and stability is overall considered a good thing, and the analysis of Jedi and Republic are fragile is to the point.
And although it is very amorally to think about cannibalism as a way to reduce overpopulation and human meat as a protein source, the facts presented are nevertheless true (Although morally absolutely questionable).

In a discussion it is the facts presented if you want to convince a logic thinking individual, it is never the person presenting the facts. If the facts presented by an unhonest individual are true nevertheless it would be foolish to ignore them just out of principle.

Let us take this further, you got two sides discussing, one is known to have a good reputation upstanding morales and be truthful, the other is the opposite.

And for whatever reason the truthful side has got the facts for the specific topic wrong, be it of misinformation, strong dogma or whatever. Furthermore the opposite side got the facts right and presents them with or without second thought, it does not matter.
Both sides try to convince two different neutrals observing the dispute which is about something totally morally neutral.
One of them is a logic thinker the other a individual relying on his instincts.
Then a logical thinking observant will be able to conclude that the "evil" side has got the facts right.
The observant who relies on his inner feelings or dogma or something other will judge the book by its cover and take sides with the "good" side, no matter the facts presented are wrong.

If those two observers start to dispute afterwards, the logical thinker will tell his analysis of the facts to be true, whereas the instinctive observer will try to convince the logical thinker that he is in the wrong, basically because the (Still true) facts were presented by an evil individual not trustworthy etc.

I do not know if this is a fact, it is just my personal experience, which has shown me that more often than not, people rely on their instincts rather than logics, in other words people are sometimes easily fooled by wrong facts because it is the easy and "feel good" option.

While you are in practice correct, you're missing why motive is important.

Darth Sidious can use as much fact and logic as possible to prove he is correct that dictatorship is the most peaceful and stable form of government. He may even be correct. But because his motive for why he is making that argument has nothing to do with the actual accuracy of his beliefs, his entire premise is thrown into doubt, and to a large degree invalidates his own argument.

It also, a step further, removes legitimacy from the people who legitimately have pure motives but agree with the selfish.

For example, lets say Grand Moff Tarkin legitimately believes that the Empire is the most stable form of government, and is just a "good old soldier" doing his best to preserve the peace through his own means; he does not take pleasure/pride in his actions, but is doing them because he truly believes the Empire is good and that rebellion is bad.

On paper, the Grand Moff has moral motives as he believes in his cause and has not selfish ulterior motive. But because his actions are not just propping up the Empire, but also protecting the Emperor (and by proxy, the Emperor's selfish motives), the Grand Moff is inadvertently supporting selfish and immoral people.

The same applies to those who agree with racists/sexists. People may agree with them on certain arguments; but by supporting their arguments, you are giving them legitimacy, legitimacy that they are using not to actualize the merits of the arguments, but instead to continue propagating their selfish immoral racist/sexist ways.

Essentially, in an ideal world we would like to divorce fact/logic from motive. But this is not possible, and you must ask yourself; does my argument, however good my intentions are, support the lifestyle and opinions of those you are selfish and immoral? If the answer is "yes," one must reevaluate the strength of that argument entirely.
 


Coroc

Hero
....
It is also foolish to approach a discussion as if we are on the planet Vulcan, because we aren't. Humans are not really all that logical in our moment-to-moment thinking.
...

Well basically you wrote the quintessence of my rather lengthy posting :

I do not know if this is a fact, it is just my personal experience, which has shown me that more often than not, people rely on their instincts rather than logics, in other words people are sometimes easily fooled by wrong facts because it is the easy and "feel good" option.
:)
 

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
Supporter
As BrokenTwin pointed out, if there is no setting, having art depicting the wide possibilities of the toolkit is a good (and even expected) thing, but if there is a setting, it shouldn't depict real life's expectation, it should depict the setting'.

Then we have the quite reasonable question: Why did you choose your setting in this way?

If playing during WWI in the trenches, it's safe to expect the default soldier to be depicted as male and the default nurse as female. Such pictures would say nothing of the mindset of the author and drawer with regard to the current, real world.

And, if you are playing in the Old West, gunslingers should be men...

Oh, wait. Deadlands is set in an Old West, but they take some small steps to make it so that characters of any gender are appropriate in pretty much any relevant role in the setting.

So, again - why did the author choose the setting in this manner? If you are in a fantasy, that the setting is not the same as the real world is a given? Well, then why cherry pick that element to remain the same?


Indeed, the explanation must match the setting description and the accompanying picture. When people are playing in fantasy middle ages, my guess is that they are projecting what they know of the middle ages to the fantasy society...

There was no She-Knight of the Round Table and we don't find the Arthurian cycle unrelatable.

Interestingly, most of the Arthurian cycle has nothing to do with the Middle Ages - what we use is a much later romantic adaptation. The people of the 18th and 19th centuries certainly put their own spin on things.

So, when we pick it up.. why do we not put our spin on things? Why must we stick with the established narrative, when they did not?
 

Coroc

Hero
While you are in practice correct, you're missing why motive is important.
....
Essentially, in an ideal world we would like to divorce fact/logic from motive. But this is not possible, and you must ask yourself; does my argument, however good my intentions are, support the lifestyle and opinions of those you are selfish and immoral? If the answer is "yes," one must reevaluate the strength of that argument entirely.

Yes, the end does not always justify the means. For selfish people it does, for normal people it does not.
Still for me considering myself a logic thinking person, i tend to analyse the speech, not the speaker.
It is not, that i never knowingly did something irrational in my life, but for some topics i would prefer a more rationale approach, just to convince those who are open to logic but not so much about feelings, especially those feelings whith which they cannot identify.
Or maybe i see some things as being to easy God knows....
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top