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



## Imaro (Jun 27, 2008)

First let me state upfront, this isn't a rant or anything like that. 

 Over on rpg.net there is a discussion going on about the lack of a half-orc and, as threads often do, it went onto a tangential.  That tangential lead to some links that I will post below by Todd Lockwood, who did alot of the conceptual art for D&D 3e.  After reading some of his comments it got me to thinking...is too much racially diversity artwork in D&D really that much of a factor that it would affect whether you bought the game or not? 

 As an african-american, it's lack of has never been an issue that would make or break me buying the game, however after reading some of Todd's comments about the marketing department over at WotC I'm starting to wonder if I should be more discerning of it as a conscious choice on R&D's part.  I mean if they are purposefully fighting against diversity in artwork am I only reinforcing what I consider pretty close-minded thinking by purchasing their products?  Do my actions in fact support what they believe would or wouldn't sell?  Thoughts or opinions on this matter would be appreciated.

Here are the links & quotes...



			
				Todd Lockwood said:
			
		

> THIS SKETCH WAS ANOTHER EFFORT ON MY PART TO INTRODUCE RACIAL VARIETY INTO THE GAME. IT WAS AN IDEAL WHICH WAS ROUNDLY ENDORSED IN CONCEPT, BUT FOR WHICH WE HAD TO FIGHT IN APPLICATION. FANTASY WORLDS TEND TO BE FILLED WITH WHITE PEOPLE.



http://www.toddlockwood.com/galleries/concept/01/wizard_female.shtml



			
				Todd Lockwood said:
			
		

> EVEN THOUGH THE R&D BOYS WERE CONVINCED THAT THE ICONIC FIGHTER FOR MARKETING WOULD BE A DWARF, I KNEW THAT A HUMAN FIGHTER WOULD BE ADOPTED FIRST. FOR THAT REASON, I INTENDED HIM TO BE AS RACIALLY AMBIGUOUS AS POSSIBLE–HE SHOULD LOOK LIKE HE COULD BELONG TO ANY RACE, OR NONE AT ALL. TORDEK THE DWARF GRACED THE COVERS OF ALL THE EARLY PRODUCT, BUT REGDAR THE HUMAN FIGHTER MADE THE FIRST APPEARANCE ON STANDEES AND POSTERS. THE DETAIL ON THE RIGHT IS REGDAR AT 5TH LEVEL, IN THE ARMOR THAT DEFINES HIM BEST.



http://www.toddlockwood.com/galleries/concept/01/regdar.shtml

I noticed this morphing of Regdar's appearance throughout 3e, but chalked it up to different artists interpretations...now I wonder if there was some sort of marketing imperative for it.  It's funny that when I look at Regdar in 4e this ambiguity is all but gone.

These are just two I think would have gone a long way towards diversity in the PHB...  The first is clearly african-american and the second, at least IMHO, looks native american.


----------



## Snoweel (Jun 27, 2008)

I feel you dawg.

I'm still pissed my Drow ranger couldn't be white.


----------



## Rechan (Jun 27, 2008)

This doesn't contribute a lot, but I thought the first link was more asian. In fact, I always thought it was. I mean, the top knot alone is a very asian hairstyle, isn't it?

Now that you say Native American, I can kinda see where you're getting it, but not completely.


----------



## Rechan (Jun 27, 2008)

Snoweel said:


> I feel you dawg.
> 
> I'm still pissed my Drow ranger couldn't be white.



Shadar-kai. 

Seriously. They're white drow.


----------



## Snoweel (Jun 27, 2008)

rechan said:


> shadar-kai.
> 
> Seriously. They're white drow.




dude awesome !


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Jun 27, 2008)

I'm from London, supposedly the most ethnically-diverse city in the world (with the most languages spoken, etc. etc.). I don't say this to boast, but to contextualize my experience.

I connect much better with D&D images when there is at least some degree of "racial diversity". It's not that I need it for "PC" reasons, but it connects better with me and makes more sense to me when we see these groups of adventurers, supposedly consisting of people from far and wide, and they look like they're from a variety of places. I mean, further, the first fantasy movies I remember seeing were Conan the Barbarian and Conan the Destroyer, both of which featured white, asian, and black characters in both positive and negative roles (Conan's best buds are both asian in the first one, for example). 

So when I see a party full of people who look like they're all very white, particularly very "nordic", and the setting doesn't clearly imply a common origin, it seems a bit wierd and hard to connect with. I imagine some from an area with a more homogenous population and different fantasy experiences might feel differently.

I do like it when there's a degree of background to it (i.e. this region's people are typically of such-and-such appearance), in a setting, but when we're talking about generalized illustrations, I don't think that's necessary. So, influence me? I dunno, but I connect better with work which features diverse humanity than "single-ethnicity" humanity (whatever that ethnicity is).


----------



## JediSoth (Jun 27, 2008)

I wouldn't say racially-diverse artwork influences me, but I certainly notice it when I see it and I appreciate it. I'm so used to see only white-people fantasy that I don't notice it, but when I start seeing other ethnicities in fantasy artwork it makes me notice the artwork all that much (and not in a bad way).

What bothers me is when it's assumed that ethnic people must be depicted with the tropes and accoutrements that we associate with that ethnicity in the real world. There's no reason, in fantasy artwork, why an Asian-looking wizard can't be dressed like a classical fantasy wizard, rather than looking like Mako from _Conan the Barbarian_. 

Personally, I think seeing ethnic diversity in artwork and fiction, especially in roles where the ethnicity of the subject doesn't matter (i.e. is not germaine to the situation) will go along way to helping people come to realize that we're all humans and not different races of white people, black people, asian people, etc. (or whatever your preferred term of address for your ethnicity is).

After writing that, I realized that I guess ethnically diverse artwork HAS influenced me postively. I grew up in a pretty bigoted household and wasn't exposed to much diversity for the first 11 years of my life. It's a miracle I didn't turn out to be a little Archie Bunker.

JediSoth


----------



## GreatLemur (Jun 27, 2008)

Can't really say the art influences me at all, in that regard.  My fantasy worlds are damned well going to be pan-ethnic no matter what the art looks like.  The real world is, after all.

That said, Todd Lockwood is now even cooler in my book.  Thanks for sharing that, Imaro.  I especially dig his goal of racial ambiguity in Regdar, as I don't see any reason why a fantasy setting's human races should line up perfectly with our own racial classifications (similarly, I really, really like _Exalted_'s hairless, piebald "panda people").



JediSoth said:


> What bothers me is when it's assumed that ethnic people must be depicted with the tropes and accoutrements that we associate with that ethnicity in the real world. There's no reason, in fantasy artwork, why an Asian-looking wizard can't be dressed like a classical fantasy wizard, rather than looking like Mako from _Conan the Barbarian_.



Damned good point.  Unless a fantasy setting has the very clear goal of being a magical or mythic reimagining of our own Earth, there's no sense in importing Earth's cultures, or keeping familiar pairings of ethnic and cultural elements.

Hell, it's not like white people have some legitimate history of dressing like classical fantasy wizards, anyway.


----------



## Rechan (Jun 27, 2008)

Also, I never really noticed Redgar's face, because I never saw him without the helmet.


----------



## Wyrmshadows (Jun 27, 2008)

I am personally multi-racial (African American, Caucasian, and Cherokee) and I think that a decent amount of racial diversity in artwork is a good thing.

However, let me say upfront that if I am running a game in a traditionally Europeanesque Western Fantasy setting than I am going to presuppose that *most* of the NPCs are white people. In the heartlands of FR, Greyhawk, and most every fantasy setting the default is caucasian European features as the baseline. 

I am ok with this because it adds versimilitude *if* one is running with the European default assumptions of the standard D&D/Western fantasy campaign.

It is also helpful to have a recognizable baseline with human racial types and non-human player character species. The caucasian baseline to Western fantasy is the equivalent of elves, dwarves, and halflings being the "vanilla" baseline for PC races. This vanilla baseline is useful because then you can add the exotic and it will actually be exotic. 

What would make Kara Tur (or Rokugan) exotic if Asian ethnicities and cultural norms where blended utterly with pseudo-european traditional D&D? What would be exotic about Nyambe if African ethnicities and culture was blended throughout Cormyr, The Old Kingdom or Karameikos?

It is important to realize as well that one needn't be married to Earth norms, but most prefer the familiar first and then be introduced to the exotic. As a DM/GM I prefer to go traditional first and introduce the exotic to the PCs so that the players are actualy impacted by the diversity and uniqueness of other races/species/cultures.

PCs can and should be of any racial/ethic background that exist in my setting. I had a Kara Turan samurai, and warriors from Nyambe (_which I added to FR...well I wanted to put it somewhere_) and Zakhara in my heartlands FR campaign. I just ask that the players come up with a good backstory. Cultural clashes in RPing are great fun and can add much to the depth of the campaign.

Just like in the game, I think that the art will always reflect the baseline caucasian assumptions but it is nice to see other ethnic groups reflected in the artwork as well because even in fantasy worlds trade exists as does cultural cross pollination. And to add, I do appreciate such thoughtful sensibilities in a fantasy artist. 

In the Dragonlance setting a character, one Theros Iron..something or other, was written as black (what?!?! African-Ergothian?!?!) by Wies and Hickman but was repreatedly painted as caucasian. Man, that always pissed me off. Just to vent that.  


Wyrmshadows


----------



## Imaro (Jun 27, 2008)

Rechan said:


> This doesn't contribute a lot, but I thought the first link was more asian. In fact, I always thought it was. I mean, the top knot alone is a very asian hairstyle, isn't it?
> 
> Now that you say Native American, I can kinda see where you're getting it, but not completely.




No I agree the first pic is Asian influenced...Native American was in reference to the druid at the bottom of the screen.

And for the record, Todd Lockwood, for not only being aware of the lack but trying to promote greater diversity has certainly moved up in my respect for him.


----------



## aurance (Jun 27, 2008)

Rechan said:


> Also, I never really noticed Redgar's face, because I never saw him without the helmet.




The helmet _is_ the face!


----------



## Snoweel (Jun 27, 2008)

JediSoth said:


> I grew up in a pretty bigoted household and wasn't exposed to much diversity for the first 11 years of my life. It's a miracle I didn't turn out to be a little Archie Bunker.




Not at all.

Having limited interaction with people of differing cultures you would have been more likely to grow up in the belief that the only differences between cultural groups are the clothes we wear and the food we eat - harmless and banal differences to be sure.


----------



## JediSoth (Jun 27, 2008)

Snoweel said:


> Not at all.
> 
> Having limited interaction with people of differing cultures you would have been more likely to grow up in the belief that the only differences between cultural groups are the clothes we wear and the food we eat - harmless and banal differences to be sure.




I never thought of it that way. Clearly that was more impressive upon me than my father's constant use of racial slurs to refer to anyone who wasn't white (if he didn't know them...once he got to know you, he never again referred to you with the slur word in private).


----------



## the Jester (Jun 27, 2008)

I prefer racially diverse art, but in the case of something in a setting, it should match the ethnicities of the setting; art set in a Frost Barbarian village should show a bunch of Suel, for instance.

In a generic product, such as the PH, I would prefer to see a more diverse set of heroes. TL's art linked is great, and _very_ dnd. "Exotic peoples, clothes and styles" is a fantasy trope. I think dnd should celebrate and exploit that in its artwork.


----------



## Imaro (Jun 27, 2008)

@Wyrmshadow...I don't know if I'd say the "baseline" for FR or Greyhawk is necessarily caucasian  features.  In FR the baseline features really are dependent on where in the FR your game is taking place, in Greyhawk there are different ethnicities (with a wide variety of features) as well, and Eberron is a total mish-mash.  All this is to say I don't really think caucasian is the baseline anymore for WotC's worlds.  

The real thing I'm wondering is, if there is an equal spread of ethnic diversity in artwork throughout the books...would it make you less inclined to buy them?  It seems the R&D team for 3e felt this way and it just seems silly to me, when looking at the actual campaign worlds WotC puts out.


----------



## Wyrmshadows (Jun 27, 2008)

the jester said:


> i prefer racially diverse art, but in the case of something in a setting, it should match the ethnicities of the setting; art set in a frost barbarian village should show a bunch of suel, for instance.
> 
> In a generic product, such as the ph, i would prefer to see a more diverse set of heroes. Tl's art linked is great, and _very_ dnd. "exotic peoples, clothes and styles" is a fantasy trope. I think dnd should celebrate and exploit that in its artwork.




qft.


----------



## Wyrmshadows (Jun 27, 2008)

Imaro said:


> @Wyrmshadow...I don't know if I'd say the "baseline" for FR or Greyhawk is necessarily caucasian  features.  In FR the baseline features really are dependent on where in the FR your game is taking place, in Greyhawk there are different ethnicities (with a wide variety of features) as well, and Eberron is a total mish-mash.  All this is to say I don't really think caucasian is the baseline anymore for WotC's worlds.
> 
> The real thing I'm wondering is, if there is an equal spread of ethnic diversity in artwork throughout the books...would it make you less inclined to buy them?  It seems the R&D team for 3e felt this way and it just seems silly to me, when looking at the actual campaign worlds WotC puts out.




Well I should have clarified.

In the standard FR and Greyhawk campaigns you are generally hanging around in medieval lands analogous culturally to medieval Europe (superficially at best...because most PC have their teeth). In FR for example the default is the Dales, The Sword Coast (from Waterdeep to Baldur's Gate), and The North. Of course you can run a campaign anywhere, its just that these places are the most popular apparently and they just happen to be European analogues and more than likely to be populated most strongly by caucasian types. There is of course immigrants and tourists, but I am referring to the bulk of the given populations.

And to add, WoTC 3e R&D could piss off for thinking to pander to the narrowest and most ignorant denominator. Maybe I am blind to the reality of the world (never thought I was) but it never occurred to me that WoTC R&D would think along these lines. Very disappointing actually. Now can I tell you how I really feel?  

I have a somewhat dim view of WoTC right now...thanks for validating those feelings with something more relevant than game mechanics. 4e may not be my cup o' tea, but ultimately who gives a rats arse. There are other games. However the very idea that racial considerations were a factor in 3e's art is beyond appalling to me.



Wyrmshadows


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Jun 27, 2008)

Wyrmshadows said:


> In the standard FR and Greyhawk campaigns you are generally hanging around in medieval lands analogous culturally to medieval Europe (superficially at best...because most PC have their teeth). In FR for example the default is the Dales, The Sword Coast (from Waterdeep to Baldur's Gate), and The North. Of course you can run a campaign anywhere, its just that these places are the most popular apparently and they just happen to be European analogues and more than likely to be populated most strongly by caucasian types. There is of course immigrants and tourists, but I am referring to the bulk of the given populations.




I think this is pretty silly, and says more about you than the FR, frankly.

The Dales and the North are full of "pale caucasian"-types as the natives, sure, but they're also inhabited by MANY adventurers from foriegn lands, and travellers from afar. This is something that's a key feature of the Realms (and why it's not necessarily a good fit for PoL outside the North), the lengths and depths of trade and traders. Waterdeep is an extremely cosmopolitan city for example, as are many other places in the North and on the Sword Coast.

Traders and adventurers will be the bulk of the "non-locals", and many of them will settle down (indeed, or have specifically done so), not "immigrants and tourists". That's wierd 20th-century nonsense. I don't see much "mass immigration" or even "immigration" in the sense you mean it at all in the FR. Nor is there "tourism" in either the modern or original sense. There's certainly travel and trade, though.


----------



## Huw (Jun 27, 2008)

Doesn't bother me. High fantasy has always been multi-ethnic. Think _Earthsea_, _Lankhmar_, _Middle Earth_, etc. Go back even further, many of Shakespeare's plays feature international casts. Also think of various iconic fantasy films with mixed casts, such as _Conan_ and _Beastmaster_.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jun 27, 2008)

A lack of diversity in art makes me question the collective imagination of a game company.

It's worth noting that the people making the big money in fantasy gaming nowadays -- the MMO guys -- are all very consciously multi-culti, whether it's heroes of various ethnic types in Diablo and Diablo II, or having an island nation of African-American-looking characters be the best spellcasters in the world in EverQuest I. Someone thinks this is worth doing.


----------



## Wyrmshadows (Jun 27, 2008)

Ruin Explorer said:


> I think this is pretty silly, and says more about you than the FR, frankly.
> 
> The Dales and the North are full of "pale caucasian"-types as the natives, sure, but they're also inhabited by MANY adventurers from foriegn lands, and travellers from afar. This is something that's a key feature of the Realms (and why it's not necessarily a good fit for PoL outside the North), the lengths and depths of trade and traders. Waterdeep is an extremely cosmopolitan city for example, as are many other places in the North and on the Sword Coast.
> 
> Traders and adventurers will be the bulk of the "non-locals", and many of them will settle down (indeed, or have specifically done so), not "immigrants and tourists". That's wierd 20th-century nonsense. I don't see much "mass immigration" or even "immigration" in the sense you mean it at all in the FR. Nor is there "tourism" in either the modern or original sense. There's certainly travel and trade, though.




Quit being so pedantic. Tourism = travelers (ie. adventurers/wanderers) and immigrants= emigres (sp?). I didn't claim immigration equals mass immigration. Read exactly and comment on what I actually wrote.

Trade brings various nationalities into contact to be sure. Trade also makes the trade hub cities very diverse and in some rare instances the foreign influence can eclipse that of the native culture. This isn't the norm of course. However, outside of trade hubs, nations generally tend to be homogenous. The more distant from the trade hub, the more homogenous the countryside becomes.

The trading class of non-locals is of the trading class which is always of a limited number and in no way equals the numbers of local common folk. Even when a non-local presence is powerful there are usually wards within a city that become enculturated with a new flavor. This is how is nearly always works. The local ethnic demographic is nearly always far larger than even a strong non-local population. This is as it should be. Only when there is conflict and conquest does a native population find itself ecliped utterly by a non native ethnic demographic.

Cosmopolitan doesn't mean that Waterdeep is as Asian in flavor as the Forbidden City. Cosmoplitan doesn't mean that Waterdeep looks like a spitting image of a major city in Nyambe. Cosmopolitan is a rich diversity that causes a mingling of customs, cultures and boodlines, it does not mean that the non-locals outnumber the locals. This can happen, but I have never seen any indication that in Waterdeep, Baldur's Gate, etc. are more diverse than well mixed trading centers of the medieval era. 

Didn't Venice have more Italians as a population than any other ethnic group despite the fact that it was one of the greatest trading cities of all times? I would argue that caucasian Waterdhavians (and the natives of any such city) would naturally outnumber non-locals signifigantly. I don't know what manner of FR you are running but if trading concerns wouldn't be enough to shift the demographics to a degree for non-locals to equal/outnumber native in population...adventurers aren't going to make a dent in the numbers.

So before you decide to question my psychology (I think this is pretty silly, *and says more about you than the FR*, frankly) look at the issue logically and demonstrate how mistaken I am.

One way for non-natives to eventually outnumber native populations is via displacement such as the refugees of a kingdom in chaos. However, in such cases, these wouldn't actually displace but would be added to the census rolls if (and its a big if) a city/nation would allow these folks into their domain. They may not because they simply cannot afford to feed thousands of refugees. 

I am all for diversity, but I bet you Waterdeep, Silverymoon, Baldur's Gate are largely caucasian just like major cities in Zhakara, Shou Lung, Nyambe, Maztica, etc. are *predominately* inhabited by members of the local ethnic/racial demographic.



Wyrmshadows


----------



## mmadsen (Jun 27, 2008)

I think we should realize that one half of our fantasy heritage flows through Tolkien's works, which were an attempt to bring back medieval romances, like the tales of King Arthur and his knights and of Charlemagne and his Paladins.  We shouldn't be surprised if such fantasy features a northern European cast -- with one exotic Moor for flavor.

The other half of our fantasy heritage flows through pulp sword & sorcery, which inherits quite a bit from adventure stories more grounded in history and then-contemporary travels.  Thus, such stories might feature a white hero, but they might also feature his diverse cast of sidekicks from around the globe, fighting off exotic villains and henchmen from all kinds of racial and cultural backgrounds.


JediSoth said:


> What bothers me is when it's assumed that ethnic people must be depicted with the tropes and accoutrements that we associate with that ethnicity in the real world. There's no reason, in fantasy artwork, why an Asian-looking wizard can't be dressed like a classical fantasy wizard, rather than looking like Mako from _Conan the Barbarian_.



Of course there's a reason for quasi-Asian characters in fantasy to dress and behave in a quasi-Asian manner.  The whole point in making them quasi-Asian is to conjure up a sense of Asian-ness.  It's a shortcut.

Pulp sword & sorcery fiction uses this all the time, so that the writer can tell an exciting story without dwelling on the esoteric details of the story.  If I call the locale Vendhya and mention elephants, everyone knows to fill in the gaps with quasi-Indian details.

If you do in fact want to disassociate people from their real-life races and cultures, go the E.R. Burroughs route, and have red men, black men, etc., who are explicitly described as not resembling American Indians or Africans.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Jun 27, 2008)

Wyrmshadows said:


> Quit being so pedantic. Tourism = travelers (ie. adventurers/wanderers) and immigrants= emigres (sp?). I didn't claim immigration equals mass immigration. Read exactly and comment on what I actually wrote.




You're confused. I did "read exactly" and commented on what you "actually wrote". What you want, though, given your "=" is for me to have read _into_ what you wrote and assumed that you meant something different from exactly what was written. I don't think it's remotely pedantic, either. You didn't even _mention_ traders (who are extremely distinct from both "tourists" and "immigrants"), but them and sailors are likely to the vast majorities of the non-local ethnicities in any area in a medieval or renaissence setting. You didn't mention sailors either, I note, who again, are neither tourists nor immigrants. So what it looks like to me is that you cam at this from a very 20th-century perspective, and attempting to correct that after the fact by telling me to "read exactly", when my decision to "read exactly" is precisely what upset you 



Wyrmshadows said:


> Cosmopolitan doesn't mean that Waterdeep is as Asian in flavor as the Forbidden City. Cosmoplitan doesn't mean that Waterdeep looks like a spitting image of a major city in Nyambe. Cosmopolitan is a rich diversity that causes a mingling of customs, cultures and boodlines, it does not mean that the non-locals outnumber the locals. This can happen, but I have never seen any indication that in Waterdeep, Baldur's Gate, etc. are more diverse than well mixed trading centers of the medieval era.




What are you even rattling on about? I fail to see how this has any bearing whatsoever on any post I've made in this entire thread. What's your point here? I've seen plenty of indication that Waterdeep and Baldur's Gate are "more diverse" than say, London, or Paris in 1300AD. The have people of several demihuman groups (some of who are from hundreds or thousands of miles away), as well as humans from regions like Amn and Calimshan who are citizens. Given the goods that are traded by Aurora's Whole Realms guide, some of which are extremely exotic and unlikely to be viable in Northern climes, one can only assume the Realms has extremely extensive trade in a wide variety of goods. The Sword Coast seems more comparable to the Mediterranean coast than the European coast.



Wyrmshadows said:


> Didn't Venice have more Italians as a population than any other ethnic group despite the fact that it was one of the greatest trading cities of all times? I would argue that caucasian Waterdhavians (and the natives of any such city) would naturally outnumber non-locals signifigantly. I don't know what manner of FR you are running but if trading concerns wouldn't be enough to shift the demographics to a degree for non-locals to equal/outnumber native in population...adventurers aren't going to make a dent in the numbers.




Again, what are you talking about? How does this have any bearing on anything? It doesn't contradict anything I've said. You seem to be carrying on argument with someone else, yet you're quoting me. It's rather confusing, to say the least. Again, adventurers won't "make a dent", but they'll spice things up, to be sure.



Wyrmshadows said:


> I am all for diversity, but I bet you Waterdeep, Silverymoon, Baldur's Gate are largely caucasian just like major cities in Zhakara, Shou Lung, Nyambe, Maztica, etc. are *predominately* inhabited by members of the local ethnic/racial demographic.




Really? It very much sounded like you're not all for diversity when you said:



			
				Wyrmshadows said:
			
		

> And to add, WoTC 3e R&D could piss off for thinking to pander to the narrowest and most ignorant denominator. Maybe I am blind to the reality of the world (never thought I was) but it never occurred to me that WoTC R&D would think along these lines. Very disappointing actually. Now can I tell you how I really feel?
> 
> I have a somewhat dim view of WoTC right now...thanks for validating those feelings with something more relevant than game mechanics. 4e may not be my cup o' tea, but ultimately who gives a rats arse. There are other games. However the very idea that racial considerations were a factor in 3e's art is beyond appalling to me.




Can I tell you how really feel? Well, I'm not psychic, but as you're asking me, I'm guessing that you really feel that any significant portrayal of non-local ethnicities in the FR a bad thing in some obscure way, and that support the sword and sorcery tradition of multi-ethnic heroes is "pandering to the lowest common denominator". I sure didn't realize you hated S&S quite that much!


----------



## DrSkull (Jun 27, 2008)

Imaro said:


> The first is clearly african-american




I don't know, he looks more Afro-Canadian to me.  Maybe Afro-Caribbean.  On third hand, he might look a little more African-african.


----------



## Wyrmshadows (Jun 27, 2008)

Ruin Explorer, I think you are reading selectively to be combative. However I am willing to grant you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are reading the context of my words wrong.

WoTC's 3e R&D team believed that ethnic diversity would harm sales. So my reaction was thus:



> And to add, WoTC 3e R&D could piss off for thinking to pander to the narrowest and most ignorant denominator. Maybe I am blind to the reality of the world (never thought I was) but it never occurred to me that WoTC R&D would think along these lines. Very disappointing actually. Now can I tell you how I really feel?
> 
> I have a somewhat dim view of WoTC right now...thanks for validating those feelings with something more relevant than game mechanics. 4e may not be my cup o' tea, but ultimately who gives a rats arse. There are other games. However the very idea that racial considerations were a factor in 3e's art is beyond appalling to me.




Tell me that the fact that I am angry about the decision to limit diversity in 3e art because the 3e R&D team felt it would limit sales makes me against diversity? Are you kidding me!?!?!?

I am *ANGRY* with _*WOTC*_ for allowing racial concerns to limit the amount of diversity in 3e's artwork.  I was responding to *Imaro* who wrote:



> The real thing I'm wondering is, if there is an equal spread of ethnic diversity in artwork throughout the books...would it *make you less inclined to buy them? It seems the R&D team for 3e felt this way and it just seems silly to me, when looking at the actual campaign worlds WotC puts out*.




Am I mistaken or reading it wrong that WoTC R&D thought that diversity in 3e art would potentially hurt sales? If I am reading this correctly, you need to rethink calling me anti-diversity. Before you question my thinking you should at least know what I am referring to when you quote me.

You are completely off base.



Wyrmshadows


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Jun 27, 2008)

Wyrmshadows said:


> You are completely off base.




It seems so!


----------



## Wyrmshadows (Jun 27, 2008)

Ruin Explorer said:


> It seems so!




No problem. Your heart was in the right place, it was just that your eyes were betraying you. 

Hey, we're on the same side of this issue. 



Wyrmshadows


----------



## mhacdebhandia (Jun 27, 2008)

I'm always happy when I see some non-white characters in RPG illustrations. As far as I know, all my immediate ancestors were Anglo-Saxon (or, as we sometimes say here in Australia, Anglo-Celtic), but I grew up surrounded by non-Anglo people. Hell, even when I lived in a small country town in Victoria, I was friends with a kid whose family was from India, and when we moved to Sydney, I ended up at a high school with something like 40% east and south-east Asian students, either Australian- or foreign-born.

I'm also married to a woman whose father is Filipino and whose mother has Polish, British, American Indian, and German heritage, so I really appreciate efforts like Todd Lockwood's to depict mixed-race people.

I'm a strong proponent of the idea that there is *absolutely no reason* why a game setting with a medieval European level of technological or social development should *have* to have a medieval European-looking population (unless you're talking Yrth from _GURPS_ which is actually *literally* populated with human ethnic groups magically transported from Earth at various times in the past, and even then SJ Games had the brains to include some non-European peoples).

That's one of the reasons I really like Eberron; it's not pounded into your brain, though it could stand to be a little more explicit (especially in the art), but it's a fact in the setting that humanity expresses an ethnic mixture all over Khorvaire, because they're all the descendants of a multi-ethnic Sarlonan diaspora. You can't argue that people in Karrnath should look German or Scandinavian because it's a cold northern country, because the fact is that humans haven't lived there for the span of time required to produce those kind of ethnic "adaptations".

Wizards of the Coast isn't the worst company when it comes to diversity in their illustrations, but they're not *fantastic* about it. The artwork still reflects a European dominance, and I think that's a shame.


----------



## mmadsen (Jun 27, 2008)

Imaro said:


> ...is too much racially diversity artwork in D&D really that much of a factor that it would affect whether you bought the game or not?



I suppose it's a turn-off when it feels entirely forced, either as part of a conscious agenda or simply from a narrow 21st-century American (or British, Aussie, etc.) worldview.

I must admit, it feels particularly odd to have a "white" halfling next to a "black" halfling, or whatever.  (_Together, they fight crime!_)


----------



## Wyrmshadows (Jun 27, 2008)

mmadsen said:


> I suppose it's a turn-off when it feels entirely forced, either as part of a conscious agenda or simply from a narrow 21st-century American (or British, Aussie, etc.) worldview.
> 
> I must admit, it feels particularly odd to have a "white" halfling next to a "black" halfling, or whatever.  (_Together, they fight crime!_)




LOL 

That is funny

Forced to me would be an art layout with a black man in a samaurai outfit, a white woman in a Native American outfit, and an asian in a traditional African garb.

Cultures are different and they are often rooted in ethnic identity the regions of the world from which those ethnic groups hail. Thank god they are different. In my fantasy I don't want a gigantic world-spanning "human" culture that is a monolithic entity in the name of diversity because ironically that would destroy all the real diversity of the human race as the expense of PC diversity.

I don't want humans to suffer the same fate a the non-human races of fantasy. Talk about monolithic and dull cultures. Dwarves love mountains, elves love the woods and halflings (recently) love rivers. This would make sense if these races were extant only in a given region of a setting. However, as it stands dwarves, elves, halflings, etc. are what they are no matter where they are in the world in traditional D&D/Western fantasy.

I would like to see elves that love the desert the way their kin in the north love the forests...ah, I found them...in my campaign setting. 



