Racially diverse artwork in D&D...does it influence you?

[Celebrim]

As has been mentioned, people like what they can identify with.

That's certainly true, but I want to live in a world where someone's color is no barrier to identifying with them.

Even though I can empathicize with the thinking, I still have a minor problem with the notion of seeing someone who is black or yellow or red or purple or whatever, and saying to yourself, "Ahh... at last, a game for me that features characters I can identify with because thier skin color is the same as mine!" Really? How am I supposed to approach that illustration then, "Ahh.. this game isn't for me because I can't identify with a character if thier skin color is different than mine!" Why should skin color be an important factor in deciding whether or not I can or would want to identify with someone?

Some of this discussion seems based on a unconscious/unintentional assumption of cultural superiority in regards to Tolkienish fantasy Europe. Why isn't anyone saying that we should shoehorn caucasians into Kara-Tur, Asian types into Zhakara, or Native Americans into Nyambe? It would look utterly inauthentic and would destroy what makes for real diversity of the setting in general.

While otherwise I agree, in this quite the contrary - I see that as evidence of an unconscious assumption of the cultural superiority of non-European cultures. That is to say, people seem to be saying that a European derived setting would be improved by adding 'diversity' to it, or at least shoe horning in someone of different a slightly different skin hue for the sake of having different skin hue's alone. Yet noone is suggesting that an African or Oriental setting would be improved by adding 'diversity' to it or at least shoe horning in someone with fair skin so that people could have someone to identify with. That you would say that this behavior is evidence of unconscious euro-centricism is unsurprising. But I note that no one here is suggesting that they'd have a hard time identifying themselves with a ninja or a samurii.

I recall one time playing a game in a modern setting. The DM introduced the scenario to us which turned out to revolve around investigating some murders in an area which was xenophobic. This made us all laugh, because all of us had chosen to play non-white characters. We did it I think, not out of any desire to foster diversity, but simply because we thought it easier to create 'interesting' characters by being exotic in some fasion.

I think if you want to look at actual unconscious euro-centricism, your average Anime is a pretty good choice. I think that the animators and writers of j-toons, make pretty much the same choice that we made in choosing non-American characters and for much the same reasons. They find it easier to create 'interesting' characters by populating thier stories with alot of exotic European/American characters and romanticizing European attributes in much the same way Americans are prone to romanticize Oriental features, culture, and appearances.

In worlds where magic trumps (or at least significantly influences) physics, chemistry, geology, biology, and genetics, why is it so hard to imagine a dark-skinned person being native to a pseudo-European culture?

It's not hard to imagine, but as an act of world building its problimatic. The safest explanation for ethnic appearance is to tie it to environment. In a world where things have magical origins, we could tie ethnic appearance to just about anything. But in doing so we greatly run the risk of creating racial just-so stories that mimic the irrational and often distasteful just-so stories for why this group or that group looks different than us.

If we don't have these just so stories, then its pretty clear that the reason we have a dark-skinned ethnic group native to European inspired culture in a temperate climate has nothing to do with the setting, and everything to do with how we want to be percieved or accepted by observers of the setting.

Let me be as blunt as I can, so that we don't misunderstand each other. Suppose I created a setting which had no tokens whites and the ethnic types of all the characters were dark skinned. This seems like a perfectly good and potentially interesting setting to me. Suppose an observer of that setting said, "I can't relate to that setting because all the characters are black.", how would you react to that person?

 

[mhacdebhandia]

However, when even the thin veneer of culture provided by traditional D&D fantasy settings is entirely european cliches from manner of dress, types of weapons used (when not fantastic weapons), armor worn (when non-fastastic), governments, royal titles, common dress for average member of the population, food offered at inns, building types, etc. there is certainly a european assumption in regards to vanilla D&D settings when we aren't discussing either the fantastic or the non-human.

So let's start by eradicating those ridiculous defaults, too.

You've just ensured that the most popular drink in my next campaign is rice wine. Awesome!

 

[eyebeams]

Why is it that Asian, African, Middle Eastern, etc. types should be shoehorned into pseudo-european settings as if the complex and interesting cultures aren't as compelling as generic pseudo-european fantasy tropes?

I dunno, man. The Ottomans, Iberians and Byzantines loved to do it, though.

I think that the idea that all these different types of folks made magically to be blended together without rhyme or reason does a disservice to them and the depth that diverse cultures can add to a fantasy setting. I see folks asking "Why can't dark skinned people just be native to pseudo-europe?" (to paraphrase). They can be, but then who are the folks of the tropics, the East, the Southern lands, the deserts?

Whoever moved there. On time scales of less than tens of thousands of years, migration trumps adaptation -- assuming that there's even such a thing as evolution in a fantasy world.

What would be really, really bland would be a weird equal blending of all available human ethnic types in all regions despite the predominant cultures of the are. If the racial/ethnic makeup of fantasy Asia, Africa, Arabia, etc. were the same as fantasy Europe (Vanilla D&D assumption) then why not just make the entire setting one gigantic, boring European analogue. Ethnicity of the local natives is part of what makes the non-pseudoeuropean regions different from the baseline assumptions.

What, like the Levant? Or Karakorum? There are just too many places where real history trumps the stereotype of history. The fact that all of these places are totally awesome models for fantasy settings is a plus, too.

