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

S'mon

Legend
"Some young men would have preferred fewer female characters and more males to choose from. None of us worried too much about those complaints."

Heh. At least the Marketing Team was there for them!
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Bawylie

A very OK person
I liked the 3rd ed iconics. And I liked Redgar (even bought the Redgar shirt). I remember flipping through 3rd ed PHB in my late teens and looking for the “regular guy.”

In retrospect, it’s not that I was looking for a regular guy. I was really asking “where am I?” in this game. And that’s a valid question for anyone! And it’s good that all kinds of people can increasingly find an answer.
 

Panda-s1

Scruffy and Determined
Equally important was Pathfinder stating that their icons were all considered - unless specifically called out as something else in an adventure, comic, etc - bisexual.
I don't want to derail anything, but I remember the halcyon days of 12 years ago, when Rise of the Runelords first came out, of all the back patting Paizo got because they had the one (technically 2?) gay NPC(s) in the starting town. like I get that it was important, but at the same time I like only heard about this guy because my DM running the game brought it up, outside of game, with other people, like it was some kinda neat easter egg that we, the players, never got around to learning in-game (also two of the players were lgbt which made it feel even weirder). like maybe he could've been a guy we needed to talk to for the main quest? and then we met his partner as part of the quest and find out they're actually together? (also neither of them get in harm's way for the sake of the adventure, that'd be too tropey).

sorry, I kinda had to get that off my chest. I guess things have gotten better in Pathfinder? maybe?

I was looking through my copy of the new Eberron book with an eye toward how inviting the art might be to a person of a non-European ethnic background. There were a number of depictions of people with sub-Saharan features, even among the nonhuman hero races. Unfortunately, the same can't be said of people with east-Asian features. I'm not asking for a quota, but it would have been nice if the only person with distinctly east-Asian features wasn't in the monster section. :confused:
does Eberron even have a fantasy Asia place? as someone of East Asian descent I too love seeing Asian representation in fantasy settings, but for an actual setting like Eberron I prefer there's like an actual reason ("reason") you might see an Asian person. I don't wanna say something like "forced diversity", but I do find it weird when a video game is like "your character can look however they want!" "oh cool, but why am I the only person of color in a game full of white people? like what's my ethnicity in this world?" "your what now??"
 
Last edited:

Zardnaar

Legend
I don't really care about he/she being used. Could be 100% one or the other or anywhere in between.

Didn't really care about the iconics one way or another.

What changed between the late 90s and the lead up to 4E in terms of changing the fluff?
 

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
Yeah, it is. A lot of languages have gender built in very pervasively, English actually has very little of it, by comparison. But, if you are talking about a single specific person, the English pronoun is gendered. Maybe it stands out because there's not a whole lot of it elsewhere? More than one person, the gender is gone. Not a person, the gender is gone. Not a specific person, or a person who's gender isn't certain based on context, the gender is gone - but the word happens to be the same as for the male gender, 'he.' That's hardly unusual, English is lousy with words that have multiple meanings.

But around the time it became fashionable to remove -man as an ending for the names of professions, that technically gender-neutral pronoun became problematic....
It didn’t just “become problematic.” What happened was that the people who had a problem with it all along finally started being taken seriously.
 



cbwjm

Seb-wejem
Just having a look at the iconics art in the PHB, I'm sure that somewhere along the line, the half-elf bard (who I had thought was human) was dropped and the gnome bard was picked up. I recall once trying to recall the bard, looking through the 3.5 phb and getting confused because I was sure that the art wasn't correct but as it turns out, I was recalling the 3e phb.

I liked a lot of the artwork of the iconics, my favourites being the druid, the bards (both of them looked pretty good to me), the halfling rogue, the dwarf fighter, and the half-orc barbarian. The sorcerer I wasn't too fond of, it looked like were was wearing one giant boot with all of those straps.
 

Shiroiken

Legend
In retrospect, it’s not that I was looking for a regular guy. I was really asking “where am I?” in this game. And that’s a valid question for anyone! And it’s good that all kinds of people can increasingly find an answer.
See, I have to disagree here, at least for me. "I'm" not anywhere in the game, nor do I want to be. I want to use the game to become someone else! When I play a fantasy race, even a human one, I want to become what that race is supposed to be like. The point of the game is to role-play, and if you just stick to what you already know IRL, there's no point in playing.

This is where I think that D&D has generally failed. I think the PHB and DMG should have talked about the DM creating various human ethnicity (which btw, is a term they should have used instead of sub-race) for their specific campaign. Using real world races as a baseline is fine, so long as effort is made to distinguish them from said races (the Greyhawk races are similar to, but significantly different than their analog). Another option for the DM, and a decent one, is the every ethnicity humans, where all the original ethnic groups have long since blended and mixed, allowing every human type to appear anywhere, and no one ever notices the differences. In any event, my guess is that ethnicity is a sensitive topic in today's world, and WotC was attempting to avoid any controversy.

As for art and the pronouns... I really don't care, even though I know a lot of people do. In both cases I simply suggest using whatever allows for the widest appeal, just as they did for the mechanics. I do recall my group making fun of the 3E 1"icon characters," not because of how they were done, just the fact they existed in the first place.
 

Jay Verkuilen

Grand Master of Artificial Flowers
It kind of did pick up Greyhawk more broadly. Living Greyhawk became the primary organized play campaign for the edition and the Living Greyhawk Gazetteer was published.
As I recall none of those were available for the general public, only RPGA members and people doing organized play, but that's just a memory from a long time ago.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top