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
Were there fewer female soldiers in most historical cultures? Yep, absolutely.

Does that have any influence on my D&D (or even, my historical RPG) game? Nope.

Generally, you don't play as the median character, you play as someone extraordinary.

I wouldn't expect it to affect your PCs. As you note, PCs are unusual by nature.

However, in a world that lacks modern technology like reliable birth control, and where warfare and travel are muscle-powered, it may seem implausible for half the castle guards, or half a pirate vessel crew to be made up of women. It's not badwrongfun to enjoy fantasy settings that hew closely to our own pre-modern social structures and norms. There's no reason our fantasy settings have to be idealistic or appealing to modern sensibilities. I wouldn't want to spend 15 minutes in the fantasy settings I've run - they're brutal, ignorant, pitiless, predatory, hostile places.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


Oofta

Legend
I wouldn't expect it to affect your PCs. As you note, PCs are unusual by nature.

However, in a world that lacks modern technology like reliable birth control, and where warfare and travel are muscle-powered, it may seem implausible for half the castle guards, or half a pirate vessel crew to be made up of women. It's not badwrongfun to enjoy fantasy settings that hew closely to our own pre-modern social structures and norms. There's no reason our fantasy settings have to be idealistic or appealing to modern sensibilities. I wouldn't want to spend 15 minutes in the fantasy settings I've run - they're brutal, ignorant, pitiless, predatory, hostile places.

Which is part of why I assume magic works and increases life expectancy (especially among children) and that reliable birth control is also a thing. It also doesn't take into consideration other races that will likely spend decades, if not centuries, as adults with no young children.

I never assume all possibilities of magic are contained in the PHB.
 


How can a world be full of magic, and not have reliable birth control?

For the same reason a world could be full of magic and not have industrial agriculture, public plumbing and sanitation, zeppelins, penicillin, modern dentistry, or smart phones: because not all us of treat magic like technology. Some of us don't have any problem reconciling technologically and socially pre-modern settings with the existence of magic.

In my worlds, wizard are eccentric recluses who are feared and distrusted. They spend their days engaged in obsessive research into arcane abstractions. They aren't civic engineers who go around making their kingdoms more efficient and technologically advanced.

That said, it's also not entirely true that pre-modern eras had no ideas about birth control (see, e.g., silphium).

You'll note I said 'reliable.' The modern birth control pill was a game-changer for a reason.
 

jasper

Rotten DM
So, one thing has always bugged me. Paladins.

Okay, lots of things bug me. Here's one of them-

Imagine you've got elves. Live practically forever. In order for them to not take over the world like the pointy-eared roaches that they are, they also have to reproduce very slowly.

So ... long lived (practically immortal by human standards) and reproduces once every, what, 200 years or so? If that?

What effect would that have on willingness to undertake any kind of risky activity? I'm not just talking about combat or war (which would seem right out), I'm not even sure that they'd be willing to get on a ladder!
DUDE. They are called High elves for a reason. Wink
 

Tony Vargas

Legend
How can a world be full of magic, and not have reliable birth control?
Vetoed by deities with the Fertility portfolio?

So ... long lived (practically immortal by human standards) and reproduces once every, what, 200 years or so? If that?
Nod. I remember thinking that through back in the day, dumb teenager that I was at the time, and, well, I concluded that there's a reason elves seem to be depicted as an isolationist race in slow decline. They're just set up for it. I went and extrapolated that to extremes, when thinking about any detail of elven life (physiology, culture, etc), the rule of thumb I used was 'pleasant for the individual, ultimately fatal to the species.'

What effect would that have on willingness to undertake any kind of risky activity? I'm not just talking about combat or war (which would seem right out), I'm not even sure that they'd be willing to get on a ladder!
And, the classic eleven fighting style - archery from the trees, deceptive magic - certainly fits. Minimize the risk even to your 'front line' fighters. Though, elves seem to have such extraordinary balance that they run up trees without risk of falling, and probably don't even build ladders (besides, falls don't hurt that much in D&D, notoriously so).
 

generic

On that metempsychosis tweak
I wouldn't expect it to affect your PCs. As you note, PCs are unusual by nature.

However, in a world that lacks modern technology like reliable birth control, and where warfare and travel are muscle-powered, it may seem implausible for half the castle guards, or half a pirate vessel crew to be made up of women. It's not badwrongfun to enjoy fantasy settings that hew closely to our own pre-modern social structures and norms. There's no reason our fantasy settings have to be idealistic or appealing to modern sensibilities. I wouldn't want to spend 15 minutes in the fantasy settings I've run - they're brutal, ignorant, pitiless, predatory, hostile places.
Ah yes, punishing worlds.

Actually, although I did object to the posts of others, many of my worlds don't cleave to modern sensibilities, and actually do reflect appropriately realistic archetypes, but that has nothing to do with the PCs.

I tend to run campaigns in gritty, horrible worlds.
 


generic

On that metempsychosis tweak
Wizards, sure. And sorcerers and warlocks, why not?

Druids? Clerics???? I certainly can get behind ignoring it, but it does seem .... odd .... that you have these people running around, bringing back the dead, curing diseases and poison, but they're all like, "Ew, icky lady parts, can't do that."
I feel like I could throw a massive, political firebomb into this conversation.

But I'm not going to, because I'm a good person. 🙃
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top