Wyrmshadows


----------



## Klaus (Jun 28, 2008)

I always try to include some racial diversity whenever appropriate. For instance, the first adventure I illustrated was Fiery Dragon's The Giant's Skull. I had to come up with iconics:

[sblock]
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




[/sblock]

Since I already knew of the 3e stance of having more diverse ethnicities, I was bummed from the lack of such variety in 4e art (I can remember a female halfling in the Races section, a bald female human in the NPC section and the half-elf paladin in the Classes section). Even the Elves, described as being usually tan or brown in complexion are pretty much all pale-skinned.


----------



## mhacdebhandia (Jun 28, 2008)

Ironically, Mialee is darker-skinned than most Fourth Edition elves.


----------



## Tharkun (Jun 28, 2008)

I for one don't enjoy seeing all the multiracial groups in RPGs.  When I think multiracial I think of a half Orc or a half Dwarf or half Elf or whatever not a American Indian/Jew mix or something like that.  It's different sure but something I would rather not have in my RPG games.


----------



## Cadfan (Jun 28, 2008)

Wyrmshadows said:


> Forced to me would be an art layout with a black man in a samaurai outfit,



I believe that instead of "forced," you meant to say, "_totally awesome_."

http://wen-m.deviantart.com/art/Anima-no-11-54338807



> a white woman in a Native American outfit,



They're called Druids these days.  There's tons of them.  Although sometimes they have point ears.

...what?  Elves are white people.  We all know it.

Also, here's a native american knight, just for variety.

http://fc07.deviantart.com/fs11/f/2007/118/6/d/Anima______no_9_by_Wen_M.jpg

Ok.... apparently the first link is glitched and I can't see the image.  So... I feel stupid now?

Editted to add- if you click on the view full size link on the left, you can see the image even if the preview isn't visible to you.


----------



## A Passing Maniac (Jun 28, 2008)

If there's one thing D&D needs more of, it's black samurai.


----------



## DrunkonDuty (Jun 28, 2008)

Bondage midgets?   This movie I must see. 

As for more diverse art in RPG books: all for it. I live in Sydney and have lived in London and both have very ethnically diverse populations. It strikes me as weird to only see caucasian types in the art work. As a marketing decision I find it very odd that WotC would in fact intentionally keep everything so, um, white. Yet at the same time aren't these the people who alternate the gender of personal pronouns used in the products? (a good thing too!) Strange bit of schizophrenia.


----------



## Celebrim (Jun 28, 2008)

I grew up in a former British colony that is about 97% black, 2% assorted asian, and 1% white.  When I moved back to the states it felt wierd to have all these white people around - and that's in an area that was 30-40% black.

However, if I were to look at a peice of fantasy artwork with a black person in it, the first thing I would think is that they consciously shoe horned a token black face into the art work purely for the sake of superficial pandering to ideas of racial diversity.

The problem I would have is that virtually no fantasy setting that has been a part of D&D has a mixed population of black and white characters.  Nor would I accept such a setting unless somehow the cosmology was a blend of African and European mythological themes.  If the big archetypal cosmopolitan city isn't sandwiched up next to norse inspired barbarian lands, but instead inspired more by Carthage or Cairo, then I'm going to think having a black character is acceptable and even cool.

But otherwise, it's just stupidl; because, the characters skin color and ethnicity is being set by something outside the story rather than by something which came from within the setting.  If I see a black face in the middle of what is obviously a wholly european inspired setting, it's going to remind me of 'the Moor in Medieval England' in that very bad Kevin Kostner Robin Hood movie.

Instead of worrying about ethnic diversity for ethnic diversities sake, they should be thinking about true cultural diversity - such as what it would have been like if pre-historical Benin had domesticated the zebra, the elephant and the buffulo and gone on to produce rational philosophers in the mold of Socrates and rational lawmakers in the mold of Hammurabi.  What would Nyambe be like if the high middle ages were an African era, and some Ethiopian and Egypt analogues were two of the world's great trading superpowers.  In a setting were a tropical darkskinned kingdom was central to its history in some form, then ok, let's see dark skinned 'knights' mingling with nordic barbarians and pygmy rogues alongside desert dwelling drow and sleek asian shapeshifters.  Whatever.  But whatever you do, don't shoehorn some dark skinned character into the middle of what is otherwise a stock European world and expect me to think that makes you cool in some fashion.


----------



## mhacdebhandia (Jun 28, 2008)

Celebrim said:


> The problem I would have is that virtually no fantasy setting that has been a part of D&D has a mixed population of black and white characters.



Eberron does.

It's a nonsense argument anyway. If you're not playing in medieval Europe, there's no reason to have an all-white world. It's not like only white-skinned people could think up longswords, plate armour, castles, and such. All _D&D_ settings have medieval *trappings*, but that doesn't mean they *are* medieval Europe in drag.


----------



## Wyrmshadows (Jun 28, 2008)

There is something to be said regarding the idea that creating a false PC homogeny ruins the real and interesting diversity of the human family. There is something awesome about a black skinned warrior hailing from an African type nation in a fantasy setting where he actually acts and thinks along the lines of his people. That's cool.

Bland is simply swapping out the caucasian man-at-arms to the duke with a darker skinned man-at arms who is fundamentally the same guy as the caucasian guy and doing it for the sake of diversity when that isn't real diversity at all.

Real diversity isn't merely an issue of skin tone, angle of the eyes, height od the cheekbones, etc. it is cultural, it is belief system, it is worldview. I am not against Africans, Asians, Arabs, Native American types, etc. in Euro-drag if that is what a PC desires to play. 

However, that isn't real diversity because it is merely adding different skin tones to European genre tropes. This is superficial diversity at best and at worst it is as disengenuous as painting black spots on a white dog and calling it a dalmation. It might look like a dalmation from a distance, but close up it is just a painted white dog. 


Wyrmshadows


----------



## Wyrmshadows (Jun 28, 2008)

If we really want real diversity in our game settings lets ask for more Nyambe's, Al Qadim's, Kara Tur's, Maztica's, etc. from game designers. Places where PCs can hail from where they actually have different cultures as well as differnt skin tones, hair textures and eye colors.

Dressing up every ethnicity in Euro-drag isn't diversity (though it can be an important start). It is still uterly Eurocentric and therefore the antithesis of real diversity. When D&D and fantasy PRing in general has a greater stomach for non Eurocentric fantasy we will see more and more believable portrayals of non-caucasian adventurers and not just Europeans with kinky hair or Asian eyes.

Too be fair, if we are going to stay deeply and profoundly eurocentric as a RPing community (which is likely the reality of D&D), I would way prefer to see the occasional african in euro-drag than a complete absence of non-caucasian faces.



Wyrmshadows


----------



## Snoweel (Jun 28, 2008)

If multi-ethnic (as well as multiracial - dwarves and halflings and stuff) socieites are what people want then there's an easy shoehorn in the PoL setting - the old empire of Nerath may have been super-cosmopolitan and now the points of light contain humans of many different colours.

Though I imagine over time that interbreeding would make humans almost entirely some kind of middle-of-the-road coffee colour.


----------



## Cryptos (Jun 28, 2008)

I guess I just never thought about it, or assumed that in the core books they gave people different ethic appearances so that the art could fit into any campaign world or setting.  

Although I had an early 2e boxed set for Forgotten Realms, it never really interested me all that much.  Most of the official campaign settings that I got into turned out to be exotic, like Al-Qadim, Maztica, and Dark Sun.  When the settings you grow up reading about are Arabic, central American and then one that has bug people and infertile dwarf-human hybrids, I guess you just don't give things like skin color or allusions to real world ethnic backgrounds a whole lot of thought in terms of D&D worlds.  There were all of these strange creatures of every possible color, and it was like, "yeah, so?"

Honestly that image of Tordek kind of reminded me of Lani Tupu, the actor that played Captain Bialar Crais on Farscape.  And I never really assigned a race to him in my mind, he just was that character.

I do sometimes wonder about whether or not to draw on certain ethnicities and cultures in campaign settings when designing a world, but I almost never make an issue of it, letting players fill in the gaps in their own imaginations.  I think worse than no diversity at all would be something that seemed like forced diversity or pandering.

But then I always liked Kingdoms of Kalamar, even though I technically never played in that world.  It was more a world that showed you just how highly detailed you could get, rather than one that necessarily inspired you to play.  You had at least six different ethnicities of human, and it accounted for human migration patterns, the spread of cultural memes and traditions (plus things like continental drift, etc.)  It might be a bit overmanaged in terms of trying to create a "believable" fantasy world, but I suppose you could always just focus on one corner of the world for your campaigns, and you at least had the knowledge of what was "over there" if you decided to go in a different direction.  They had a distinctly African ethnicity, the Svimohzians, as well as the eastern Mediterranean Reanarians and the Gallic Brandobians, and the ethnically ambiguous Dejy, who seemed to draw on every tribal ethnic culture at once.

The setting I'm currently working on assumes that all the humans on the featured continent were part of Bael Turath and thus turned into Tieflings (renamed), that the current humans on the continent were in the more recent past deposited on an island off the coast as part of a prison colony, and along with them they shipped off the Halflings (also renamed), whose gypsy flavor I have played up to make them more like river-borne Romani gypsies.  So with the halflings, at least, I drew on a real world ethnicity to describe them.  But with the rest, I didn't really consider it.  Now that this thread has me thinking of the topic, I'm wondering if I should go back and do so.

I'm not sure what is the "right way" to do things: something like KoK that calls out distinct racial groups of humans or something like the above, where it's not really brought up and in general no assumptions are made.  More than anything, I think worrying about there being a "right way" would probably be more denigrating than just doing whatever works for the setting.

I did have to laugh at a somewhat half-assed attempt at diversity in the 4e PHB that I noticed while trying to come up with some background for a group of Eladrin... they make a point of saying that Eladrin have "the same range of racial complexions as humans" but then they go on to say :they are more often fair than dark" and "their straight, fine hair is often white, silver, or pale gold" and "their eyes are pearly... orbs of vibrant blue, violent or green."  It's almost like saying, "they don't have to be white... but they're white."  Seemed a bit silly.


----------



## Set (Jun 28, 2008)

> http://www.toddlockwood.com/gallerie...d_female.shtml




I always saw Naull as kinda Mayan / South American Indian looking.

Ember with the African-American appearance was also pretty cool.

But the ultimate in inclusiveness, Mialee, the Iconic Transexual...



> I did have to laugh at a somewhat half-assed attempt at diversity in the 4e PHB that I noticed while trying to come up with some background for a group of Eladrin... they make a point of saying that Eladrin have "the same range of racial complexions as humans" but then they go on to say :they are more often fair than dark" and "their straight, fine hair is often white, silver, or pale gold" and "their eyes are pearly... orbs of vibrant blue, violent or green." It's almost like saying, "they don't have to be white... but they're white." Seemed a bit silly.




Well, yes, they are ethnically diverse, in that they can be any shade of white you want.


----------



## Celebrim (Jun 28, 2008)

mhacdebhandia said:


> It's a nonsense argument anyway. If you're not playing in medieval Europe, there's no reason to have an all-white world.




And if you are not in the tropics, where high melanin counts are necessary to survive the pounding radiation, there is no point in having a brown skinned race of humans - unless, as the drow, you are trying to suggest something about the character of thier souls by thier outward appearance, which, would in the context of humanity be taken as mere racism.   Likewise, unless you are up near the arctic circle, there is no reason to have race of humanity that has virtually no melanin so as to better absorb vitamen D in the near total lack of sunlight.  Unless, again, you are trying to suggest something about the content of thier character through there outward appearance, which again, would be nothing but racism in the context of humanity.

Again, I'm going to have a serious problem with a human character being brown or ebony skinned merely for the sake of having a token brown skinned or ebony skinned character, because I'm going to immediately percieve this as an arbitrary and quite shallow attempt to pander to current politically correct morality.  It offends me as some were offended by 2e's whitewashing of the appearance of containing occult material.   I've got no problem with celebrating or exploring a cultural identity, that's great, but if you are to do so let's do so at a level maybe a little deeper than simply skin color.



> It's not like only white-skinned people could think up longswords, plate armour, castles, and such.




I don't think I said I did.  In fact, I offered a rather radical example of what I thought was a plausible line of development which would have found Africa ultimately the center of world learning - radical not just in that it overthrows the conventional politically correct thinking of 200 years ago which would have suggested condenscendingly that Africa had been trapped by the fact that Africans were racially incapable of high civilization, but radical in that it also rejects the current conventional politically correct thinking that condescendingly suggests that Africans were racially superior, but alas predestined by a trap of geography and climate to have been the also rans of humanity.  

So, no, I'm about the last guy you should be lecturing on the idea that only white-skinned people could think up longswords and such.  I never said anything like that.  They didn't think up longswords.  Bad luck that.  Probably some fool white redneck persisted in trying to prove his manhood by getting on the back of a wild horse long after some black genious stopped trying to ride the zebra because he realized he could get his neck broken that way.   Bad luck that.  Sometimes foolish ideas turn out to be useful.  However it happened, as I suggested in the earlier post, it could have happened some other way.   But then, lets see it happen that other way.  Let's see some imagination in the setting, rather than a European in more or less black face on the wierd out of game notion that doing art like that demonstrates your moral superiority.

I just don't think we are to the point in our society where a black character just happens to be black.  Maybe its my particular prejudice, but absent other information, I'm going to see this in it:



> THIS SKETCH WAS ANOTHER EFFORT ON MY PART TO INTRODUCE RACIAL VARIETY INTO THE GAME.




...and be turned off by it.  If you were modelling stock fighter X after your brother or best friend, submitted the picture without thinking about the fact that you've got a 'black' character now, then I'd be impressed.  I just personally find, "I'm so sorry about my umpteenth redneck ancestor domesticating a horse and inventing longswords, here let me paint a black guy to prove my sensitivity" very nearly as nausating as "Because my umpteenth redneck ancestor domesticated a horse, I'm racially superior to you."


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 28, 2008)

I (black [multiracial] gamer dude living in the south) am usually disappointed by the uniformity of depictions in fantasy art.  Waterdeep or Greyhawk may be racially diverse, for instance, but almost all of the _humans_ are caucasians.

Now, there are some good reasons for this, the first one being that D&D has typically had a Eurocentric bias, but you'd think that their markets would be filled with travellers from far lands...and they might not be so pink.

That said, does it influence my buying patterns?  Not a bit.

Its because I know that I can take Race X and adapt it to whatever cultural ID I want- like the Native American Minotaurs I ran a decade ago.  Or the Nazi-esque elves I ran before that.

And I'm not afraid to put kilts on black people (thank you, Samuel L. Jackson!), feathered headresses and shell beads on Asians (and so forth) to shuffle up people's expectations.


----------



## billd91 (Jun 28, 2008)

Celebrim said:


> Again, I'm going to have a serious problem with a human character being brown or ebony skinned merely for the sake of having a token brown skinned or ebony skinned character, because I'm going to immediately percieve this as an arbitrary and quite shallow attempt to pander to current politically correct morality.  It offends me as some were offended by 2e's whitewashing of the appearance of containing occult material.   I've got no problem with celebrating or exploring a cultural identity, that's great, but if you are to do so let's do so at a level maybe a little deeper than simply skin color.




And... suppose the character comes from a multi-cultural society? It's not like we don't have the example of Rome in history. Dominated by Latins, maybe, but also quite diverse at major trading and political points. Why would you _have_ to assume it's arbitrary and political and not just an interesting aesthetic choice?


----------



## Cadfan (Jun 28, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Again, I'm going to have a serious problem with a human character being brown or ebony skinned merely for the sake of having a token brown skinned or ebony skinned character, because I'm going to immediately percieve this as an arbitrary and quite shallow attempt to pander to current politically correct morality.



Your tendency to interpret a picture of a black guy in a suit of armor as a token attempt to pander to "current politically correct morality" rather than just a picture of a black guy in a suit of armor is, well, a character flaw.


----------



## Cadfan (Jun 28, 2008)

And I don't even know what to say to the guy who thinks D&D shouldn't have multiracial character art.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 28, 2008)

2Ed actually did a lot to forward the multicultural aspects of D&D.  I mean, 1Ed had multicultural pantheons, but 2Ed gave us the cultures.

2Ed gave us Oriental Adventures, Maztica, and a host of non-Eurocentric lands in Forgotten Realms.

And the art sometimes reflected this...although sometimes it was just multicultural trappings on European bodies.


----------



## WayneLigon (Jun 28, 2008)

It's not something that would really sway me one way or another about a product. If I looked through a product featuring your typical normal fantasy world and saw either a fair amount of racial mixing in the art, or saw that all the figures were of one race - really, regardless of what that race might be - I probably wouldn't pay it much mind either way. I look more at how cool the art is, and how much it evokes the theme or the setting of the game. (Really, Traveller and WarhammerFRP are about the only games that come to mind as having developed a distinct and evocative art style all their own).


----------



## Cadfan (Jun 28, 2008)

Wyrmshadows said:


> Dressing up every ethnicity in Euro-drag isn't diversity (though it can be an important start). It is still uterly Eurocentric and therefore the antithesis of real diversity.



...sort of.  The thing is, while "traditional" fantasy is obviously pretty eurocentric in its stylings, its sort of grown into its own schtick that transcends its history.

Or in other words, "dude in a trenchcoat with a giant sword" isn't eurocentric.  Its modern fantasy.  No reason it shouldn't be freely available to every ethnic group.


----------



## Celebrim (Jun 28, 2008)

billd91 said:


> Why would you _have_ to assume it's arbitrary and political and not just an interesting aesthetic choice?




I wish I could answer that question the way I want to, but I'm already skirting a pretty fine line.  The best I can manage is to deflect the question into a related area.

I read alot of science fiction.  I mean <i>alot</i> of science fiction.  I've read so many books, I've forgotten which ones I've read and find myself checking books out of the library and 5-6 pages into it going, "Wait a minute, I've already read this..."

I really don't care who writes the science fiction.  If its a good story, they've got my respect and I'm part of thier fanbase.  I've got my signed copy of Samuel R. Delany's 'Babel-17' to prove it.  

But I knew Mr. Delany was black (and gay for that matter), long before I ever knew Mr. Delany was black.  Why?  Because its been my experience reading hundreds if not thousands of books that white writers generally don't have black protagonists.  You can be pretty sure that a white writer will have a white protangonist in 90% of his books, and a black writer will have a black protagonist in 90% of thier books.  There is too much conscious and unconscious self-identification going on.  Unless you put a conscious effort into it, you write what you see in the mirror in the morning.  (And frankly, of course they do and what the heck is wrong with it?)  Writers seem to have a lot easier time switching gender than switching color.  I'm not sure why that is, but personally I would like to believe that unconsciously they realize color is meaningless and adds basically nothing to the story.

I think painting is probably alot like that.  Painters paint themselves.  They paint who they see in the morning, only in variation.  The only way that they are going to honestly paint someone with a different color is if someone close to them is modeling for them and happens to be that different color.  Or else, they'll paint someone a different color if something about the scene suggests to them the presence of people of a different color.  If I were to see a black character in Rome who wasn't a slave or a gladiator (slave), then I'd assume the blackness came from some conscious decision and feel pretty confident in my pre-judgement.  Most of the time, people are drawing from a list of stock characters, regardless of what sort of art they are creating.

Before I'd think otherwise upon seeing a scene of humans of many hues together, I'd have to have some evidence of a well thought out cosmopolitan society that was also multi-hued.  It wouldn't be Rome.  I'd expect a fantasy city based on Leptis Magna or New Orleans to be multihued.  If I saw that, I couldn't really infer anything, except perhaps, that sense it wasn't 'Rome' that first popped into mind someone was making a special effort to break out of the normal sterotype.  I'd certainly hope that that wasn't merely to pander to those that reflexively praise racial consciousness as a good thing, but that would be about the limit of that.


----------



## Celebrim (Jun 28, 2008)

Cadfan said:


> Your tendency to interpret a picture of a black guy in a suit of armor as a token attempt to pander to "current politically correct morality" rather than just a picture of a black guy in a suit of armor is, well, a character flaw.




Maybe.  I offered as much earlier.  But I've also got the quote to go with the theory.  Being right is a pain in the butt.

It would be nice if upon making that assumption I was wrong more often than I was right, or even that I was wrong a significant percentage of the time.  If that was the case, I could stop making the assumption.  

And believe me, I'd love to live in the world where that assumption was wrong.  I mean, alot of the reason this provokes a rant from me is that I dislike so much that I'm not wrong.  Growing up, I kinda did live in that world, where I never really thought of myself as white or anyone else as black, and never realized that anyone thought of me as white or thought that that meant anything.  Of course, part of that was growing up with something akin to Asberger's syndrome and being nearly oblivious to the nuances of human social interaction entirely.   Once I was forced to pick up on them, my responce was pretty much 'this sucks'.  Once I got out of the happy elementary school experience where my best friend could be black and I could sleep over at a black kids house and nobody thought of me as the white kid (or if they did I was oblivious) and got thrust into a world of ethnic tribalism and incultured racial consciousness, yeah, I wanted to go back.  I got sick and tired of being treated as 'white' by blacks because of my skin color, and 'black' by whites because of my (now faded) accent. 

It just annoys me that there is this assumption that diversity is something we should be trying to artificially create.  I think that the attempt to create destroys the very thing that makes it possible, which is to stop seeing ourselves and others through that lens.  I think it is insane that we think that white Americans don't or shouldn't have the right and desire to think of themselves as having Frederick Douglas as a forefather, or that black Americans don't or shouldn't have the right and desire to think of themselves as being inheritors of Robert Lee as if our skin color is something that must foreever separate us.

Anyway, too political, but it is how artificial diversity influences me.


----------



## Orius (Jun 28, 2008)

For me, it depends on the setting.  Traditional D&D settings, in particular the Realms have a tendancy to ape Howard's Hyborea, so there are various kingdoms modeled after real world cultures roughly arranged about the same way the cultures were arranged in the real world.  I wouldn't expect to see any major diversity in those worlds, except in major trade centers.  The distances, geographical barriers, and lack of modern transportation will keep different racial groups more or less isolated.

If there is a more diverse setting though, I want it to make sense, and to be a product of that setting's history.  Throwing different racial groups together just to give the setting an appearance of diversity tends to stick out like a sore thumb.  If however, these different groups exist together because of historical reasons (like American diversity being the result of immigration and slavery as well as an indigenous population), then it feels more natural.  It doesn't have to be a fallen empire, it could be a colony, the result of some sort of magical disaster bringing people together from many different lands or even worlds, or the use of magic that allows people to commonly travel vast distances easily.

Anyway, I think it's kind of foolish that WotC would discourage diversity in its art.  That would only serve to prevent the game from attracting new players.  I'd also think that being in a place like Seattle, that WotC would actually make a stronger effort to diversify the game.


----------



## Jack Colby (Jun 28, 2008)

If it makes sense to the world being illustrated it's fine by me.  I don't like when the multiracial art feels "forced", however. If we're talking about a strongly historical medieval Europe-based setting, art should reflect that.  If it's a more modern world-inspired cosmopolitan fantasy setting, then more races should be depicted.  I wouldn't buy or not buy a book based on the multiracialness factor of the art though.



Orius said:


> For me, it depends on the setting.  Traditional D&D settings, in particular the Realms have a tendancy to ape Howard's Hyborea...




Pet peeve: There is no such thing as "Howard's Hyborea".  There is only the Hyborian Age, although one of the places existing during that _time period_ is Hyperborea.  It's not that hard to keep it straight.


----------



## S'mon (Jun 28, 2008)

Now we have racial diversity within the fantasy races - white and black halflings in the same picture, for instance.  This bugs me a bit as it forces convoluted in-game explanations that don't sit easily in most fantasy worlds.  I'd rather have black halflings in a tropical setting, white halflings in a temperate setting, Mongoloid steppe halflings etc.  Same goes for humans.  Forcing 21st century American type diversity into a fantasy world feels tokenistic to me.


----------



## S'mon (Jun 28, 2008)

Imaro said:


> The real thing I'm wondering is, if there is an equal spread of ethnic diversity in artwork throughout the books...would it make you less inclined to buy them?  It seems the R&D team for 3e felt this way and it just seems silly to me, when looking at the actual campaign worlds WotC puts out.




Not sure what you mean by equal, but Asiatic wizards in European-medieval dress might be a turn off for me.  I didn't like the 3e art but I don't recall objecting to the ethnicities of the characters.  I do remember wondering about Ember the black Monk and wondering how she'd fit in my gameworld or Greyhawk etc.  The 4e multiracial halfling pic did bother me though as there was no explanation in the halfling-racial description of river/marsh dwellers to justify it.  I'd be happier with eg all halflings being black because they emigrated from the tropics recently. 
On a side note, I've never liked underground-dwelling Drow having black skin.  I prefer my dark elves pale-to-albino.


----------



## S'mon (Jun 28, 2008)

mhacdebhandia said:


> Wizards of the Coast isn't the worst company when it comes to diversity in their illustrations, but they're not *fantastic* about it. The artwork still reflects a European dominance, and I think that's a shame.




If I felt that a company was aggressively anti-European that would probably affect my buying habits.  OTOH, I agree with previous posters that the pulp Swords & Sorcery style is traditionally multi-ethnic, and s&s games' art should work with this trope or have a good reason why not.  Conversely, Tolkienesque high fantasy is much more Eurocentric, and I like that too.  
D&D of course falls somewhere between the two, and can reasonably go either way.  But I tend to think it should avoid unthinking insertion of Diversity for purely tokenistic reasons of race (or gender) balance.


----------



## S'mon (Jun 28, 2008)

Cadfan said:


> Your tendency to interpret a picture of a black guy in a suit of armor as a token attempt to pander to "current politically correct morality" rather than just a picture of a black guy in a suit of armor is, well, a character flaw.




It could be either.  If the nominal setting is Eberron, with lightning rails and a 20th century aesthetic, it comes across as just a picture of a black guy in a suit of armor.  If the nominal setting is Greyhawk, with a medieval European aesthetic, it comes across as a token attempt to pander to "current politically correct morality".


----------



## resistor (Jun 28, 2008)

To go off on a tangent,  I don't take much notice of the ethnicities portrayed in RPG artwork, I do feel strongly about how cultures are portrayed in settings.

I strongly dislike it when a setting has, say, a dozen nations or cultures derived from medieval Western Europe, and then has a single, homogeneous nation that is "East Asia" or "Africa" or "The Middle East," et cetera.  By failing to recognize the diversity of cultures that exist within such regions, while simultaneously offering an explosive assortment of European-esque cultures, really demeans them.

The other thing that bothers me is that, in general, settings seem to be willing to mix and match elements between European cultures, but not between others.  It seems to me that by comparmentalizing all cultural elements into "European" vs. "Asian" vs. "African" vs. ..., we vastly limit the number of interesting and different cultures we can design.

Finally coming back to the topic at hand, I think both of these contribute to the tendency to depict caucasians in fantasy art.  By restricting non-European cultures to a single nation/region, or by completely compartmentalizing all non-European cultural elements, it becomes much easier to optionalize them and thus leave out the ethnicities that would be represented therein


----------



## S'mon (Jun 28, 2008)

resistor said:


> I strongly dislike it when a setting has, say, a dozen nations or cultures derived from medieval Western Europe, and then has a single, homogeneous nation that is "East Asia" or "Africa" or "The Middle East," et cetera.  By failing to recognize the diversity of cultures that exist within such regions, while simultaneously offering an explosive assortment of European-esque cultures, really demeans them.




I think this is fine for a Eurocentric setting.  For an Arabian Nights type setting I'd expect the reverse - diverse Arabic & Persian type countries and probably a single off-map Frankish type kingdom for crusaders plus maybe a Byzantium analogue.   This doesn't 'demean' Europe, it gives an appropriately Arabo-centric feeling to the setting.


----------



## S'mon (Jun 28, 2008)

resistor said:


> Finally coming back to the topic at hand, I think both of these contribute to the tendency to depict caucasians in fantasy art.




I think games written for primarily Caucasian/European markets are going to have Caucasian/European looking characters in the art as default; just as games for the Japanese market are going to have characters with whom the Japanese market can identify (even if they have pink hair and huge eyes).  I guess WotC may want more of an ethnic variety in their art to get more non-white players since the USA is now only about 2/3 white non-Hispanic.

Something that hasn't been mentioned much is use of fantasy human races without real-world analogues.  I particularly like the Wilderlands with its green-skinned Viridians descended from mermen, blue-skinned Avalonian ice wizards, scarlet-hued Barbarians of Altanis, and so on.  Within the setting this can work much better than shoeing in every real-world American ethnicity for Diversity purposes.


----------



## Barastrondo (Jun 28, 2008)

Fun Fact: Ursula K. LeGuin's _A Wizard of Earthsea_ (and sequels) were deliberately written to reflect the world she grew up in, which was predominantly non-white. So there's at least one classic work of fantasy where the hero was intended to be non-Caucasian.

The Sci-Fi Channel adaptation, of course, cast Ged as white. And hey, we've got the upcoming Prince of Persia movie with the Jake Gyllenhaal in the title role.   

By compare, making a deliberate inclusion for more ethnic diversity in art doesn't even come close to "offensive" to me. I far prefer the attitude of "Hey, there are plenty of white heroes, so let's create some more to reflect the rest of the human race" to "Really, we need a white lead so people will consume our product."


----------



## Imaro (Jun 28, 2008)

Barastrondo said:


> Fun Fact: Ursula K. LeGuin's _A Wizard of Earthsea_ (and sequels) were deliberately written to reflect the world she grew up in, which was predominantly non-white. So there's at least one classic work of fantasy where the hero was intended to be non-Caucasian.
> 
> The Sci-Fi Channel adaptation, of course, cast Ged as white. And hey, we've got the upcoming Prince of Persia movie with the Jake Gyllenhaal in the title role.
> 
> By compare, making a deliberate inclusion for more ethnic diversity in art doesn't even come close to "offensive" to me. I far prefer the attitude of "Hey, there are plenty of white heroes, so let's create some more to reflect the rest of the human race" to "Really, we need a white lead so people will consume our product."




I read an article about the Ursula K. LeGuin adaptation of her Earthsea novels, about how she was angry, and rightfully so, about the casting of the mini-series.

I also wanted to take the time to say that I think White Wolf is one of the better companies when it comes to showcasing racial diversity in artwork, not only in their World of Darkness but also with their Exalted line... I can honestly say as a black gamer this was one of the things (along with a really cool setting) that drew me to Exalted.   First by including within their world of Creation a variety of cultures to draw on and secondly through the artwork.

