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
@Horwath, your back of the envelope calculations are skewed though. No society, or at least no society in the last 2000 years, had 95% of either gender under arms at the same time. And it would be almost unheard of for losses of those kinds of rates. But, the point is, a society could have an army that was 50% women, and still not appreciably affect the total population numbers of the society, simply because the ratio of soldiers to civilians is so small.

The point that people are making is that even if your armies were 10% women, that still makes women very common.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Oh, well. Let's poke the hornets nest here...

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.

there are several reasons for it.

1st, upper body strength, women have 40-50% less upper body strength and about 30% less lower body strength.
now, while sword or spear is a great force multiplier, as you do not need a lot of power to cuts someones throat, you do need more power for faster attacks, and more power to penetrate gambeson or chain armour.
Good luck with plate unless you have warhammers that require even more strength than swords or spears to use with any effect.

now, there were above average strong women in history, and maybe they were soldiers, but they were very tiny minority.


2nd.
Due to human slow reproductive rate, women were much to valuable to be risked on a battlefield, unless above mentioned it was a last stand.

Women can have a child once per year if we are optimistic on medieval standards and if we calculate that 30-50%(depending on sources) chance of dying in childbirth, no society can afford to risk women in battles.

Men are simply more expendable in reproductive terms.
Man can impregnate a woman(lets be very optimistic also, but calculate for giving time for sperm count to go up in numbers and not every "shot" counts :p ), every 2 or 3 weeks. ballpark figures.

That still gives one man opportunity to impregnate 20 women in one year, if situation appears that more than 95% of men died in battle.

Yes, until next generation grows up there would be problem with manual labor, but women could manage that lack of strength.
But, what would end that society would be another attack from foreign power.

Now imagine opposite situation where 95% of women dies: how many generation would be needed to bring back the numbers?

Pragmatically speaking yes. I think in the USSR they had a 2-1 gender ratio due to the war. A few unmarried women still had kids though.

Apparently Joan of Arc was pinged for wearing man's clothes which was illegal. In captivity she kept doing it to avoid being raped. She should have been interned at a nunnery but she was treated as a man and locked up.

Her name wasn't Joan, d'Arc wasn't that accurate either. Sons took father's names, daughters took mother's names in her area. Her family also wasn't that poor.

But her area had different traditions than England.
 

One rando coming out of the left field to hit us hard with the BIOTRUTHS is hardly what I would call a serious shift in the conversation.

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?

Right?





Right?
 

@Horwath, your back of the envelope calculations are skewed though. No society, or at least no society in the last 2000 years, had 95% of either gender under arms at the same time. And it would be almost unheard of for losses of those kinds of rates. But, the point is, a society could have an army that was 50% women, and still not appreciably affect the total population numbers of the society, simply because the ratio of soldiers to civilians is so small.

The point that people are making is that even if your armies were 10% women, that still makes women very common.

It's not the overall % that matters but the % if young adults. You can lose 10% of the population with very hard hitting impacts on demographics.

Russia for example hasn't recovered from WW2, neither have a few other countries. Some years were missing 75% of their population ie males born in 1923.


3:40 mark

Germany, Poland and other ex Soviet states have similar problems.
 

@Horwath, your back of the envelope calculations are skewed though. No society, or at least no society in the last 2000 years, had 95% of either gender under arms at the same time. And it would be almost unheard of for losses of those kinds of rates. But, the point is, a society could have an army that was 50% women, and still not appreciably affect the total population numbers of the society, simply because the ratio of soldiers to civilians is so small.

The point that people are making is that even if your armies were 10% women, that still makes women very common.

no society as a whole no. but there were cases where kings army would march into village and took every able bodied boy and man into service. left only younger that 13-14 or older that 50-55. and in medieval ages there were not many 55+ people around.

also 10% is very optimistic, 1% is still a lot for those ages.

also as @Zardnaar mentioned, there was a lot of women is Soviet army, but that is only as rifle is a huge equalizer of force on a battlefield. You really do not need a lot of strength to carry and shoot a rifle.(excluding carrying around heavy machine guns).
 

I live in the USA now and don't know the laws on this (probably pretty lax considering I just saw a news report of cops using cars with civilians in them for cover in a shootout in a hostage situation). But the big ethical dilemma that is similar to this is the "do you bomb innocents in Hiroshima/Nagasaki, or do a ground invasion which could kill many more?"

No easy answer on that one honestly.

The first issue is probably that they would use raison d'etat if necessary. and cover it up as an issue of security which is not so easily done in my home country, depending on context and circumstances the deciders and forces in my country might also take the juristically illegal but seemingly rationale approach, and there are also other ways e.g. you can hamper the possinbilities of an airline to steer well enough to carry out destructive maneuvers so nothing is cast in iron i guess.
A juristic debriefing of the situation might conclude that although laws were broken a retirement would be sufficient as a reaction, i think i read that in my country no elected politician can be held accountable juristically for actions he carried out during his mandate, e.g. he could not be charged because he voted yes or no for any matter in parliament.
The real dilemma is how you interpret the worst case scenario: As a relative of casualties on the ground you would like to hold the officials accountable for not preventing it, as a relative of a victim in a plane downed to prevent an attack you would ask whether there was no other solution.

