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.

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
It's the tech level of the PHB though. Plate, rapiers, great swords came later. Hand crossbows could have been built in the Renaissance.

Early D&D was more 14th century with the odd anachronism like two handed sword.

It's really just the inability of fantasy fans to accept gunpowder. Add that, and most D&D campaigns are at a 16th century tech level.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Now, if people actually bothered taking the post seriously enough to respond ( :mad: and of course someone does literally the moment I start typing this :mad: ) that's another thing. But we know better to engage with trolls and get what was otherwise a respectful and actually at moments illuminating conversation shut down, right?

Someone is not simply a troll just because he has views dissimilar to yours.
In fact Horwath appears to be making his case in good faith. Instead of making insinuations about his character, rather try to challenge him on his perceptions, whether they are right or wrong. Conversation is key.
 

Agreed. My main problem with what @Horwath wrote, besides some probable sexism, was that his post was completely inaccurate.

The example of the U.S. military.

Your example of the Israeli military.

Ugly insinuations aside, both of those examples are null and void in the discussion - particularly since the poster was referring to medieval warfare. He very much stated this.

Horwath said:
There was not a lot of women in battles in medieval period unless it was a last stand situation and you are going to die either way so why not have a wack with an axe towards the enemy.

Bold emphasis mine.

He was replying to Oofta's
Oofta said:
When it comes to number of women in combat before the modern period, we simply don't know for certain.

Therefore clearly he was not referring to the modern era.
 

Ugly insinuations aside, both of those examples are null and void in the discussion - particularly since the poster was referring to medieval warfare. He very much stated this.



Bold emphasis mine.

He was replying to Oofta's


Therefore clearly he was not referring to the modern era.
What's your point? We know women serve in modern military. We don't know how often they served in pre modern times.

That's all. Add in other factors of a fantasy world and we just don't know what it would be.

Which is all irrelevant. It's fantasy, it doesn't have to be realistic.
 

I would avoid stressing over the realism of economy and technology. Whatever settings, the game always takes place in a fantasy world. There is no reason to believe that even a REAL world on a different planet would have followed the same history of technology and economy as earth. Crude materials availability for instance wouldn't necessarily be the same.

The reason I get ... annoyed is far too strong of a word ... um.. proud nailed? naw, that sounds dirty. Whatever it is. :D

The reason is, in order to have X, you need to have Y. So, if you have, say, clipper ships (something I've ACTUALLY seen pictured in D&D art, then you have to have everything needed to make that ship - which means you have steam engines and incredibly refined manufacturing capabilities, and so on and so forth. I mean, good grief, I've MET people who came to Canada on a clipper. So, something like that really stands out to me.

Something like a Hand Crossbow, or Full Plate Armor doesn't really trigger my spidey sense too much because, well, ROMANS had plate armor. Granted it was made of bronze, not steel, but, again, not really a huge jump when I can already buy into Mithril or Adamantine. :D I've never actually had a player use a pistol crossbow, so I just ignore it. And, IIRC, pistol crossbows predate gunpowder weapons anyway, so, it's not a huge jump.

But, yeah, it's all about personal suspension of disbelief. It's different for everyone.
 

What's your point?

My point was the two examples cited had no relevance in the discussion - that is all.

Which is all irrelevant. It's fantasy, it doesn't have to be realistic.

Some attempt to inject their own sense of realism/internal consistency into their games. What may be irrelevant to you and me, might not be irrelevant to someone else.

Hussar perhaps articulated it better.

Hussar said:
(snip)...it's all about personal suspension of disbelief. It's different for everyone.
 

I would avoid stressing over the realism of economy and technology. Whatever settings, the game always takes place in a fantasy world. There is no reason to believe that even a REAL world on a different planet would have followed the same history of technology and economy as earth. Crude materials availability for instance wouldn't necessarily be the same.

To overstress something for a recreational game is not so good. But to make a reasonable approach especially when you are sometimes into the micromanagement aspect of the game, or if you want to steer items and equipment available to the party (dependent on tech level, area, resources etc.) e.g. to also be closer to some real world historic period, of which some of your players might have knowledge, so they can better visualize your fantasy setting, getting the right "mental image" of it, is surely worth it.

It may not be everybody's shtick, but for sure it is one of mine.
 

The problem being though, @Sadras, is that these "sense of realism" points tend to be unsupported by actual history, and really don't actually reflect anything more than the person's personal views. But, as soon as that point gets brought up, they react very strongly and rush to the defense of what is, indefensible.

Look, do whatever you want in your home game. Knock yourself out and have as much fun as legally possible. That's FANTASTIC. But, don't then try to pretend (and I'm using the general you here, not you Sadras) that it's based on any sort of "truth" other than "this is something I like".

If people would stop conflating their personal tastes for objective value, the world would be a much, much better place.
 

Therefore clearly he was not referring to the modern era.
Irrelevant. My examples were not referring to the era in which the war was fought, but rather, pointing out facets of data about the fighting capability of women that he had missed.

As for sexism, is it truly so ugly to suggest that saying (and I am paraphrasing) "women's main use is childbearing" is a tad sexist?

Read back to his post, the poster clearly makes some false and insulting insinuations.
 
Last edited:

My point was the two examples cited had no relevance in the discussion - that is all.



Some attempt to inject their own sense of realism/internal consistency into their games. What may be irrelevant to you and me, might not be irrelevant to someone else.

Hussar perhaps articulated it better.
We know women serve voluntarily in the military today. It seems highly unlikely that no woman ever participated in combat in any culture in pre-modern times. We simply have no way of knowing how many. That's all we can say with certainty.

But this whole thread started about depicting of a variety of people in published materials. Just because they show a female dwarf clad in plate armor, doesn't mean you have to have dwarves, female fighters or plate armor in your campaign.

Think all women should be barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen? Your choice. I wouldn't play in that campaign. On the other hand depicting a variety of people not just standard white males as heroes clues people in that it's okay to play that kind of PC if they want.

I think it's a big improvement over the stripper with a single piece of cloth covering the bare minimum aesthetic of some of the old cheesecake art. Even if I did my share of drooling over those pictures as a teen.
 

Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top