D&D 5E Should the next edition of D&D promote more equality?

[Umbran]

You can promote equality or you can promote inequality, there is no neutral option.

You will find that, in discussions like this, absolutes usually aren't so absolute. This is not a subject where black-or-white will avail you much.

Take, for example, the image of Seelah that Riley posted above. Is that image supporting of equality, or not?

Some will see a strong, female, dark skinned warrior, and say, Yes!

Others will see a breastplate with molded-in breasts, call that nonsense sexualization of the character, and thus answer, No!

Subjectivity is a pain, sometimes.

 

[Gilbetron]

Good to know. As there are no neutral options in this regard, can you tell me if the picture of a grizzly bear that I'm looking at right now promote equality, or inequality?

My fault, I thought we were talking about the sentient bipedal humanoid representation in D&D, not "random art that Alzrius thinks of"

 

[Li Shenron]

You will find that, in discussions like this, absolutes usually aren't so absolute. This is not a subject where black-or-white will avail you much.

Take, for example, the image of Seelah that Riley posted above. Is that image supporting of equality, or not?

Some will see a strong, female, dark skinned warrior, and say, Yes!

Others will see a breastplate with molded-in breasts, call that nonsense sexualization of the character, and thus answer, No!

Subjectivity is a pain, sometimes.

Well, I would rather say that a single picture is not so important, but that maybe in this case it promotes ethnic equality but not so much gender equality (although this type of breastplate is irrealistic but IMHO not disrespectful).

Anyway just to make it clear, when I wrote "promote" in the title, I certainly didn't mean that WotC should start a campaign or take an active stance on the issue such as by bringing the issue up in press conferences or in adverts...

I just had in mind that they could do the same conscious choice like they did around 3e, to feature a more balanced population of men and women characters.

 

[Obryn]

My previous posts make it clear that I'm not advocating a binary set of results (indeed, I objected to what I perceived as Obryn's characterization of just that). My saying that morality was a metric of measuring if things were "good" or "bad" was meant to be an overview, not a summation of all possible results. As I noted previously, I think that issues of social consciousness in artwork are supererogatory, and as such deal with things that can be "not bad" while also being "not good."

And you're very much overanalyzing it. You've latched onto one particular moral trichotomy that doesn't necessarily apply.

To me, in a market-leader RPG book like D&D, with a huge art budget, numerous pieces of color art, and someone responsible for all of it, diversity in that art (viewed in the entirety of the published work rather than on the level of individual pieces) is virtuous in and of itself.

-O

 

[Alzrius]

My fault, I thought we were talking about the sentient bipedal humanoid representation in D&D, not "random art that Alzrius thinks of"

Fair enough (though you'll have to deal with the angry grizzlies that you've shown inequality towards). What about doppelgangers? They must promote one or the other, since there can be no neutrality on the issue.

 

[Alzrius]

And you're very much overanalyzing it. You've latched onto one particular moral trichotomy that doesn't necessarily apply.

I disagree, and I think that it does apply. We're trying to figure out what the "right" (that is, moral) thing for WotC to do is, so discussing the underpinning philosophy of what constitutes "right" in various ways of approaching the question is very much applicable.

To me, in a market-leader RPG book like D&D, with a huge art budget, numerous pieces of color art, and someone responsible for all of it, diversity in that art (viewed in the entirety of the published work rather than on the level of individual pieces) is virtuous in and of itself.

I don't disagree; I've already said that I see this as being deontologically supererogatory - that is, it's a good thing if they do it. The flipside to this is that it's not a bad thing if they don't do it. I'm taking issue with the idea that WotC is acting in an immoral way if they don't engage in such a virtue (as opposed to it being neither good nor bad).

 

[Enkhidu]

This topic is so loaded it's funny.

My personal position is that it's in WotC's long term business interest to embrace inequality in their art. An edition that over-represents minorities (or what are considered minorities in the current primary markets) might hook untapped demographics.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

You will find that, in discussions like this, absolutes usually aren't so absolute. This is not a subject where black-or-white will avail you much.

Take, for example, the image of Seelah that Riley posted above. Is that image supporting of equality, or not?

Some will see a strong, female, dark skinned warrior, and say, Yes!

Others will see a breastplate with molded-in breasts, call that nonsense sexualization of the character, and thus answer, No!

Subjectivity is a pain, sometimes.

Lets add this bit of pain: studies- done as recently as 2010- show kids looking at neutral depictions of kids with different skin colors and asked which was "better"* tended to view the light-skinned kids more favorably. Regardless of race.

Things like that are why we need positive art regarding minorities. Y'know..."even a black woman can be a paladin" type messages (thank you Paizo).




* smarter, nicer, etc.

 

[delericho]

You can promote equality or you can promote inequality, there is no neutral option.

Of course, I can equally assert that one can promote equality, promote inequality, or do neither.

I'll also note that I put a big caveat on what I wrote, which you seem to have completely ignored.

If you have a book full of white dudes, you are promoting inequality. I've said it before and I'm saying it again, WotC should randomly roll all the attributes of all the various characters shown throughout the game, adjusting the random tables for specific requirements if necessary.

And if their random rolls throw up a book full of white dudes? Does that promote equality, since the chance was the same as for the opposite, or does it promote inequality, since the outcome is not what you would desire?

Random rolls cannot guarantee equality. If WotC really want to ensure equal representation, then they need to impose quotas - and they need to have an editor checking everything they do to ensure those quotas are met. And even then they'll still face complaints, as some complain at the disappearance of cheesecake, some complain there's still sexism in the depiction of women (and, indeed, both at the same time - probably directed at the same images), some complaining that the proportion of black characters in a pseudo-medieval environment (or, at least, a fantasy world with superficial medieval trappings) is not realistic... and so it goes on.

 

[Gilbetron]

Of course, I can equally assert that one can promote equality, promote inequality, or do neither.

You can assert that, I agree. It is wrong, but you can still assert it.