The second topic is not so well comparable, it was a declared war between two nations, plus it is estimated that at least 50000 more GIs would have fallen, as well as maybe many of the civilians who were drafted and issued with bamboo spears but would have fought to the dead if the war had continued. It could have been that the total number of casualities would be even higher as you wrote.
 

no society as a whole no. but there were cases where kings army would march into village and took every able bodied boy and man into service. left only younger that 13-14 or older that 50-55. and in medieval ages there were not many 55+ people around.

also 10% is very optimistic, 1% is still a lot for those ages.

also as @Zardnaar mentioned, there was a lot of women is Soviet army, but that is only as rifle is a huge equalizer of force on a battlefield. You really do not need a lot of strength to carry and shoot a rifle.(excluding carrying around heavy machine guns).
In the modern day, the number of U.S. women in the Marine forces is a rather high 15.5%, and rising with each year. Much higher than your statistic on the average fighting capabilities of a woman.

Furthermore, any argument that "but, they're not subjected to the same tests of strength" is made moot, because the U.S. Marines have the exact same standards for women and men.

And, don't come back at me with "but, firearms are not force-based weapons!!111!!!!!11!!", because, while they're not greatswords, firing machine guns is certainly not as easy as a film might make you assume. And, to add to that, Marines are required to carry 250-pound weights uphill during their training, along with a preponderance of other tests.

My point is that your post is actually inaccurate. I'm making an argument based on facts, not an emotional response to "too many wimmenz!!1!1!!" in my gaming.
 

The first issue is probably that they would use raison d'etat if necessary. and cover it up as an issue of security which is not so easily done in my home country, depending on context and circumstances the deciders and forces in my country might also take the juristically illegal but seemingly rationale approach, and there are also other ways e.g. you can hamper the possinbilities of an airline to steer well enough to carry out destructive maneuvers so nothing is cast in iron i guess.
A juristic debriefing of the situation might conclude that although laws were broken a retirement would be sufficient as a reaction, i think i read that in my country no elected politician can be held accountable juristically for actions he carried out during his mandate, e.g. he could not be charged because he voted yes or no for any matter in parliament.
The real dilemma is how you interpret the worst case scenario: As a relative of casualties on the ground you would like to hold the officials accountable for not preventing it, as a relative of a victim in a plane downed to prevent an attack you would ask whether there was no other solution.

The second topic is not so well comparable, it was a declared war between two nations, plus it is estimated that at least 50000 more GIs would have fallen, as well as maybe many of the civilians who were drafted and issued with bamboo spears but would have fought to the dead if the war had continued. It could have been that the total number of casualities would be even higher as you wrote.

At University I had to cover this. If the bombs shortened the war by 2 weeks they saved lives. If they didn't they were a waste.

And that's just the average death toll in China. Lots of people were gonna die regardless pick your poison.

They still have a few purple hearts left over from the war years. Someone had to look at the death toll and decide who lives and dies.

55 million died directly in the war, 10-20 million indirectly and half if them were in the last two years if the war.

25-35 million dead in two years 250k a week approx even halved due to war in Europe being over China still lost 20 million plus.

There are studies coming out now in long term demographic effects of the war.
 
Last edited:

My initial point was that we really don't know how many women served in the military historically. I also assume it may well have varied by region and culture, for example every Israeli citizen is expected to service in the military when they turn 18 unless they apply for an exemption.

By and large men wrote the history books, even if there were well known female soldiers, the odds of it being recorded were slim and none.

All of which is not particularly relevant to a fantasy game for many, many reasons.
 

In the modern day, the number of U.S. women in the Marine forces is a rather high 15.5%, and rising with each year. Much higher than your statistic on the average fighting capabilities of a woman.

Furthermore, any argument that "but, they're not subjected to the same tests of strength" is made moot, because the U.S. Marines have the exact same standards for women and men.

And, don't come back at me with "but, firearms are not force-based weapons!!111!!!!!11!!", because, while they're not greatswords, firing machine guns is certainly not as easy as a film might make you assume. And, to add to that, Marines are required to carry 250-pound weights uphill during their training, along with a preponderance of other tests.

My point is that your post is actually inaccurate. I'm making an argument based on facts, not an emotional response to "too many wimmenz!!1!1!!" in my gaming.

I know that, that is why I excluded machine gun from my statement.

you need 100kg of in-shape body to fire a machine gun that is not mounted at least on a bipod.

but almost anyone can fire M16/AK-47 on single fire or short burst. Well, AK does have more kick to it.
When I was in military, we shot AKs one handed on full auto for a joke. totally waste of ammo, but it was in training and we did it for a goof.

And my percentage was not in any way meant towards modern military, just medieval one.
 

Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top