D&D 5E D&D Next weekly art column!

[WheresMyD20]

Was from the 70s, and we've grown as a culture since then.

You're basing your response on two words quoted out of context?

 

[Kynn]

I think you need to read what I wrote more carefully. You're misrepresenting what I said. I NEVER said to deliberately exclude anyone. Your response is a classic straw man argument.

Artistic choices don't happen by accident. If you choose to not depict a diverse population of adventurers, then that's a deliberate choice. Not something that "just happened that way."

You are arguing against purposely being inclusive -- that is an argument in favor of being purposely exclusionary, sorry.

 

[MortalPlague]

Here's the big question. Would you pay an extra $1 per book to get more art? Figure they sell 5000 copies of everything, at least. That gets them a couple thousand extra bucks for illustrations.

Would you be okay with spending $3 to $40 extra over the course of an edition, per person, to have more art?

Also, would you be willing to spend that much extra on EN Publishing products too? Because I'd love to hire more artists.

I absolutely would. I love art, and I think it really has a big impact on the feel of a game, on a subliminal level if nothing else. While paging through the books, if they inspire a certain grandeur and imagination, that's worth an extra dollar to me.

 

[Keefe the Thief]

D&D art has come a long way, but it has still a lot ground to cover. Inclusiveness never happens out of itself - it needs conscious thought and the will to change things.

D&D art always reflects a vision of a fantastic society as much as the cultural concepts of those playing it. The "medieval western fantasy" idea is something rooted in our heads, and some see this as necessary and desireable. Yet let's be honest - it's just a foundation upon which the gonzo-ness of D&D is heaped.

What do i want to say? That the adventurer is mainly a white male in D&D has become an indfensible ridiculousness that has to die. What we need are male and female adventurers of all stripes, both healthy and with crippling injuries. Of course we would also need an adult approach towards homosexuality (or ANY kind of approach), but that will never happen (sadly).

Not thinking about inclusiveness and proper depictions in art has led to this:

There was a time when this was seen acceptable, cool even. That time is over, and it is our duty to stop it from crawling out of it's cold grave.

 

[ArmoredSaint]

It's a game, not a vehicle for the Revolution. The designers' job is to produce a consistent, reliable rules system, not to be an agent for social change by churning out a polemic tract in support of multiculturalism. Save "sticking it to The Man" for the ballot box, not for gaming. A "Diversity Mandate" handed down from on high would make it feel like the game was trying to make some sort of political statement that would, I feel, uncomfortably detract from the game itself.

Greyhawk's skin tones aside, I still maintain that D&D originally assumed a society that was more like medieval Western Europe than not. The weapon and armour lists bear this out, the original illustrations bear this out, and the set of social classes, etc. described in the DMG and elsewhere was pretty clearly medieval Western Europe-flavored.

I want to see that preserved because I love that time period in that place in history, and I feel that its originality to the game merits its continuation in the edition to come.

 

[WheresMyD20]

You are arguing against purposely being inclusive -- that is an argument in favor of being purposely exclusionary, sorry.

You obviously fail at logic.

Admin here. Don't insult people, please, just because they disagree with you. -- Piratecat

 

[ArmoredSaint]

You know what?

I give up.

I just remembered the story about Monte Cook demanding that the 3rd edition iconic character of Regdar the human fighter to be nonwhite and throwing a fit when the marketing department made him white.

Clearly, Cook is part of the Diversity Lobby and I'll bet he gets his way this time around. In accordance with Monte Cook's agenda, all adventurers will probably be transsexual eskimo amputees, and the only white males in the core books will be NPCs and victims.

I am now pretty sure that D&D 5th edition will not look anything like medieval Europe, and that bothers me--I feel like the game loses something if it loses that. I feel like the game will change into something I don't recognize and can't identify with and enjoy.

*sigh* At least I still have my 1E books.

 

[trancejeremy]

I think the Rules Cyclopedia does a very good job.

Granted, they're line drawings, but I personally found that Game of Thrones pic to be boring and soulless. I do love that pirate picture though, for its over the top silliness. If you really think we've moved on from that you haven't bought any rum lately. (Blackheart Rum, specifically, which uses Betty Page dressed up as a Pirate. Okay, that's 50s cheesecake vs 80s...)

 

[Klaus]

Yup.... But.... That isn't quite the same thing.

I want to avoid the "creature cantina" vibe that 4e had, where it seemed the elven/dwarven/whatever lands had been replaced with these weird, but harmonious, menageries. Eberron is also a bit guilty of this, despite being a great setting. I did not care for the "whatever color you want" approach in that setting. I much, much prefer Greyhawk's racial origins model.

In fact, I'd say that whatever the Greyhawk "vibe" is, I want to keep that. Races (both in the elf vs. dwarf and the brown vs. white sense) exist and there are elements that go along with that. Every Greyhawk ethnicity had a proud heritage to claim and attractive reasons to choose to play a character of that stock. In fact, when I played a Baklunish rogue in RtToEE, the background I brought with me helped to engage the group with the setting more than any NPC could have done. In Eberron, it doesn't matter so everyone plays whatever color they are.

Dang. I hadn't realized just how perfect Greyhawk was, in this regard, until you pointed it out. Whatever it had, keep it.

As far as art goes, I have absolutely no problem seeing more variety in the characters portrayed. We have a lot more action movies that have women leads than we did in the '80s. I don't think most guys are going to feel threatened by a few reasonable pictures of women with swords. As far as political correctness goes, just make sure the art doesn't go so far that I don't have any images to inspire my burly/sneaky/smart dude characters.

Also, this Kormarck guy would make an awesome anchor artist for 5e. I really like the style. People in life, not striking poses. Some actual backgrounds, too.

In the defense of Eberron:

Humanity wasn't originally from Khorvaire, they were immigrants from Sarlona, hence the "any skin color can be found in any of the Five Nations" angle. Perhaps in Sarlona not all skin colors are common in all provinces.

 

[Yora]

I just remembered the story about Monte Cook demanding that the 3rd edition iconic character of Regdar the human fighter to be nonwhite and throwing a fit when the marketing department made him white.

That's a different story. Making a white character is not racist. Ordering someone to make his black character white is.

Now, I am from a country that once made it into the racism hall of fame, compared to which american slavery was a childrtens birthday party. But here in Europe, racism was mostly directed against other white minorities living next door to us and racism against people who look diferent is a more recent thing in our society. Instead of african slaves and chinese technically-not-slaves, our history with racism is more about painting over the top pictures of the primitives and savages who lived in far away places.

So when I see an order of paladin with 10% blacks, this appears to me asif someone felt there's a need for a few token blacks to appease ammerican political correctnes. And quotas are also a form of racism to me. If we need to force people to include minorities by law, it seems to imply that these minorities are not regarded to be able to be integrated because they have the same capabilities as the majority. It seems patronizing.

But now when I see this:

Then I feel really uncomfortable. Because it reminds me of 19th century exhibitions of "primitive people". I don't even know how an accurate representation of 13th century african warriors and noblemen would look like, and even an accurate image might make be uncomfortable because of my experiences.

Maybe that's a factor that plays into the disagreement here.