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

Zardnaar

Legend
Yes. That's the point. Not a whole lot of people know what the SOE was, or that it existed, or how heavily women were involved. Thus the game, to put a focus on some oft-ignored heroes.

That's

Mind if I ask your opinion on this art?

IMG_20191210_104422.jpg


Running an Egypt themed game. Still ended up with a bit Viking and Not Italian.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
One of my favorite things is being told to tone down my existence in order to give enough space for people who don't want me to exist to not have to think about my existence at all, because that's going to be the best way to "make progress".

If you need me, I'll be over here, existing as little as possible, so people can stop being fatigued by me.
I’d rather you go ahead and exist harder, but I won’t try to tell ya what to do.
 

Dannyalcatraz

Schmoderator
Staff member
Supporter
See, this is all not only more reasonable but also very different from the post that I quoted, where the presence of a female gunslinger, a thing that was not that uncommon, was enough to "alienate" a good chunk of the audience.

Out of curiosity, let's say your black investigator is being played a black player, and they ask if you can tone down the racism because, in their words, they get enough of that in real life (or, alternatively, a female player playing a female investigator asking to tone down the 1920's misogyny). How do you react?
As a Swarthican-American caramello black dude, if I’m roleplaying a “minority” character in a historical/quasi-historical/alt-history setting where that minority would be oppressed in some way, I’d expect some kind of problems arising from his or her minority status. If that gets handwaved away, I find that disappointing.

(One of the reasons Will Smith’s Wild, Wild West bugs me so is that- while there were a few black Secret Service agents in that time period, none of them would have made a good undercover agent due to the societal restrictions of the day.)

And likewise, if I’m playing a PC in a Sci-Fi or fantasy campaign of a type that is despised in the setting, I don’t want his negative baggage glossed over. The downsides are part of why I made the character.
 

Eltab

Lord of the Hidden Layer
Mind if I ask your opinion on this art?

View attachment 116710
Does every clump of bulrushes along the not-Nile have a baby-sized basket peeking out of it?
I cannot tell if the structure behind the people is a gate or the door to a building; it is set square-on to the viewer.
Do you want the dry sand right up to the water's edge? No mud, no weeds or ornamental plants or anything?
Waterfront property with no apparent use - must be somebody important's "lake cottage"

It looks like Egypt at first pass, a few choices of details that could be done differently.
 

Zardnaar

Legend
Does every clump of bulrushes along the not-Nile have a baby-sized basket peeking out of it?
I cannot tell if the structure behind the people is a gate or the door to a building; it is set square-on to the viewer.
Do you want the dry sand right up to the water's edge? No mud, no weeds or ornamental plants or anything?
Waterfront property with no apparent use - must be somebody important's "lake cottage"

It looks like Egypt at first pass, a few choices of details that could be done differently.

Irrigation canal;)
 




Urriak Uruk

Gaming is fun, and fun is for everyone
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....

I'm actually not really talking about the "ends justify the means," rather more how any argument made by bad people to justify bad behavior should inherently be considered untrustworthy.

Consider Ozymandias from Watchmen; he kills hundreds of thousands (maybe a couple million) in New York to save many more millions and the world from a possible nuclear war. This is the "ends justify the means," example.

But Ozymandias, even though his plan is pretty insane, actually does have good intentions, and as far as the book states does not have any ulterior motive beyond wanting to prevent a nuclear war (a fairly moral goal, done with fairly immoral means).

This is very different than what I am saying is so wrong about agreeing with a racist's goals. If you're supporting the opinions of people who are making them for their own selfish reasons, you're inadvertently supporting selfish immoral people, and their goals.

If Ozymandias was secretly a raging psychopath that wanted to destroy New York not because it would prevent nuclear war, but because he would enjoy it, how we view Ozymandias inherently changes. It would also make keeping Ozymandias' actions secret (which all the people who know of his plan save Rorsarch do) much harder to feel comfortable doing, as you're allowing a very immoral act made for selfish reasons to go unpunished. It would in effect make Rorsarch POV (to expose Ozymandias) the moral thing to do. To do otherwise would allow a psychopath to go free, and perhaps continue to kill (as the massacre would have happened regardless of the nuclear war justification). Whether or not it prevents nuclear war is unimportant in such a circumstance.

It's why Ozymandias actions are at least justifiable, but the Comedian's actions (rape, murder, war) almost entirely immoral; the intent behind them is what makes them viewed differently, even though the outcome is ultimately similar. It's one of the reasons the Comedian is so terrified of Ozymandias' plan; that he'll not only outdo him in devastation, but do it for the right reasons.
 

Zardnaar

Legend
Viking trade routes included the Mediterranean and Egypt. A viking boat on the Nile is not that far fetched.

Not really, but when the players pick an Egyptian setting and then all want to ply Vikings it would be stupid.I allowed it because its only 1 player but I ended up with 0 not Egyptian humans but got Minotaurs, Half Orc, Not Viking, Not Italian. The Aasimar and Ravenfolk made a bit more sense and Minotaurs exist in that location in that setting, I was hoping for a not Egyptian human though. Then one player wanted a Samurai (sobs).


If you want to play Vikings, pick a Viking game.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top