I have heard it suggested that first we decide something and then we look for a reason to justify why we have decided.
No, the gameworld never gave the impression of exclusion, merely it never felt the need to spell out the inclusion. D&D is a game where you can pretend to be an elf, a half-devil, a dragon-man, a servant of Thor, a cultist of Cthulhu, or any number of fantastical archetypes. However, it doesn't let you be gay or trans or anything other that CIS because it lacked a paragraph saying so before 2014?
/snip
I think it has some influence, but hardly what you would call a game changer, more a gradual and logical progression as more people from minority groups move into positions of influence.
No, but there is a difference between encouraging (via more inclusive art work and the like), catering to your existing audience (art work that reflects the European roots of the game) and explicitly discouraging people from playing which I've not seen occur in any published material, or at any game table I've sat at or convention I've attended.
Would you say Luke Cage or Spike Lee movies explicitly discourages white audiences from watching?
was the face of D&D. Notice what's missing?
Flint Fireforge. Man the 80s were just so Dwarfist.
Umm thats flint beside river wind.
But sure thanks for illustrating the point so nicely.
Put it another way. What named spells are named for female characters in any phb?
Name three iconic DND characters of colour. Outside of Drizzt I suppose.
Umm thats flint beside river wind.
Name three iconic DND characters of colour. Outside of Drizzt I suppose.
Ah, hiding beside Tasselhoff of course. Added in as an after thought I bet.
Ah, got this one: Kyra, Sajan and Seelah. Maybe Lini if your colour is green but she is a Gnome so that does not really count in this humanocentric world.
Never heard of any of them.