D&D (2024) Comeliness and Representation in Recent DnD Art

[Misanthrope Prime]

The presence of things like disability representation or defiance of beauty standards come, to a degree, from the desire for a work to be "realistic." There are disabled people or people with skin conditions in reality, therefore, it follows that they should appear with at least the same frequency they do in the general population now, in 2023, as they do in fiction.

Of course, this verisimilitude is at the opposite end of "fantasy." If D&D were a game in a different literary genre (to say nothing of its gameplay) you might have a point, but this genre is defined particularly by how it differs from reality. 5e D&D and its flagship products are also squarely in the "high fantasy" subgenre of fantasy; a dark fantasy or horror influenced fantasy would of course take inspiration from how reality is uncomfortable and amp it up, but instead high fantasy tends to want to portray an idealized world; one where concerns like physical attractiveness and even general health and disability are not a consideration. Remember; all art is propaganda, and high fantasy borrows heavily from mythology: mythology has an incentive to portray its protagonists as physically perfect ideals of what to strive for, rather than reminders of how reality current sucks.

D&D does have some non-high fantasy sub IPs, and I'd argue that in art for those you do tend to see a lot fewer attractive characters. Greyhawk has barely been in 5e but GoS has some pretty gross looking townsfolk, and while she's gorgeous they did make a big deal about D&D's first autistic character being from Greyhawk- so that's another point for diversity there. I can probably find plenty of portly and pockmarked characters in Ravenloft art if I go looking, and Dark Sun is known for making everyone and everything hideous. Most of 5e's art is either set in the Forgotten Realms or "Planar" settings which also tend to be very high fantasy in aesthetics (even if 5e's art differs HEAVILY from the very distinct and certainly diverse DiTerlizzi Planescape art) so it's full of beautiful people and things, but if our culture takes another swing towards dark fantasy like what we had when GoT first got big we'll probably start seeing uglier characters again.

 

[Scott Christian]

What are the examples in the WotC D&D art of young adult human protagonists who don't fit with the Hollywood stereotypes of human physical attractiveness?

Well, look at the PHB. Since we don't have the new art, let's see what they did in 2014.

The primary art for new players is always going to be in the Races (Cultures) and Class sections. The 2014 PHB starts out with this picture:

I am not so sure that this doesn't already meet the requirement. Some of these people are good looking and others look like grizzled uncles. Then there are the common races: dwarf, elf, halfling, and human. None of them are particularly Hollywood beauty standards, especially the halfling (who looks fun, but not pretty by conventional standards). Then the rarer races, well, they are aesthetically pleasing, but again, not model looking.

To me, just this section already has a representation for common to beautiful. It lacks an age range, but they covered that in classes. So to answer your question, I think they have already done it. No need to doubt they'll probably do it again.
Or...
They could go the way of Hollywood:

 

[I'm A Banana]

Of course, this verisimilitude is at the opposite end of "fantasy."

I don't really agree.

Disability, skin conditions, things like this...they become part of how a person is perceived by the world, and so how people see themselves, too.

And that self-reflection is core to "fantasy." The idea is that me, or someone like me, could be this great hero or storied adventurer. Which means including reflections of a variety of selves - including selves that aren't pretty by conventional standards.

The "good is attractive, evil is unattractive" trope is something that D&D still doesn't entirely escape, though it's come a long way in the last 30 years or so.

 

[Cadence]

Well, look at the PHB. Since we don't have the new art, let's see what they did in 2014.

The primary art for new players is always going to be in the Races (Cultures) and Class sections. The 2014 PHB starts out with this picture: View attachment 356079
I am not so sure that this doesn't already meet the requirement. Some of these people are good looking and others look like grizzled uncles. Then there are the common races: dwarf, elf, halfling, and human. None of them are particularly Hollywood beauty standards, especially the halfling (who looks fun, but not pretty by conventional standards). Then the rarer races, well, they are aesthetically pleasing, but again, not model looking.
View attachment 356081
View attachment 356082
View attachment 356085
View attachment 356087
To me, just this section already has a representation for common to beautiful. It lacks an age range, but they covered that in classes. So to answer your question, I think they have already done it. No need to doubt they'll probably do it again.
Or...
They could go the way of Hollywood:

I wonder if young players who think they are farther from Hollywood appearance are more likely than other players to pick the non-human races (from dwarf to dragonborn to tiefling) to kind of bury having to think about it (or for other reasons)?

 

[Scott Christian]

I am sorry, but I find your argument not persuasive on any front...

As I believe I have said elsewhere on this forum, if this is wrong, I never want to be right.

