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

Sacrosanct

Legend
No, you actually managed to understand the exact opposite of what I was saying. I was saying that the realistic situation of women in the army has absolutely no bearing on the depiction of men and women and a setting with elf and spells. It's fantasy, not real life, and real life has zero impact on what happens in a fantasy, which should be internally consistent but not representative of any "real life" analogy.

I didn't say you argued it. I said you're arguing others have said realism is a reason why women shouldn't have equal representation in a medieval setting. Because that's what your comment read like to me.

And in that case, I think that's a weak reason because I'm pretty sure if they're playing D&D, there are already things much more fantastical they are including that break "realism" besides "well, women weren't in the armies all that often back then." I think we are in agreement here, with your other comment.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
The fact that SOME women fought in history doesn't justify an equal representation of male and female in the depiction of an army. As the relative number in the past is unclear, I quoted Wikipedia for the current (7.5% female, 82.5% male) ratio in the Chinese Army. To me, depicting a Chinese battalion with 50% women isn't a likely representation. I don't think people argued in this thread that in the past no women ever took part in a battle, but not enough to justify equal representation in a pseudo-medieval setting.

The reason it is a non-issue is NOT the presence of a few onna-bugeisha in battle, but it IS because most D&D settings states that there is a total gender equality in the setting, so whatever took place in history as zero bearing. Hence, representation of sex should be equal when depicting adventuring parties.
It doesn’t need to, even in a historical game.

If the game seeks to be inclusive with regards to players, it should be inclusive in the art. Woman warriors existed, and should be allowed, so they should be displayed at a noticeable enough rate that people will see them as perfectly valid character options.

I’d rather see the Grace O’Malleys of history than the nameless warriors, in a book’s art, as well.
 

Tony Vargas

Legend
So let me see if I understand this correctly. You're saying some people are arguing that women shouldn't be represented based on realism while at the same time they are playing an elf that casts spells?

Ok...
So, the usual comeback to the unassailable argument that wanting 'realism' in a fantasy game that features imaginary races, monsters, and supernatural powers, is that the un-realistic element harms verisimilitude and breaks immersion and that the supernatural, fantastic elements are supported as such by being part of an otherwise-realistic backdrop.

I hope y'all realize how bogus the whole "but realism" merry-go-round is, now that you've seen it pulled out for something other than edition warring purposes.
 



billd91

Not your screen monkey (he/him)
So, the usual comeback to the unassailable argument that wanting 'realism' in a fantasy game that features imaginary races, monsters, and supernatural powers, is that the un-realistic element harms verisimilitude and breaks immersion and that the supernatural, fantastic elements are supported as such by being part of an otherwise-realistic backdrop.

I hope y'all realize how bogus the whole "but realism" merry-go-round is, now that you've seen it pulled out for something other than edition warring purposes.

Finding an instance here or there where the "realism" argument is put to bad use doesn't mean it's completely useless.
 

Tony Vargas

Legend
Naw.
I'm pretty sure that Warlords are gender-biased.
Other than thinking you're being funny (you're not, for once), why would you say that? It's a complete non-sequitur as a reply to the point I was making about realism arguments.

Finding an instance here or there where the "realism" argument is put to bad use doesn't mean it's completely useless.
The instance is a game that includes elves casting spells, that's prettymuch all of D&D, thankyouverymuch.
 
Last edited:

BrokenTwin

Biological Disaster
I seriously don't understand what army gender ratios have to do with adventuring parties. Especially in later editions, the vast majority of typical D&D adventuring groups are filled with a hilariously diverse array of combat styles, cultures, and species, topped off with little to no respect for conventional authority. Not to mention that by the mere dint of having classes levels, the PCs are already exceptional people in-universe.
We're not playing as nameless soldier #125, we're playing as Cu Chulainn, or Hercules, or Joan, or Xena. If people want to have their faceless hordes at a no greater than 10 to 1 gender ratio, or whatever, fill your boots! That has nothing to do with the band of misfits the players are playing as, and even less to do with the art in the rulebooks depicting these unique, exceptional people. (On a related note, how often are faceless mooks in tabletop RPGs depicted as women, anyway?)
Should your PCs encounter racism, sexism, and other -isms in their adventures? That entirely depends on whether the table wants to explore those themes or not. I know (and have been) people who want to roleplay exploring and fighting back against those injustices in a safe environment, which does require said injustice to exist in the game world.
 


Sacrosanct

Legend
Finding an instance here or there where the "realism" argument is put to bad use doesn't mean it's completely useless.

Especially since we do have plenty of real world examples of women in combat, and in armies--it's not that big of a reach. Last I checked, we do not have real world examples of someone shouting another person's arm back on.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top