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

"As the practice of medicine became gradually increasingly popular among the clergy, canon laws were created in order to regulate and/or limit such practice. And so in 1163, Pope Alexander III forbade monks and other regular clerics to leave their religious institutions for the study of medicine. In 1215, surgery was prohibited in holy orders (major orders - subdeacons, deacons, and priests) but still permitted in minor orders (porters, exorcists, and lectors). At the end of the Middle Ages, there was still no prohibition of the practice of medicine by clerics in canon law (despite the limitations on who medicine was practiced). Surgery, however, was a different matter. "Surgery involved the shedding of blood and much greater risk of harm to a patient, thus heightening the anger that a clerical practitioner might be held responsible for a patient's death" "

This was less about "you may not shed blood" and more about liability in medical practice. The church didn't want to be blamed for deaths from surgery gone wrong. It certainly wasn't relevant to the battlefield.

It actually did go a little further in 1215:

Fourth Lateran Council said:
No cleric may decree or pronounce a sentence involving the shedding of blood, or carry out a punishment involving the same, or be present when such punishment is carried out. If anyone, however, under cover of this statute, dares to inflict injury on churches or ecclesiastical persons, let him be restrained by ecclesiastical censure. A cleric may not write or dictate letters which require punishments involving the shedding of blood, in the courts of princes this responsibility should be entrusted to laymen and not to clerics. Moreover no cleric may be put in command of mercenaries or crossbowmen or suchlike men of blood; nor may a subdeacon, deacon or priest practise the art of surgery, which involves cauterizing and making incisions; nor may anyone confer a rite of blessing or consecration on a purgation by ordeal of boiling or cold water or of the red-hot iron, saving nevertheless the previously promulgated prohibitions regarding single combats and duels.

Source: Fourth Lateran Council : 1215 Council Fathers - Papal Encyclicals

That's more extreme than anything D&D has had.

Prior to that, as you say, it does look like it was mostly about liability and the church being blamed for doctoring gone wrong (not just surgery). It probably didn't help that the old Hippocratic oath specifically forbade surgery, shocking as that may seem to modern people, which is why we (at least in the UK) have a distinction between doctors and surgeons (despite massive overlap in both training and to some extent practice).
 

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
Supporter
I still think this is about liability, in a sense. Note that while the people of the church can't command mercenaries, but they don't say that the people of the church cannot personally take up arms?

This extension is basically about passing sentences - they are leaving mortal punishments in the hands of the secular state: "..in the courts of princes this responsibility should be entrusted to laymen and not to clerics ..."

I suggest that it is very hard to decree, "it is in God's ineffable plan," when people of the Church, doing the business of the Church, are personally involved in making a death happen.
 

Mercule

Adventurer
Did you miss the end of that paragraph in which he mentioned the Touv had a penalty to Int? Dark skinned ethnic group with a lower Intelligence? I can see avoiding even touching on a hint of that.
Actually, I did miss that line. I had to go look up the Touv, since I only used the gold-and-red box, written by Gygax, and they weren't part of that. This is where the fan base splinters, too: I don't really consider anything not written by Gygax as canon to GH. In the red-and-gold box, the four races presented are equal in status and stats.
 


oh god, I forgot all about favored classes. it's like they just couldn't let go of the idea of race/class restrictions and just had to have something about it left in 3e.

I mean, I think it's pretty clear one of the biggest failings in 3e is how abusive prestige classes were, and part of the problem with them was that there was absolutely no drawback to taking a prestige class or two (or twelve).

Like, sure, you might disagree with hard race/class restrictions like 1e, but (a) having none certainly didn't prove good for the game, and (b) racial ability modifiers are still de facto soft race/class restrictions. There's very few Gnome Barbarians or Half-orc Wizards.
 

Absolutely this. As a cishet, white male, I have no clue what the ruckus about diverse representation being "political" is about. Why would any rational person have a problem with this?

Simply put: Message fatigue.

If you keep seeing the same message everywhere you go and it creeps into everything you're doing, you start to have a adverse response even when you agree with and support the message. It's more commonly talked about in terms of marketing fatigue where an advertising campaign might have too much penetration in a market and start turning off your current customers, but it applies to any message you're putting out on any topic. People have a limited amount of time in their lives, and they don't want one thing or one message to monopolize all of it, even when it's of great personal importance.

I had a homosexual classmate in college, and I remember during one LGBT pride week (month?) she sat down next to me and said, "Oh my God, if I have to walk through the quad and get handed another dozen gay rights flyers I'm going to scream. I can't wait until I can just walk to class in peace."