 This is what fantasy should be, IMHO, an all-inclusive genre.  Why do dark-skinned people have to come from an african-esque land, when there are plenty of fantasy games (including D&D) who happily mish-mash euro-centric and sometimes non euro-centric cultures into something totally different from any real world examples?  Please tell me what real world culture is Eberron based on?  The inability to accept that an adventurer could be dark-skinned in D&D, without him coming from a pseudo-african nation, is IMHO a lack of imagination on the part of those who can't accept it.  For an example in the real world just look at Rome...a multitude of ethnicities brought under their rule interacted on various levels throughout Rome's history.  With the predominance of ancient empire's in the default D&D setting, I don't see why the same thing occurring is any less "believable" or would actually turn people off of purchasing products.


SIDE NOTE: Ethan, you guys should really give some thought to making a more streamlined and simpler system for Exalted, it's a great game but can be pretty hard to get new players into.  If you guys did something like this it would become my default fantasy game in a minute.


----------



## CountPopeula (Jun 28, 2008)

You know, the most obvious example of a black man in the core books to me was the painting of Othello and Iago in the DMG in the skill challenge section. Perhaps because it's really really obviously Lawrence Fishburn and Kenneth Branagh.

The post on the big purple that sparked this, however, referred to the iconic cleric image a number of times as a non-white character, but I just don't see it. Looks like a white guy to me.

The black halfing wasn't all that jarring to me as it was to some people. I didn't even notice her until she got pointed out.

I suppose, though, that I do want to see more diversity. If only because it would get the bad taste of that Heroes Now! book out of my mouth. "Lots of character backgrounds, all random... oh btw, being gay, non-Christian, or Mexican are on the table for mental disorders."

It's always been a pet peeve of mine that there aren't more non-whites in RPGs. I like the look of what Wen's art might mean for Anima, because, well... find a picture of a black man in a Games Workshop book. I mean, the Salamanders are supposed to be black and the Dark Angels are Native American, right? So how come every time they show one of them without a helmet, it's a white guy? So at least WotC is doing better than Games Workshop, who have left me to my own devices in trying to paint black space marines while giving me 15 articles on how to shade white guys all different shades of white.


----------



## Ravellion (Jun 28, 2008)

I would just like to point out that Magic: the Gathering has very racially diverse art. Teferi is black, people from the entire Mirage setting were black, and even 10th edition art has a decent mix.

edit: Which means I don't think WotC ahs any cultural agenda as such, either PC or purposefully not using racial diversity.


----------



## Imaro (Jun 28, 2008)

Ravellion said:


> I would just like to point out that Magic: the Gathering has very racially diverse art. Teferi is black, people from the entire Mirage setting were black, and even 10th edition art has a decent mix.




And you know what the funny thing is, I've met more non-whites that play MtG & Star Wars minis in Chicago than anywhere near the number that play D&D.  I think people are definitely more apt to be drawn to what they can relate too, and for non-whites it seems horror and science fiction are a much greater draw than fantasy.  Artwork is a big factor when it comes to piquing a persons interest, and I think with the more intimate nature of D&D as compared to mini or card games, it's even more important for people to be able to relate to the game on a personal level.  As the D&D books (outside of campaigns) are setting neutral...why can't asian-esque, african-esque, even native american-esque artwork be used without drawing a disconnect.  If anything it seems like it might get readers to thinking beyond just euro-centric fantasy and looking at fantasy with a more holistic approach.   

I'm not asserting that by diversifying the artwork in D&D there will suddenly be a flood of non-white gamers, but I think that this is definitely a step WotC could take if they really are trying to bring a whole new market of gamers into the fold.  I definitely don't see diversity hurting D&D sales in the manner R&D on 3rd edition did.  Just my opinion though.


----------



## CountPopeula (Jun 28, 2008)

Imaro said:


> I'm not asserting that by diversifying the artwork in D&D there will suddenly be a flood of non-white gamers, but I think that this is definitely a step WotC could take if they really are trying to bring a whole new market of gamers into the fold.  I definitely don't see diversity hurting D&D sales in the manner R&D on 3rd edition did.  Just my opinion though.




This comes up a lot in comic books, too. There aren't a lot of non-white comic book characters in starring roles, and then people tend to wonder why fans are mostly white.

Of course, most of these comic book characters are from the 40's (DC) or the 60's (Marvel), but it's time add some more diversity. Storm and Black Panther on the Fantastic Four was something, John Stewart coming back as a GL was something (even if I happen to hate that guy almost as bad as Guy Gardener) but really... Wizard just had their top 200 comic book characters of all time, and about the only people in the top 50 qualifying as minorities are Kitty Pryde and Magneto. The highest an African-American made it on the list was 86, Ultimate Nick Fury. Which puts him (surprising) 11 spots behind the highest-ranked homosexual character.

I guess the fact is, there's not a lot of diversity anywhere. I mean, NBC still basically depicts New York City as a white city on its sitcoms. So it's good to see diversity where we can find it, even if it's just in D&D.


----------



## Seonaid (Jun 28, 2008)

JediSoth said:


> What bothers me is when it's assumed that ethnic people must be depicted with the tropes and accoutrements that we associate with that ethnicity in the real world. There's no reason, in fantasy artwork, why an Asian-looking wizard can't be dressed like a classical fantasy wizard, rather than looking like Mako from _Conan the Barbarian_.



This was alluded to in another post, but, yes, there is a reason for it. In something that is meant to be as general and generic as D&D (in the sense that players can customize the world as much as they want), it's shorthand. Rather than recreating an east Asian or north African nation from scratch, the designers recognize that we, as humans on Earth, have a common pool of knowledge from which to draw. That isn't to say it's always *right*, but it does exist for a purpose.

In my mind, then, the question isn't whether or not it's an Asian wizard in classic garb, it's why is that unusual? Sure you have shorthand--_and there's no way to escape that, even if you want_--but it can be used differently. Frex, dark-skinned people are such because of the environment in which they evolved . . . but put all of them into a more classic medieval setting, instead of the light-skinned people. Then, you can have the same tropes and shorthand of medieval fantasy . . . but with darker-skinned people.

And then you'll have people saying, "But wait--if they're dark-skinned because they live in such a sunny, hot environment, what are they doing wearing plate mail and riding heavy warhorses?!?" And that, folks, is why I'm not a game designer. 


Snoweel said:


> Having limited interaction with people of differing cultures you would have been more likely to grow up in the belief that the only differences between cultural groups are the clothes we wear and the food we eat - harmless and banal differences to be sure.



IME, having limited interaction with people of differing cultures means you take your views from popular media, and generally popular media is very stereotypical. YMMV, obviously, but I don't think that growing up in a predominantly X environment generally makes people MORE open-minded.







the Jester said:


> In a generic product, such as the PH, I would prefer to see a more diverse set of heroes.



Amen. If this is meant to represent a huge population in generic situations, it should be as diverse and representative as possible.







Imaro said:


> The real thing I'm wondering is, if there is an equal spread of ethnic diversity in artwork throughout the books...would it make you less inclined to buy them?  It seems the R&D team for 3e felt this way and it just seems silly to me, when looking at the actual campaign worlds WotC puts out.



I agree with you, sir (or madam, as the case may be). To answer your original question, I bought the 4e PHB because my group is switching to 4e. The artwork in it has nothing to do with it, either way. However, if there had been a huge outcry that WotC had an Agenda, I might have researched that a bit and then argued for or against (depending on the Agenda in question) switching. As it is, artwork will not influence my decision for the core books (I'm eventually going to get the DMG as well, and my SO and I already own a copy of the MM), but it might influence my decision to buy splats and other supplements.







Wyrmshadows said:


> Of course you can run a campaign anywhere, its just that these places are the most popular apparently and they just happen to be European analogues and more than likely to be populated most strongly by caucasian types.



Hm, perhaps THAT is the core problem, then. Why are the most popular (and I'm reading this as "populated" for this argument's sake) places chock-full of light-skinned people?

The answer to that, most likely, is that the majority of the people at WotC are light-skinned and the majority of the consumers of their product line are light-skinned.







mmadsen said:


> I must admit, it feels particularly odd to have a "white" halfling next to a "black" halfling, or whatever.  (_Together, they fight crime!_)



LOL!







Wyrmshadows said:


> Talk about monolithic and dull cultures. Dwarves love mountains, elves love the woods and halflings (recently) love rivers.



Again, it's shorthand. Of COURSE you can have desert elves (hell, why not have desert dwarves?), but unless you want a 500-pound set of core books, they can't elucidate EVERY possible incarnation. I like to give people the benefit of the doubt, and I'd like to think that the 4e designers were giving a general "fantasy" feel (partially, no doubt, to draw in new customers) with the expectation that players will be creative enough to modify it when they so desire.







Celebrim said:


> However, if I were to look at a peice of fantasy artwork with a black person in it, the first thing I would think is that they consciously shoe horned a token black face into the art work purely for the sake of superficial pandering to ideas of racial diversity.



And that's the problem. It's a thin line between pandering and including. My first reaction to seeing a "multicultural" X is to not react. But if someone were to point it out to me, my reaction is generally, "Oh, look, it's the token X." So where do you find balance? *I* would find it by having the minority be the light-skinned. Very few people would say, "Oh, look, it's the token white," even if 99% of the rest of the thing is non-white. But in a market that's predominantly light-skinned, it doesn't make sense to have the light-skinned be a gross minority. As has been mentioned, people like what they can identify with.







Wyrmshadows said:


> Real diversity isn't merely an issue of skin tone, angle of the eyes, height od the cheekbones, etc.



Obviously. However, there does seem to be, at least in the United States, a sense that a diversity of physical features are not represented equally or well in most situations. Yes, merely coloring the white dude black isn't terribly effective, but it's probably the best many can manage at this point in history. Which brings me to your next point. 


Wyrmshadows said:


> Dressing up every ethnicity in Euro-drag isn't diversity (though it can be an important start). <snip>
> 
> Too be fair, if we are going to stay deeply and profoundly eurocentric as a RPing community (which is likely the reality of D&D), I would way prefer to see the occasional african in euro-drag than a complete absence of non-caucasian faces.



And:







Celebrim said:


> I just don't think we are to the point in our society where a black character just happens to be black.



Exactly.







> I just personally find, "I'm so sorry about my umpteenth redneck ancestor domesticating a horse and inventing longswords, here let me paint a black guy to prove my sensitivity" very nearly as nausating as "Because my umpteenth redneck ancestor domesticated a horse, I'm racially superior to you."



However, the assumption that "painting a black guy" is to prove sensitivity is kind of shallow. Unless someone says the latter, I'm not going to think it of them, so why do the same with the former?







resistor said:


> The other thing that bothers me is that, in general, settings seem to be willing to mix and match elements between European cultures, but not between others.  It seems to me that by comparmentalizing all cultural elements into "European" vs. "Asian" vs. "African" vs. ..., we vastly limit the number of interesting and different cultures we can design.



I am NOT being snarky here, but I don't understand what you're trying to say. It sounds like you're saying that European cultures are swappable, but Asian cultures aren't and African cultures aren't. Isn't that opposite of what you're trying to argue?







> By restricting non-European cultures to a single nation/region, or by completely compartmentalizing all non-European cultural elements, it becomes much easier to optionalize them and thus leave out the ethnicities that would be represented therein



I think there isn't anything wrong with making things "easier to optionalize" unless it's done specifically to marginalize or exclude.


----------



## Snoweel (Jun 28, 2008)

Seonaid said:


> IME, having limited interaction with people of differing cultures means you take your views from popular media, and generally popular media is very stereotypical. YMMV, obviously




Obviously my milage *does* vary - in my experience (and yes I'm aware it is merely my *perception* of my experience) popular media tells us that people of different cultures are exactly the same as us, only with different clothes and food.

Which, for many impressionable and sheltered white youths, translates to exactly-the-same-as-us-only-more-interesting.

And hence why so many youths from the whitest, most middle-class suburbs have such romanticised views of *OTHER CULTURES*.

Because they've never actually experienced first-hand the culture clashes common in more working class towns and suburbs.



> but I don't think that growing up in a predominantly X environment generally makes people MORE open-minded.




Oh it doesn't.

But here you are equating tolerance with open-mindedness. Surely you'd agree that unquestioning acceptance of an ideology does not make one open-minded, no matter how noble that ideology seems to be on the surface.


----------



## Imaro (Jun 28, 2008)

Ravellion said:


> I would just like to point out that Magic: the Gathering has very racially diverse art. Teferi is black, people from the entire Mirage setting were black, and even 10th edition art has a decent mix.
> 
> edit: Which means I don't think WotC ahs any cultural agenda as such, either PC or purposefully not using racial diversity.




Ravellion, just wanted to comment on your edit real quick... I don't know if that can be inferred from MtG having more diverse artwork.  Aren't the cards bought sight unseen?  So really I don't think the MtG artwork is considered the same way artwork for D&D is.


----------



## eyebeams (Jun 28, 2008)

Barastrondo said:


> Fun Fact: Ursula K. LeGuin's _A Wizard of Earthsea_ (and sequels) were deliberately written to reflect the world she grew up in, which was predominantly non-white. So there's at least one classic work of fantasy where the hero was intended to be non-Caucasian.
> 
> The Sci-Fi Channel adaptation, of course, cast Ged as white. And hey, we've got the upcoming Prince of Persia movie with the Jake Gyllenhaal in the title role.
> 
> By compare, making a deliberate inclusion for more ethnic diversity in art doesn't even come close to "offensive" to me. I far prefer the attitude of "Hey, there are plenty of white heroes, so let's create some more to reflect the rest of the human race" to "Really, we need a white lead so people will consume our product."




These two examples really highlight why diversity is important. The default whiteness of fantasy stereotypes is distorting representations of real fantasy literature. The genre is actually suffering for it.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 28, 2008)

I really don't think there is any intent involved, really.

There is an old saying- "A man makes his mark at his eye-level." meaning that someone marking a trail will mark it in a way that catches _HIS _eye.

When game designers choose art for their products, they're probably envisioning the archetypal heroes of their own cultures...and since 90%+ of game designers have a predominantly American/Eurasian cultural & caucasian ethnic background?

I think we can all do _that _math.

Which is why, though I may be disappointed in the ethnic diversity of game art, it doesn't influence _my_ purchases.

(Well, barring anything offensive, that is.)

But it clearly does influence others, and should probably be on a checklist of editing considerations.


----------



## mmadsen (Jun 28, 2008)

eyebeams said:


> The default whiteness of fantasy stereotypes is distorting representations of real fantasy literature.



The default whiteness of fantasy is perfectly in keeping with its roots in medieval romance.

Further, most of the racial variety of Tolkien-esque fantasy is pretty clearly taken up by the not-quite-human races of elves, dwarves, orcs, etc.


----------



## Ravellion (Jun 28, 2008)

Imaro said:


> Ravellion, just wanted to comment on your edit real quick... I don't know if that can be inferred from MtG having more diverse artwork.  Aren't the cards bought sight unseen?  So really I don't think the MtG artwork is considered the same way artwork for D&D is.



A possible agenda can be inferred from WotC picking and placing the art. The fact that the distribution channel for cards means a certain percentage of cards is bought sight unseen is IMO not relevant. The secondary market also, is huge, and people often buy boxes of boosters, knowing full well what the art style of that particular set will be.


----------



## Imaro (Jun 28, 2008)

mmadsen said:


> The default whiteness of fantasy is perfectly in keeping with its roots in medieval romance.
> 
> Further, most of the racial variety of Tolkien-esque fantasy is pretty clearly taken up by the not-quite-human races of elves, dwarves, orcs, etc.




Uhm...what?  Really, what?  I've tried to stay pretty neutral in this thread about people's opinions, but this is absurd.  So all of fantasy has it's roots in medieval romance?  Yeah ok, whatever.  Just to let you know a statement like that does a big disservice to alot of cultures, or shows how narrow your readings based on other cultures may be.  In either case, fantasy has roots much deeper than what you claim. 

Now Tolkie-esque fantasy, you might have a point...But D&D isn't just based on Tolkien-esque fantasy...how about swords & sorcery, where regardless of how they are portrayed there are representations of cultures besides those that are euro-centric?


----------



## Afrodyte (Jun 28, 2008)

It does influence my purchasing decisions.

If there's a setting or supplement that treats diversity as the norm I'm more likely to take a closer look at it than one that seems like "Medieval" European Knockoff #47 (or worse Pseudo-Tolkien Setting #635).

I connect better with settings where I can play a character who looks like me without having to justify it.

It doesn't mean I don't like Middle-earth and some settings inspired by medieval Europe (I own most of the History of Middle-earth series, and I'm a huge fantasy movie buff). But the preponderance of White-dominated settings where non-Whites are sectioned off into other places doesn't conjure positive things in my mind.

For me, the only justification for an ethnically homogeneous setting is if it draws directly from (not just inspired by) a particular cultural work. I don't expect Arabs to show up in _Beowulf_, nor do I look for Chinese people in _Sundiata_. _Journey to the West_ doesn't have native Americans in it. And there aren't many West Africans in _Mahabharata_. As you can see, these are the exception, not the rule.


----------



## Afrodyte (Jun 28, 2008)

[Tangent]
Am I the only person who thinks myths, legends, folktales, and fairy tales are fantasy too?
[/Tangent]


----------



## Imaro (Jun 28, 2008)

Afrodyte said:


> [Tangent]
> Am I the only person who thinks myths, legends, folktales, and fairy tales are fantasy too?
> [/Tangent]




NOPE...right there with you.


----------



## billd91 (Jun 28, 2008)

S'mon said:


> It could be either.  If the nominal setting is Eberron, with lightning rails and a 20th century aesthetic, it comes across as just a picture of a black guy in a suit of armor.  If the nominal setting is Greyhawk, with a medieval European aesthetic, it comes across as a token attempt to pander to "current politically correct morality".




Ah, but a real GH afficionado would point out that you were wrong. The skin color of the native Flan of the Flanaess ranges from light bronze to deep brown.


----------



## mmadsen (Jun 28, 2008)

Imaro said:


> So all of fantasy has it's roots in medieval romance?  Yeah ok, whatever.



Tolkien's works were a conscious effort to recreate medieval romances.  Our modern notion of fantasy is largely derivative of Tolkien's work.

As I mentioned earlier, another sub-genre, swords & sorcery, was not derived from medieval romances so much as from adventure fiction, with roots in all kinds of history and then-contemporary adventures -- to the Far East; Deepest, Darkest Africa; etc.

While I enjoy that sub-genre, and it has had its influence on D&D's basic play style, I wouldn't say it's nearly as representative of modern fantasy as Tolkien.


Imaro said:


> Just to let you know a statement like that does a big disservice to alot of cultures, or shows how narrow your readings based on other cultures may be.



I have done no disservice to any culture by pointing out that the modern fantasy genre is derived from medieval European popular literature ("romance").

Does it have no other influences?  Of course not, but it's silly to pretend that other cultures or races are _wronged_ by "Eurocentric" fantasy.


----------



## billd91 (Jun 28, 2008)

CountPopeula said:


> The black halfing wasn't all that jarring to me as it was to some people. I didn't even notice her until she got pointed out.




And your experience is, I believe, the goal. Even if some think it's 'pandering', the goal is for the difference to be simply an aesthetic one rather than a political one. And in order for that to happen, since it isn't likely to happen if you wait for society to do it for you, is for the artists to push the envelope and make it happen.
Social and cultural change happens because individuals make it happen until everyone gets to the point you were at when you looked at he halflings.


----------



## eyebeams (Jun 28, 2008)

mmadsen said:


> Tolkien's works were a conscious effort to recreate medieval romances.  Our modern notion of fantasy is largely derivative of Tolkien's work.




This is a common error. Tolkien's work was a conscious attempt to create an English myth cycle to match similar Norse and Celtic traditions. It is not a recreated medieval romance at all.



> As I mentioned earlier, another sub-genre, swords & sorcery, was not derived from medieval romances so much as from adventure fiction, with roots in all kinds of history and then-contemporary adventures -- to the Far East; Deepest, Darkest Africa; etc.
> 
> While I enjoy that sub-genre, and it has had its influence on D&D's basic play style, I wouldn't say it's nearly as representative of modern fantasy as Tolkien.




D&D is pretty clearly derived from pulp fantasy, from the basic style of play to what Gary Gygax actually pointed out as influences. D&D's demihumans share some cosmetic similarities, but for the most part have none of Tolkien's associations. D&D elves are not a thought experiment about people born without Original Sin, and dwarves are not based on the Jews. No D&D setting is based on the Inklings' experiments with creating new fictive representations of Christianity. Greyhawk does not have a Satan figure The Realms includes a rather scathing parody of Christianity that it nicked from Lieber. 



> I have done no disservice to any culture by pointing out that the modern fantasy genre is derived from medieval European popular literature ("romance").




Medieval romance is stuff like the Song of Roland. Tolkien was creating a parallel to the sagas -- but his influence on D&D's fundamentals has some pretty clear limits.



> Does it have no other influences?  Of course not, but it's silly to pretend that other cultures or races are _wronged_ by "Eurocentric" fantasy.




The thing is, there are examples of default whiteness distorting real fantasy settings like Earthsea. Plus -- and this is a big thing to note -- D&D is at this point *just* as pivotal an influence on fantasy fiction as Tolkien. D&D is its own genre and literary locus now and it's about time people stopped trying to fix it to represent something outside itself.


----------



## Imaro (Jun 28, 2008)

mmadsen said:


> Tolkien's works were a conscious effort to recreate medieval romances.  Our modern notion of fantasy is largely derivative of Tolkien's work.
> 
> As I mentioned earlier, another sub-genre, swords & sorcery, was not derived from medieval romances so much as from adventure fiction, with roots in all kinds of history and then-contemporary adventures -- to the Far East; Deepest, Darkest Africa; etc.
> 
> ...




Okay, I 'm not going to argue semantics... but your first statement wasn't about modern fantasy, it was fantasy in general.  Even looking at just modern fantasy, it's not limited to Tolkien derivatives, there are whole subgenres that include urban fantasy, dark fantasy and sword and sorcery among others that don't ape Tolkien.  Now if you choose not to read them fine, those are your tastes... but they are in bookstores and others do and they are considered modern fantasy.  I mean the newest campaign setting for D&D, Eberron, was billed as a dark fantasy/noir setting, not too much Tolkien there.

Again you do do a disservice by making broad blanket statements.  I would argue that Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, Avatar the Last Airbender, and others are just as prevalent in the minds of fanatasy buffs (probably moreso in younger generations) as Lord of the Rings is.  So again the blanket statements are what is a disservice.

I never said other races or cultures were "wronged" by euro-centric fantasy, so really I don't even know how to respond to that.  I will argue that your blanket statements do a disservice to those who draw on (as well as the history of cultures) their own fantasy traditions, stories and art rather than Tolkien for their work when you summararily dismiss their contributions.


----------



## Kobold Avenger (Jun 28, 2008)

I find it ironic the whole mention of GH included along eurocentric, since there's something like 5 distinct human ethnic groups there which could be vaguely mapped to real world ethnic groups.  One of them being Arabic, and there's sort of a bunch of Native Americans, South Americans and Roma (aka Gypsies) in that setting.

But even taking eurocenticism into account, I don't think it'll seem out of place if there were Gypsies also known as Roma in a medieval setting.  The Roma people actually are descendants of Indians who emigrated to Europe.  

But usually with ethnic diversity in settings, I generally prefer it if people sort of dress the way their implied ethnicity does since I like there being these different ethnic dress, with some slight mixtures for the sake of practicality and being slightly different from the real world.  

Where there's people that resemble Africans who sort of dress African, with the dashiki shirts or those long shirts with the caps, but maybe not quite the bright colours typically associated with some African clothing.  Arabs sort of dress Arabic, but maybe since it isn't quite Islamic less women cover their faces (Al-Quadim had the Pantheist league as sort of the stand-in).  Those sort of touches for fantasy worlds I'll be alright with.


----------



## Korgoth (Jun 28, 2008)

I don't really notice diversity in artwork very much. I think it should be present within a reasonable context. When the people depicted are from the frozen north, I would expect them to be pale. When they're from the burning lands of the south, I would expect them to be dark.

I guess it's a tough balance to strike, especially deliberately. I'm of Nordic ancestry, and I really like seeing art that has Viking dudes looking cool. I am conscious of my ancestry and get an extra charge out of seeing good artwork that celebrates it. Nobody should be required to miss out on that experience! There should be cool artwork celebrating african, asian, Mediterranean, etc. folk as well. But... and this is the hard part... it shouldn't be forced.

If you look at a picture of an adventuring party, you don't want to think "there's the mighty paladin, there's the cute sorceress chick, there's the hobbit and there's the black guy". Somehow the diversity should blend naturally into the other areas of excellent in the artwork, like theme, tone, composition, color, etc.


----------



## Cirex (Jun 28, 2008)

Snoweel said:


> I feel you dawg.
> 
> I'm still pissed my Drow ranger couldn't be white.




Irae T'sarran.


----------



## S'mon (Jun 28, 2008)

Barastrondo said:


> Fun Fact: Ursula K. LeGuin's _A Wizard of Earthsea_ (and sequels) were deliberately written to reflect the world she grew up in, which was predominantly non-white. So there's at least one classic work of fantasy where the hero was intended to be non-Caucasian.




I've read LeGuin's discussion about that, and her complaints about the sci-fi channel casting.  I think there's a bit of an issue there that the core Earthsea cultures feel very European, at least to me, and certainly my mind's eye image of the Earthseaers is European-looking, albeit bronzed/tanned.  Ironically, LeGuin made the people of Atuan white Nordic looking, but gave them a culture that feels more middle-eastern, so that's how I saw them when I read Tombs of Atuan as a child.


----------



## Afrodyte (Jun 28, 2008)

Kobold Avenger said:


> But usually with ethnic diversity in settings, I generally prefer it if people sort of dress the way their implied ethnicity does since I like there being these different ethnic dress, with some slight mixtures for the sake of practicality and being slightly different from the real world.
> 
> Where there's people that resemble Africans who sort of dress African, with the dashiki shirts or those long shirts with the caps, but maybe not quite the bright colours typically associated with some African clothing.  Arabs sort of dress Arabic, but maybe since it isn't quite Islamic less women cover their faces (Al-Quadim had the Pantheist league as sort of the stand-in).  Those sort of touches for fantasy worlds I'll be alright with.




*confused*

So . . . you find it jarring when you go out and see non-White people wearing jeans, t-shirts, shorts, flip-flops, sweaters, or business suits? There's nothing particularly African about those items of clothing. 

I think what I can't wrap my head around is the need for a justification to have non-Whites exist as normal people in a generic fantasy setting. Why is it so hard to simply imagine non-White characters as normal in a generic fantasy setting? Is it really inconceivable to come across a non-White person in a predominantly White town or city who was actually born there?

To be honest, the feel of standard D&D reminds me more of the Wild West than medieval Europe.


----------



## S'mon (Jun 28, 2008)

Imaro said:


> Now Tolkie-esque fantasy, you might have a point...But D&D isn't just based on Tolkien-esque fantasy...how about swords & sorcery, where regardless of how they are portrayed there are representations of cultures besides those that are euro-centric?




Yes, like I said D&D seems about equally based on Tolkienesque high fantasy (knights, dragons, elves, dwarves) and swords & sorcery (demons, elementals, cultists, sorcererers, giant carnivorous apes).  The art has varied over the years (eg Elmore's art that defined Mentzer D&D was very much in the high fantasy tradition); but I agree there has rarely been the diversity of the characters in eg the two Conan movies, where it clearly wasn't for Political Correctness/Diversity purposes.


----------



## S'mon (Jun 28, 2008)

billd91 said:


> Ah, but a real GH afficionado would point out that you were wrong. The skin color of the native Flan of the Flanaess ranges from light bronze to deep brown.




Flannae colouration is basically bronze; Gygax based them off Amerindian cultures; although the Duchy of Tenh is Flan.


----------



## Kobold Avenger (Jun 28, 2008)

Afrodyte said:


> *confused*
> 
> So . . . you find it jarring when you go out and see non-White people wearing jeans, t-shirts, shorts, flip-flops, sweaters, or business suits? There's nothing particularly African about those items of clothing.



Um no.  

Where the hell did you get that idea from?

I'm Asian by the way, and while I refuse to wear jeans or flip-flops or sweaters, I dress in a very "western" style.

I'm talking about things in the context of a fantasy world, that everyone else in this thread has been discussing.  But yes, you may have been confused because I was referring to how people from places they come from dress like.  As there simply feel there shouldn't be a land that's like France except everyone's brown.


----------



## billd91 (Jun 28, 2008)

S'mon said:


> Flannae colouration is basically bronze; Gygax based them off Amerindian cultures; although the Duchy of Tenh is Flan.




Indeed. But, as at leas the LG Gazetteer mentions, the coloration ranges to deep brown. So, brown-skinned characters in GH should not be a jarring issue that doesn't fit the milieu.


----------



## billd91 (Jun 28, 2008)

Kobold Avenger said:


> But usually with ethnic diversity in settings, I generally prefer it if people sort of dress the way their implied ethnicity does since I like there being these different ethnic dress, with some slight mixtures for the sake of practicality and being slightly different from the real world.
> 
> Where there's people that resemble Africans who sort of dress African, with the dashiki shirts or those long shirts with the caps, but maybe not quite the bright colours typically associated with some African clothing.  Arabs sort of dress Arabic, but maybe since it isn't quite Islamic less women cover their faces (Al-Quadim had the Pantheist league as sort of the stand-in).  Those sort of touches for fantasy worlds I'll be alright with.




But what if the setting isn't too closely based on real cultures - but still has a decent sprinkling of different skin tones? Are you saying that you aren't alright with racial skin differences that don't reflect our stereotypical notions of cultures associated with those skin tones? Have all black races got to have Afro-based cultures in fantasy art and literature? I surely hope not.


----------



## S'mon (Jun 28, 2008)

billd91 said:


> Indeed. But, as at leas the LG Gazetteer mentions, the coloration ranges to deep brown. So, brown-skinned characters in GH should not be a jarring issue that doesn't fit the milieu.




Yeah; the Flannae aren't described as looking African though.  But I think your point is that the Flanaess isn't identical to medieval Europe?  You're right of course.


----------



## Kobold Avenger (Jun 28, 2008)

billd91 said:


> But what if the setting isn't too closely based on real cultures - but still has a decent sprinkling of different skin tones? Are you saying that you aren't alright with racial skin differences that don't reflect our stereotypical notions of cultures associated with those skin tones? Have all black races got to have Afro-based cultures in fantasy art and literature? I surely hope not.




But even basing something on the real-world, there's a lot more than stereotypical notions of how cultures are like.  Even with a group as diverse as blacks.  And there are indeed many cultures around Africa, and outside of it in the "old world" with African populations.  Let's take for examples Moors, or any of the more Islamic African cultures.  They dress nothing like the stereotype of a loin-cloth bushman.  Out there, there's a lot of thing to build on before having to rely on medieval western-european clothing.

