• 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

Horwath

Legend
Would you have considered at least conversing if it were on perhaps 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.

Yes, thank you.

Maybe I could have phrased it that way, or maybe I should have phrased it that way.

But, I cant make a sentence and then make a two sentence disclaimer for every one.
And if someone want's to take most vile conclusion out of it...then it's their not my problem in the end.

If I have the time I will try to explain better. As I did to @Aebir-Toril remark that you need steel bones to autofire AK one-handed. I posted a video proving my point, he said that he was wrong, for me that was the end of it.

Do I really need to explain in detail the obvious difference in time of human gestation and recovery time for a woman after birth to a point when she can get pregnant again vs. the rate of spermatogenesis in mens testicles? Didn't we went through this in 6th or 7th grade of elementary school?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Sadras

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

As I understood and I may be wrong about this - do correct me:
The views on women and their worth that Horwath made were not his own, but what he believed were the views of women by men/rulers during that time. The discrimination you claim was his, was in fact that of the men/rulers.

That is how I read the post, which is why I was confused by the mod remark and the reply posts thereafter.
 

Horwath

Legend
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.

No, it was a response to historical question about missing data about female warriors on average in human history.

It had nothing to do with fictional female characters in D&D or any fantasy settings.
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
No, it was a response to historical question about missing data about female warriors on average in human history.

It had nothing to do with fictional female characters in D&D or any fantasy settings.
Then you failed to take the context of the thread into account in your reply, which is on you.

It’s also, again, inaccurate on several levels, ignores the fact that we know that several societies had female warriors who were not “backup in case of last stand”, and the fact that human nature doesn’t change much, and rather large numbers of women serve in any military that will let them, now.

The reproduction bit would only be relevant if we were exclusively discussing conscription throughout history.


So, maybe stop detailing a perfectly good thread with an irrelevant tangent about reproduction.
 


Undrave

Legend
Sexism doesn't arise when men and women are assigned different 'roles'. Sexism arise when one gender gets valued above another, or when having one 'role' means you are considered inferior in areas that have nothing to do with those roles.
 

Horwath

Legend
Then you failed to take the context of the thread into account in your reply, which is on you.

It’s also, again, inaccurate on several levels, ignores the fact that we know that several societies had female warriors who were not “backup in case of last stand”, and the fact that human nature doesn’t change much, and rather large numbers of women serve in any military that will let them, now.

The reproduction bit would only be relevant if we were exclusively discussing conscription throughout history.


So, maybe stop detailing a perfectly good thread with an irrelevant tangent about reproduction.

haha, true.

But I have no problem with the premise of the thread. Yeah, we should have diversity, as it is a fictional setting not a historical.

If the setting was named Europe 12-15th century then diversity might be looked on as forced.
 



doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
haha, true.

But I have no problem with the premise of the thread. Yeah, we should have diversity, as it is a fictional setting not a historical.

If the setting was named Europe 12-15th century then diversity might be looked on as forced.

A historical game would get pushback for including female adventurers, sure, but those angry about it would still be wrong.

Because there were female soldiers, adventurers, etc, in every single historical period.

But also, the actual historical inaccuracies (there will always be some) wouldn’t receive nearly the pushback, because it wouldn’t really be about historicity.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top