For another example, if you've ever donated to the ACLU, you'll quickly learn that doing so will primarily get you monthly phone calls, bimonthly mailers, biweekly emails, and so on. I'm a major proponent of the ACLU. I support their cause and want to donate. I even volunteered for an ACLU rally in college. However, I no longer do any of that because they won't leave me alone if I do it. If I donate and try to support them, I know that all they will do is ask for even more time and money from me. Yes, I agree it's important, but I have a life. I have other responsibilities. And I might like to go a week or two without being asked for more.

You know how people get sick of hearing about politics by about May of a Presidential election year? That's message fatigue. You know how people complain every year that Christmas decorations keep showing up sooner and sooner? That's because they know they'll be sick of them by the time it's actually Christmas. They want to avoid that message fatigue.

So when someone sits down to play D&D and says, "Ugh, I wish this wasn't so politicized. I just want to play the game,"they're just saying they're looking for an escape from the real world. They're looking to not have to deal with real world messages all the time. Even if you agree with it, even if you support it, it gets tiresome eventually.

Yes, I'm sure some people are just bigoted, but being tired of the conversation doesn't mean they're an opponent of the message.
 

This was less about "you may not shed blood" and more about liability in medical practice. The church didn't want to be blamed for deaths from surgery gone wrong. It certainly wasn't relevant to the battlefield.

It should be pointed out that, prior to germ theory and Lister's antiseptic surgery the overwhelming majority of people who had surgery later died from infection. Prior to Florence Nightingale's sanitary reforms, hospitals were known as places you went to die. In an age of no antiseptics, no antibiotics, and minimal understanding of disease, if you got an infected wound you very likely died. We condemn the church as anti-scientific ever since Darwinism, but the choice to restrict this probably saved many lives.
 

Azzy

ᚳᚣᚾᛖᚹᚢᛚᚠ
Simply put: Message fatigue.

If you keep seeing the same message everywhere you go and it creeps into everything you're doing, you start to have a adverse response even when you agree with and support the message. It's more commonly talked about in terms of marketing fatigue where an advertising campaign might have too much penetration in a market and start turning off your current customers, but it applies to any message you're putting out on any topic. People have a limited amount of time in their lives, and they don't want one thing or one message to monopolize all of it, even when it's of great personal importance.

I had a homosexual classmate in college, and I remember during one LGBT pride week (month?) she sat down next to me and said, "Oh my God, if I have to walk through the quad and get handed another dozen gay rights flyers I'm going to scream. I can't wait until I can just walk to class in peace."

For another example, if you've ever donated to the ACLU, you'll quickly learn that doing so will primarily get you monthly phone calls, bimonthly mailers, biweekly emails, and so on. I'm a major proponent of the ACLU. I support their cause and want to donate. I even volunteered for an ACLU rally in college. However, I no longer do any of that because they won't leave me alone if I do it. If I donate and try to support them, I know that all they will do is ask for even more time and money from me. Yes, I agree it's important, but I have a life. I have other responsibilities. And I might like to go a week or two without being asked for more.

You know how people get sick of hearing about politics by about May of a Presidential election year? That's message fatigue. You know how people complain every year that Christmas decorations keep showing up sooner and sooner? That's because they know they'll be sick of them by the time it's actually Christmas. They want to avoid that message fatigue.

So when someone sits down to play D&D and says, "Ugh, I wish this wasn't so politicized. I just want to play the game,"they're just saying they're looking for an escape from the real world. They're looking to not have to deal with real world messages all the time. Even if you agree with it, even if you support it, it gets tiresome eventually.

Yes, I'm sure some people are just bigoted, but being tired of the conversation doesn't mean they're an opponent of the message.

Wait, you're saying that having the art and descriptors in an RPG is causing message fatigue? That just passively showing women, minorities, and what not is a message and is fatiguing you? Do you have the same experience when you see women, minorities, and what not in your daily life? Does art and pronouns really cause you such discomfort?
 

cbwjm

Seb-wejem
I mean, I think it's pretty clear one of the biggest failings in 3e is how abusive prestige classes were, and part of the problem with them was that there was absolutely no drawback to taking a prestige class or two (or twelve).

Like, sure, you might disagree with hard race/class restrictions like 1e, but (a) having none certainly didn't prove good for the game, and (b) racial ability modifiers are still de facto soft race/class restrictions. There's very few Gnome Barbarians or Half-orc Wizards.
I think the problem was that people used prestige classes as just another set of abilities. Had they been embedded into the setting, I think they would have been far less open to abuse. For instance, if the setting required that you gain actual membership with the Loremasters of Arn to learn their secrets, then becoming a loremaster would have actually been somewhat prestigious. I think in this instance, dragonlance did it best. You couldn't just become a knight of solamnia or wizard of high sorcery without belonging to those organisations.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top