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
Those are dangerous words... I understand what you mean, but perhaps edit your post to clarify what arguments you are talking about, rather than just saying "racists can be right".

Dangerous, dangerous words...
Question: what if i said "if the devil said it, is it an invalid argument?"

If that would stir less resentment is there not a problem?

Im not supporting racism or sexism. Im denouncing bigotry.

What do i do here after considering such a thing?

Saying the mouth an idea belongs to changes the validity of something said is bigoted. Why should i or you cater to the bigotry of others whether the bigotry is backed by a socially accepted group or an unaccepted one?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Celebrim

Legend
One of the big problems that leads to this, though is that actual racists (and the like) make concerted efforts to come across as "reasonable" and "sensible" in their arguments when they're really just trolling—see sealioning.

More non-falsifiable arguments that again comes down to rudeness pretending to be concern. Essentially, you are just assuming your argument that anyone that disagrees with you must be doing so in bad faith, and then rationalizing your decision to do that. But you don't consider that maybe that makes you the illiberal one in the argument.

And the cry of "sealioning" is just, "Because shut up" given a Ministry of Truth spin.

It also comes across a lot like gaslighting—making attempts to be more progressive seem like a bad thing because it offends certain people.

Many things that are asserted as being "more progressive" are often just regressive behavior sheltering behind vapid assertions of category. I'm not going to start pointing out examples, because that would just lead to fractal arguments, but not everything labeled "more progressive" is actually an improvement or even for that matter Liberal (see the term "sealioning"). A huge amount of what gets labeled "progressive" these days isn't. This goes back to what I was saying about trying to agglutinate every dog turd opinion onto the temple of Progress, and then when you are criticized for the opinion, crying "racism" because it within that once hallowed temple are ideas like equality, compassion, tolerance, and civility that your dog turd opinions have now defamed.

So, it's very easy to lump someone (whow may have legitimate concerns) as being a racist/whatever because their arguments sound too much like those racists/whatever that argue in bad faith.

For a group that claims to be against lumping people into categories, the so called "progressives" often are more guilty of that than any other group.

Sure, I get that there are sometimes people who take up arguments I make to defend positions I don't have, but guess what, there are a ton of nasty people on the left that take up arguments others have made in good face to defend nasty positions I hope you don't have.
 



Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
Supporter
For a group that claims to be against lumping people into categories, the so called "progressives" often are more guilty of that than any other group.

Mod Note:

Right. You're done here.

Anyone else, feel the need to take a break? We can skip the part where you say something egregious. You can just say, "Dude, can you threadban me so I am not tempted? Thanks!"
 

Azzy

ᚳᚣᚾᛖᚹᚢᛚᚠ
More non-falsifiable arguments that again comes down to rudeness pretending to be concern. Essentially, you are just assuming your argument that anyone that disagrees with you must be doing so in bad faith, and then rationalizing your decision to do that. But you don't consider that maybe that makes you the illiberal one in the argument.

No, I'm saying that, having experienced such bad faith arguments, it's easy to assume that people making similar argments are more of the same. I suppose you could say it's similar to "message fatigue".

And the cry of "sealioning" is just, "Because shut up" given a Ministry of Truth spin.

Not really, but whatever.

Many things that are asserted as being "more progressive" are often just regressive behavior sheltering behind vapid assertions of category. I'm not going to start pointing out examples, because that would just lead to fractal arguments, but not everything labeled "more progressive" is actually an improvement or even for that matter Liberal (see the term "sealioning"). A huge amount of what gets labeled "progressive" these days isn't. This goes back to what I was saying about trying to agglutinate every dog turd opinion onto the temple of Progress, and then when you are criticized for the opinion, crying "racism" because it within that once hallowed temple are ideas like equality, compassion, tolerance, and civility that your dog turd opinions have now defamed.

Irrelevent. Increased diverse representation is REAL progress.

For a group that claims to be against lumping people into categories, the so called "progressives" often are more guilty of that than any other group.

Sure thing.

Sure, I get that there are sometimes people who take up arguments I make to defend positions I don't have, but guess what, there are a ton of nasty people on the left that take up arguments others have made in good face to defend nasty positions I hope you don't have.

Sure, I'm just telling you that it's easy to assume that that people are bad faith actors when you've been swamped by bad faith actors saying similar things for so long.
 

Azzy

ᚳᚣᚾᛖᚹᚢᛚᚠ
Here's a novel thought. The opposed view WAS reasonable.

Another novel thought racists arent wrong by default. So if someone was identified as one, their argument would not be invalidated.

Should your argument be ignored because you accidentally used two slurs (which you assuredly did)? I think not.

Dont use "racist" and "sexist" to dismiss arguments. Its weak.

Clarification:
Racism and sexism are of course bad. This is not support for either. Do not construe it as such.
Being dimissive of bad faith arguments is not the same of blanket disagreement with everything that a person says. After all, there may be some flat earther who is pro-vaccine. That's not to say that their arguments against a spherical Earth are actually reasonable.
 

Being dimissive of bad faith arguments is not the same of blanket disagreement with everything that a person says. After all, there may be some flat earther who is pro-vaccine. That's not to say that their arguments against a spherical Earth are actually reasonable.
There is nothing bad faith about any of it.

And i refuse to believe that you missed that the point was being a flat earther doesnt invalidate that person's argument about how vaccines are useful (continuing with your proxy metaphor). Nice try.
 

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
Supporter
I'm saying I can understand why someone who sees another thread titled, "Diversity in D&D," might feel tired by it even if they agree with it.

Mod Note:

Do remember, everyone - your engagement in this thread is entirely voluntary. If you are tired of the subject, it is up to you to walk away. Just as the rest of the world does not stop while you sleep at night, the rest of the world does not stop having conversation when you are tired of the topic.
 

Azzy

ᚳᚣᚾᛖᚹᚢᛚᚠ
There is nothing bad faith about any of it.

Maybe you are confused. I'm not saying that anyone on this thread is a bad faith actor. That said, I've seen a lot of bad faith arguments from racists/et al. before. You can't say otherwise.

And i refuse to believe that you missed that the point was being a flat earther doesnt invalidate that person's argument about how vaccines are useful (continuing with your proxy metaphor). Nice try.

Did you not read my post? I was agreeing with you that being a [flat earther] doesn't invalidate their opinion on [vaccines]. That was the whole jist of what I was saying.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top