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
Oh, so she was a LazyLord?



Whenever someone mentions King Arthur I feel a compulsion to mention the French series Kaamelott, which has not only added their entire six season run on their Youtube channel, but also have most of it with English subtitles available (though their ability to convey humour at times is debatable). Still, highly recommended.
yes. She was a lazylord.

So was catherine the great, empress of russia (possibly the greatest female head of state of all time)

Except, i think catherine was actually a prodigious leader whereas i cant say i think jean d'arc was.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

billd91

Not your screen monkey (he/him)
If we're playing together, we'd have discussed the themes of the campaign world beforehand. A RPG session is a "common shared story" in my opinion, not the monopoly of the GM, and if someone around the table isn't comfortable with some part of the setting, it's best discussed beforehand to avoid anyone having a bad time. In this context, a black player telling me it's too much racism would mean I would have been emphasizing too much this part of the setting. You can have racism in the background in a setting without it being TOO prominent: it doesn't have to be part of every story. But suppressed totally... it would feel strange in the context of the 20s to meet only open-minded people.

I think there's also got to be a bit of caveat emptor here. If I'm going to be running some 20s era Call of Cthulhu, my players should have an idea of what to expect before they sign off on us playing that campaign. They know there's going to be some institutional racism and sexism making up the setting. They know that it may affect some interactions. But I'm also going to make sure it's not constantly pervasive unless that's a specific aspect of a scenario - and then they'll be forewarned.

Then if they do sign on, they're going to have to recognize that they signed on for it and trust me that I won't run roughshod over them. If it gets to a point where it bothers them, I expect them to tell me about it, not stew in silence. I also generally let them know that while there may be racism (or sexism, etc) in the culture at large, there will likely be chances for them to exploit their minority status. For example: In Masks of Nyarlathotep, characters may go to Nairobi in Kenya Colony - a city heavily segregated along British colonial models into, effectively Blacktown, Browntown, and Whitetown. Black investigators, even if from the US or UK, will have an easier time interacting with the local informants in Blacktown than a white investigator. And, honestly, any time race is going to be a prominent issue in an RPG, it should be represented by both groups in the society and that should give players a chance to make use of being on the underprivileged end in a positive way.
 

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
Supporter
How would you deal with it? If you were playing in America in the 50s, would you remove all mention of the Civil Right movement or McCarthyism?

Well, that'd depend.

Few folks remember that Little Women and Gone With the Wind are set roughly contemporaneously. One strongly features the Civil War, the other gives passing mention to one person being off in service, but does not otherwise really reference the war. The Little House books start a scant 6 years after the Civil War, and that conflict doesn't really register at all.

Same planet. Same continent. Different worlds.

Whether aspects of a time period manifest in your game really depends on the details.
 

Oofta

Legend
I totally enjoy playing male and female characters both on a frequent basis.

That said, yes. Female gunslingers pretty much were a myth. The exception does not disprove the rule. It doesnt matter that they are rare though. That isnt really relevant to whether you should play them in the first place. Just play them because its fun. You dont need to make up justifications.

Its shameful to pretend extreme exceptions are a norm.

Huh? Either they're a myth or they really existed. We know they existed, therefore they weren't a myth. Or are you defining myth as something other than "an imaginary or fictitious thing or person. "?
 

generic

On that metempsychosis tweak
As I wrote above in the thread, PCs are mostly extraordinary characters so most convention wouldn't apply to them. There is a difference between "impossible" and "common enough that nobody in the setting would notice". I would'nt disallow a Black investigator but I wouldn't be shy of having him contend with people prejudiced against him. There were racist people in the US in the 20's,. If I play in Nazi Germany, I expect to meet Nazis to oppose to, why would anyone playing America in the 20s expect not to meet Americans from the 20s? The series Timeless had a time-travelling team including a Black scientist. Having them deal with the different prejudices was a part of some of the episodes, and it enabled some interesting stories to be told. If they had depicted 19th century Alabama as a color-blind territory, it would have been odd and less interesting.

How would you deal with it? If you were playing in America in the 50s, would you remove all mention of the Civil Right movement or McCarthyism?

The same goes with non-historical settings: if an element of the setting is that Elves and Dwarves have been harboring a grudge for millenia and they are at each other's throat, I expect my Dwarf to be treated badly by most Elves, even if it's just racism.
Well, it depends on whether I want to have fun with friends, or engage in a detailed discussion of the American Civil Rights movement. Given that I'm a jerk, it would probably be fun to include that much detail, and make people encounter it, but what one must remember is that some people play the game to escape.

Maybe you don't want your character to experience blatant racism because you just want to have fun in a cool noir setting, and fight Cthulhu's hordes.

OTOH, if someone wanted all of the conflict that comes with realistic setting depiction, then sure, why not.

But, don't force people to play in a game where they're experiencing racism akin to what real-life people experience and experienced if they don't want to.
 

Gradine

The Elephant in the Room (she/her)
I totally enjoy playing male and female characters both on a frequent basis.

It doesnt matter that they are rare though. That isnt really relevant to whether you should play them in the first place. Just play them because its fun. You dont need to make up justifications.

This is neither something I disagree with nor what I was arguing. The arguments I'm against are those making up justifications to disallow certain types of female characters in the name of historically inaccurate historical "accuracy".

Its shameful to pretend extreme exceptions are a norm.

It's shameful to pretend that ignoring false generalizations ruins the verisimilitude of a setting.
 

Zardnaar

Legend
It's really only in historical settings IMHO that restrictive gender norms make sense. Even then there's a difference between highly unlikely and impossible (female pope, commando, bomber command pilot).

Since most RPGs don't use historical settings you don't need to use RL gender expectations. Joan of Arc wasn't the only female warrior in Europe, a German warrior a and his wife also a warrior served the Byzantines.

Historical accuracy only matters in serious Drama type productions which once again doesn't apply to D&D.
 

ad_hoc

(they/them)
Quentin Tarantino's Once Upon a Time in Hollywood is a perfect example of a story set in a certain time and place with characters based on real people and which also has entirely made up things in it. This is because it is a fictional story and Tarantino can do what he wants.

We're not talking about documentaries.
 

Zardnaar

Legend
Quentin Tarantino's Once Upon a Time in Hollywood is a perfect example of a story set in a certain time and place with characters based on real people and which also has entirely made up things in it. This is because it is a fictional story and Tarantino can do what he wants.

We're not talking about documentaries.

Hollywood was an exception to a lot if social norms at the time. Even then most social norms weren't set in stone.

For example a father might have no sons so he trained his daughter in his profession. Wasn't normal but wasn't illegal. Rules and norms often didn't apply to elite women or they could get around them due to who their father is.

A British women served in the Serbian army WW1. Even in reality very few things were strictly off limits to women mostly church things (pope, Cardinals) or specific services in WW1 and 2 (commando, bomber command etc). Doesn't apply to D&D at all though.

There is a time and place for sexism in D&D, the Drow for example or you might want to have an all male military order or whatever.

I have parts of my world that modern liberal views do not apply but I don't start the PCs there. Even then it's more political and religious type restrictions.
 

ad_hoc

(they/them)
Hollywood was an exception to a lot if social norms at the time. Even then most social norms weren't set in stone.

That's not what I'm talking about at all.

This is Tarantino's fictional Hollywood being different than the specific and real time, place, and people the movie is set in. Yes, there is a lot of real history in there, but there is also fiction.

Just as a fictional 1920s, even with real people in the story, can be completely different from how it actually was, because fiction.

Tarantino put a lot of craft and effort into being accurate but he also completely rewrote historical events.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top