And if you want to mix the ways cultures dress, well don't throw in western-european clothing.  Okay maybe then for example these African-like people dress a lot like Yao-Chinese, which is a more obscure culture, which is better than putting them in the western-european clothing, which shows lack of bothering to research or imagination.


----------



## Caliban (Jun 28, 2008)

S'mon said:


> Yeah; the Flannae aren't described as looking African though. But I think your point is that the Flanaess isn't identical to medieval Europe? You're right of course.




The Touv generally have the darkest skin among the human ethnic groups in Greyhawk - although to me their physcial features sound more similar to dark-skinned people from India than Africa. 



> In the _The Scarlet Brotherhood_ sourcebook, Sean K Reynolds described the Touv thus:
> _The Touv people have dark brown or black skin. The also have blue or brown eyes, with black eyes being rare; and straight or wavy hair. They have rounded facial features and are typically shorter than most people of the Flanaess, with the tallest Touv reaching about 5'10" in height. While most Touv males do not have facial hair, certain subgroups can grow narrow beards on their chins. Women's figures are often round and lush. They speak Touv, a complex language that is a polyglot of tribal tongues containing many words that mean the same thing._​


----------



## mmadsen (Jun 28, 2008)

Afrodyte said:


> Why is it so hard to simply imagine non-White characters as normal in a generic fantasy setting? Is it really inconceivable to come across a non-White person in a predominantly White town or city who was actually born there?



Yes, it is pretty much inconceivable that a non-white would be born into an all-white quasi-medieval European community, just as it's pretty much inconceivable that a white would be born into an all-black quasi-Zulu community.

It's only in a world where populations are separated -- geographically or just socially -- that they develop as different races and remain that way.

Now, if you want to have a cosmopolitan Imperial capital or a wretched hive of villainy somewhere where the races mix, that's entirely plausible and fitting for many swords & sorcery settings.

If you want to have a mixed-race country though, where no one pays much mind to racial differences, that's a peculiarly modern situation that does not play along with fantasy's archaism but against it.


----------



## eyebeams (Jun 29, 2008)

mmadsen said:


> If you want to have a mixed-race country though, where no one pays much mind to racial differences, that's a peculiarly modern situation that does not play along with fantasy's archaism but against it.




This is another common misconception about the past. Ethnic homogeneity in other times was higher because people were less mobile, but the funny thing is that coherent definitions of people based on race are decidedly post-medieval and were fairly undeveloped until the Enlightenment, when slavery made it convenient to emphasize the idea. Prior to that physical characteristics were considered somewhat irrelevant as a means of separating people and were almost always conflated with nationality/culture -- where Europeans could be quite bigoted. 

As a result, historians actually have trouble figuring out what the ethnicities of many historical figures were. This is especially interesting with Church figures, since writers from the period don't mention appearance much and art adapts the figure to suit the appearance of locals.

So a mixed-ethnicity city where nobody cares about race but everybody cares about religion and culture *is* more authentic than racism for the period.


----------



## Barastrondo (Jun 29, 2008)

Imaro said:


> I also wanted to take the time to say that I think White Wolf is one of the better companies when it comes to showcasing racial diversity in artwork, not only in their World of Darkness but also with their Exalted line... I can honestly say as a black gamer this was one of the things (along with a really cool setting) that drew me to Exalted.   First by including within their world of Creation a variety of cultures to draw on and secondly through the artwork.




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, in his own — well, I guess some would call it "subversive" way. And Exalted sold like hotcakes. That was really, really rewarding.



> This is what fantasy should be, IMHO, an all-inclusive genre.  Why do dark-skinned people have to come from an african-esque land, when there are plenty of fantasy games (including D&D) who happily mish-mash euro-centric and sometimes non euro-centric cultures into something totally different from any real world examples?  Please tell me what real world culture is Eberron based on?  The inability to accept that an adventurer could be dark-skinned in D&D, without him coming from a pseudo-african nation, is IMHO a lack of imagination on the part of those who can't accept it.  For an example in the real world just look at Rome...a multitude of ethnicities brought under their rule interacted on various levels throughout Rome's history.  With the predominance of ancient empire's in the default D&D setting, I don't see why the same thing occurring is any less "believable" or would actually turn people off of purchasing products.




What I tend to perceive is that people just don't grow up on the same fantasy any more. Hell, the sheer popularity of manga means there are all kinds of people growing up comfortable with non-European ideas of fantasy. Writers like China Mieville and Susannah Clarke are vigorously disproving the idea that if it's not some Tolkien-derivative medieval-esque pastiche, nobody will read it. 

I do wish Hollywood would be a little less head-up-its-ass about this sort of thing, though. I would probably murder a dude to see a big-screen WETA-driven adaptation of the Ramayana, or hell, even Prince of Persia with a Persian-looking actor. Hell, I just watched the 1940 _Thief of Baghdad_ — why in the world is 2008 Hollywood still not as progressive as 1940 England? (Yeah, there's white people playing Middle Easterners, but the main character is clearly not white, and that movie did _great_.)



> SIDE NOTE: Ethan, you guys should really give some thought to making a more streamlined and simpler system for Exalted, it's a great game but can be pretty hard to get new players into.  If you guys did something like this it would become my default fantasy game in a minute.




Not my power to achieve (boy do I have enough work with the WoD), but I'll pass the idea on, sure.


----------



## Afrodyte (Jun 29, 2008)

eyebeams said:


> So a mixed-ethnicity city where nobody cares about race but everybody cares about religion and culture *is* more authentic than racism for the period.




Uh-oh, you said the R-word.

Anyway, thanks for saying this. To further your example, in ancient Greece, a barbarian was someone who didn't speak or dress Greek (and thus were completely savage and uncivilized). Once someone spoke Greek and adopted a Greek name, that person was a Greek no matter where they came from. I think the same was true in Rome. If a person spoke Latin, dressed Roman, and held Roman values, that person was a Roman.


----------



## Klaus (Jun 29, 2008)

To move the topic back from real-world analogies:

I think having ethnically diverse people fits, BUT, you have to explain where these ethnicities come from. For instance, a culture that developed in open plains with lots of winds will eventually develop the narrow eyes of Asians. People coming from a sun-bathed land will be darker-skinned (not because they tan, but because those born with darker skin will fare better under a strong sun), etc.

So before you have ethnic variety, you need geographic variety.


----------



## Afrodyte (Jun 29, 2008)

Klaus said:


> I think having ethnically diverse people fits, BUT, you have to explain where these ethnicities come from. For instance, a culture that developed in open plains with lots of winds will eventually develop the narrow eyes of Asians. People coming from a sun-bathed land will be darker-skinned (not because they tan, but because those born with darker skin will fare better under a strong sun), etc.
> 
> So before you have ethnic variety, you need geographic variety.




Why?

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?

I'm not talking about worlds drawn from a specific mythology. Those are clearly not generic. I'm talking about generic D&D worlds.


----------



## Kobold Avenger (Jun 29, 2008)

Barastrondo said:


> What I tend to perceive is that people just don't grow up on the same fantasy any more. Hell, the sheer popularity of manga means there are all kinds of people growing up comfortable with non-European ideas of fantasy. Writers like China Mieville and Susannah Clarke are vigorously disproving the idea that if it's not some Tolkien-derivative medieval-esque pastiche, nobody will read it.



Thinking back to China Mieville, I remember he described Isaac as being brown-skin and pudgy.  Which made me think of this fat Indian guy I saw around all the time.  Which in the context of New Crobuzon works because it's essentially London.


----------



## Kobold Avenger (Jun 29, 2008)

Klaus said:


> To move the topic back from real-world analogies:
> 
> I think having ethnically diverse people fits, BUT, you have to explain where these ethnicities come from. For instance, a culture that developed in open plains with lots of winds will eventually develop the narrow eyes of Asians. People coming from a sun-bathed land will be darker-skinned (not because they tan, but because those born with darker skin will fare better under a strong sun), etc.
> 
> So before you have ethnic variety, you need geographic variety.



That's essential, because it's where you need world building, when it's become the trend right now to attack world-building.


----------



## Wyrmshadows (Jun 29, 2008)

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 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?

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.

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.


Wyrmshadows


----------



## Barastrondo (Jun 29, 2008)

The thing is that when you come down to it, fantasy as a whole isn't about speculative medieval cultures with magic, or European myth cycles, or anything like that. Fantasy is about what the author is interested in. If you're really interested in odd aspects of medieval life like, say, the trivia surrounding types of polearms, a big list of polearms will make it into your fantasy RPG. If you're a linguist with a thing for myth cycles, myth cycles and language will be key to your work.  If you're interested in a world with the kind of ethnic mix you grew up around (like LeGuin or Mieville), that will influence your fantasy world.

So if you're interested in a very specific Euro-medieval type of pseudo-speculative fantasy, yes, it will be jarring to have a strong ethnic mix and no real attempt to rationalize that with your particular vision of what Euro-medieval fantasy should look like. However, D&D is rather bigger than any one fantasy vision, and kind of needs to be to appeal.


----------



## Wyrmshadows (Jun 29, 2008)

Afrodyte said:


> Why?






Afrodyte said:


> 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?
> 
> I'm not talking about worlds drawn from a specific mythology. Those are clearly not generic. I'm talking about generic D&D worlds.





Lets not handwave everything. Where there is magic therefore anything goes. Sure, you can do this but why would you want to? As someone said in a recent post, ethnic diversity is born of geographic diversity. The darker an individual's skin tone the more tropical the ancestry of the individual in question. The converse is also true.

What possible purpose would it serve to change that reality by some arbitrary handwave? Why is mindless admixture at the hands of the gods a good design goal when it does nothing but add a veneer of superficial diversity to eurocentric fantasy tropes.


Wyrmshadows


----------



## Wyrmshadows (Jun 29, 2008)

Barastrondo said:


> The thing is that when you come down to it, fantasy as a whole isn't about speculative medieval cultures with magic, or European myth cycles, or anything like that. Fantasy is about what the author is interested in. If you're really interested in odd aspects of medieval life like, say, the trivia surrounding types of polearms, a big list of polearms will make it into your fantasy RPG. If you're a linguist with a thing for myth cycles, myth cycles and language will be key to your work. If you're interested in a world with the kind of ethnic mix you grew up around (like LeGuin or Mieville), that will influence your fantasy world.






Barastrondo said:


> So if you're interested in a very specific Euro-medieval type of pseudo-speculative fantasy, yes, it will be jarring to have a strong ethnic mix and no real attempt to rationalize that with your particular vision of what Euro-medieval fantasy should look like. However, D&D is rather bigger than any one fantasy vision, and kind of needs to be to appeal.





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.

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.

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



Wyrmshadows


----------



## Celebrim (Jun 29, 2008)

> 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 (Jun 29, 2008)

Wyrmshadows said:


> 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 (Jun 29, 2008)

Wyrmshadows said:


> 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 (Jun 29, 2008)

Celebrim said:


> 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 (Jun 29, 2008)

Barastrondo said:


> 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 (Jun 29, 2008)

Wyrmshadows said:


> 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 (Jun 29, 2008)

Snoweel said:


> Oh no you di'n't!




Um. Was that some sort of joke or something?


----------



## Snoweel (Jun 29, 2008)

Barastrondo said:


> Um. Was that some sort of joke or something?




Indeed.


----------



## CountPopeula (Jun 29, 2008)

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 (Jun 29, 2008)

mhacdebhandia said:


> 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.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jun 29, 2008)

There's something a bit weird about diversity of skin colour in D&D. You already have all these fantasy races - elves, orcs, etc - which don't exist in our world. To say that in addition there are black halflings, asian dwarves and so forth is too much. I feel that the fantasy races of D&D worlds can serve as a stand in for whatever you want to say about race in our own. Or do away with the pointy-eared folks. But then it wouldn't be D&D so you can't.

Admittedly races in Tolkien = class divide. Elves are the landed gentry, orcs are the working classes. Dwarves are a possible exception, they're Jewish or Scottish. Or maybe they represent the professional classes, artisans.


----------



## Celebrim (Jun 29, 2008)

CountPopeula said:


> 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.




If you look at modern science fiction, it is incredibly diverse.

But there are few writers that are really diverse.  As I said, mostly they write about what they know.  That's not at all a bad thing considering the alternative.  This is true of something as trivial as ethnicity and the skin tone of characters.  But it is also true of actual diversity of thought and opinion.  Some of the writers have agendas.   You can be pretty sure that thier characters will act as voices for particular points of view or ways of looking at the world, whether religious or irreligious or antireligious, whether libertarian or statist, hard science or mystical fiction, free market or socialist, culturalist or multiculturalist, or whatever.  This is also not surprising.  It's pretty hard to hold a diversity of opinions within one mind, and its not a standard we should demand.

But despite the fact that no particular author is necessarily diverse, there is alot of diversity within science fiction literature as a whole.

Diversity is an attribute of science fiction, but it is not something created by science fiction.  You couldn't go and create true diversity in science fiction by trying to create it.  Diversity is an attribute of having diverse creators which naturally arise without any need for conscious acts of creating diversity in a multiethnic society.  You can't artificially create it, and in fact, the act of artificially selecting for something destroys the intended goal.



> 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.




Wouldn't that actually be the opposite of diversity?


----------



## Imaro (Jun 29, 2008)

Doug McCrae said:


> There's something a bit weird about diversity of skin colour in D&D. You already have all these fantasy races - elves, orcs, etc - which don't exist in our world. To say that in addition there are black halflings, asian dwarves and so forth is too much. I feel that the fantasy races of D&D worlds can serve as a stand in for whatever you want to say about race in our own. Or do away with the pointy-eared folks. But then it wouldn't be D&D so you can't.
> 
> Admittedly races in Tolkien = class divide. Elves are the landed gentry, orcs are the working classes. Dwarves are a possible exception, they're Jewish or Scottish. Or maybe they represent the professional classes, artisans.




Do you find it weird because you can relate to them with caucasian features better?  Do you have a problem with drow being different colored than other elves...or  the subraces of elves, dwarves, etc. that have a different described appearance?  Just curious



Snoweel said:


> Indeed.




Uhm, what's funny about it if it's a joke?  Because I don't really get it and I want to understand it.


----------



## Imaro (Jun 29, 2008)

Celebrim said:


> If you look at modern science fiction, it is incredibly diverse.
> 
> But there are few writers that are really diverse.  As I said, mostly they write about what they know.  That's not at all a bad thing considering the alternative.  This is true of something as trivial as ethnicity and the skin tone of characters.  But it is also true of actual diversity of thought and opinion.  Some of the writers have agendas.   You can be pretty sure that thier characters will act as voices for particular points of view or ways of looking at the world, whether religious or irreligious or antireligious, whether libertarian or statist, hard science or mystical fiction, free market or socialist, culturalist or multiculturalist, or whatever.  This is also not surprising.  It's pretty hard to hold a diversity of opinions within one mind, and its not a standard we should demand.
> 
> ...




You realize Todd Lockwood, the artist was pushing for diversity...R&D was pushing for a euro-centric look, so actually...yeah, the creator was pushing for diversity and was artificially hindered by marketing decisions.  This has nothing to do with the creator being forced to insert diversity and everything to do with diversity arising from a creators desires and being looked at as a negative by the corporation's marketing.  Now to me that is totally artificial.


----------



## Snoweel (Jun 29, 2008)

Celebrim said:


> 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.
> 
> ...




I used to try and create my own fantasy cultures. It's a lot of hard work for little reward - unless your players *want* to read your hundreds of pages of notes.

In the end I found the easiest thing is to take our modern liberal democratic ideals, throw some real-world window dressing on them and call it a fantasy culture.

So you've got the western liberal nation that lives in the jungle and dresses like the Aztecs, the western liberal nation that lives on an island and dresses like the Samurai, the western liberal nation that lives in the desert and builds pyramids for their Pharoah, and the western liberal nation that lives in temperate climates and dresses like medieval Europeans.

Obviously the extent to which you can diversify depends on your players' understanding of real-world historical cultures, so if you're a bunch of Asian history majors you can make the distinction between Han Chinese, Japanese feudal and Srivijaya-era Sumatran cultures.

But if your players don't know the difference then what's the point? Save time and just throw them into the gameworld region your players understand as 'Ancient Asia' and get on with it. If your players have a better understanding of the difference between ancient European cultures (eg. Vikings, Celts, Angles, etc) then detail those instead.

But really, in my experience, going into too much cultural detail detracts from gameplay at worst, and at best is lost on all but the most curious and immersive of players.

Not to mention the fact that real-world historical cultures developed over thousands of years, and even my own has changed considerably since the time period on which I loosely model my game. To think I could ever have enough of a grasp of even one of these cultures to be able to portray every significant element for my players is the height of hubris.

And that's just for existing cultures. How could I hope to create one wholecloth?

I'm a busy person. I don't want to spend all my time creating elements of the gameworld that I can just plagiarise from history.


----------



## Snoweel (Jun 29, 2008)

Imaro said:


> Uhm, what's funny about it if it's a joke?  Because I don't really get it and I want to understand it.




As is generally the case with humour, an explanation might increase your understanding but will almost certainly not lead to enhanced comedy.

And really, let's not kid ourselves..

I put it to you that you understand the joke just fine.


----------



## Celebrim (Jun 29, 2008)

Snoweel said:


> In the end I found the easiest thing is to take our modern liberal democratic ideals, throw some real-world window dressing on them and call it a fantasy culture.




Heh.

It works for Terry Pratchett.

No, I do empathize.  I have much the same problem.  My own homebrew setting as both the eastern and western Roman empires, a nation loosely based off medieval poland, a nation based of medieval sweden, a nation loosely based of Egypt, a nation loosely based of Arthurian England, a nation which is loosely based of 17th century Holland, and any number of other historical riffs.  Heck, I even have a nation which is more or less, "What if the Zulus and the Boer settlers had got along like peas and carrots?"

But in actual play, anachronisms always abound.  After all, even if I had enough learning to meet my ambitions, it's not just my story.  You can either fret about it or push on and have fun.  The latter seems to work better.


----------



## Brennin Magalus (Jun 29, 2008)

Klaus said:


> I always try to include some racial diversity whenever appropriate. For instance, the first adventure I illustrated was Fiery Dragon's The Giant's Skull. I had to come up with iconics:
> 
> [sblock]
> 
> ...




Good work, as usual.  Brazil has a great deal of diversity so I am not surprised that you would include it in your work.


----------



## eyebeams (Jun 29, 2008)

Doug McCrae said:


> Admittedly races in Tolkien = class divide. Elves are the landed gentry, orcs are the working classes. Dwarves are a possible exception, they're Jewish or Scottish. Or maybe they represent the professional classes, artisans.




Tolkien actually said that dwarves were inspired by the Jews and semitic peoples and languages, as well as medieval literature about the Jews. (Yeah, that means that some things about dwarves are rather insensitive when viewed through that light.) The idea that they're Scottish-like is a fan invention. Same thing with Celtic elves, as Tolkien wanted to specifically *exclude* Celtic influence from Middle-Earth. Symbolically speaking, elves are supposed to be people without Catholic original sin. 

Orcs? Well, he said some things that indicate they probably come from a combination of wordplay and some unfortunate, wholly unconscious attitudes which he certainly consciously repudiated, but still exist.


----------



## hong (Jun 29, 2008)

I find the notion that Dwarves are based on Jews to be rather bizarre, seeing as how they're straight from Norse sagas: runes, names and all.


----------



## eyebeams (Jun 29, 2008)

Doug McCrae said:


> There's something a bit weird about diversity of skin colour in D&D. You already have all these fantasy races - elves, orcs, etc - which don't exist in our world. To say that in addition there are black halflings, asian dwarves and so forth is too much. I feel that the fantasy races of D&D worlds can serve as a stand in for whatever you want to say about race in our own. Or do away with the pointy-eared folks. But then it wouldn't be D&D so you can't.




I'm really trying to find a reading of this that isn't a problem. If you have one human ethnicity it implies that the other ethnicities aren't human. If you deny multiple ethnicities to other fantasy "races" it strains credulity, as every other real world species with any significant genetic diversity has ethnicities and marked hereditary differences in appearance.


----------



## eyebeams (Jun 29, 2008)

hong said:


> I find the notion that Dwarves are based on Jews to be rather bizarre, seeing as how they're straight from Norse sagas: runes, names and all.




I wouldn't call it a good idea, but it was Tolkien's idea.


----------



## hong (Jun 29, 2008)

eyebeams said:


> I wouldn't call it a good idea, but it was Tolkien's idea.



Do you have a cite? This is the first I've heard of it.


----------



## eyebeams (Jun 29, 2008)

hong said:


> Do you have a cite? This is the first I've heard of it.




You can start with Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwarf_(Middle-earth)

The citations in the article are well-sourced. They are *also* based n Norse mythology, but many of the traits that are specifically Tolkienish aren't from there.


----------



## Plissken (Jun 29, 2008)

> This is what fantasy should be, IMHO, an all-inclusive genre. Why do dark-skinned people have to come from an african-esque land, when there are plenty of fantasy games (including D&D) who happily mish-mash euro-centric and sometimes non euro-centric cultures into something totally different from any real world examples? Please tell me what real world culture is Eberron based on? The inability to accept that an adventurer could be dark-skinned in D&D, without him coming from a pseudo-african nation, is IMHO a lack of imagination on the part of those who can't accept it. For an example in the real world just look at Rome...a multitude of ethnicities brought under their rule interacted on various levels throughout Rome's history. With the predominance of ancient empire's in the default D&D setting, I don't see why the same thing occurring is any less "believable" or would actually




Imaro, I think you make an excellent point here. I hate it when, people who are a different color than white, people feel that they should come from someplace considered exotic, strange, or different to be mixed into a larger dominant setting. Why can't they just be considered a different skin color from that area. As you said, "why do people who are dark skinned have to come from an African-esque land?" For example, with Asians you've got the whole Oriental Adventures campaign setting and the Kuei Jin in the Old World of Darkness.

I think another thing that should be mentioned is we should see more "darker" heroes. Shades of dark is usually associated with evil. When it isn't, it usually takes on the role of the "Noble Savage." You know, that one dark dude who rejects his heritage to become civilized and different from the rest. 

If you're playing a game that is about medieval Europe which no doubt should involve a large white population, than I understand. However, D&D is more S&S in its roots.


----------



## Plissken (Jun 29, 2008)

CountPopeula said:


> 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.





Yes, this was what I said in a long post I made but lost because of EnWorld downtime. My point exactly.


----------



## CountPopeula (Jun 29, 2008)

eyebeams said:


> Tolkien actually said that dwarves were inspired by the Jews and semitic peoples and languages, as well as medieval literature about the Jews. (Yeah, that means that some things about dwarves are rather insensitive when viewed through that light.) The idea that they're Scottish-like is a fan invention. Same thing with Celtic elves, as Tolkien wanted to specifically *exclude* Celtic influence from Middle-Earth. Symbolically speaking, elves are supposed to be people without Catholic original sin.
> 
> Orcs? Well, he said some things that indicate they probably come from a combination of wordplay and some unfortunate, wholly unconscious attitudes which he certainly consciously repudiated, but still exist.




I think in practice, the elves as the nobility and orcs as the proletariat works in the context of the story. After all, all that makes Aragorn worthy of being the king of men is that he's half-elf and comes from a long line of human nobility. A human nobility, which, by the way, caused this whole mess in the first place. But because of his bloodline he's worthy of "saving" the world from the evils Sauron represents, like indoor plumbing, so they can be subservient to him and his wife the elf princess in an agrarian society, free to be surfs.

To be sure, other parts can be read as Sauron representing big industry and the message is mainly pro-environmental, this is the message hippies tended to take away from it, and the angle the cinematography in the movies played up. But it's much more pro-elitist than pro-earth.

Contrast this with JK Rowling, where the noble class is portrayed as racist and evil, willing to commit unspeakable horrors to protect their position and birthright. There's not a single rich person in the books who isn't a complete horse's ass. And these rich, racially "pure" nobles get brought down by a couple of poor, "racially-inferior" kids.

I think the problem with saying that racial diversity in D&D comes from demi-humans, well... if your idea of diversity is all different kinds of white people...

The thing is, D&D was created in the 70's. In fact, Chainmail was first published in 1971, seven years after the passing of the Civil Rights Act, and three years after the death of Dr. King. It's from a different time. And the racial ideas need to change.

Example: Angus, Thongs and Perfect Snogging. The books are very thinly veiled auto-biographies of a woman who went to high school in the 1970's. They're very anachronistic in that they're ostensibly set in the present day, but no one has a computer or a mobile. Also, everyone is white. So for the movie, one of the main characters is of Indian descent. Why? Because it's 2008, not 1975.


----------



## Korgoth (Jun 29, 2008)

eyebeams said:


> You can start with Wikipedia:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwarf_%28Middle-earth%29
> 
> The citations in the article are well-sourced. They are *also* based n Norse mythology, but many of the traits that are specifically Tolkienish aren't from there.




You cited Wikipedia? That's ludicrous.

Tolkien's dwarves are Norse dwarves. If any group is based upon the Jews it would be the elves.

The elves, by the way, are not "without original sin". Read the Silmarillion.

Note: By "read the Silmarillion" I mean refer back to it; I assume that you have read it already.


----------



## S'mon (Jun 29, 2008)

I've tended towards the anti-Diversity side here, but my favourite ever PC Zana Than was a black female human Sarcosan Ironborn Fighter in the Midnight setting.  The art was a bit ambiguous as to what Sarcosans looked like, but they were dark skinned descendants of a mighty cosmopolitan empire so I saw them as a mix of African and Persian physically, with culture a mix of Byzantine and Persian, maybe some Arabic.  I think Midnight is an example of cultures handled very well - the Sarcosans, Dorn and others all felt very real.


----------



## S'mon (Jun 29, 2008)

Celebrim said:


> 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?




I guess I'd shrug.  Maybe I'd find it a bit squicky, depending on the person.  Personally I find culture more important than race - I might have trouble identifying with the protagonists of say an Aztec setting, no matter what they looked like.  Ancient Egypt or medieval Japanese worldviews were also suffciently alien that playing a serious game in thiose settings could be hard.  Also this is a reason so many sf settings have default cultures strongly resembling modern USA.
On your specific example, I might find a setting that was medieval Europe only everyone looked African to be cheesy, unless there was a good explanation.  Skin tone per se is probably not a big deal - like I said, I love Wilderlands' green, red, and blue people - but Wilderlands does a good job relating it to specific origins and characteristics of those races, eg red-skinned Altanians are fiery tempered, Avalonians are calm and connected to ice, Viridians are descended from Mermen.


----------



## S'mon (Jun 29, 2008)

mhacdebhandia said:


> 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!




I like those defaults.  Anyway, if you get rid of them you need different defaults - or create a purely generic game, which wouldn't be D&D as neither dungeons nor dragons are generic.  I like other games' defaults too, like Call of Cthulu's bookish investigators in 1920s New England, or Anime's pink-haired teenagers with super powers (not thinking of a specific game).


----------



## eyebeams (Jun 29, 2008)

Korgoth said:


> You cited Wikipedia? That's ludicrous.





You failed to absorb all of what I wrote, which was to follow the citations in the article, which are quite sound. That's silly of you. It is also very silly of you to ignore the quote from Tolkien in the article where he comes right out and talks about it.



> Tolkien's dwarves are Norse dwarves. If any group is based upon the Jews it would be the elves.




Norse dwarves are not really much like Tolkien's dwarves. Tolkien nicked some names and crafting skill, but his dwarves are not anthropomorphic rot grubs from the body of a giant and they haven't stolen anybody's hair.

Man, you really have got to read this stuff before you talk about it.



> The elves, by the way, are not "without original sin". Read the Silmarillion.




Original sin is not any old sin at all. In the context I'm talking about, it's an element of Catholic doctrine. Again, doing some actual reading instead of explosively guffawing would help you greatly.


----------



## S'mon (Jun 29, 2008)

eyebeams said:


> I
> 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.




IRL human populations can evolve/change quite significantly over centuries, certainly over millenia. Recent research on eg English medieval skeletons has shown a much higher degree of change over time than previously believed.  Of course you don't have to have evolution in a fantasy setting.


----------



## Brennin Magalus (Jun 29, 2008)

Korgoth said:


> You cited Wikipedia? That's ludicrous.
> 
> Tolkien's dwarves are Norse dwarves. If any group is based upon the Jews it would be the elves.
> 
> ...




The extent of the connection is some Hebrew/Semitic sounding names like Khazad-Dûm and Azanulbizar.


----------



## S'mon (Jun 29, 2008)

Celebrim said:


> 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.




I'm sure that Eurocentrism is not the right term for Japanese romanticising of Europe and Europeans ook how cool they are!  And sexy!)  - "Occidentalism", maybe.  I love watching Anime depictions of England, where I live - it's quite enlightening seeing yourself through alien eyes.


----------



## Brennin Magalus (Jun 29, 2008)

S'mon said:


> I'm sure that Eurocentrism is not the right term for Japanese romanticising of Europe and Europeans ook how cool they are!  And sexy!)  - "Occidentalism", maybe.  I love watching Anime depictions of England, where I live - it's quite enlightening seeing yourself through alien eyes.




Ooh, I wonder how they depict my favorite Londoner, Boris?


----------



## eyebeams (Jun 29, 2008)

Brennin Magalus said:


> The extent of the connection is some Hebrew/Semitic sounding names like Khazad-Dûm and Azanulbizar.




No, there really was more to it. Tolkien mentioned it on several occasions.

Note also that Tolkien also despised racist doctrines and wasn't afraid to express it, even when it cost him money.


----------



## S'mon (Jun 29, 2008)

eyebeams said:


> I'm really trying to find a reading of this that isn't a problem. If you have one human ethnicity it implies that the other ethnicities aren't human. If you deny multiple ethnicities to other fantasy "races" it strains credulity, as every other real world species with any significant genetic diversity has ethnicities and marked hereditary differences in appearance.




Plenty of real-world species don't have notable distinct races/sub-species.  And the fantasy demi-human races (elves, dwarves) are more like human sub-species than separate species.  But in any case, traditionally we have had different races of elves, dwarves, halflings etc - "High Elves" vs "Wood Elves" vs "Grey Elves", "Hill" vs "Mountain" vs ""Duergar" dwarves, "Stout" vs "Hairfoot" halflings.  The thing is of course that these are not analogues to real-world human distinctions.


----------



## eyebeams (Jun 29, 2008)

S'mon said:


> IRL human populations can evolve/change quite significantly over centuries, certainly over millenia. Recent research on eg English medieval skeletons has shown a much higher degree of change over time than previously believed.  Of course you don't have to have evolution in a fantasy setting.




