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
Who is that? If he's the most famous monk in D&D that's a pretty sad commentary on monks.


That’s Brother Milerjoi, from the Slavers series, a very popular and iconic series of Modules for AD&D. If you aren’t familiar with the Slavers series, I think that’s more of a commentary about your lack of knowledge on iconic AD&D modules than it is on monks.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Celebrim

Legend
When I was little, I had no problem seeing myself reflected on pretty much any media on any character that wasn't explicitly coded as particularly a certain race/sexuality/identity etc. Every character was like me until proven otherwise. Or it used to be...

One of the battles with the dominant culture that I've been losing is the fight to keep my girls from encoding everyone in these buckets that society insists everyone can be and should be classified as. Try as I might, I'm not winning that fight. When they were little they had no problem identifying with any story protagonist. In their play they had no problem RPing a boy or a girl, and would switch freely between the two as they felt served the story. But gradually, they lost this ability and have increasingly needed to have some sort of protagonist encoded with the same buckets that society insists on forcing them into - white, female, etc. I'm still fighting that fight, but against the tidal wave that is the insistence of seeing everyone according to buckets that is coming from them at all angles, it's one of the fights I feel I'm losing.

Or it used to be, because now, by getting rid of the uncoded default people, now no character is ever me, I'll never ever see myself on the screen because of it. (Ok, it has never been perfect, I still loathed the idea that there very few female characters.)

It had always been my hope that we'd get rid of the encoding and in doing so free up any character to be something more than just their list of collective memberships. That was a dream I was willing to fight for. I felt as a kid that the forces that insisted on encoding and seeing everyone through the lens of encoding were losing and would eventually disappear - even the kids in the KKK seemed a bit embarrassed to believe what they did. But instead, in a dramatic turn of events, the very forces that claimed to be opposed to racism adopted racism as their paradigm, and promoted it, and I found myself surrounded on all sides by people whose views ran parallel to the very racists in high school I had denounced. And now we are as a society in retrograde, trying to drive out racism with racism and seemingly bewildered why this approach is leading to more and more of it.
 

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
Supporter
The papal edict which forbade blood shedding by the clergy, preventing momks from working as surgeons back then was later..

"As the practice of medicine became gradually increasingly popular among the clergy, canon laws were created in order to regulate and/or limit such practice. And so in 1163, Pope Alexander III forbade monks and other regular clerics to leave their religious institutions for the study of medicine. In 1215, surgery was prohibited in holy orders (major orders - subdeacons, deacons, and priests) but still permitted in minor orders (porters, exorcists, and lectors). At the end of the Middle Ages, there was still no prohibition of the practice of medicine by clerics in canon law (despite the limitations on who medicine was practiced). Surgery, however, was a different matter. "Surgery involved the shedding of blood and much greater risk of harm to a patient, thus heightening the anger that a clerical practitioner might be held responsible for a patient's death" "

This was less about "you may not shed blood" and more about liability in medical practice. The church didn't want to be blamed for deaths from surgery gone wrong. It certainly wasn't relevant to the battlefield.
 

bedir than

Full Moon Storyteller
This reminds me that I need to refine my "western monk" the Way of the Frayed Knot, that leans heavily into Friar Tuck and similar characterizations.
 



I just have trouble wrapping my head around singular "y'all". It is a contraction of "you all". So, "you all" to refer to one person implies... "you" is less than the entire person? "Y'all" when you mean a person, and "you" when you mean, "the person, but not their left foot"?

:p
As mentioned upthread, "you" used to be exclusively plural, with "thou" being the singular. I'm sure some people during the 14th - 16th centuries, when "you" took over the singular, were as perplexed as you are (or should I say "as thou art"?).
 




Remove ads

Remove ads

Top