Plus, the fact is, the default D&D setting is not European. It's modern fantasy, which has some Europe and a whole lotta make-believe and misapprehensions or deliberate tweaks of history and literature. Any fantasy setting will be informed by this, no matter what real world history it draws inspiration from Rokugan is not capturing Japan. It's capturing John Wick's impressions of Japan and American reactions to secondhand Japanese culture, Asia-as-other stuff, plus whatever needed to be shoehorned in to support cards.

Some of this discussion seems based on a unconscious/unintentional assumption of cultural superiority in regards to Tolkienish fantasy Europe. Why isn't anyone saying that we should shoehorn caucasians into Kara-Tur, Asian types into Zhakara, or Native Americans into Nyambe? It would look utterly inauthentic and would destroy what makes for real diversity of the setting in general.

You're proceeding from the incorrect premise that people are seeking out a Tolkienesque setting in the first place. Generally speaking, they aren't and none of the published settings really go for that either.

 

[mhacdebhandia]

That is to say, people seem to be saying that a European derived setting would be improved by adding 'diversity' to it, or at least shoe horning in someone of different a slightly different skin hue for the sake of having different skin hue's alone. Yet noone is suggesting that an African or Oriental setting would be improved by adding 'diversity' to it or at least shoe horning in someone with fair skin so that people could have someone to identify with.

I think that Dungeons & Dragons would be much improved if the books didn't assume any particular real-world cultural stereotypes as the basis.

 

[Snoweel]

Glad you appreciate it! Actually, Geoff Grabowski deliberately set out to get a black woman as the central character on the cover of a major fantasy line

Oh no you di'n't!

 

[Barastrondo]

You're right that D&D needs to appeal broadly and there is nothing actually european about D&D fantasy settings because most don't have a depth of culture to speak of, just enough to make the setting believable. However, when even the thin veneer of culture provided by traditional D&D fantasy settings is entirely european cliches from manner of dress, types of weapons used (when not fantastic weapons), armor worn (when non-fastastic), governments, royal titles, common dress for average member of the population, food offered at inns, building types, etc. there is certainly a european assumption in regards to vanilla D&D settings when we aren't discussing either the fantastic or the non-human.

I think the assumption really depends on the viewer. When was the last time you saw a character wearing doublet and hose in a D&D book? What about the female rogues wearing tight leather pants? Back when you had god books about mortal pantheons, there were non-European pantheons rubbing shoulders with the Europeans, and nobody thought twice. You had clerics of Thor teaming up with followers of Agni to go beat on the cult of Druaga. There were "Japanese Ogres" and djinn and efreet and rakshasa in the first Monster Manual; the original gold dragon was of clearly Asian sensibility, and those things were all over the place.

D&D has had a fusion of modern sensibilities in it from the beginning, thanks to its "Let's pick and choose what we think is cool" design philosophy that started with E.G.G. People have been enjoying modern morality rather than historic unpleasantness when they want to play heroes. This is just one more iteration of "add what you think is interesting," and I really don't think it's a new thing.

In fact, outside of the completely fantastical or non-human elements of the game, I would argue that traditional D&D is as European as Tolkien or any other western fantasy. This is why settings like Zhakara, Maztica, Kara-Tur, Athas (utterly non-earthlike), and others stand out so strongly in contrast to D&D's default cultural assumptions.

See, I think that relies entirely on the setting, and the setting is an expression of what the creator finds interesting. My D&D wasn't as European as Tolkien when I started playing; it was far more American, with immense stretches of unsettled land and a very Western vibe — specifically, we figured out early on that movies like The Magnificent Seven or Young Guns were entirely relevant to "the D&D feel." (See the current points of light build — it's still true.) I used weird foreign titles for nobles before I really learned what they meant. And yeah, that did tend to make me ask "What is the big deal with mixed ethnicity cultures?" even back in the day.

I'm a big fan of diversity, but diversity that is deeper than cosmetic changes overlying european tropes.

I just don't think those overlying tropes have been so specifically medieval European; they're more a sort of modern Western/historical fusion. If there's a majority of European stuff in D&D, it's often because the people putting the worlds together have a majority of European folklore that they're familiar with and are drawing ideas from. I'd be really interested in seeing the default world a new DM came up with if said DM was raised on the more multicultural fantasy available like Avatar, manga and the like.

 

[Barastrondo]

Oh no you di'n't!

Um. Was that some sort of joke or something?

 

[Snoweel]

Um. Was that some sort of joke or something?

Indeed.

 

[CountPopeula]

I think I can bottom line this. Today, in 2008, we, in the western world, live in a multi-ethnic world. Our popular culture should reflect this. If it doesn't, then there's a problem.

I really don't care if the setting is pseudo-european or not. It's being written in 2008, and it should reflect our current value system. Filling the book entirely with white people is a bad idea for business.

 

[Celebrim]

I think that Dungeons & Dragons would be much improved if the books didn't assume any particular real-world cultural stereotypes as the basis.

I'm inclined to agree.

I very much dislike fantasy settings where you can point at the map and go, "That's Egypt. That's Africa. That's France. That's Greece. That's the Italian city states. That's pre-unification Germany. That's Arabia.", and what not.

Sometimes you see a quasi-European setting where the individual nations have no direct European analogue, and then surrounding it are stock 'Egyptian', 'African', 'Chinese', 'Japanese', 'Arabian' nations. That's annoying to.

I can see why you'd do it. It's very hard to create a body of material as compelling as a real world culture. It's very hard to imagine something that has little or no real world analogue. Also, its alot hard to invent novel permetations of a culture you pretty much know only through one or two stories, than one which you yourself are steeped in from a wide variaty of sources.

But it would be nice to see.