The studies I've read about that sort of thing are pretty clearly linked to acquired changes and not inherited ones (esp with people changing from being tall to short, to tall again). Selection for skin color is something I can see happening fairly rapidly, but even then the real world is does not provide consistent support for the idea that it would outpace migration. There's plenty of room to plausibly put people who have virtually any appearance anywhere without resorting to magic.


----------



## S'mon (Jun 29, 2008)

Brennin Magalus said:


> Ooh, I wonder how they depict my favorite Londoner, Boris?




I'm sure in Hellsing he'd be a powerful agent of the Royal Protestant Church in its battle with the Papal Catholic agents.  Probably have regeneration and an energy ray attack.


----------



## Korgoth (Jun 29, 2008)

eyebeams said:


> You failed to absorb all of what I wrote, which was to follow the citations in the article, which are quite sound. That's silly of you. It is also very silly of you to ignore the quote from Tolkien in the article where he comes right out and talks about it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




You don't have to get snotty. First, I've read Norse mythology (not _all_ of it, but a fair amount) and second I'm fairly well-versed in Catholic theology (even took a grad course at a seminary).  Just because I dared disagree with the great eyebeams does not automatically make me an ignoramus.

The elves are not born pure. They're subject to concupiscense, ego and pride... in fact, moreso than humans in some cases. Feanor is no angelic being and his faults are far from merely intellectual. If the elves were born without original sin as you suggest then they would not be fallen creatures and even a venial sin would be a major event for an elf. I'm not seeing that.

For a credible source see here:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11312a.htm

As for the dwarves, obviously the Catalogue of Dwarfs is the source for many of the names. They're also small and ugly and like treasure. And they're great smiths. Just like Norse dwarfs.

Now, if you have a citation from an authentic text (not the electronic poison known as Wikipedia) where Tolkien describes dwarves as Jews in any way not relating purely to their language, then let's see it. There might be such a reference, but I'm asking you for a real citation.

And seriously, telling me to "do some actual reading" just makes you sound like a petulant freshman. Which you very well may be, but you should at least try to act mature and that way people may start to respect you.


----------



## eyebeams (Jun 29, 2008)

S'mon said:


> Plenty of real-world species don't have notable distinct races/sub-species.




I wouldn't combine "race" - an ill-defined cultural term - with "subspecies" - a somewhat better, yet still not well-defined term. Almost any sexually reproducing species with significant genetic diversity will have subspecies or variations that are obvious even if they do not express themselves in a stable population cluster.



> And the fantasy demi-human races (elves, dwarves) are more like human sub-species than separate species.  But in any case, traditionally we have had different races of elves, dwarves, halflings etc - "High Elves" vs "Wood Elves" vs "Grey Elves", "Hill" vs "Mountain" vs ""Duergar" dwarves, "Stout" vs "Hairfoot" halflings.  The thing is of course that these are not analogues to real-world human distinctions.




Well, that matters. We are human beings playing these guys, not RPG-playing robots. That means that forming a relationship with the character happens under the influence of the real world, so applying elements unevenly like this really sticks out.


----------



## S'mon (Jun 29, 2008)

eyebeams said:


> The studies I've read about that sort of thing are pretty clearly linked to acquired changes and not inherited ones (esp with people changing from being tall to short, to tall again). Selection for skin color is something I can see happening fairly rapidly, but even then the real world is does not provide consistent support for the idea that it would outpace migration. There's plenty of room to plausibly put people who have virtually any appearance anywhere without resorting to magic.




I was reading about very different head shape in medieval English skulls - pronounced brow ridges, vaulted skull with notably smaller cranial cavity.  Of course there are people who still look like this (including a friend of mine) but there seems to have been notable drift towards larger brains and more gracile skulls just in 800 years.  Which makes me strongly doubt theories that European's high performance in IQ tests derives from superior intelligence evolved in the Ice Age.  Anyway yes, you can realistically have say pale-skinned humans in a hot desert setting (modern Australia) or dark-skinned humans in a cold high-latitude setting (modern Europe and North America) but they won't have evolved there, and they probably won't have been there more than a few centuries (if there is a pre-existing population they can interbreed with) or millenia (if not).


----------



## S'mon (Jun 29, 2008)

eyebeams said:


> I wouldn't combine "race" - an ill-defined cultural term - with "subspecies" - a somewhat better, yet still not well-defined term.




Historically biologists used them to mean the same thing - a population group visually distinguishable from other population groups within a species.  This is different from colloquial uses of race as in "the Scots race", "the human race" etc. 

Nowadays sub-species is often taken to mean a larger difference than race, eg "The human species has several races but no living sub-species".
 I was using sub-species for the demi-human types (elf, dwarf) and races for sub-groups within the demi-humans (high elf, hill dwarf), in accordance with modern usage.


----------



## S'mon (Jun 29, 2008)

eyebeams said:


> IAlmost any sexually reproducing species with significant genetic diversity will have subspecies or variations that are obvious even if they do not express themselves in a stable population cluster.




Um, variation has to express in a stable population cluster to be a sub-species or race.  I have brown hair, my father has blond hair and my mother has black hair, that doesn't make us three different sub-species.


----------



## billd91 (Jun 29, 2008)

Korgoth said:


> As for the dwarves, obviously the Catalogue of Dwarfs is the source for many of the names. They're also small and ugly and like treasure. And they're great smiths. Just like Norse dwarfs.
> 
> Now, if you have a citation from an authentic text (not the electronic poison known as Wikipedia) where Tolkien describes dwarves as Jews in any way not relating purely to their language, then let's see it. There might be such a reference, but I'm asking you for a real citation.
> 
> And seriously, telling me to "do some actual reading" just makes you sound like a petulant freshman. Which you very well may be, but you should at least try to act mature and that way people may start to respect you.




If you'd deign to look at the Wikipedia article, you'd see the citation eyebeams is trying to point you to for Tolkien's Jewish inspiration for Middle Earth dwarves... his own letters. Doing a small amount of additional searching, I found this direct quotation, also referring to the letters:

...in Letter #176 he says, "I do think of the 'Dwarves' like Jews: at once native and alien in their habitations, speaking the languages of the country,
but with an accent due to their own private tongue....."

So, yes. It appears to be a bit more than just their language construction, but also being alien in their own places.


----------



## eyebeams (Jun 29, 2008)

Korgoth said:


> You don't have to get snotty. First, I've read Norse mythology (not _all_ of it, but a fair amount) and second I'm fairly well-versed in Catholic theology (even took a grad course at a seminary).  Just because I dared disagree with the great eyebeams does not automatically make me an ignoramus.
> 
> The elves are not born pure. They're subject to concupiscense, ego and pride... in fact, moreso than humans in some cases. Feanor is no angelic being and his faults are far from merely intellectual. If the elves were born without original sin as you suggest then they would not be fallen creatures and even a venial sin would be a major event for an elf. I'm not seeing that.




Doesn't matter. Original sin is not about whether you're a bastard. It's about whether your ancestor being a bastard condemns you to a shortened life of toil and pain. Elves are "unfallen." This is why they can return to Valinor and why they are greater than Men. They can do terrible things and make mistakes, but they do not bear an inherent burden of sin.



> As for the dwarves, obviously the Catalogue of Dwarfs is the source for many of the names. They're also small and ugly and like treasure. And they're great smiths. Just like Norse dwarfs.




They are still not stark white man-grubs.



> Now, if you have a citation from an authentic text (not the electronic poison known as Wikipedia) where Tolkien describes dwarves as Jews in any way not relating purely to their language, then let's see it. There might be such a reference, but I'm asking you for a real citation.




Listen to him:

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-G_v6-u3hg[/ame]

The Wikipedia reference does in fact come from reputable Tolkien scholarship. Basically, lots of people have known this about Middle earth for a long time, and it's utterly uncontroversial. The controversy is more about what that says about the subtext of the work and Tolkien's character, on which points I'm inclined to be charitable. The main letter which is typically cited is #176.



> And seriously, telling me to "do some actual reading" just makes you sound like a petulant freshman. Which you very well may be, but you should at least try to act mature and that way people may start to respect you.




It's not petulance when you're right.


----------



## eyebeams (Jun 29, 2008)

S'mon said:


> Um, variation has to express in a stable population cluster to be a sub-species or race.  I have brown hair, my father has blond hair and my mother has black hair, that doesn't make us three different sub-species.




That's where the "or" but in the rest of my quote comes from.


----------



## eyebeams (Jun 29, 2008)

S'mon said:


> Historically biologists used them to mean the same thing - a population group visually distinguishable from other population groups within a species.




There are population groups that have similar inherited features but share less ancestry with each other than with groups that look different from either of them. 



> This is different from colloquial uses of race as in "the Scots race", "the human race" etc.




It's more considered, but still problematic.



> Nowadays sub-species is often taken to mean a larger difference than race, eg "The human species has several races but no living sub-species". I was using sub-species for the demi-human types (elf, dwarf) and races for sub-groups within the demi-humans (high elf, hill dwarf), in accordance with modern usage.




D&D character types can't really be defined that way. I mean, humans and demons can have offspring.


----------



## eyebeams (Jun 29, 2008)

S'mon said:


> I was reading about very different head shape in medieval English skulls - pronounced brow ridges, vaulted skull with notably smaller cranial cavity.  Of course there are people who still look like this (including a friend of mine) but there seems to have been notable drift towards larger brains and more gracile skulls just in 800 years.




I'm unconvinced that this is the result of selection, given how different people look just because of environmental factors. European men went from 5'9" to 5'4" just because of lifestyle changes and didn't crawl back up in height until the 1800s or so. This was not because there was a sudden evolutionary advantage to being short that went away, just like we are not current selecting for bad teeth compared to our ancestors -- we just have them because we eat more sugar.



> Which makes me strongly doubt theories that European's high performance in IQ tests derives from superior intelligence evolved in the Ice Age.




No, it derives from the fact that IQ tests were invented by Europeans to administer to other Europeans.



> Anyway yes, you can realistically have say pale-skinned humans in a hot desert setting (modern Australia) or dark-skinned humans in a cold high-latitude setting (modern Europe and North America) but they won't have evolved there, and they probably won't have been there more than a few centuries (if there is a pre-existing population they can interbreed with) or millenia (if not).




As somebody who lives in Northern Ontario around folks with darker skin than me who've lived here for tens of thousands of years, I'd call that assertion premature.


----------



## mhacdebhandia (Jun 29, 2008)

S'mon said:


> I like those defaults.  Anyway, if you get rid of them you need different defaults



I absolutely disagree that _Dungeons & Dragons_ depends on pseudo-medieval Eurocentric tropes. Absolutely.


----------



## S'mon (Jun 29, 2008)

eyebeams said:


> No, it derives from the fact that IQ tests were invented by Europeans to administer to other Europeans.




But east-Asians do better than Europeans, and Europeans better than others, on average.  The argument is that north-east-Asians have the highest IQ due to selective pressure in an Ice Age high latitude arctic environment, Europeans next highest due to Ice Age sub-arctic arboreal environment, etc.  Like I said, I'm unconvinced as I don't think the evidence is strong for all significant human evolution being back in the Ice Age.


----------



## Imaro (Jun 29, 2008)

S'mon said:


> I've tended towards the anti-Diversity side here, but my favourite ever PC Zana Than was a black female human Sarcosan Ironborn Fighter in the Midnight setting.  The art was a bit ambiguous as to what Sarcosans looked like, but they were dark skinned descendants of a mighty cosmopolitan empire so I saw them as a mix of African and Persian physically, with culture a mix of Byzantine and Persian, maybe some Arabic.  I think Midnight is an example of cultures handled very well - the Sarcosans, Dorn and others all felt very real.




This is interesting that you bring Midnight up, because it also has dark-skinned elves (that are not evil chaotics or loner rebels of good fighting against their races "natural" behavior).  This post also made me realize that I am more drawn to settings with diversity than those without it.  Exalted, Earthdawn, Midnight, Iron Kingdoms, Eberron, etc.  Now notice I didn't say a purely african, or purely asian setting either... I really enjoy diversity and it may be because my gaming group has never been majority white.  My group when I was in college...
2 white guys, a black guy (besides me), and two black women (one from the the states and one from England).   

My current group is 3 black men and one black woman, all american. 



S'mon said:


> I like those defaults.  Anyway, if you get rid of them you need different defaults - or create a purely generic game, which wouldn't be D&D as neither dungeons nor dragons are generic.  I like other games' defaults too, like Call of Cthulu's bookish investigators in 1920s New England, or Anime's pink-haired teenagers with super powers (not thinking of a specific game).




Uhm both dungeons and dragons, in a generic sense are found in a much wider range of cultures than medieval europe.  Call of Cthulhu has expanded to include modern day, the dark ages and even the future.  You know we gamers talk about evolving the game so it can stay competitive from a mechanics perspective, even so far as changing the games mechanical base assumptions... yet it is wrong somehow to tweak it's default flavor to be more inclusive of other ethnicities and cultures.


----------



## Imaro (Jun 29, 2008)

To any interested, here's a link that I know hits pretty close to home as far as my experiences and thoughts about fantasy and diversity.  It's an interesting read that may shed some insight into why this is an important thing to be aware of and push for.

http://www.infinitematrix.net/faq/essays/noles.html


----------



## mmadsen (Jun 29, 2008)

CountPopeula said:


> 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.



Wow, I couldn't disagree more.  I do not want my D&D full of liberal democracies populated by members of every race who share the same modern, progressive values.


----------



## Seonaid (Jun 29, 2008)

Sheesh! I go away for less than 24 hours and the thread grows by 3 pages! 


Snoweel said:


> Obviously my milage *does* vary - in my experience (and yes I'm aware it is merely my *perception* of my experience) popular media tells us that people of different cultures are exactly the same as us, only with different clothes and food.



Right, so when they run into someone wildly different in media, they tend to append that view. Which is more memorable? The guy who acts and thinks like you and happens to look slightly different, or the guy who looks slightly different and has a completely different worldview? Stereotypes exist for a reason, and it's not because we're exposed to overwhelming amounts of media portraying people as the same but for physical differences.







> But here you are equating tolerance with open-mindedness. Surely you'd agree that unquestioning acceptance of an ideology does not make one open-minded, no matter how noble that ideology seems to be on the surface.



Right. I apologize (completely sincerely) for being imprecise. 


Imaro said:


> I would argue that Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, Avatar the Last Airbender, and others are just as prevalent in the minds of fanatasy buffs (probably moreso in younger generations) as Lord of the Rings is.



Really? I doubt there's been any studies done on this, but can you provide any kind of base for this (even personal experience)? This is very interesting to me.







Korgoth said:


> If you look at a picture of an adventuring party, you don't want to think "there's the mighty paladin, there's the cute sorceress chick, there's the hobbit and there's the black guy". Somehow the diversity should blend naturally into the other areas of excellent in the artwork, like theme, tone, composition, color, etc.



I think that the problem is not the picture but the viewer (duh). The question isn't, then, how do we make art that isn't as you describe, but how do we change cultural/societal standards so that what you describe isn't the immediate reaction. And, unfortunately, artwork in fantasy RPG books isn't going to do that.







Wyrmshadows said:


> 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?
> 
> <snip>
> 
> 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.



Don't be disingenuous. "Whites" are still dominant in Western culture. If it were the other way around (in any sense), then there WOULD be a push to "shoehorn" Caucasians into the setting.







Celebrim said:


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



I don't think any of us here disagree (though I could be wrong, obviously). The problem is that we DON'T live in that world, _yet_. And until we do, we have discussions like this. It's a long, slow process, and for the most part we are doing the best that we can, with the tools with which we have been provided.







> 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.



Yes! Thank you.







> 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?



If this was something someone I didn't know had said, I'd be upset and possibly offended. If it was something someone I DO know had said, I'd immediately challenge that assertion and push to see why they had said it. See my comment above to Wyrmshadows. It's impossible to separate history from current culture.







CountPopeula said:


> 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.



Excellent. 


Doug McCrae said:


> I feel that the fantasy races of D&D worlds can serve as a stand in for whatever you want to say about race in our own.



This is true. But, the beauty of D&D is that any given group can take and eliminate elements at they see fit, to the point of even making stuff up from scratch. It doesn't HURT to include the black halflings, etc.







Snoweel said:


> But if your players don't know the difference then what's the point? Save time and just throw them into the gameworld region your players understand as 'Ancient Asia' and get on with it. If your players have a better understanding of the difference between ancient European cultures (eg. Vikings, Celts, Angles, etc) then detail those instead.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I'm a busy person. I don't want to spend all my time creating elements of the gameworld that I can just plagiarise from history.



Exactly. It seems that WotC has determined that most of its consumers are familiar with European history and tropes, so they're using them because it's easier than going into massive--and probably boring, to most people--detail about something else. Whether or not that assumption is correct, and whether or not WotC wants to expand beyond its current market, are separate questions.







S'mon said:


> But in any case, traditionally we have had different races of elves, dwarves, halflings etc - "High Elves" vs "Wood Elves" vs "Grey Elves", "Hill" vs "Mountain" vs ""Duergar" dwarves, "Stout" vs "Hairfoot" halflings.



But each of these get only a paragraph at most in the core books. Can you imagine the outcry if non-European human cultures were included but only as a paragraph? That's what splats are for . . . and to get back to the original post, I would think that diversity in the artwork would be used to entice readers to buy the splats--"Oh, that's cool, I wonder if there's some sort of detailed description of X, Y, and Z. Oh look, there is--let me buy it!"







Imaro said:


> This is interesting that you bring Midnight up, because it also has dark-skinned elves (that are not evil chaotics or loner rebels of good fighting against their races "natural" behavior).



Hm . . . Does anyone think that Drizzt is so popular because his skin is black? I'd think that were Drizzt from a light-skinned evil culture he'd still be just as popular . . . but maybe that's just me and my preferences in plot.


----------



## mmadsen (Jun 29, 2008)

eyebeams said:


> There's plenty of room to plausibly put people who have virtually any appearance anywhere without resorting to magic.



Sure, but they would have recently migrated there, settling a frontier where any previous population had disappeared for some reason, conquering the existing people, or being brought there as slaves.

They wouldn't just happen to be living side by side with another race, yet not mixing -- unless we're talking about a cosmopolitan Imperial capital or trading outpost on the frontier.


----------



## Seonaid (Jun 29, 2008)

mmadsen said:


> Wow, I couldn't disagree more.  I do not want my D&D full of liberal democracies populated by members of every race who share the same modern, progressive values.



I don't think that's what CountPopeula was saying, and it's certainly not what I was when I agreed with him.

I can't think of how to say this, so forgive me for being inarticulate, but just because the book reflects a progressive, liberal, what-have-you 2008 mentality does not mean that the elements of the book (the races, locations, characters, etc.) will be a mirror of my 2008 environment.


----------



## Imaro (Jun 29, 2008)

mmadsen said:


> Wow, I couldn't disagree more.  I do not want my D&D full of liberal democracies populated by members of every race who share the same modern, progressive values.




But D&D isn't medieval europe (Forgotten Realms, Greyhawk, Eberron, Planescape, Ravenloft, Dark Sun all have provisions within the gameworld that make it viable to play someone non-caucasian in appearance).  Do you treat women in your campaigns the same way they would be treated during this time in europe?  Or do you use more modern sensibilities?  Also I'm starting to think you are confusing the issue of what your campaign world is based on instead of looking at the campaign worlds that have been released by TSR and WotC.  I would further argue that there is no "caucasian by default" in any of these worlds.  The funny thing I wonder is if their artwork has reinforced the opposite notion with you. 

No one said they have to be liberal democracies, since even in 2008 this isn't the state of every nation in the world, but as a game (and one only loosely "based" on medieval europe if at all, since I see influences from numerous cultures in it's weapons, armor, classes, etc.) certain concessions are made in the spirit of what is fun for an audience that, while majority white males, isn't wholly composed of such.


----------



## mmadsen (Jun 29, 2008)

Seonaid said:


> I can't think of how to say this, so forgive me for being inarticulate, but just because the book reflects a progressive, liberal, what-have-you 2008 mentality does not mean that the elements of the book (the races, locations, characters, etc.) will be a mirror of my 2008 environment.



We were discussing diverse populations, and I would consider a diverse population, especially one where no sub-population is considered exotic and foreign, a very modern element of the book/game.


----------



## Imaro (Jun 29, 2008)

Seonaid said:


> Really? I doubt there's been any studies done on this, but can you provide any kind of base for this (even personal experience)? This is very interesting to me.




No, no studies but ancedotally, I know I can sit down and discuss Avatar with both my younger brothers (who have also seen LotR) as well as my nieces and nephews (who couldn't at their age sit through or appreciate LotR).  I may have overstated them being equal, but I do find it telling that CTHD grossed more domestically than Eragon, King Arthur, and Beowulf .  I think most people aren't hung up on culture but moreso on an actual good fantasy tale.




Seonaid said:


> Does anyone think that Drizzt is so popular because his skin is black? I'd think that were Drizzt from a light-skinned evil culture he'd still be just as popular . . . but maybe that's just me and my preferences in plot.




No, but I did find it a disconnect when I first started playing D&D that these were the only elves that were dark-skined and they were EVIL, especially after I discovered Earthdawn where those type of silly skin color restrictions didn't apply to the human or demi-human races.

SIDE NOTE: Well we may get a chance to see if you're theory is true since the Shadar-kai seem to be the shiny newness when it comes to fey evilness in D&D.


----------



## Cadfan (Jun 29, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Diversity is an attribute of science fiction, but it is not something created by science fiction. You couldn't go and create true diversity in science fiction by trying to create it. Diversity is an attribute of having diverse creators which naturally arise without any need for conscious acts of creating diversity in a multiethnic society. You can't artificially create it, and in fact, the act of artificially selecting for something destroys the intended goal.



That's silly, and also denies a lot of the efforts of certain science fiction authors in the 60s and 70s, who put quite a lot of effort into subversively adding diversity to their books just so that they could make their readers uncomfortable with their own racism.

Honestly, that's the whole lousy point of Starship Troopers.  Its an extended effort by an author with a white, violent-libertarian readership to make them sympathize and embrace a character who embodies the whole of their fantasies, and then to add far, far into the text that the character wasn't white.


----------



## S'mon (Jun 29, 2008)

Imaro said:


> Uhm both dungeons and dragons, in a generic sense are found in a much wider range of cultures than medieval europe.  Call of Cthulhu has expanded to include modern day, the dark ages and even the future.  You know we gamers talk about evolving the game so it can stay competitive from a mechanics perspective, even so far as changing the games mechanical base assumptions... yet it is wrong somehow to tweak it's default flavor to be more inclusive of other ethnicities and cultures.




I'm not against tweaks - as Delta Green tweaks Call of Cthulu, as Oriental Adventures tweaked D&D, etc.  Indeed, as Midnight tweaked D&D.  My point is that both D&D and CoC have pretty strong default tropes, and they're part of what define the game.  For D&D it's medieval European-looking castles, plate armour, griffons and dragons (D&D dragons are very much European-inspired in their looks, not Indian, Chinese, or African, though I think most medieval depictions gave them 2 legs like a D&D wyvern). You can depart from those tropes, but if you discard them entirely you're discarding part of the flavour of the game.


----------



## Imaro (Jun 29, 2008)

S'mon said:


> I'm not against tweaks - as Delta Green tweaks Call of Cthulu, as Oriental Adventures tweaked D&D, etc.  Indeed, as Midnight tweaked D&D.  My point is that both D&D and CoC have pretty strong default tropes, and they're part of what define the game.  For D&D it's medieval European-looking castles, plate armour, griffons and dragons (D&D dragons are very much European-inspired in their looks, not Indian, Chinese, or African, though I think most medieval depictions gave them 2 legs like a D&D wyvern). You can depart from those tropes, but if you discard them entirely you're discarding part of the flavour of the game.




Maybe I'm not clear on what you are trying to convey, so if this is off base let me know.  But Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms, Eberron, and others are *D&D* settings that have non-whites as plausible, so where is the breakdown if these peoples of imaginary fantasy worlds are depicted as such?  I almost feel like you are arguing your interpretation of what default D&D is, instead of what the actual products present in writing.


----------



## S'mon (Jun 29, 2008)

Seonaid said:


> .But each of these get only a paragraph at most in the core books. Can you imagine the outcry if non-European human cultures were included but only as a paragraph? That's what splats are for . . .




Hmm, check out OGL Conan.  As I recall the different human races & ethnicities do get approximately a paragraph each.  Cimmerians get an INT penalty, which may be Mongoose Ltd's prejudice against the Irish or Welsh (j/k).


----------



## S'mon (Jun 29, 2008)

Imaro said:


> Maybe I'm not clear on what you are trying to convey, so if this is off base let me know.  But Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms, Eberron, and others are *D&D* settings that have non-whites as plausible, so where is the breakdown if these peoples of imaginary fantasy worlds are depicted as such?  I almost feel like you are arguing your interpretation of what default D&D is, instead of what the actual products present in writing.





I was talking about the default quasi-European quasi-medieval implied setting of default D&D, which is the setting of most of the Flanaess (the Greyhawk continent), of the core Forgotten Realms area (the Dales, Cormyr, Sword Coast etc).  Eberron's setting is quasi-European but quasi-1920s rather than medieval.  But I was talking about culture, I wasn't arguing that individual non-white PCs are not plausible in these settings. Ember in Greyhawk can be a Touv Monk, the Asiatic looking wizard in Forgotten Realms can hail from Kara-Tur or the Tuigan lands, etc.  Fine by me.


----------



## Seonaid (Jun 29, 2008)

Imaro said:


> http://www.infinitematrix.net/faq/essays/noles.html



Thank you for the link. The secondary post she wrote was great.







Imaro said:


> I may have overstated them being equal, but I do find it telling that CTHD grossed more domestically than Eragon, King Arthur, and Beowulf .



What is CTHD? 


> No, but I did find it a disconnect when I first started playing D&D that these were the only elves that were dark-skined and they were EVIL, especially after I discovered Earthdawn where those type of silly skin color restrictions didn't apply to the human or demi-human races.



I didn't. :shrug: I'm not black, though. I sure as heck NOTICE it, but it doesn't bother me, and it doesn't shape my opinion of any dark(er)-skinned people I know.







S'mon said:


> Hmm, check out OGL Conan.  As I recall the different human races & ethnicities do get approximately a paragraph each.  Cimmerians get an INT penalty, which may be Mongoose Ltd's prejudice against the Irish or Welsh (j/k).



Yeah, everyone knows the Scots are far superior.  I basically know 3.x and Vampire, so I've no knowledge of Conan. Do they have other races (dwarves, elves, etc.) also? Also also, do all of the races and ethnicities of each get the same amount of space?


----------



## Imaro (Jun 29, 2008)

Seonaid said:


> Thank you for the link. The secondary post she wrote was great.What is CTHD?




Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon... 



Seonaid said:


> I didn't. :shrug: I'm not black, though. I sure as heck NOTICE it, but it doesn't bother me, and it doesn't shape my opinion of any dark(er)-skinned people I know.




It doesn't bother me... now.  When I first got into AD&D it did, especially since their were no provisions for anything but Drow for a dark-skinned elf.  The dilemmna I find in being made aware that a more diverse range of ethnicities in artwork was frowned upon... is that to be aware of something is to make your decisions with a consciousness about what those decisions mean.

By having spent my money on 3e as opposed to more on Exalted, or Earthdawn am I reaffirming their belief that diversity in artwork will negatively impact sales figures... or even that it's not an important issue since I as a black man bought it anyway.  If so that's not the message I would want to send. 

 This is complicated by the fact that this information came to my attention after everything was said and done, and there is no way to know if this type of thinking is still prevalent at WotC or not with 4e.


----------



## S'mon (Jun 29, 2008)

Seonaid said:


> TYeah, everyone knows the Scots are far superior.  I basically know 3.x and Vampire, so I've no knowledge of Conan. Do they have other races (dwarves, elves, etc.) also? Also also, do all of the races and ethnicities of each get the same amount of space?




Scots - indeed (I was born in Edinburgh).  

No nonhuman races in Conan.  I think the dominant Hyboreans get a bit more space than the other races - Shemites, Kushites, Cimmerians, Picts, Turanians etc.


----------



## S'mon (Jun 29, 2008)

Going back to the thread title, cool artwork I think does make me more likely to want to play a character like the one depicted.  Cheesy art may be a turn off, likewise.  So cool depictions of female or non-white or non-human characters may make me want to play those.  OTOH I want to see the stereotypical Conanesque white male barbarian with greatsword also.  I didn't like how in 3e it seemed all the barbarians were half-orcs.


----------



## eyebeams (Jun 29, 2008)

S'mon said:


> But east-Asians do better than Europeans, and Europeans better than others, on average.  The argument is that north-east-Asians have the highest IQ due to selective pressure in an Ice Age high latitude arctic environment, Europeans next highest due to Ice Age sub-arctic arboreal environment, etc.  Like I said, I'm unconvinced as I don't think the evidence is strong for all significant human evolution being back in the Ice Age.




Your sources are?

If it's Phillipe Rushton or anyone else with Pioneer Fund backing, you've essentially been duped by racists -- the Pioneer Fund is basically a well-heeled hate group. Since this is basically where these assertions come from, the chances are high that you've made this mistake.


----------



## eyebeams (Jun 29, 2008)

S'mon said:


> Hmm, check out OGL Conan.  As I recall the different human races & ethnicities do get approximately a paragraph each.  Cimmerians get an INT penalty, which may be Mongoose Ltd's prejudice against the Irish or Welsh (j/k).




I'd say it's non-representative of Howard, given that Conan is a smart guy. Also, Mongoose had published racist trash before (The B5 Earthforce book), so there's a precedent for similarly stupid publications.


----------



## Set (Jun 29, 2008)

Cadfan said:


> Honestly, that's the whole lousy point of Starship Troopers. Its an extended effort by an author with a white, violent-libertarian readership to make them sympathize and embrace a character who embodies the whole of their fantasies, and then to add far, far into the text that the character wasn't white.




Only to have him played by Caspar van Diem, sadly, and not a Filipino...

Thankfully, we've got shows like Battlestar Galactica that are willing to recast roles to add some diversity. Having the entire sci-fi genre be a 'white man's club' is old. I imagine it won't be too long before we have a black (or female) Doctor Who...


----------



## S'mon (Jun 29, 2008)

eyebeams said:


> Your sources are?
> 
> If it's Phillipe Rushton or anyone else with Pioneer Fund backing, you've essentially been duped by racists -- the Pioneer Fund is basically a well-heeled hate group. Since this is basically where these assertions come from, the chances are high that you've made this mistake.




You've made a political statement which I don't think it's possible to discuss within the rules of ENW.


