• 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

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
Supporter
Some attempt to inject their own sense of realism/internal consistency into their games.

So, at your own table, do what you want.

This article and thread is about the game rules and the art of the published product. The position presented is, in effect, "Well, it'd be okay to limit that representation because of these biological and historical 'facts'..."
If you want to extensively defend restricting how and what are appropriate roles for female characters in a fantasy game... it would seem to me people should take from that what they will.

There is no real space between, "Because it is realistic!" and, "But this is the way my character would act!" in terms of treating people poorly. Pedantic geeks can forget that the logic of hoped-for realism can and will roll over people trying to play the game.

An indicator for us all to think about is this: Take whatever rationalization you have for your representation, and go up to a person of the demographic you'd be restricting. Tell them, to their face (not with the distance and anonymity of the internet), that you think your rationalization is okay. For example, go to your wife or girlfriend and say, "Honey, you're great, but I think I shouldn't represent women warriors in my game because women have lower upper body strength than men."

If you can't bring yourself to do that, in person... you know there's a problem.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Sadras

Legend
The problem being though, @Sadras, is that these "sense of realism" points tend to be unsupported by actual history, and really don't actually reflect anything more than the person's personal views. But, as soon as that point gets brought up, they react very strongly and rush to the defense of what is, indefensible.

Look, do whatever you want in your home game. Knock yourself out and have as much fun as legally possible. That's FANTASTIC. But, don't then try to pretend (and I'm using the general you here, not you Sadras) that it's based on any sort of "truth" other than "this is something I like".

If people would stop conflating their personal tastes for objective value, the world would be a much, much better place.

I do not disagree with anything you have written.
From my perspective you have highlighted something that I have very little knowledge about but intend to do a little more reading (ship building technology and the timeline of various vessels). Our table tries to bend towards "realism" where we can.

As for what Horwath brought up, personally I didn't find that singular post that damning - in the sense that he was not discussing from a point of male superiority or to hit out at some particular group. There was no hint of malice. He simply expressed his views based on, I imagine, knowledge acquired, what he had been taught and biases regarding the role/participation of women in warfare within the front lines.

I do though take exception to how his perceptions were challenged - with insinuations that he is a troll and that he is debating from an emotional level. Take on the person's ideas - but leave the rhetoric and wild character bashing out of it. People have forgotten how to converse and challenge ideas rather than the person.
 

generic

On that metempsychosis tweak
I do not disagree with anything you have written.
From my perspective you have highlighted something that I have very little knowledge about but intend to do a little more reading (ship building technology and the timeline of various vessels). Our table tries to bend towards "realism" where we can.

As for what Horwath brought up, personally I didn't find that singular post that damning - in the sense that he was not discussing from a point of male superiority or to hit out at some particular group. There was no hint of malice. He had his own views based on, I imagine, knowledge acquired, what he had been taught and biases regarding the role/participation of women in warfare within the front lines.

I do though take exception to how his perceptions were challenged - with insinuations that he is a troll and that he is debating from an emotional level. Take on the person's ideas - but leave the rhetoric and wild character bashing out of it. People have forgotten how to converse and challenge ideas rather than the person.
Conversing on the basis of ideas is one of my greatest passions. The problem is that what Horwath wrote is not only laughably false, it is unbelievably insulting. Take away, for a moment, the "insulting" part, and read what @Horwath wrote.

Here, I'll quote a portion of his post below

"Due to human slow reproductive rate, women were much to valuable to be risked on a battlefield, unless above mentioned it was a last stand.

Women can have a child once per year if we are optimistic on medieval standards and if we calculate that 30-50%(depending on sources) chance of dying in childbirth, no society can afford to risk women in battles.

Men are simply more expendable in reproductive terms.
Man can impregnate a woman(lets be very optimistic also, but calculate for giving time for sperm count to go up in numbers and not every "shot" counts :p ), every 2 or 3 weeks. ballpark figures.

That still gives one man opportunity to impregnate 20 women in one year, if situation appears that more than 95% of men died in battle."

Do you truly see no fallacious statements there?
 

Sadras

Legend
We know women serve voluntarily in the military today. It seems highly unlikely that no woman ever participated in combat in any culture in pre-modern times. We simply have no way of knowing how many. That's all we can say with certainty.

Oofta, firstly I have ignored the rest of your post as I do not believe it relates.
I'm not arguing against your position, I'm arguing against the style of your argument.
Did Horwath say no woman ever?
Your next sentence jumps to knowing how many - so the goal posts shifted from 0 to x?

In every other regard I agree with you:
1) We do not know how many;
2) Likely more than 0; and
3) Men wrote the history books
 

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
Supporter
As for what Horwath brought up, personally I didn't find that singular post that damning - in the sense that he was not discussing from a point of male superiority or to hit out at some particular group. There was no hint of malice.

If you get hit with a car because the person was fiddling with their phone, there was no malice... but you still got hit with a car, and we can and should point out that the person driving took an implicit stance that others on the road are less important than their phone, and note that as a flaw.

One does not need willful malice to take a stance that is needlessly discriminatory. All one needs is a lack of application of empathy.
 

I am wondering... According to Wikipedia, women constitute 7,5% of the personnel of the People's Liberation Army right now. Would anyone see pictures supposed to represent the Chinese military with strict gender parity and think "this is realistic" ? Same goes for a picture representing the PLA with very diverse non-Asian ethnicity ? I am not speaking of ad campaigns (they could be targeted toward hiring more women) but simple depiction of the army. At which value of sex ratio would you stop feeling pictures consistently depicting a 50/50 ratio are unrealistic?
 