Chainmail bikinis are an aesthetic. A type that some players don't mind. I always find it weird when someone argues for inclusiveness, and then turns around and says - "Except for this." Chainmail bikinis can represent an aesthetic, just like the shirtless warrior with his butt poking out of his loincloth, just like the knight in full plate, just like the old-man wizard, just like the satin wearing elven seer, etc. There is nothing wrong with any of those. It just can't represent all the art. Diversity is a two-way street.

 

[Scott Christian]

I wonder if young players who think they are farther from Hollywood appearance are more likely than other players to pick the non-human races (from dwarf to dragonborn to tiefling) to kind of bury having to think about it (or for other reasons)?

That is a great question. I can only speak from my experience, but running the high school's D&D club, most of the students pick one of three things:

• A replica of their favorite anime or cartoon character
• Something outlandish, like I want to be a starfish like on Spongebob
• Something they are not in real life (the old trope of the skinny armed boy wanting to play an uber-jacked barbarian

I really don't see any type of character depth for that age group, and I have been doing this for many years across several states. Character depth doesn't seem to happen until post-high school years.

 

[Alzrius]

Of course, this verisimilitude is at the opposite end of "fantasy."

I disagree, as this seems to conflate "verisimilitude" with "realism," and the latter is not what the former means. Verisimilitude in fantasy simply means having a world that is consistent about operating according to its own set of rules of how things work. Some of those things might happen to dovetail with how things work in the real world (i.e. humans are burned by fire), but that in no way means that everything does.

 

[Cadence]

Chainmail bikinis are an aesthetic. A type that some players don't mind. I always find it weird when someone argues for inclusiveness, and then turns around and says - "Except for this." Chainmail bikinis can represent an aesthetic, just like the shirtless warrior with his butt poking out of his loincloth, just like the knight in full plate, just like the old-man wizard, just like the satin wearing elven seer, etc. There is nothing wrong with any of those. It just can't represent all the art. Diversity is a two-way street.

I am unaware of full plate or wearing satin wizard robes ever being used to objectify groups of people who were historically policed in regards to fashion. The former also seems like it would have practical use at least in some situations and the later should be comfortable. Not saying anyone needs to want anything done about the difference between those and chain-mail bikinis, but I refuse to believe anyone doesn't at least see why it is brought up as a difference and bothers some people.

 

[Charlaquin]

Yeah at this point overweight and attractive should be absolutely trivial to include (for both masc and femme) characters. I mean, like, if we look at last night's episode of Delicious in Dungeon, I have no doubt many people swooned immediately when the Oni-type Fighter/Barbarian-esque character appeared, a woman with a pretty face but a build that was both powerful and certainly would be significantly overweight if not obese by BMI standards (to be fair BMI is a dreadful standard that should have been abandoned 50 years ago, and insane stuff like trying to align it internationally is absolutely racist and stupid, but it's exactly what some countries have done).

Ryōko Kui is really great at representing body type diversity! You can tell she has a really good understanding of the anatomy and appreciation for different builds.

(Delicious in Dungeon also has Orcs who manage to be at once somehow "cute", "attractive" (in a very hirsute way) and "threatening", which is quite an achievement. They're basically wild boar themed. Their orc-lets are almost unbearably cute combinations of human toddler and wild boar piglet. Much rather see 2024 orcs take inspiration from these guys than WoW orcs or the like - I know someone here had similar images of orcs like, five years ago too! I dunno if they were from the Dungeon Meshi manga or if this "orcs as wild boar people" deal is common in Japan or if they were independently derived.)

Could easily have been either. I’ve been sharing images from the manga as an example of how I like my orcs for a long time now, so it could have been that. But it’s also absolutely the case that orcs as boar people, and also kobolds as dog people, are very common in Japanese fantasy media. This is probably due largely to the tremendous influence Record of the Lodoss Wars had on Japanese fantasy media, in contrast to the very minor influence D&D had in Japan otherwise. So we have this sort of evolutionary offshoot, where Japanese fantasy art and Western fantasy art both share the common ancestor of original D&D art, but then became isolated and developed in different directions.

 

[Scott Christian]

I am unaware of full plate or wearing satin wizard robes ever being used to objectify groups of people who were historically policed in regards to fashion. The former also seems like it would have practical use at least in some situations and the later should be comfortable. Not saying anyone needs to want anything done about the difference between those and chain-mail bikinis, but I refuse to believe anyone doesn't at least see why it is brought up as a difference and bothers some people.

You can also view it as the opposite - those that were policed are now kick-butt so much, that they are allowed to run around in whatever they see fit. Again, two-way street. As for practical use, flowing robes made of satin being worn during a fight where you are lighting things on fire seems like a bad idea. Wearing armor while trekking through the jungle seems like a bad idea. Being a cat or rabbit without flea protection seems like a bad idea too.
Very little in D&D makes practical sense. Every one, and every table, draws their own boundaries. That is one of the strengths of the game.