----------



## S'mon (Jun 29, 2008)

eyebeams said:


> I'd say it's non-representative of Howard, given that Conan is a smart guy. Also, Mongoose had published racist trash before (The B5 Earthforce book), so there's a precedent for similarly stupid publications.




I agree it's non-representative of Howard; although Conan is not supposed to be a typical Cimmerian, there's no indication they're less intelligent than everyone else.  I don't know anything about the B5 Earthforce book.


----------



## mhacdebhandia (Jun 29, 2008)

S'mon said:


> I was talking about the default quasi-European quasi-medieval implied setting of default D&D



Why does "quasi-medieval" equal "white-skinned humans", though?

Is it because you don't immediately imagine dark-skinned humans building European-style castles, or because you *can't* imagine that happening?

There is absolutely nothing that says a quasi-medieval European-like society could not have been produced *in a fantasy setting* by a human population which is not of a single ethnicity. Nothing!


----------



## S'mon (Jun 29, 2008)

mhacdebhandia said:


> Why does "quasi-medieval" equal "white-skinned humans", though?
> 
> Is it because you don't immediately imagine dark-skinned humans building European-style castles, or because you *can't* imagine that happening?
> 
> There is absolutely nothing that says a quasi-medieval European-like society could not have been produced *in a fantasy setting* by a human population which is not of a single ethnicity. Nothing!




OK... I think I was talking about culture not race but now you've got me confused.  

I'll take a shot:

Quasi-medieval - "medieval" refers to the European middle ages,  medieval European humans were white, ergo the default for quasi-medieval humans in RPGs is that they're white.  

But I completely agree that this does not have to be the case in any particular setting.  My favourite published setting is the Wilderlands of High Fantasy, which is a D&D setting, a mix of medieval and classical culture, with umpteen different human ethnicities.  Like I said upthread, I thought Midnight was great.  "Default" =/= "only allowed option".


----------



## mmadsen (Jun 29, 2008)

mhacdebhandia said:


> Why does "quasi-medieval" equal "white-skinned humans", though?



Quasi-medieval equals white-skinned humans because real medieval equals white-skinned humans.  Can we diverge from reality for our fantasy world?  Of course, but then those differences become the focus of our work.


mhacdebhandia said:


> There is absolutely nothing that says a quasi-medieval European-like society could not have been produced *in a fantasy setting* by a human population which is not of a single ethnicity. Nothing!



It would feel extremely forced to have a rainbow coalition of medieval peasants.  It would be quite jarring to have a world resemble medieval England only populated by people from all over the real world.  It would demand attention and explanation.  How did members of all these different races travel to this locale?  Who let them have land?  If they get along so well, why are they still separate races?

Are those questions impossible to answer?  I suppose not, but they do demand attention and explanation.


----------



## Barastrondo (Jun 29, 2008)

mmadsen said:


> It would be quite jarring to have a world resemble medieval England only populated by people from all over the real world.




Yet so many D&D worlds don't really resemble medieval England. Well, they do in a very handwavey "they have things that resemble medieval England" way, but just as much they look like the American frontier, with "gunfighters, wild Indians, saloons and wooden stockades" crossed out and "adventurers, humanoids, taverns and stone keeps" penciled in. (And sometimes the wooden stockades are left intact, along with mining towns and other various Western tropes.) In much the same way that samurai films and Westerns are often so close that you can take one and convert into the other almost whole cloth, the sort of fantasy that is D&D is very often the kind of American Western story with a new change of trappings. And when you look at actual Westerns, nobody really bats an eye at black, Hispanic, American Indian or Asian characters showing up.  

When people use "medieval" to describe anything about D&D other than the general tech level, I think that again brings in the observer talking about what he is or isn't interested in. It's a generally medieval technology, yeah — but I don't think I've seen very many "medieval" games in actual play. They're thematic hodgepodges — they work well for all that, like many a genre fusion does, but their inspirations are all over the map.


----------



## mmadsen (Jun 29, 2008)

Barastrondo said:


> And when you look at actual Westerns, nobody really bats an eye at black, Hispanic, American Indian or Asian characters showing up.



That's because the Old West actually had Black, Hispanic, American Indian, and Chinese characters showing up.

If you make a samurai movie in the style of a western, you don't throw in Black, Hispanic, American Indian, or even Chinese characters.


----------



## Cadfan (Jun 29, 2008)

mmadsen said:


> That's because the Old West actually had Black, Hispanic, American Indian, and Chinese characters showing up.
> 
> If you make a samurai movie in the style of a western, you don't throw in Black, Hispanic, American Indian, or even Chinese characters.



Samurai movies ARE westerns.  Westerns ARE samurai movies.


----------



## Seonaid (Jun 29, 2008)

S'mon said:


> Scots - indeed (I was born in Edinburgh).
> 
> No nonhuman races in Conan.  I think the dominant Hyboreans get a bit more space than the other races - Shemites, Kushites, Cimmerians, Picts, Turanians etc.



My parents are Scottish on both sides all the way back.  (I, however, am not.) As for Conan, the different ethnicities take the place of the nonhumans. If in D&D, frex, dwarves are stone-loving, underground-dwelling midgets, and any other types of dwarves (i.e., duergar) are given merely a paragraph of description each (as opposed to a whole section of a chapter), then to be fair, you'd have to describe SOME sort of human culture in more detail than the others. Then, if these are based on reality, the paragraph-only groups would get upset. This is why splats are better than having completely comprehensive core books. IMO of course. 

And to get back to the main topic, the artwork should show this diversity because the publisher should want to encourage curiosity that leads to buying splats.







Cadfan said:


> Samurai movies ARE westerns.  Westerns ARE samurai movies.



Samurai movies are NOT westerns, and vice versa, by dint of locale. Whether or not they are the same in all other aspects is not germane.


----------



## mmadsen (Jun 30, 2008)

Cadfan said:


> Samurai movies ARE westerns.  Westerns ARE samurai movies.



Wow, you totally missed the point.  We all know they're the same "under the hood", but the superficial differences are very, very important to westerns being westerns and samurai movies being samurai movies.

If you have Black, Hispanic, American Indian, and Chinese characters in the Old West, with heroes shooting six-guns, it's a western.  If you have Japanese characters in feudal Japan, with heroes swinging _katana_, it's a samurai movie.

Can I imagine a red-headed Nordic samurai in a fantasy world?  Um, sure, but what's the point?  To make it feel as inauthentic as possible?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 30, 2008)

> You've made a political statement which I don't think it's possible to discuss within the rules of ENW.




Actually, a few facts will tell us a lot.

Pioneer Fund is a known contributor to Jared Taylor's American Renaissance magazine- a monthly that repeatedly claims that non-white minorities pose a demographic threat to the United States and other Western nations, and whose conferences have been called " a who's who of American white supremacy" in the pages of British magazine, Searchlight (focused on exposing racism & antisemitism).  Taylor himself has been interviewed and has espoused racist rhetoric, and has been slow to distance himself from the antisemitism of some of his magazine's contributors & guest speakers, like known Klansman David Duke.

That at least should make their stats & agenda questionable.


----------



## Korgoth (Jun 30, 2008)

eyebeams said:


> Doesn't matter. Original sin is not about whether you're a bastard. It's about whether your ancestor being a bastard condemns you to a shortened life of toil and pain. Elves are "unfallen." This is why they can return to Valinor and why they are greater than Men. They can do terrible things and make mistakes, but they do not bear an inherent burden of sin.




In the interview that you generously quoted, Tolkien says that the elves are not eternally immortal but just unthinkably long-lived. Further, I still maintain that if the elves were "unfallen" as you say, then they would be incapable even of venial sin without recapitulating the Fall, which would then potentially pertain to their descendants, etc. Adam and Eve did not sin before the Original Sin, now did they?



eyebeams said:


> They are still not stark white man-grubs.




I've got my copy of Sturluson right here (Faulkes/Everyman/p16): "The dwarfs had taken shape first and acquired life in the flesh of Ymir and were then maggots, but by decision of the gods they became conscious with intelligence *and had the shape of men* though they live in the earth and in rocks."

Emphasis added. So I'm afraid that you're wrong here. It took me only a few minutes to look that up.



eyebeams said:


> Listen to him:
> 
> *SNIP*
> 
> The Wikipedia reference does in fact come from reputable Tolkien scholarship. Basically, lots of people have known this about Middle earth for a long time, and it's utterly uncontroversial. The controversy is more about what that says about the subtext of the work and Tolkien's character, on which points I'm inclined to be charitable. The main letter which is typically cited is #176.




Thank you for the reference. The interview speaks of the dwarves still principally in terms of their language. It's a good source for your position, though not definitive.

Letter #176, which you also graciously cited, says this: "I do think of the 'Dwarves' like Jews: at once native and alien in their habitations, speaking languages of the country, but with an accent due to their own private tongue...." That's all. Hardly definitive.  When I think of the Jews I think of things like "Chosen People", "history's standardbearers of monotheism", "victims of unjust persecution" and so on. Tolkien seems to think of them primarily from a linguistic point of view... which is unsurprising. But "dwarves as linguistic Jews" is different from "dwarves as thematic Jews", if you follow me.



eyebeams said:


> It's not petulance when you're right.




Rubbish. For one, there's nothing on any of your main points that definitively suggests that you're right. You have unilaterally decided that you're right (a lot like Wikipedia, maybe). Second, and more importantly, being right or wrong is irrelevant to civility. Allow me to suggest that you consider whether the attitude "I can be rude as long as (I have decided) I'm right" is really a mature attitude, or is something more like a child's attitude. I expect civility from you even if you're announcing your paragraph-length solution to Fermat's last theorem.


----------



## Seonaid (Jun 30, 2008)

I have been mulling over the idea that "I cannot identify with X because it is not representative of me," and trying to figure out why that doesn't resonate with me. After the past few days, I have figured it out (eureka!).

For me, it's not that I can't identify with an all-white cast. It's that the creators of said cast chose to exclude people who look like me and act like me and think like me. It's not that I find it impossible or disagreeable to put myself in the shoes of a European-looking, broadsword-wielding Amazon in the northern wastes . . . it's that the people who allowed me to be that disregarded an entire portion of the population--*my* portion of the population. Now, if the only thing I can find is European-looking characters, sure I'll buy that core book, but I sure as heck won't buy any of the splat books and I sure as heck am not going to limit myself to the archetypes provided. And if there are many sources on the market, and one of them shows only European-looking people and one of them shows a variety, including "my type," I'll buy the latter (all other factors being equal).


----------



## CountPopeula (Jun 30, 2008)

I don't think that being racially diverse means you need to have every government be a liberal democracy. And what I mean by reflecting our current values, for the sake of this conversation, doesn't extend past racial attitudes. And more specifically, it doesn't really extend past the artwork in the books, which is all that's really germane to the conversation.

I mean, yeah, medieval Europe was primarily white. There were blacks there, too, though. Maybe not a large number, but they were there. Sir Morien, Othello, the Moors in general. European and Mediterranean cultures also definitely had contact with Persian and Arabian cultures. Marco Polo had travelled to Cathay and met with Kublai Khan in the 13th century.

But what I find the most striking about this whole conversation is the number of people who can say "Okay, I can believe that there are goblins, and Dragons, and that there are men who can shoot fireballs from their fingertips and fight the gods themselves... but black people? Man, that just ruins the illusion for me."


----------



## Imaro (Jun 30, 2008)

CountPopeula said:


> But what I find the most striking about this whole conversation is the number of people who can say "Okay, I can believe that there are goblins, and Dragons, and that there are men who can shoot fireballs from their fingertips and fight the gods themselves... but black people? Man, that just ruins the illusion for me."




This...I want to know if I can sig this.


----------



## CountPopeula (Jun 30, 2008)

By all means, that would be awesome.


----------



## Afrodyte (Jun 30, 2008)

countpopeula said:


> but what i find the most striking about this whole conversation is the number of people who can say "okay, i can believe that there are goblins, and dragons, and that there are men who can shoot fireballs from their fingertips and fight the gods themselves... But black people? Man, that just ruins the illusion for me."




lol!


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 30, 2008)

> But black people? Man, that just ruins the illusion for me."




Is is wrong for a black gamer to love this quote?


----------



## Barastrondo (Jun 30, 2008)

mmadsen said:


> Wow, you totally missed the point.  We all know they're the same "under the hood", but the superficial differences are very, very important to westerns being westerns and samurai movies being samurai movies.
> 
> If you have Black, Hispanic, American Indian, and Chinese characters in the Old West, with heroes shooting six-guns, it's a western.  If you have Japanese characters in feudal Japan, with heroes swinging _katana_, it's a samurai movie.




Sure. The thing is, deciding that D&D is more of a samurai movie than a Western is really in the eye of the beholder, not an artifact of the basic premise of D&D-brand fantasy. A D&D setting can be inspired by Yojimbo. It can _also_ be inspired by Afro Samurai. And just as the existence of Afro Samurai isn't a slap in the face™ to Akira Kurosawa, having non-white people in a setting with castles and plate armor isn't a slap in the face to those settings that have castles and plate armor but leave out all the melanin.



> Can I imagine a red-headed Nordic samurai in a fantasy world?  Um, sure, but what's the point?  To make it feel as inauthentic as possible?




I would rather have a red-headed Nordic samurai than Tom Cruise with a katana, letmetellyou.


----------



## ShinHakkaider (Jun 30, 2008)

CountPopeula said:


> But what I find the most striking about this whole conversation is the number of people who can say "Okay, I can believe that there are goblins, and Dragons, and that there are men who can shoot fireballs from their fingertips and fight the gods themselves... but black people? Man, that just ruins the illusion for me."




This. 

I've been saying the same thing for YEARS. It's good to know that I'm not alone.

You sir are full of RAWK.


----------



## ShinHakkaider (Jun 30, 2008)

Barastrondo said:


> I would rather have a red-headed Nordic samurai than Tom Cruise with a katana, letmetellyou.




Once again someone beat me to the punch. 

I get the impression from some of these posters that a black d00d in medieval japan would be scoffed at, but a white d00d? AWESOME!!!


----------



## MrApothecary (Jun 30, 2008)

I've always been annoyed by a diverse bunch of European cultures, and then one culture that blends _all_ of the Middle East, _all_ of East Asia, _all_ of Africa, all of which are just as diverse as Europe, if not more.


----------



## mmadsen (Jun 30, 2008)

Barastrondo said:


> I would rather have a red-headed Nordic samurai than Tom Cruise with a katana, letmetellyou.



Are you just joking that you hate Tom Cruise?  Because he was obviously playing an American who traveled to Japan after the US Navy opened the country up to American trade.  It's not like he was the one white guy who owned a farm in the middle of Japan, passed down from his white father and grandfather.

The fact that he was taken in and trained as a samurai is implausible, but it was the focus of the story.  Again, it's not like he was just another samurai who happened to be white, because Diversity is good.


----------



## mmadsen (Jun 30, 2008)

ShinHakkaider said:


> I get the impression from some of these posters that a black d00d in medieval japan would be scoffed at, but a white d00d? AWESOME!!!



Which posters would those be, ShinHakkaider?  Because that looks like a straw man you've constructed.


----------



## hong (Jun 30, 2008)

mmadsen said:


> Wow, you totally missed the point.  We all know they're the same "under the hood", but the superficial differences are very, very important to westerns being westerns and samurai movies being samurai movies.




One might say that under the hood is more important than superficialities.


----------



## Snoweel (Jun 30, 2008)

ShinHakkaider said:


> Once again someone beat me to the punch.
> 
> I get the impression from some of these posters that a black d00d in medieval japan would be scoffed at, but a white d00d? AWESOME!!!




I dunno man. The token black is a staple of popular culture (of which I consider fantasy to be a part). The token white belongs solely in the realm of comedy.


----------



## Barastrondo (Jun 30, 2008)

mmadsen said:


> Are you just joking that you hate Tom Cruise?  Because he was obviously playing an American who traveled to Japan after the US Navy opened the country up to American trade.  It's not like he was the one white guy who owned a farm in the middle of Japan, passed down from his white father and grandfather.




I didn't care much for the movie, but my real point was in the less throwaway-humor part of the post. I have zero problems with non-Japanese samurai in a fantasy setting that is not actually attempting to model a pseudo-historical Japan — such as a fantasy setting based on a fusion of samurai and blaxploitation movies, like Afro Samurai — and I don't think that the presence of katanas in a fantasy setting implies a mandatory need to model historical Japanese ethnic distribution, any more than I think the presence of longswords implies a need to model medieval Europe's ethnic distribution.

The idea of mixed ethnicities in a setting largely inspired by Asian, African or South American tropes just doesn't bug me. Naruto is about a blond Caucasian ninja kid with a Japanese name. _Gentlemen of the Road_ is all over the place ethnically. You can use the trappings of a given culture without  actually trying to replicate its real-world demographics (or in some cases, just the common perception of same). Some people prefer to do both, but why would anyone assume you can't plausibly have the former without the latter in the fantasy genre?


----------



## Philotomy Jurament (Jun 30, 2008)

No, racially diverse artwork doesn't have any significant influence on me.


----------



## CountPopeula (Jun 30, 2008)

hong said:


> One might say that under the hood is more important than superficialities.




Especially if one had seen Sukiyaki Western Django.


----------



## mmadsen (Jun 30, 2008)

Barastrondo said:


> I have zero problems with non-Japanese samurai in a fantasy setting that is not actually attempting to model a pseudo-historical Japan — such as a fantasy setting based on a fusion of samurai and blaxploitation movies, like Afro Samurai...



My point is not that it's wrong to mix genres or to create a reason to have, say, a black samurai -- just that doing so calls attention to itself.  If you don't want your game to be _about_ mixing samurai tropes with blaxploitation, then don't drop black samurai into your game.


----------



## Quickleaf (Jun 30, 2008)

I prefer to see diversity in fantasy artwork, and one of my first thoughts flipping through the core 4e books was "more white fantasy." I mean, a human is associating with elves, dwarves, halflings, tieflings and dragonborn and there's no racial intermarriage happening? In a land of ruined empires I'd expect a healthy amount of mixing, and I'd imagine people of a single ethnicity to be rare.

I'm reminded of the criticism Ursula K. LeGuin had for the SciFi Channel's "Legend of Earthsea" interpretation: http://www.slate.com/id/2111107.


----------



## eyebeams (Jun 30, 2008)

countpopeula said:


> but what i find the most striking about this whole conversation is the number of people who can say "okay, i can believe that there are goblins, and dragons, and that there are men who can shoot fireballs from their fingertips and fight the gods themselves... But black people? Man, that just ruins the illusion for me."




win


----------



## eyebeams (Jun 30, 2008)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Is is wrong for a black gamer to love this quote?




It's wrong for any gamer *not* to love this quote.


----------



## mhacdebhandia (Jun 30, 2008)

mmadsen said:


> It would feel extremely forced to have a rainbow coalition of medieval peasants.  It would be quite jarring to have a world resemble medieval England only populated by people from all over the real world.  It would demand attention and explanation.



Why? Why is it hard to believe that there could be a *fantasy kingdom* where the people who made up the population don't all look the same?

As a point of fact, medieval England *was* made up of different ethnic groups. The fact that they all looked pretty similar to each other (i.e. were all pale-skinned) compared to modern America isn't nearly as relevant as the fact that they all considered themselves English after a certain point in time.

England in 1066 was facing an invasion from Normandy. Yet the "English" over whom William of Normandy hoped to rule were not a single homogenous people. The Anglo-Saxons had invaded over five hundred years earlier, after the Roman Empire withdrew. The Norse had been rocking up for three hundred (cf. the Danelaw).

All I'm asking you to imagine is that not all of these different ethnic groups were white-skinned. *We're not talking about Europe*, we're talking about a wholly imaginary fantasy setting where certain aspects of medieval Europe are *imitated* - and in that context, there is absolutely no reason to imagine that everyone is white, unless you're doing a direct historical parallel, cannot imagine that non-white people could have thought of European-style swords and castles, or are uncomfortable with the idea of non-white people in your fantasy.

So what prevents it? What stops you from saying "Well, in this setting the equivalent of the Norse invaders from across the northern straits look a lot like Arabs, and the equivalent of the Anglo-Saxons centuries earlier were really dark-skinned, like Africans, and the inhabitants of the big empire that withdrew from the island right before they showed up were much like the Inca"?

In the context of the fantasy setting, there is *absolutely nothing anachronistic about this*, because it's *not England*. It's *like* England.

*Why* I think this is a good idea is a separate discussion which has to do with maximum inclusiveness in the gaming hobby and a desire to do away with nonsensical Eurocentrism . . . but the fact is, there is no reason to have an all-white fantasy land unless you're a) doing a direct historical parallel or b) feel uncomfortable with non-exotic non-white characters in your game, which I don't think can ever have a really acceptable justification.

I would go further and say that I understand why some people are objecting to the idea of having a bunch of people of all different real-world skin tones sharing the same pseudo-European, quasi-medieval culture - and that's why I also think it would be a great idea to be a little less faux-historical about our _D&D_ settings. At least, it would be great if Wizards of the Coast would make some more fantastic and less faux-historical settings, and let those who want to produce a traditional analogue of medieval Europe do that for themselves. I want more Planescape and Eberron, less "12th century Germany in fantasy drag".


----------



## mhacdebhandia (Jun 30, 2008)

CountPopeula, you put it absolutely beautifully.


----------



## Orius (Jun 30, 2008)

mmadsen said:


> It would feel extremely forced to have a rainbow coalition of medieval peasants.  It would be quite jarring to have a world resemble medieval England only populated by people from all over the real world.  It would demand attention and explanation.  How did members of all these different races travel to this locale?  Who let them have land?  If they get along so well, why are they still separate races?




That's more or less what I was saying a few pages back.  If a setting has a lot of diversity, then it should be explained or make sense, not thrown in just to look diverse or to avoid offending people.



Barastrondo said:


> the sort of fantasy that is D&D is very often the kind of American Western story with a new change of trappings. And when you look at actual Westerns, nobody really bats an eye at black, Hispanic, American Indian or Asian characters showing up.




Like someone already said, the Old West had that diversity; the Indians had lived there for generations, Hispanics naturally exist in the Southwest in particular, given that some of that land was originally settled by Spain or belonged to Mexico, Chinese and Japanese immigrants were settling on the West Coast, just as European immigrants were coming in on the East Coast, and black Americans, particularly after the Civil War went West to find opportunity just as white Americans did.  These days, since formula Westerns from the early 20th Century have long gone out of style, it's not hard at all to throw in some diversity.  OTOH, an attempt to show a realistic Western shouldn't shy away from racism, since that was certainly present in the Old West.  The thing here is not to present it as something desirable, or use it to promote any sort of racial superiority.



MrApothecary said:


> I've always been annoyed by a diverse bunch of European cultures, and then one culture that blends _all_ of the Middle East, _all_ of East Asia, _all_ of Africa, all of which are just as diverse as Europe, if not more.




I think the reason for that is even as diverse as modern America is, we still have a tendancy to see things from a Western, European view.  It's partially the culture, and partially how history has long been taught.  For me, world history was largely just Western European history in school.  That was 15 years ago and more.  IMO, that was inadequate even then and even worse now.  Like someone said earlier in this thread, homogenized non-European cultures in a campaign setting are less noticeable when people don't know the difference.

Because of that, I don't often use non-European settings.  One reason I don't is because I want to avoid using bad stereotypes.  I don't know how much of my perception of other cultures is accurate and how much of it is stereotype. 

Anyway, I'm trying beyond the usual psuedo-Eurpoe tropes in my setting, and in part for reasons that have nothing to do with diversity.  

First, I find the historical analogues to be creatively stifling.  My last setting was composed of these, at first it was ok, but as time went on I felt restricted by them.  

Second the psuedo-medieval Europe Tolkien rip-off crap has been done to death.  It's beyond stale, it's so stale that even the mold has died from a lack of nutrition.

Exotic settings are interesting, but if they're shunted off to remote parts of the map, then when will they get used?  The easiest way to start such a campaign world is to start in the Euro-ripoff land, and chances are the campaigns will tend to stay there.

Finally, there's a more coldly practical reasoning behind it.  There's a lot of good material in sourcebooks like _Oriental Adventures_ or _Arabian Adventures_ or the Maztica boxed set or third party d20 stuff that explores non-European cultures, but placing them in their own little corners of the world kind of makes it harder to use the material, especially if the PCs never travel to those other parts of the world.  I want to get my money's worth out of the books, so it can be easier to just make something new up that takes bits and pieces of different cultures that are interesting to me and use them together.


----------



## DrunkonDuty (Jun 30, 2008)

And another vote for CountPopeula. Do people get prizes when they win a thread?

As to the: Mediaeval = White thing. No. It really doesn't. The middle ages is a name given to an approximate range of dates in an approximate area*. So ethnic mix, or lack thereof, depends where you're talking about. Southern Spain (I was watching a doco on Al Andalus last night) was a melting pot of Northern European (Visigoths) and North African (Berber) with significant populations of Jews and Arabs as well. Now if you want your version of pseudo middle ages stuff set in a pseudo England and therefore 99.9% white, go for it. But it isn't a necessary condition of mediaevalness. All of which assumes that a given setting must be analogous to some real world culture, which it doesn't. I think Mhacdebhandia has described a nice cohesive setting in which the whole rainbow of human skin tones can be represented.

All of which is slightly off topic anyway: the question is about art work in a modern 21st century product sold, mostly, in western nations. Should that art work be inclusive of all the ethnicities present in said communities? Hell yes. And I think anyone who hopes to sell a product to as wide a market as possible should have the sense to see this. That they would have the sensitivity as well would be nice.

cheers all.

*Or does it? I doubt there's one, undisputed definition of 'middle ages' anywhere in the world, but I have encountered the term referring to areas well outside of Europe.


----------



## Korgoth (Jun 30, 2008)

Another aspect of diversity that could be explored: European culture. No, don't groan quite yet! I see a lot of stuff that is identifiably Germanic (and Norse) and Celtic. But I don't see many, say, Russian or Polish-looking heroes. I'm speaking of distinctive panoply and dress, obviously. People say that a lot of artwork is European... but I think really in this context it means Northern and Western European.


----------



## resistor (Jun 30, 2008)

While I could get behind a desire for more diverse art, I'd like to qualify it:

I want to see more realistically nations and cultures in fantasy settings.  That means, among other things, realizing that there is internal diversity within populations other than Western European, that there are cultures other than the handful that are typically represented, that trade routes and cultures exist and blur cultural lines, and the ramification of colonization/migration/conquest and settlement by non-native cultures and ethnicities.

In a world with realistically designed national, cultural, and ethnic spreads, there will be some areas that are relatively ethnically homogeneous, and many that have very degrees of mixture.  And hence how this leads into more diverse artwork: representing such a world with only one ethnic depiction is misrepresentative at best.

So yes, I support more diverse artwork, but not just because it will make some people happier.  It needs to be grounded in a deeper appreciation for the diversity of cultures, traditions, and heritages that can and do exist.


----------



## DrunkonDuty (Jun 30, 2008)

Agreed. Or Greek or Spanish or Hungarian or Turkish. The more the merrier.


----------



## MrApothecary (Jun 30, 2008)

DrunkonDuty said:


> Agreed. Or Greek or Spanish or Hungarian or Turkish. The more the merrier.




Add Finland and I'd be that setting would be fine by me!


----------



## Celebrim (Jun 30, 2008)

eyebeams said:


> It's wrong for any gamer *not* to love this quote.




Ok, I was going to keep my mouth shut because I didn't react to that quote strongly one way or the other, but that is where I draw the line.  My naturally rebellious spirit has just been offended.



> ...but what i find the most striking about this whole conversation is the number of people who can say "okay, i can believe that there are goblins, and dragons, and that there are men who can shoot fireballs from their fingertips and fight the gods themselves... But black people? Man, that just ruins the illusion for me."




People trot out some variation on this argument in all sorts of contexts.  The basic argument here is, "Since its fantasy, why do you find it easier to accept certain liberties than others?"  For example, you might see this argument presented as, "If you are willing to accept that the hero can kill a 30 ton fire breathing dragon with a sword, why do you have trouble accepting that he can survive a 100' fall?"  

The basic flaw in any variant of this argument is the same.  It assumes that what allows you to accept the illusion of fantasy is its adherence to some sort of realism.  This is of course not the case.  A fantasy setting has implicit exemptions to reality inherent to the setting, and these exemptions are grounded in shared mythic archetypes.   Mention as elements of the setting goblins, dragons, and wizards and you can from that readily accept the inclusion of a whole host of associated elements that are part of the common setting, like for example dwarves, giants, magic swords, knights in shining armor, deadly enchantresses, hideous flesh eating monsters, tomb dwelling undead, and all sorts of other things that are drawn from a common English/Celtic/Germanic mythology that runs powerfully in our imagination right back to Beowulf and the Arthurian romances.

To really see how unreflective the claim is, one only has to alter it sufficiently to put it into context, "I can't see how you can say, "okay, i can believe that there are hideous monsters, dragons, hags and heroes sufficient to rip the arms off of ogres with thier bare hands... But a black Dane? Man, that just ruins the illusion for me."

You can't?  Really?  Is it so astounding that someone finds it jarring to anachronistically insert not merely the occasional 'black knight with unusual background' into the setting, but the whole panapoly of multi-culturalism into the middle of a fantasy setting for what is so obviously purely modern reasons?

There are several other things that bother me about the statement.  The first is that its a straw man.  "But black people?" is a wholly uncharitable and unfair characterization of the otherside of the argument.  I don't think anyone here is objecting to the presence of heroes of a different hue provided sufficient rational is provided for such heroes to be out of thier native environment.  I don't think anyone is necessarily objecting to black samurii or black knights so much as the idea that somehow the story needs black samurri or blacks knights and is inherently better for it.  I don't think you ought to simplify the thinking of anyone in the thread down to "But black people?", and then just handily slap 'Your a racist' labelling on thier thinking so as to dismiss it.

The other thing that bothers me about it is that it looks like an attempt to be funny.  It always irritates me when people misuse humor like that to dismiss and belittle rather than to increase empathy and understanding.  It might have been ok for the poster to offer the above as a humorous self-critique.  To humorously accuse your fellow posters of racism isn't very funny.  There is a very vast difference between Eddie Murphy doing his SNL skits, and someone from say Jeff Foxworthy's background inventing those reutines.  Likewise, there would be a vast difference between a Jeff Foxworthy reutine and someone from Eddie Murphy's background inventing such a reutine.  As self-parody, both comics reutines are funny to everyone involved while still being able to nudge everyone involved and get them to self-critique thier own attitudes.  As a means of belittling some other group, the reutines of both comics would be damnable.

