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

log in or register to remove this ad



Doug McCrae

Legend
According to this post on r/askhistorians, the idea that fighting clergy used blunt weapons to avoid the prohibition on shedding blood is a 19th century myth, started by the historian Edward Freeman.

To shed blood by sword or spear was a sin against the Church's canons, but to crush head-piece and head with the war-club was, in Odo's eyes, no breach of the duties of a minister of peace.​
 
Last edited:

cbwjm

Seb-wejem
My image of the cleric is now focused on the bishop from Vikings. Charging in, sword in hand, striking down his foes. I think for a while I felt the bludgeoning only was a little weird, especially if their god used an edged weapon, I'd have thought that they'd want to emulate their god.
 

It wasn't just pagans for whom a sword would have been inherently spiritual. Christians often saw the sword in that light too, since the hilt and crossguard formed the shape of a cross.
 

According to this post on r/askhistorians, the idea that fighting clergy used blunt weapons to avoid the prohibition on shedding blood is a 19th century myth, started by the historian Edward Freeman.

To shed blood by sword or spear was a sin against the Church's canons, but to crush head-piece and head with the war-club was, in Odo's eyes, no breach of the duties of a minister of peace.​

A lot of incorrect perceptions of the medieval era began in the 18 and 19th centuries.
 

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
Supporter
As mentioned upthread, "you" used to be exclusively plural, with "thou" being the singular.

That's not quite correct. The shift wasn't that simple. In Middle English, we had:

Second person subjective* singular/plural: thou/ye
Second person objective** singular/plural: thee/you

The Norman conquest brought some continental sensibilities to English - in particular, using the plurals to refer to royalty. This generalized, into using the plurals when you are speaking formally.

Then, "you" started killing not just "thou" but all three of the other second-person pronouns, and taking their stuff. Shakespeare was using the old form and just "you" interchangeably - some of the jokes are actually subtle plays on whether a character is speaking formally or not.

Then along comes a guy named Tyndale. He does a translation of the Bible (for which he is later killed), and keeps all the second-person pronouns. His translations become the basis for the King James Bible, preserving this usage.

Though, oddly, since we only see thou, ye, and thee in this rather important work, we think of these as being the formal words, and "you" is now egalitarian.

And, in dong reading about this, I find authors who suggest this fits into the Southern US "y'all". Culturally, there are reasons why Southerners want a way to distinguish formal and informal again (or, really, "in-group" and "out-group"). "Y'all" becomes an informal "you". Then, we get "all y'all", which takes the informal plural, not because "y'all" isn't actually plural, but just because "all y'all" is more plural.

Yes, I know this is all off-topic for a thread on Diversity. But, you know, this wormed its way in and is interesting.



*Subjective pronouns are the ones you use to be the subject of the sentence, and perform the action of the verb: in Modern English - I, he, she, it, they, we, and you.
**Objective pronouns are the ones you use to be the object of the sentence, and receive the action of the verb: in Modern English - me, him, her, it, them, us, and you.
 

Spear is probably the most spiritually significant weapon in most religions during the bulk of history. Christianity has single handedly turned that tide from the perspective of popularity by shear population but if you go by individual religions as your standard of counting then its still the spear. A lot of the major gods favor it. Especially heads of pantheons.

Norse, abrahamic (yeah. El shadai is a spear user generally even though some sword imagery is used at times.), hindu, greek, and so on.

Blunt weapons probably have more entries than swords too if you use this method of counting actually.

Especially war hammers, light clubs, maces, and heavy clubs (mauls?) respectively.
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
My image of the cleric is now focused on the bishop from Vikings. Charging in, sword in hand, striking down his foes. I think for a while I felt the bludgeoning only was a little weird, especially if their god used an edged weapon, I'd have thought that they'd want to emulate their god.
In my games, where we use specific weapon proficiencies, Clerics have a short-ish list of usually-blunt weapons they can choose from, plus an entry that says "deity-favoured". This means that if a deity favours a particular weapon (e.g. Thor favours hammer, Sif favours longsword, Artemis favours shortbow, etc.) then all Clerics to that deity may and must take that weapon as a proficiency even if doing so would otherwise not be allowed.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top