Horwath

Legend
Irrelevant. My examples were not referring to the era in which the war was fought, but rather, pointing out facets of data about the fighting capability of women that he had missed.

As for sexism, is it truly so ugly to suggest that saying (and I am paraphrasing) "women's main use is childbearing" is a tad sexist?

Read back to his post, the poster clearly makes some false and insulting insinuations.

OK,

this is misquoting, either because you did not get my point or on purpose, which may be even worse.

Never have I stated that women role is solely for reproduction.

All I stated is that women role is more important because of reproductive cycle difference between sexes.

If it comes to a bottle neck in population of one sex over other, what would be more damaging for that community in terms of making the next generation? Lack of men, or lack of women?


Here is a theoretical example:

you have a village or small town in medieval era, population 1000(500 men, 500 women) and it's kind of isolated.
Something happens: war, disease, some natural disaster, take your pick:

Scenario 1: 90% of men are dead,
Scenario 2: 90% of women are dead,

in what scenario would be faster rebound of population?
We know that it would be felt for few generations in the future, but in what way would be slightly less painful?
 

Oofta

Legend
Oofta, firstly I have ignored the rest of your post as I do not believe it relates.
I'm not arguing against your position, I'm arguing against the style of your argument.
Did Horwath say no woman ever?
Your next sentence jumps to knowing how many - so the goal posts shifted from 0 to x?

In every other regard I agree with you:
1) We do not know how many;
2) Likely more than 0; and
3) Men wrote the history books
As far as modern military, you can dismiss it all you want but I feel it's relevant because it's the only verifiable reference we have for how many women are willing and able to serve in the military. The implication from previous posts that all soldiers in the medieval era were required to be body builders also seems a bit silly.

All that really matters for the thread topic is depiction of adventurers in art in D&D.

We're talking adventurers here, not soldiers. Most classes in D&D do not rely on strength. Several of the depictions of females are not human, or show women in light armor or adventuring gear. When it comes to non-human females, who's to say that on average female half orc isn't stronger than the average male half orc? As an example I think it's a good thing to show a female monk*, a class that doesn't require strength in something other than lingerie.

*At least I've always considered the female figure fighting the fire giant on the cover of the PHB a monk. Quarterstaff, glowing hand for some ki strike power, leaping to deliver a blow to the giant's face? All of it says monk to me.
 

Sadras

Legend
Conversing on the basis of ideas is one of my greatest passions. The problem is that what Horwath wrote is not only laughably false, it is unbelievably insulting. Take away, for a moment, the "insulting" part, and read what @Horwath wrote.

Here, I'll quote a portion of his post below

"Due to human slow reproductive rate, women were much to valuable to be risked on a battlefield, unless above mentioned it was a last stand.

Women can have a child once per year if we are optimistic on medieval standards and if we calculate that 30-50%(depending on sources) chance of dying in childbirth, no society can afford to risk women in battles.

Men are simply more expendable in reproductive terms.
Man can impregnate a woman(lets be very optimistic also, but calculate for giving time for sperm count to go up in numbers and not every "shot" counts :p ), every 2 or 3 weeks. ballpark figures.

That still gives one man opportunity to impregnate 20 women in one year, if situation appears that more than 95% of men died in battle."

Do you truly see no fallacious statements there?

Would you have considered at least conversing without the reference to trolls if the post perhaps was phrased a little more open to discussion and respectfully...for instance:

..........................

Based on what I have learned, women have been treated as chattel throughout much of history as such the mentality of some men/rulers back then was such where:

Due to the slow human reproductive rate, women were seen to be much too valuable to be risked on a battlefield, unless it was a last stand of sorts.

Women could possibly have but 1 child a year if we are optimistic on medieval standards given the harsh living standards of society back then and if we calculate that 30-50% (depending on sources) chance of them dying in childbirth, no society could afford to risk losing women in battle.

Men were simply more expendable in reproductive terms - remember might was everything and a larger population usually meant a larger army.
Men had the opportunity (in some cultures) to
impregnate up to 20 women in a year, should the situation arise were more than 95% of men died in battle, as ridiculous as that sounds.

Those were the times many women lived in. Not great at all, but too valuable to have them lost in battle unless it was anything but a final stand against an overwhelming foe.


........................


Have edited for grammar corrections and clarity. Never stops!
 
Last edited:

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
Would you have considered at least conversing without the reference to trolls if the post perhaps was phrased a little more open to discussion and respectfully...for instance:

..........................

Based on what I have learned, women have been treated as chattel throughout much of history as such the mentality of some men/rulers back then was such where:

Due to the slow human reproductive rate, women were seen to be much too valuable to be risked on a battlefield, unless it was a last stand of sorts.

Women could possibly have but 1 child a year if we are optimistic on medieval standards given the harsh living standards of society back then and if we calculate that 30-50% (depending on sources) chance of them dying in childbirth, no society could afford to risk losing women in battle.

Men were simply more expendable in reproductive terms - remember might was everything and a larger population usually meant a larger army.
Men had the opportunity (in some cultures) to
impregnate up to 20 women in a year, should the situation arise were more than 95% of men died in battle, as ridiculous as that sounds.

Those were the times many women lived in. Not great at all, but too valuable to have them lost in battle unless it was anything but a final stand against an overwhelming foe.


........................


Have edited for grammar corrections and clarity. Never stops!
It’s still inaccurate, and since it is a response to a discussion about inclusion in gaming representation, it still comes across as a rejection of representing women in a variety of implied classes in dnd artwork.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top