Anyone here who loved that quote because they thought, "It's funny because I am such a racist"?  I'm willing to bet they are vastly outnumbered by the people who where thinking, "It's funny because _they_ are such racists!"


----------



## MrApothecary (Jun 30, 2008)

Why are you over-analyzing that joke so much? Humor is not supposed to be logical, or nice, or any of that.


----------



## S'mon (Jun 30, 2008)

mhacdebhandia said:


> So what prevents it? What stops you from saying "Well, in this setting the equivalent of the Norse invaders from across the northern straits look a lot like Arabs, and the equivalent of the Anglo-Saxons centuries earlier were really dark-skinned, like Africans, and the inhabitants of the big empire that withdrew from the island right before they showed up were much like the Inca"?
> 
> In the context of the fantasy setting, there is *absolutely nothing anachronistic about this*, because it's *not England*. It's *like* England.




This is a good approach - though I'd probably make the campaign setting warmer than England, and the cultures would be a mix of sources rather than "These guys look 100% African, but act 100% Saxon".


----------



## Kichwas (Jun 30, 2008)

I -DO- find it frustrating to see a lack of diverse artwork in DnD, and it -does- impact my interest in playing the game. Quite often I have to will myself back after feeling pushed away...

It only gets worse when I try, in utter futility, to explain it to the caucasian gamers I know or to these online communities.

Its been my experience that no matter how you try to address the issue of representations of minority-race people in the arts, majority-race people and minority-race people simply cannot see it in the same light.

I found the same problems I see in the states to exist in Asia when living there, with the only difference being which group got put into the 'default assumption' category.

Having a discussion on it invariably leads into hostile feelings as the people on each side are almost never capable of getting outside their own normative assumptions and even comprehending what the other side sees - to an extent. Minority race people are much better at seeing the POV of the majority in the society they grew up in, simply because that majority controls that nature and format of all access to information - even 'minority media.' But this ability to see the other side's POV comes without a real comprehension of how that side relates to it.

...

All of which is a way of trying to say that... no matter how they do it, whenever they put non-whites into gaming products they're going to keep doing it as semi-offensive stereotypes, and there will never be an ability to even communicate to them why it is offensive... And most of the time, it is not done by intent, which makes it even more frustrating. Its one thing to go after someone who's acting badly, its another thing to try and deal with someone who simply cannot know better no matter how well they mean.


----------



## Snoweel (Jun 30, 2008)

Celebrim said:


> Anyone here who loved that quote because they thought, "It's funny because I am such a racist"?  I'm willing to bet they are vastly outnumbered by the people who where thinking, "It's funny because _they_ are such racists!"




Win.


----------



## Kichwas (Jun 30, 2008)

mhacdebhandia said:


> So what prevents it? What stops you from saying "Well, in this setting the equivalent of the Norse invaders from across the northern straits look a lot like Arabs, and the equivalent of the Anglo-Saxons centuries earlier were really dark-skinned, like Africans, and the inhabitants of the big empire that withdrew from the island right before they showed up were much like the Inca"?
> 
> In the context of the fantasy setting, there is *absolutely nothing anachronistic about this*, because it's *not England*. It's *like* England.




Take a look at Guild Wars: Nightfall.

This semi-MMO that came out last year has a north African norm for its setting. Most of the NPCs look African. They kind of remind me of the features of people from Sudan.

In character creation you can a range of skin tones you can pick, from light to dark, for each class. Most of them in the tan to brown range, with a few pale options. Features are decidedly African.

Now log into the thing and look around.

Ignoring the toons that 'ported over' from the 'Prophesies' chapter (which has a Eurocentric theme), 90%+ of the Nightfall-toons people make are blond or red haired, blue or green eyed, and pale skinned... Leaving most of the selection options in character creation untouched.

On launch day, the game was full of complaints about this, and from the people making those choices, complaints that the features on the faces were too African...

To me, that's very telling of a number of different things about gamers.


----------



## S'mon (Jun 30, 2008)

DrunkonDuty said:


> ASouthern Spain (I was watching a doco on Al Andalus last night) was a melting pot of Northern European (Visigoths) and North African (Berber) with significant populations of Jews and Arabs as well.




The Berbers I've seen are paler than most Italians.  Most Arabs are white too, though some from Arabia are heavily tanned and there are a few partly descended from black slaves.  Othello as a black African is a modern thing.  FWIW the US Census dept counts all north Africans, Arabs, Persians etc as white.  Also FWIW, genetically they cluster with Europeans; so do most south-Asian Indians.


----------



## S'mon (Jun 30, 2008)

DrunkonDuty said:


> All of which is slightly off topic anyway: the question is about art work in a modern 21st century product sold, mostly, in western nations. Should that art work be inclusive of all the ethnicities present in said communities? Hell yes. And I think anyone who hopes to sell a product to as wide a market as possible should have the sense to see this. That they would have the sensitivity as well would be nice.




I think this is true about the marketing.  Among my non-Anglo players, as I recall the Hispanic players played PCs from the quasi-Spanish part of my campaign world, the male east-Asian player played a white female PC, the south Asian Sikh player liked to play non-humans - dwarves, elves and such, and indicated to me he'd like to see more racial diversity in fantasy, especially among the protagonists.

Him: "None of the villains in Lord of the Rings were white."
Me: "Um... Wormwood?"


----------



## S'mon (Jun 30, 2008)

arcady said:


> On launch day, the game was full of complaints about this, and from the people making those choices, complaints that the features on the faces were too African...
> 
> To me, that's very telling of a number of different things about gamers.




That most gamers are white, and they want their fantasy personae to resemble idealised versions of themselves?  That hardly seems controversial.  Black, south-Asian, east-Asian etc gamers seem to feel the same way.


----------



## Snoweel (Jun 30, 2008)

arcady said:


> To me, that's very telling of a number of different things about gamers.




I'd say it's more representative of people in general.

Though for you to think ethnocentrism is a feature exclusive to "gamers" (and your complaint is explicitly with the white ones playing Nightfall) is "very telling of a number of different things about" *you*.


----------



## Ginnel (Jun 30, 2008)

CountPopeula said:


> You know, the most obvious example of a black man in the core books to me was the painting of Othello and Iago in the DMG in the skill challenge section. Perhaps because it's really really obviously Lawrence Fishburn and Kenneth Branagh.




Its not Kenneth Branagh, its Eddie Izzard.

bringing us on to more diversity


----------



## CountPopeula (Jun 30, 2008)

You know, it occurs to me that I never really answered the question in the topic, even though everyone basically knows how I feel about it. So I won't buy a book because it has racial diversity. But I might *not* buy a book I might have been interested in if it lacks any sort of diversity. It does depend on what it is. I read the Angus Thongs books even though the characters are all white... probably, I don't think they're actually described physically in any real detail.

If I felt that there was a conscious effort to exclude non-whites from a product, I wouldn't buy it. And I would probably regard it in much the same way I regard Heroes Now!

It's kind of like Star Trek. Gene Roddenberry created it to push a specific political agenda with regards to race. Dr. King himself saw the importance of simply having a black woman in the cast of the show. Uhura wasn't the star, but just being there made a difference. It makes a difference that people of different races are just there, just doing what everyone else is doing. It may not matter to everyone what colour the little hobbits are in the PHB, but it probably matters to SOMEONE.

As for my earlier hand waving joke... well... I don't want to be accused of making a straw man argument, so I'll say something substantive. I think wanting to exclude images of non-whites from any sort of popular media is racist, flat out. And I think no matter what the justification given is, it's unacceptable. I think a conscious desire to exclude blacks is racist by the very definition of the word.

And since everyone else seems to want to point out their race in this topic, I think I should point out that all my opinions are coloured by being one of the whitest people in the world. Like Conan O'Brien and Dennis Leary shades of white.


----------



## CountPopeula (Jun 30, 2008)

Ginnel said:


> Its not Kenneth Branagh, its Eddie Izzard.
> 
> bringing us on to more diversity




I just did a little experiement...

Eddie Izzard: http://l.yimg.com/img.tv.yahoo.com/tv/us/img/site/84/33/0000038433_20070313144158.jpg

Kenneth Branagh: http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/pic/MMPH/226872~Kenneth-Branagh-Posters.jpg

Has anyone ever seen them in the same place at the same time?


----------



## Snoweel (Jun 30, 2008)

CountPopeula said:


> I think a conscious desire to exclude blacks is racist by the very definition of the word.




Likewise, a conscious desire to *include* any race - black or otherwise - is racist "by the very definition of the word".

That we're all making a fuss about the skin colour of characters in a series of illustrations is in itself racist.

The colour of the characters is irrelevent - is anyone here, as a DM, going to describe their NPCs as 'black', 'white' or anything else?

And if so give an example of how and why.


----------



## RabidBob (Jun 30, 2008)

JediSoth said:


> I never thought of it that way. Clearly that was more impressive upon me than my father's constant use of racial slurs to refer to anyone who wasn't white (if he didn't know them...once he got to know you, he never again referred to you with the slur word in private).




 ... the more I think about this the more confused I become.  It's like saying "I hate all [ethnic group] except the ones I know and like."

 ... wtf?

It's a wonder you didn't grow up very confused mate, I know I would have!


----------



## Snoweel (Jun 30, 2008)

RabidBob said:


> ... the more I think about this the more confused I become.  It's like saying "I hate all [ethnic group] except the ones I know and like."




It's not all that uncommon actually, though he probably hasn't described it so well.

It's very common for people (particularly whites) to meet people of differing ethnicities with a preconceived *expectation* that they will be hated.

Obviously a common reaction to hatred is hostility.

So with regards to the exception of "the ones I know and like" - when these individuals have proven they don't hate the subject there is obviously no animosity there.


----------



## RabidBob (Jun 30, 2008)

S'mon said:


> Him: "None of the villains in Lord of the Rings were white."
> Me: "Um... Wormwood?"




Wormtoungue you mean?  

Saruman as well.  Very white.  Saruman the White even.


----------



## RabidBob (Jun 30, 2008)

Snoweel said:


> It's not all that uncommon actually, though he probably hasn't described it so well.
> 
> It's very common for people (particularly whites) to meet people of differing ethnicities with a preconceived *expectation* that they will be hated.
> 
> ...




Interesting; I've not come across that kind of thing before.  There's plenty of racism around here in England but mostly it's just plain old bigotism.


----------



## CountPopeula (Jun 30, 2008)

Snoweel said:


> The colour of the characters is irrelevent - is anyone here, as a DM, going to describe their NPCs as 'black', 'white' or anything else?
> 
> And if so give an example of how and why.




That's really not the topic, though. I contend the artwork in the books should have people of all different skin colors. What the GMs do in their own game isn't the issue. I also contend mainstream television should have more bisexual characters. But I wouldn't say everyone who watches Torchwood has to date girls and guys just because Jack does.

I'm not saying that your game in your home has to include a single minority. I am saying the official artwork for the flagship title of an entire industry ought to. It's a matter of what is for public consumption and what isn't.

As important as it was, to the genre and television at large, for Star Trek to have Lt Uhura, it's important for D&D, for RPGs as a whole, to embrace racial diversity.


----------



## S'mon (Jun 30, 2008)

RabidBob said:


> Wormtoungue you mean?
> 
> Saruman as well.  Very white.  Saruman the White even.




Wormtongue, yup.  I think I mentioned Saruman, my player pointed out he wasn't human.  In the Return of the King the 'Voice of Sauron' is probably white, but a very minor character.  I guess the Corsairs of Umbar must be pretty white, being of Numenorean descent.


Anyway, I think his real concern was more about lack of non-white protagonists than white villains.


----------



## S'mon (Jun 30, 2008)

Snoweel said:


> It's very common for people (particularly whites) to meet people of differing ethnicities with a preconceived *expectation* that they will be hated.




Whites expect to be hated more than non-whites?  Seems unlikely to me.


----------



## S'mon (Jun 30, 2008)

Snoweel said:


> The colour of the characters is irrelevent - is anyone here, as a DM, going to describe their NPCs as 'black', 'white' or anything else?




Yeah, any time the NPC is of a different race than the majority in the campaign area, I'd note it when describing them.  If the game is in Altanis where people have red skin, and the PCs meet a green-skinned Viridian, I'd inform the players of that fact.  Same as saying "He's an elf/dwarf/halfling".


----------



## Snoweel (Jun 30, 2008)

RabidBob said:


> There's plenty of racism around here in England but mostly it's just plain old bigotism.




Honestly, how would you know peoples' motivations for displaying racist behaviour?

Often the 'racists' themselves don't know why.

Western people *are* well aware that racism is bad - can you think of a modern protagonist who is obviously racist? I can't.

I bet we can come up with a comprehensive list of racist villains though.



CountPopeula said:


> As important as it was, to the genre and television at large, for Star Trek to have Lt Uhura, it's important for D&D, for RPGs as a whole, to embrace racial diversity.




Sure but do you really expect WotC to take the hit in the wallet in the name of social engineering? I'm sure they employed capable market researchers. They know what side their bread is buttered on - have a look at Arcady's example of Guildwars: Nightfall.

And it was no accident that Lt Uhura was black while Captain Kirk was a white guy.



S'mon said:


> Whites expect to be hated more than non-whites?  Seems unlikely to me.




Really? Whites aren't reknowned for their historical subjugation of darker-skinned peoples? Whites aren't seen as responsible for the problems in the third world?

Plenty of white people have an understandable fear of retribution. Whites are in almost every case the ones accused of racism in the modern world, and certainly in the media all racist characters are white.



S'mon said:


> Yeah, any time the NPC is of a different race than the majority in the campaign area, I'd note it when describing them.  If the game is in Altanis where people have red skin, and the PCs meet a green-skinned Viridian, I'd inform the players of that fact.  Same as saying "He's an elf/dwarf/halfling".




My point exactly.


----------



## Ginnel (Jun 30, 2008)

CountPopeula said:


> That's really not the topic, though. I contend the artwork in the books should have people of all different skin colors. What the GMs do in their own game isn't the issue. I also contend mainstream television should have more bisexual characters. But I wouldn't say everyone who watches Torchwood has to date girls and guys just because Jack does.
> 
> I'm not saying that your game in your home has to include a single minority. I am saying the official artwork for the flagship title of an entire industry ought to. It's a matter of what is for public consumption and what isn't.
> 
> As important as it was, to the genre and television at large, for Star Trek to have Lt Uhura, it's important for D&D, for RPGs as a whole, to embrace racial diversity.



Yuppity yup yup yup. THIS this.here.is.sense.

In terms of the core rulebook dam right there should be different skin colours, hues and bone structure in terms of campaign settings I'm not so sure.

The reasons as far as I've seen different human races are used is so we (the gaming audience) immeadiately reach into our memory and go, ok it looks japanese and wears a rich looking kimono with samurai swords, we're auriental samurai type setting here, I know how they're going to basically act with honor etc. if anyone looks different they're probably gonna be special. It's to capitalise on peoples preconceived opinions to get them quicker into the feel of the setting.

Like it or not everyone pigeonholes people, whether its because of the type of car a person drives, VW beetle as opposed to a rolls royce, whether its a member of the royal family, to a youth wearing a tracksuit and a hoody, most if not all people will have a preconcieved opinion on someone or something depending on their appearance, even if you go into something open minded if you meet a sweet old lady who looks like a grandma you'd be suprised if she started rapping or swearing and commenting on the latest video games thats because your initial expectations were based on her looks.

Its not just a matter of skin colour for humans you could run whole different races as contrary to typical expectations, For example having the elves mine and be expert armor smiths fond of axes and beer, have dwarves run about the woods being experts with a bow and magic, if this doesn't ring true to you its probably how some people feel about a black skinned samurai or white skinned desert tribesmen (I myself see nothing wrong with any of these examples being in a game or campaign setting)

Traditionally its seems to me RPG's have used these stereotypes to get across a feel of a nation/area very quickly (legend of the five rings as an extreme example) to its readers by having comparisions to the real world. Whether they try to go against these stereotypes in the future will be interesting.


----------



## S'mon (Jun 30, 2008)

Snoweel said:


> Really? Whites aren't reknowned for their historical subjugation of darker-skinned peoples? Whites aren't seen as responsible for the problems in the third world?
> 
> Plenty of white people have an understandable fear of retribution. Whites are in almost every case the ones accused of racism in the modern world, and certainly in the media all racist characters are white.




Hmm.  I don't get the impression that most whites expect non-whites to hate them, any more than most blacks expect non-blacks to hate them, or Chinese expect non-Chinese to hate them.  Whites may be aware of the narrative you discuss, which dominates the media (evil racist whites), but my impression is that narrative is created by whites, for whites, and is supposed to make whites feel guilty, not fearful.  

I'd think the media narrative of evil racist whites would be more likely to make non-whites fearful of whites, or at least suspicious of whites, than vice-versa.


----------



## RabidBob (Jun 30, 2008)

Snoweel said:


> Honestly, how would you know peoples' motivations for displaying racist behaviour?
> 
> Often the 'racists' themselves don't know why.




Observation.  In discussion with such people it most often seems that there's no real reason apart from a false perception of difference.  Mostly these people don't even see themselves as racist.  "I'm not racist, but ... "   

Of course I'm not going to comment on any particular individual's reasoning (or lack thereof) on these things, it's just my general impression/opinion.  

Anyway.  This is probably a bit off topic.


----------



## ShinHakkaider (Jun 30, 2008)

Ugh, Never mind...


----------



## Imaro (Jun 30, 2008)

Celebrim said:


> Ok, I was going to keep my mouth shut because I didn't react to that quote strongly one way or the other, but that is where I draw the line.  My naturally rebellious spirit has just been offended.




It was a joke, and a clever one at that, It used an argument basically pulled out anytime someone says something about D&D isn't realistic by those that support the game.  It speaks truth through absurdity and because of that it is, IMHO, a pretty good joke. 



Celebrim said:


> People trot out some variation on this argument in all sorts of contexts.  The basic argument here is, "Since its fantasy, why do you find it easier to accept certain liberties than others?"  For example, you might see this argument presented as, "If you are willing to accept that the hero can kill a 30 ton fire breathing dragon with a sword, why do you have trouble accepting that he can survive a 100' fall?"




Yep, see you did understand it, and it's used quite often on these boards.



Celebrim said:


> The basic flaw in any variant of this argument is the same.  It assumes that what allows you to accept the illusion of fantasy is its adherence to some sort of realism.  This is of course not the case.  A fantasy setting has implicit exemptions to reality inherent to the setting, and these exemptions are grounded in shared mythic archetypes.   Mention as elements of the setting goblins, dragons, and wizards and you can from that readily accept the inclusion of a whole host of associated elements that are part of the common setting, like for example dwarves, giants, magic swords, knights in shining armor, deadly enchantresses, hideous flesh eating monsters, tomb dwelling undead, and all sorts of other things that are drawn from a common English/Celtic/Germanic mythology that runs powerfully in our imagination right back to Beowulf and the Arthurian romances.




Let's think about this for a minute, * "shared mythic archetypes"*.  That means these ar archetypes found universally throughout the world with perhaps minor variations and name changes.  And then you go on to say that these trappings are drawn from an English/Celtic/Germanic mythology that runs powerfully in our your imagination, right back to Beowulf and Arthurian romances.  Yet I see more influences from ancient world mythology and the pulp genre of swords & sorcery than Arthurian romance...is there even a base knight class anymore?  These are your perceptions and what you have chosen to select as the influential parts of your D&D game, they are not the elements of a generic D&D game. 


Celebrim said:


> To really see how unreflective the claim is, one only has to alter it sufficiently to put it into context, "I can't see how you can say, "okay, i can believe that there are hideous monsters, dragons, hags and heroes sufficient to rip the arms off of ogres with thier bare hands... But a black Dane? Man, that just ruins the illusion for me."




When did "Danes" become a part of D&D?  D&D=/=europe.



Celebrim said:


> You can't?  Really?  Is it so astounding that someone finds it jarring to anachronistically insert not merely the occasional 'black knight with unusual background' into the setting, but the whole panapoly of multi-culturalism into the middle of a fantasy setting for what is so obviously purely modern reasons?




 Really check out Exalted, I don't think the art is jarring in anyway.  In fact I would see diversity in artwork no more jarring than D&D sticking animals and monsters from all kind of mythological and real world areas in one book together.  Why? Because again, D&D has more in common, for me, with the ancient world and sword & sorcery than any arthurian romances.




Celebrim said:


> There are several other things that bother me about the statement.  The first is that its a straw man.  "But black people?" is a wholly uncharitable and unfair characterization of the otherside of the argument.  I don't think anyone here is objecting to the presence of heroes of a different hue provided sufficient rational is provided for such heroes to be out of thier native environment.  I don't think anyone is necessarily objecting to black samurii or black knights so much as the idea that somehow the story needs black samurri or blacks knights and is inherently better for it.  I don't think you ought to simplify the thinking of anyone in the thread down to "But black people?", and then just handily slap 'Your a racist' labelling on thier thinking so as to dismiss it.




Yet, there is a need for it if the goal of your game is to make it accessible to  and popular with a larger market.  What is the rationale of white people in the Hepmonoland jungles... oh, yeah they fled into the jungle, it's as simple as that (even though they no longer portray any traits of euro-culture and are more similar to tribal cultures in africa).  In the end I see no reason why this is non-breaking to acceptance of a *fantasy world*.





Celebrim said:


> The other thing that bothers me about it is that it looks like an attempt to be funny.  It always irritates me when people misuse humor like that to dismiss and belittle rather than to increase empathy and understanding.  It might have been ok for the poster to offer the above as a humorous self-critique.  To humorously accuse your fellow posters of racism isn't very funny.  There is a very vast difference between Eddie Murphy doing his SNL skits, and someone from say Jeff Foxworthy's background inventing those reutines.  Likewise, there would be a vast difference between a Jeff Foxworthy reutine and someone from Eddie Murphy's background inventing such a reutine.  As self-parody, both comics reutines are funny to everyone involved while still being able to nudge everyone involved and get them to self-critique thier own attitudes.  As a means of belittling some other group, the reutines of both comics would be damnable.




Again,I think it was a pretty funny joke, I also think that if it made you, and others, think that deeply about it it served one of the main purposes of intelligent humor.



Celebrim said:


> Anyone here who loved that quote because they thought, "It's funny because I am such a racist"?  I'm willing to bet they are vastly outnumbered by the people who where thinking, "It's funny because _they_ are such racists!"




Yeah but I don't think most people on the side for diversity are saying they don't want any pieces of artwork featuring white people.  However there are some on the other side using "suspension of disbelief " to say that unless some kind of justification (in a generic set of corebooks that have no inherrent setting, at that  ) for artwork featuring non-whites is in the book that art should be excluded.


----------



## Barastrondo (Jun 30, 2008)

mmadsen said:


> My point is not that it's wrong to mix genres or to create a reason to have, say, a black samurai -- just that doing so calls attention to itself.  If you don't want your game to be _about_ mixing samurai tropes with blaxploitation, then don't drop black samurai into your game.




I disagree. That assumes that games that are _about_ attempts to emulate a historical culture or demographic are the assumed norm, and while that's certainly the case with gamers who are particularly interested in a given historical culture/demographic, I doubt that it's universal. 

If a game is _about_ a bunch of rag-tag adventurers saving the world from dire evils in a fantasy setting, there's no assumption of race whatsoever. If you want to say "a medieval, European-influenced fantasy setting" or "a take on feudal Japan, but with elves" awesome — but that's the first act of consumer customization, not a core assumption of the fantasy genre, or even of the D&D fantasy subgenre.


----------



## Cadfan (Jun 30, 2008)

S'mon said:


> Whites expect to be hated more than non-whites?  Seems unlikely to me.



White people with certain political leanings tend to be _extremely_ invested in this idea that they aren't racist, but that everyone racistly believes them to be racist because they're white.

In any case, my bottom line is simple.  D&D isn't about emulating medieval Europe.  Its about emulating a magical fantasy world.  This world might share some characteristics with medieval Europe (castles, mostly European weapons), but it typically has a LOT of characteristics that are NOTHING LIKE medieval Europe, beginning with but certainly not stopping with the geography- it literally _isn't Europe_.  

The milieu of fantasy is a shared cultural possession.


----------



## Snoweel (Jun 30, 2008)

Cadfan said:


> White people with certain political leanings tend to be _extremely_ invested in this idea that they aren't racist, but that everyone racistly believes them to be racist because they're white.




Clearly there's a lot of mistrust in the world.


----------



## mmadsen (Jun 30, 2008)

CountPopeula said:


> It's kind of like Star Trek. Gene Roddenberry created it to push a specific political agenda with regards to race. Dr. King himself saw the importance of simply having a black woman in the cast of the show. Uhura wasn't the star, but just being there made a difference. It makes a difference that people of different races are just there, just doing what everyone else is doing. It may not matter to everyone what colour the little hobbits are in the PHB, but it probably matters to SOMEONE.



Gene Roddenberry was painting a picture of a plausible future we could strive toward.  "Look, centuries from now, no one will care about race or nationality, so stop your petty hate."

If he was making _Wagon Train_ rather than _Wagon Train in Space_, it would have been stupid to include a mixed-race, mixed-nationality troop of cavalry officers leading their men and women to the rescue.


CountPopeula said:


> I think wanting to exclude images of non-whites from any sort of popular media is racist, flat out. And I think no matter what the justification given is, it's unacceptable. I think a conscious desire to exclude blacks is racist by the very definition of the word.



So excluding Africans from a King Arthur movie is flat-out racist?


----------



## hamishspence (Jun 30, 2008)

*concerning diversity*

If you're running a medieval European setting, there is an easy explanation for "out of place" people. Roman Empire. It accepted people from anywhere into the legions, given enough time. The legions moved people all over the world. So, you could have an influx of people from almost any type, almost anywhere.


In 4th ed, the answer is Empire of Nerath. Same principle. Big empires enable people to appear in places you wouldn't expect them to be.

So, no, a diverse population doesn't break immersion for me.


----------



## Celebrim (Jun 30, 2008)

Snoweel said:


> Clearly there's a lot of mistrust in the world.




Yes.


----------



## Seonaid (Jun 30, 2008)

arcady said:


> It only gets worse when I try, in utter futility, to explain it to the caucasian gamers I know or to these online communities.
> 
> Its been my experience that no matter how you try to address the issue of representations of minority-race people in the arts, majority-race people and minority-race people simply cannot see it in the same light.
> 
> ...



*Exactly*, thank you.







CountPopeula said:


> So I won't buy a book because it has racial diversity. But I might *not* buy a book I might have been interested in if it lacks any sort of diversity. It does depend on what it is. <snip>
> 
> If I felt that there was a conscious effort to exclude non-whites from a product, I wouldn't buy it. <snip>
> 
> It's kind of like Star Trek. Gene Roddenberry created it to push a specific political agenda with regards to race. Dr. King himself saw the importance of simply having a black woman in the cast of the show. Uhura wasn't the star, but just being there made a difference. It makes a difference that people of different races are just there, just doing what everyone else is doing. It may not matter to everyone what colour the little hobbits are in the PHB, but it probably matters to SOMEONE.



Ditto. Ditto ditto ditto.







Snoweel said:


> Likewise, a conscious desire to *include* any race - black or otherwise - is racist "by the very definition of the word".
> 
> That we're all making a fuss about the skin colour of characters in a series of illustrations is in itself racist.



Yes, it *is* racist and I doubt that most people would be able to argue that it's not. However, we aren't talking about racism's dictionary definition.







> The colour of the characters is irrelevent - is anyone here, as a DM, going to describe their NPCs as 'black', 'white' or anything else?
> 
> And if so give an example of how and why.



Someone else has already mentioned it, but yes--if it's relevant to the situation, of course. It can make a huge difference to know that your contact is not of the majority in the area, frex. But even aside from that, I like having a bit of description. I like details like that--it makes the game more interesting to me.







RabidBob said:


> Saruman the White even.



I always liked that. However, and I don't remember (bad gamer, bad!) whether this is actually true or just my imagination, I always thought of it as good gone bad . . . which means that again white = good, generally.







CountPopeula said:


> I'm not saying that your game in your home has to include a single minority. I am saying the official artwork for the flagship title of an entire industry ought to.



You, sir (or madam), are wise.



Snoweel said:


> Sure but do you really expect WotC to take the hit in the wallet in the name of social engineering?



In an ideal world, yes. It has to start somewhere. In reality, unfortunately, no. 


> My point exactly.



Please explain. I'm not sure I quite get you.







Ginnel said:


> In terms of the core rulebook dam right there should be different skin colours, hues and bone structure in terms of campaign settings I'm not so sure.
> 
> The reasons as far as I've seen different human races are used is so we (the gaming audience) immeadiately reach into our memory and go, ok it looks japanese and wears a rich looking kimono with samurai swords, we're auriental samurai type setting here, I know how they're going to basically act with honor etc. if anyone looks different they're probably gonna be special. It's to capitalise on peoples preconceived opinions to get them quicker into the feel of the setting.
> 
> ...



I agree completely, and your comment about the grandma rapping and swearing makes me think of that commercial I've seen at the movie theaters (I don't watch TV, so it might also be on television as well) with the (white) woman who's obsessed with this song she hears all the time and finally a (black) guy uses his phone to figure it out for her. Why was the guy not a "young hoodlum" type?







S'mon said:


> I don't get the impression that most whites expect non-whites to hate them, any more than most blacks expect non-blacks to hate them, or Chinese expect non-Chinese to hate them.



I am SO not picking on you, but you said it this time. 

Why do you use "white," "black," and then "Chinese"? There are multiple versions of white and black, and not all east Asians are Chinese. I've been trying to avoid talking about myself demographically, but as someone who is east Asian and NOT Chinese, this bothers me whenever I see it. And I am definitely NOT targeting you, S'mon, and I really hope you take that to heart. But whenever I get the "where are you (really) from" conversation, the other person's reaction generally goes like this: China, Japan . . . Vietnam?

I can't imagine what it's like for south or west Asians, to have people say "Asia" and immediately think east Asia.







Imaro said:


> In fact I would see diversity in artwork no more jarring than D&D sticking animals and monsters from all kind of mythological and real world areas in one book together.



Actually, this always kind of bothered me.  Not the mythological thing, but the real world thing.







Barastrondo said:


> If a game is _about_ a bunch of rag-tag adventurers saving the world from dire evils in a fantasy setting, there's no assumption of race whatsoever. If you want to say "a medieval, European-influenced fantasy setting" or "a take on feudal Japan, but with elves" awesome — but that's the first act of consumer customization, not a core assumption of the fantasy genre, or even of the D&D fantasy subgenre.



Right. Exactly. Thank you.







Cadfan said:


> D&D isn't about emulating medieval Europe.  Its about emulating a magical fantasy world.  This world might share some characteristics with medieval Europe (castles, mostly European weapons), but it typically has a LOT of characteristics that are NOTHING LIKE medieval Europe, beginning with but certainly not stopping with the geography- it literally _isn't Europe_.



YES. That's exactly what it should be.


----------



## Afrodyte (Jun 30, 2008)

Cadfan said:


> D&D isn't about emulating medieval Europe.  Its about emulating a magical fantasy world.  This world might share some characteristics with medieval Europe (castles, mostly European weapons), but it typically has a LOT of characteristics that are NOTHING LIKE medieval Europe, beginning with but certainly not stopping with the geography- it literally _isn't Europe_.




QFT.

Hear-hear.

But, I gotta say to everyone on this thread: Thank you for talking about a sensitive topic intelligently. 9 pages and no hate speech might be an internet record.


----------



## el-remmen (Jun 30, 2008)

Threads like this always remind me of the guy who wanted to play a samurai character in one my games many years ago (really wanted a katana - go figure!), and when I explained that samurai come from an Afro-Asian culture in my setting he asked if he could play a samurai that was "a regular human".

We all know how "regular humans" are portrayed in most fantasy/D&D art. 

Anyway, I am all for more diversity in fantasy art - and in my own homebrew I have made most peoples not appear caucasian - with a lot of the "Mediterranean" ethnic ambiguity in the in-between places.

Oh, and I also want to give props to all the people taking part in this thread for keeping it in line with the board policy.  As a moderator, I salute you!


----------



## Celebrim (Jun 30, 2008)

Seonaid said:


> Yes, it *is* racist and I doubt that most people would be able to argue that it's not. However, we aren't talking about racism's dictionary definition.




I think everyone in the thread basically wants the same thing, which is a less racist world.  We all want to be judged as individuals, rather than as members of some group identified by its skin color.  We disagree only on how we are going to get there.  Some of us think that actively promoting diversity will eventually achieve a lower level of racial consciousness.  Others think that this is akin to trying to fight racism with racism, and all you will manage is to put society in a perpetual state of suspicion and mutual hostility.



> Why do you use "white," "black," and then "Chinese"? There are multiple versions of white and black, and not all east Asians are Chinese. I've been trying to avoid talking about myself demographically, but as someone who is east Asian and NOT Chinese, this bothers me whenever I see it.




There is a tendency in the US to niavely imagine that ethnic/racial groups can be lumped into a few broad categories based largely on skin color and that these are perfectly descriptive.  In this conversation we've all implicitly talked as 'white' was a single racial and ethnic classification, 'black' was another, and 'Asian' was another.  These is even a tendency to assume that by racism, what is meant is whites hating non-whites (and very rarely perhaps the reverse).

In fact, the world is not nearly so neat.  Outside of North America, 'whites' do not necessarily think of themselves as belonging to the same ethnic group as every other white person, 'blacks' do not think of themselves as belonging to the same ethnic goup as every other dark skinned person, and Asians certainly don't think of themselves as belonging to the same ethnic group as every other Asian person.   In just the past 30 years, we've seen genocidal acts of racism by whites against whites, blacks against blacks, and asians against asians.  The worst explosion of verbal racial hatred I ever witnessed wasn't with the redneck kid whose family was in the KKK, but from a Chinese and Korean friend who started talking frankly about what they thought of the Japanese.

I think we vastly overemphasis the role of skin color in 'diversity'.  I think if we aim for real diversity, we will bring skin color along almost as an after thought.  I think if we will diversity by just letting the hobby diversify, so that the players, referees, designers, writers and artists are diverse.  I think we are getting there, but that we have a long ways to go and there are no shortcuts.  I think if you make a symbolic act of putting a visual representation of someone with an unexpected skin color from the context before you do the hard part of creating the context, that you aren't really accomplishing much of anything at all.

To be honest, I'm really torn over how I feel about this.  I'm not really objecting to the result of illustrations of characters with diverse hues, but the particular process for how we get there which some seem to advocate as, to overly simplify, "Don't add real diversity, but paint some colored folk in to make it look good."  But I also recognize the reality that achieving a diverse hobby is hard, as unfortunately the evidence is that there are a large number of minorities out there that won't feel included until someone takes the first step of giving them something that they can racially identify with.  It would be nice to imagine having been yourself been defined by someone who defines themselves according to thier skin color, that it would make you less likely to yourself repeat the mistake of defining yourself by your color.  But it doesn't seem to work that way.


----------



## Klaus (Jun 30, 2008)

hamishspence said:


> If you're running a medieval European setting, there is an easy explanation for "out of place" people. Roman Empire. It accepted people from anywhere into the legions, given enough time. The legions moved people all over the world. So, you could have an influx of people from almost any type, almost anywhere.
> 
> 
> In 4th ed, the answer is Empire of Nerath. Same principle. Big empires enable people to appear in places you wouldn't expect them to be.
> ...



After watching "Gladiator", I'd even go as far as to say that the average D&D setting has more in common with the Roman Empire than with the Middle Ages. From the downplay of horsemen to the variety of available weapons and armor and the pantheistic view of gods, it's a closer match than horsemen/chainmail for everyone/monotheism.


----------



## Mercule (Jun 30, 2008)

I think having multi-racial art is great -- at least as far as humans.  I guess I assume the other PC races (elves, dwarves, etc.) are less diverse than humans.  I don't really care if halflings are black, white, or chartreuse, but it is jarring to see two different races of halfling together in the same book.  I think it flows from the idea that the "demi-human" races are represent a subset or charcature of a subset of human attitudes and traits.

As far as human races go, I think Greyhawk did an excellent job of setting the stage for diverse PCs.  Baklunish, Flan, Oerid, and Suel all have defined origin points and migrations, but have reasons to generally co-exist.  There are "cosmopolitan" areas and there are more homogenous areas.  Good stuff.  I also like the pseudo-Roman Legion explanation given above.  There's no reason to force the issue in a fantasy setting.

In practice, I don't worry about it.  My entire group is white and I've had very few non-white players (Iowa, go figure).  As a GM, I've got a couple of notes on racial origins written down, but the implicit assumption is that the main campaign area is populated by Euro-looking folks.  Which makes sense, because I run an extremely feudal European baseline.  I feel a bit bad that the primary evil empire is Arabian looking, but that's more because they exist in the "Cradle of Life" than any deeper rationale -- the culture is based on psionics and could never be mistaken for any era of earth culture.


----------



## Kobold Avenger (Jun 30, 2008)

Everyone assumes that all non-white people get along, but the reality is different.

Now one of the more humourous examples would be the Indo-Canadian comedian Russell Peters who gets away with telling some of the most racist jokes around, in his belief that he feels that Asians, particularly Indians and Chinese are more racist than white people, with the whole, "What you're from that part of India, go away, I hate you !"  In one of his stand-up routines.

And certainly among older Chinese people, they feel the same way about blacks and natives as a lot of white people do.  And this is on top of mistrusting whites, hating other Asians, and hating other Chinese people who come from different parts of China than where they come from.

Anyways I do get slightly annoyed when people assume I'm Japanese rather than Chinese.  They should figure out that it's more likely I'm Chinese when there's about 1.3 billion Chinese and only about 130 million Japanese.  Which is why I don't assume other peoples nationalities, until I know more about them.

But the thing is with fantasy settings is that there's so much to draw from China or India or Africa or even under-represented Eastern Europe.  That you don't need to paint everything over with the Western Europe paint-brush.  Nowadays there's a lot of Chinese fantasy movies (as I wouldn't call any of those historical by any stretch, even if the movie claims to be during the Qin, Ming, Qing, etc dynasties).

I for example found the opening scene in Daywatch to be fascinating because it sort of depicted ancient Samarkand.  

Now I'm someone who is slightly interested in anthropology, and I do find many of these cultural distinctions such as dress, architecture, history and myths to be fascinating.  So it'll probably be reflected in settings I run where there's a large variety of nations who are culturally distinct and resemble particular human cultures.


----------



## Barastrondo (Jun 30, 2008)

Mercule said:


> I think having multi-racial art is great -- at least as far as humans.  I guess I assume the other PC races (elves, dwarves, etc.) are less diverse than humans.




Check out the 4e writeups for races. With the exception of dragonborn, every single non-human player character race is described as coming in the same range of skin colors as humans are. I think that's awesome, myself. Of course, I did go out of my way to get Nyambe and Hamunaptra back in the 3x days, and snagged every bit of Al-Qadim I could find before then, so I'm naturally predisposed to see the main game openly embrace possibilities like that right in the core books.


----------



## SPoD (Jun 30, 2008)

I'm surprised that this thread has gone 9 pages, and no one has mentioned The Order of the Stick yet.

Roy Greenhilt is the main character of what is one of the most prominent pieces of D&D-related fiction currently being produced. And his race has, to my knowledge, _never been mentioned_ by any character. He's not an outsider or a foreigner or a barbarian in his homeland, nor does he have any special culture or belief that differentiates him from other "northern" humans. It's simply a non-issue. But neither is it tokenism, because again, he's the hero, the main protagonist, the leader. It's Roy's quest, the others are just participating. Even 100 strips after his death, he's still had more appearances than any other character.

Further, a quick glance at any scene involving a crowd of people not in Azure City (the bandits, the Cliffport police, the village) will show a mix of different colors. And heck, even Azure City has a cultural mix, it's just not color-based: Chinese, Japanes, Thai, Vietnamese, and Korean names and cultural items all exist mixed together. And we've seen hints of non-hererosexuals, from Elan's experiments at Bard Camp to Haley's repressed bisexuality, to a prison guard who can't be lured by a feminine illusion because he's gay.

Does being a comedy dilute the message that this world has no bigotry, or does it enhance it because we're too busy laughing to think twice about it?


----------



## mmadsen (Jun 30, 2008)

SPoD said:


> Does being a comedy dilute the message that this world has no bigotry, or does it enhance it because we're too busy laughing to think twice about it?



It's a very light comedy about the silliness of D&D, so having characters look like modern American players, but dressed for adventuring, seems like a cute nod to the notion of roleplaying.


----------



## SPoD (Jun 30, 2008)

mmadsen said:


> It's a very light comedy about the silliness of D&D, so having characters look like modern American players, but dressed for adventuring, seems like a cute nod to the notion of roleplaying.




That doesn't explain why all the NPCs follow suit. At the very least, it's a depiction of a D&D campaign where the idea of a multiracial world has been successfully implemented by the DM, which is more than we see from Wizards. That the depiction exists might encourage people who see it to say, "Hey, you know, having a black person DOESN'T ruin the illusion after all."

(And I wouldn't have called it "very light" or "silly" for years...)


----------



## mmadsen (Jun 30, 2008)

SPoD said:


> That the depiction exists might encourage people who see it to say, "Hey, you know, having a black person DOESN'T ruin the illusion after all."



Most D&D games are beer-and-pretzel games, especially the kind you joke about in a comic strip, and their lack of verisimilitude is legendary.  I wouldn't read high-minded social goals into a D&D game where everything seems like modern America in medieval drag.


----------



## Imaro (Jun 30, 2008)

mmadsen said:


> Most D&D games are beer-and-pretzel games, especially the kind you joke about in a comic strip, and their lack of verisimilitude is legendary.  I wouldn't read high-minded social goals into a D&D game where everything seems like modern America in medieval drag.




And I wouldn't so readily dismiss humor as a platform to make comentaries... it's been that for years.


----------



## Celebrim (Jun 30, 2008)

Kobold Avenger said:


> Now I'm someone who is slightly interested in anthropology, and I do find many of these cultural distinctions such as dress, architecture, history and myths to be fascinating.  So it'll probably be reflected in settings I run where there's a large variety of nations who are culturally distinct and resemble particular human cultures.




Now that sounds great.  And I note that avoids the implicit assumption of most of this thread which is, "The way to get diversity is show someone with black skin and african features."  That assumption to me really only demonstrates the lack of diversity of cultural viewpoints occuring in this thread.



> Anyways I do get slightly annoyed when people assume I'm Japanese rather than Chinese.  They should figure out that it's more likely I'm Chinese when there's about 1.3 billion Chinese and only about 130 million Japanese.  Which is why I don't assume other peoples nationalities, until I know more about them.




That, and Japanese and Chinese people are about as distinctly different in appearance as Swedes and Italians.  There is some overlap in both groups, but 'all Asians look alike' is a product more of ignorance than anything else.  And heck, speaking of ignorance, how many ethnic groups of Chinese are there?  I couldn't tell you.

But on the subject of non-European racism, I remember being in discussion with several other computer programmers, about how it was good to be in America because in India, the Kashimiri Brahman wouldn't even be able to talk to his lower caste colleague, and the Pakistani born programmer said that it was a good think that they were in America, because back in India they'd have to kill each other. 

I also knew a case where a Korean and Japanese couple married in America, but neither of them could return home because in doing so they were outcasts in both of thier families.

Countries like India, Liberia and Brazil are interesting studies in whether the American model of what 'diversity' means is in any way applicable to reality, or for that matter whether American notion of fighting racism with racism is actually worth the positive good it can do.


----------



## SPoD (Jun 30, 2008)

mmadsen said:


> Most D&D games are beer-and-pretzel games, especially the kind you joke about in a comic strip, and their lack of verisimilitude is legendary.  I wouldn't read high-minded social goals into a D&D game where everything seems like modern America in medieval drag.




You're missing my point. "High-minded" has nothing to do with it. I'm not suggesting the author is on a crusade to change the world. 

I'm saying that the fact that the strip has become as popular as it has without the hero's race being a factor will change perceptions among D&D players over time even if the author has no intent for it to do so. According to the author, half a million people read OOTS every time it updates, and all those people are being exposed, day in and day out, to the notion that it's no big deal for a black guy to be in a fantasy world and be the hero.

Change comes as a result of people becoming comfortable with an idea, and seeing Roy swinging his sword around in a comedy story creates a level of comfort.


----------



## SPoD (Jun 30, 2008)

Imaro said:


> And I wouldn't so readily dismiss humor as a platform to make comentaries... it's been that for years.




Exactly. "All in the Family" was just a sitcom.


----------



## el-remmen (Jun 30, 2008)

SPoD said:


> the notion that it's no big deal for a black guy to be in a fantasy world and be the hero.





And while it succumbs to the old cliche from movies that "the black guy always dies" - at least in this setting he can be brought back to life - just like that other famous story starting a Black guy. . . Jesus!


----------



## The Little Raven (Jun 30, 2008)

Imaro said:


> And I wouldn't so readily dismiss humor as a platform to make comentaries... it's been that for years.




Humor is one of the best ways to deal with terrible things.


----------



## Imaro (Jun 30, 2008)

Mourn said:


> Humor is one of the best ways to deal with terrible things.




OMG! I agree with Mourn...I...I just need some time to accept this.


----------



## The Little Raven (Jun 30, 2008)

Imaro said:


> OMG! I agree with Mourn...I...I just need some time to accept this.




You and Ruin Explorer should form a support group.


----------



## Mercule (Jun 30, 2008)

Barastrondo said:


> Check out the 4e writeups for races. With the exception of dragonborn, every single non-human player character race is described as coming in the same range of skin colors as humans are.



I wasn't saying that it was ever the "official" intent to narrow the variety within any of the demihuman races.  I was referring to a personal... erm... viewpoint -- right, wrong, or neither.

Personally, I kinda like the idea that humans are the most diverse people.  Make all elves pasty white, all dwarves deep ebony, halflings as Native American, or whatever.  The problem there is that the races would run the risk of becoming caricatures of racial stereotypes, rather than just having a narrow band of skin colors.  On the other hand, one of the cool things about Shadowrun was having the race/race choices, should you care.

Without deleting my train-of-thought musings, I guess I could get used to just about anything, here.  It's probably best for the default text to be "any human skin tone" to imply the greatest range.  I'll still miss elves with silver hair and violet eyes.


----------



## Seonaid (Jun 30, 2008)

Celebrim said:


> I think we vastly overemphasis the role of skin color in 'diversity'.



The problem is that, in the United States, skin color plays a huge part in our history and society. Africans and descendants of Africans were enslaved by Europeans and European descendants. (East) Asians were put into concentration camps by whites. Middle Easterners have been detained without cause. Racial profiling happens. In all of these cases, it didn't/doesn't matter what "flavor" of African/Asian/non-white the people were. Just because diversity does not equal multiple skin colors does not mean we can separate the two.







Kobold Avenger said:


> Anyways I do get slightly annoyed when people assume I'm Japanese rather than Chinese.  They should figure out that it's more likely I'm Chinese when there's about 1.3 billion Chinese and only about 130 million Japanese.



Really? You do? Of course it's MORE LIKELY that, given a random sampling, they will run into a Chinese person more frequently than a Japanese one, but they are dealing with YOU, who are not Chinese.


----------



## S'mon (Jun 30, 2008)

Seonaid said:


> Why do you use "white," "black," and then "Chinese"?




I didn't want to say Oriental or Mongoloid, because thanks to Edward Said and co some people object to those terms.  And Asian isn't a race.  I could have said north-east-Asian but I wasn't sure everyone would know I meant north Chinese-Japanese-Korean, who do form a racial genetic cluster apparently.

Edit: And race is partly a social construct anyway; by most meangingful definitions there are several races in sub-Saharan Africa or east Asia.  Genetically Barack Obama isn't really part of the same race as most black Americans, whose ancestors came from a smallish part of west Africa.


----------



## S'mon (Jun 30, 2008)

spoD:
"Does being a comedy dilute the message that this world has no bigotry, or does it enhance it because we're too busy laughing to think twice about it?"

Not only no bigotry, but apparently no racial interbreeding either, or all that cosmopolitan diversity would soon be gone.    It's OOTS, it's not supposed to make sense.


----------



## S'mon (Jun 30, 2008)

Seonaid said:


> The problem is that, in the United States, skin color plays a huge part in our history and society.




I'm not American, but I'm married to one, and slowly learning about US culture's unique take on race.  One thing I've learned is that skin colour is a short-hand, it's not literally all about skin colour.  Reverend Wright has skin lighter than many white Europeans from the Mediterranean area, but he's counted black because (a) he identifies as black and (b) because some of his facial features are just about suffciently African looking to make it plausible, although other people with similar features are counted white (eg Bob Barr).  My American nephew-in-law is counted black because his dad's black, but he has dirty-blond hair!  This kind of thing really confuses Europeans.


----------



## Kobold Avenger (Jun 30, 2008)

Celebrim said:


> That, and Japanese and Chinese people are about as distinctly different in appearance as Swedes and Italians.  There is some overlap in both groups, but 'all Asians look alike' is a product more of ignorance than anything else.  And heck, speaking of ignorance, how many ethnic groups of Chinese are there?  I couldn't tell you.



There's more than 50 ethnic groups, even though in many cases those classifications were ones invented by the Communist Party who wanted to something like what Stalin did when he had all the different Soviet ethnic groups classified.  And some of those Chinese ethnic groups aren't East Asian, but are more Turkic or even European related.

It's a strange fact that a Russian friend of mine felt that part of Canada (though it may have been the fact that the city we were in was mostly anglo-saxon) wasn't diverse enough because back in Russia he was around all these different East European and Central Asian ethnicities.


----------



## mhacdebhandia (Jun 30, 2008)

Celebrim said:


> Mention as elements of the setting goblins, dragons, and wizards and you can from that readily accept the inclusion of a whole host of associated elements that are part of the common setting, like for example dwarves, giants, magic swords, knights in shining armor, deadly enchantresses, hideous flesh eating monsters, tomb dwelling undead, and all sorts of other things that are drawn from a common English/Celtic/Germanic mythology that runs powerfully in our imagination right back to Beowulf and the Arthurian romances.



The reason you are completely wrong is that we're talking about _D&D_, a game which has *always* included monsters and ideas taken from mythology around the world (often bearing no relationship to the "inspiration" except to steal a name), as well as much more modern science fiction and fantasy.

Where's the beholder in your supposed core tradition of English/Celtic/Germanic common mythology, eh? The illithid? Ghouls (Arabic monsters in the game because Gygax liked Lovecraft)? Isn't there a liberal element of Greco-Roman mythology wholly disconnected from this supposed basic tradition (hydras, chimeras, pegasi, medusae)? Gelatinous cubes? Ropers?

The fact is, your argument is nonsense. _D&D_ started out as a mish-mash of everything Gygax liked that could vaguely be made to work in a medievalish setting. There is no Anglo-Saxon/Teutonic core mythology, and trying to argue that there is is just plain disingenuous.


----------



## mhacdebhandia (Jun 30, 2008)

S'mon said:


> This is a good approach - though I'd probably make the campaign setting warmer than England, and the cultures would be a mix of sources rather than "These guys look 100% African, but act 100% Saxon".



Yeah, but - oh no! - then its culture won't look like medieval England much anymore! Now it's a setting which never existed in history, imagined as a result of disparate cultures meshing as they never did in real life!

I'm told that's a bad thing in _D&D_? For some people anyway. *shrugs*


----------



## mhacdebhandia (Jun 30, 2008)

CountPopeula said:


> You know, it occurs to me that I never really answered the question in the topic, even though everyone basically knows how I feel about it. So I won't buy a book because it has racial diversity. But I might *not* buy a book I might have been interested in if it lacks any sort of diversity. It does depend on what it is. I read the Angus Thongs books even though the characters are all white... probably, I don't think they're actually described physically in any real detail.



I read most of _Anansi Boys_ by Neil Gaiman before I realised that - unlike the normal default for English novels - the only characters whose ethnicity was described were white, and it was otherwise assumed that all the characters were black. It's interesting that I've wanted to read something like that for a long time, but even I didn't recognise it at first.


----------



## Seonaid (Jun 30, 2008)

S'mon said:


> And Asian isn't a race.



Fair enough. But you could have said European, African, and Asian. That doesn't really encompass much, but your point would have been made.


----------



## CountPopeula (Jul 1, 2008)

mmadsen said:


> So excluding Africans from a King Arthur movie is flat-out racist?




Considering one of the knights of the round table, Sir Morien, is a black man... yes, yes it is.


----------



## mhacdebhandia (Jul 1, 2008)

CountPopeula said:


> Considering one of the knights of the round table, Sir Morien, is a black man... yes, yes it is.



Wikipedia claims Morien was the son of one of the Knights of the Round Table, Aglovale, who fathered him with a black Christian princess in Moorish lands.


----------



## The Little Raven (Jul 1, 2008)

CountPopeula said:


> Considering one of the knights of the round table, Sir Morien, is a black man... yes, yes it is.




Morien was not an actual Knight of the Round Table (it ain't hereditary), and is such a peripheral character in any case that his absence from the majority of Arthurian movies is to be expected. Suggesting that his absence is due to racism is rather silly.


----------



## CountPopeula (Jul 1, 2008)

Yeah, I was a little off the mark there now that I look into him again. But I don't think I'll reconsider my stance. His presence in the myth means that black characters wouldn't be anachronistic. Perhaps not common, but certainly not uncalled for. Which really means there's not much need to say "Okay, all white people... and... go!" other than specifically excluding black actors. Just my take on it, though.


----------



## Klaus (Jul 1, 2008)

Including a token "Moor" in a Dark/Middle Ages movie is as silly as prohibiting them under claims that it's not "realistic".

And hey, Morgan Freeman was the best thing in Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves!


----------



## DrunkonDuty (Jul 1, 2008)

There was also Sir Palomides and his 3 (?) brothers. All Saracens. All good guys, despite being Muslim. (and yes, I know that they all realised the 'error' of their ways and were Christian at heart; I can't apologise for Mallory, this was written in the middle ages after all.)

S'mon: I do realise that the folks I mentioned as living in Al Andalus were in fact all Caucasian peoples. (ie: Jews, Berbers, Visigoths and Arabs.) What I meant to imply was that there where all these cultures mixing there in the middle ages, not just Northern European. (The theme of the thread at that time was heavily focussed on Northern Euorpean being default mediaeval.) I'm not aware of any mediaeval cultures in which significant numbers of Northern Europeans and Sub-Saharan Africans mixed so wasn't able to present a real world example of that.


----------



## mmadsen (Jul 1, 2008)

CountPopeula said:


> Considering one of the knights of the round table, Sir Morien, is a black man... yes, yes it is.



You may or may not have noticed that I mentioned the tendency of medieval romances to include a Moor or two, but what qualified as a _Blackamoor_ to medieval Europeans was a Saracen of North African or Arab descent, not a sub-Saharan African -- that is, not what we would now call a _black man_.

There's obviously nothing odd about including a few Saracens in a medieval romance, either as exotic good guys (Sir Palomides) or as the enemy (Song of Roland, Orlando Furioso).

Anyway, my point was not that all non-whites should be expunged from quasi-medieval fantasies, just that it would be silly to include 21st-century American demographics in such a setting.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 1, 2008)

> Anyway, my point was not that all non-whites should be expunged from quasi-medieval fantasies, just that it would be silly to include 21st-century American demographics in such a setting.




Agreed.

If you look at the practice of slavery, for instance, you'll find evidence that slaves- and by deduction, former slaves, indentured servants, and escapees- from northern Europe were found in Arab and African nations, and vice versa.

That's enough of a hook to add some tincture to any campaign.


----------



## mmadsen (Jul 1, 2008)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> If you look at the practice of slavery, for instance, you'll find evidence that slaves- and by deduction, former slaves, indentured servants, and escapees- from northern Europe were found in Arab and African nations, and vice versa.



The Spanish saying for "the coast is clear" is _"no hay moros en la costa"_ -- because Muslim slavers were so feared: Combing through the historical sources, he concludes that there were about 35,000 enslaved Christians on the Barbary Coast at any one time. He then sets about estimating attrition rates. Slave numbers declined through four causes: death, escape, redemption (i.e. by ransom), and conversion to Islam. Davis gets annual rates from these causes of 17 percent, 1 percent, 2-3 percent, and 4 percent, respectively. This implies a total number of slaves, from the early 1500s to the late 1700s, of one to one and a quarter million. This is an astonishing number, implying that well into the 17th century, the Mediterranean slave trade was out-producing the Atlantic one. Numbers fell off thereafter, while the transatlantic trade increased; but in its time, the enslavement of European Christians by Muslim North Africans was the main kind of enslavement going on in the world.

Christians were captured by two methods. First, there was the seizing of ships by straightforward piracy. The ship itself became a prize along with its crew and passengers. Second, there were raids on the coasts of European countries. Spain, France, and Italy were worst affected, but the pirates sometimes ventured further afield. In 1627 they kidnapped 400 men and women from Iceland.

The victims in either case would be taken back to one of the Barbary ports — the main ones were Algiers, Tunis, and Tripoli — and sold in a slave market, by auction. They ended up either as the domestic slaves of private persons, or as slaves owned by the state, to be put to work rowing galleys, or constructing public works. The first of these two fates was usually preferable, as there was some chance of humanity from a private owner. Prof. Davis’s account of the lives of galley slaves is hard to read, and state slaves employed on public works were not much better off. There was no large-scale private-enterprise slavery as in the plantations of the Old South. The North African states had little commercial culture.

The effect on the European coastal populations was dramatic. Entire areas were depopulated. The author even sketches out an argument that the culture of baroque Italy was determined in part by a turning inward from the terrors of coastal life — from the “fear of the horizon” that afflicted all the regions subject to slave raiding. He tells us (he is professor of Italian Social History at Ohio State University, by the way) that to this day there is an idiom in Sicilian dialect to express the general idea of being caught by surprise: pigliato dai turchi — “taken by the Turks.”​
If you want to read about a fascinating historical figure, read about Abram Petrovich Gannibal: Major-General Abram Petrovich Gannibal, also Hannibal or Ganibal or Ibrahim Hannibal or Abram Petrov, (1696 – 14 May[1]1781) was an African slave who was brought to Russia by Peter the Great and became major-general, military engineer and governor of Reval. He is perhaps best known today as the great-grandfather of Alexander Pushkin, who wrote an unfinished novel about him, Peter the Great's Negro.​


----------



## Wyrmshadows (Jul 1, 2008)

Klaus said:


> Including a token "Moor" in a Dark/Middle Ages movie is as silly as prohibiting them under claims that it's not "realistic".
> 
> And hey, Morgan Freeman was the best thing in Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves!




I have to disagree, not with Morgan being the best part of that movies, which he was, but with your opinion that a token moor is as silly as pretending that folks with African skin colors are native to regions north of the equator.

Morgan Freeman as a Moor was infinately more plausable than pretending that there were scads of folks who looked ethnically like Morgan Freeman running around as the native population of 11th century England. That's nonsensical utter counterintuitive to anyone with a basic knowldege of Dark Age Europe.

The moor as a traveler makes sense, handwaving that Morgan Freeman's people were as native to England as Locksley's kin would be absurd. It would be absurd unless there was the assumption of a migration of tropical people to England in bygone days. If so, fine. But the handwaving of things for the sake of an artificial diversity isn't diversity at all.

To note, it would be equally unnatural to have Kevin Costner's character running aound in Ethiopia and claiming that he and his kin were actual natives to the place. If there was a migration of northern peoples, this is possible, if there was not, there is no way pale skinned people are native to those climes. 

We both know there is a geographical and climatalogical reason for different skin colors and I see no reason to pretend that those realities aren't part of anything but the most absurd fantasies.


Wyrmshadows


----------



## Klaus (Jul 1, 2008)

Wyrmshadows said:


> I have to disagree, not with Morgan being the best part of that movies, which he was, but with your opinion that a token moor is as silly as pretending that folks with African skin colors are native to regions north of the equator.
> 
> Morgan Freeman as a Moor was infinately more plausable than pretending that there were scads of folks who looked ethnically like Morgan Freeman running around as the native population of 11th century England. That's nonsensical utter counterintuitive to anyone with a basic knowldege of Dark Age Europe.
> 
> ...



Er... but I do agree with you on all accounts! I even said earlier in the thread that one way to increase ethnical variety would be to increase geographical variety.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 1, 2008)

Nice post, mmadsen!

In a similar vein, one of my college buddies went on an archaeological trip in North Africa and mentioned that the Prof in charge actually found something he believed was viking hacksilver.  I don't recall, though, what era the dig was an exemplar of, though.


----------



## mhacdebhandia (Jul 1, 2008)

mmadsen said:


> Anyway, my point was not that all non-whites should be expunged from quasi-medieval fantasies, just that it would be silly to include 21st-century American demographics in such a setting.



I don't believe the _Dungeons & Dragons_ settings published these days are or should be quasi-medieval.



Wyrmshadows said:


> The moor as a traveler makes sense, handwaving that Morgan Freeman's people were as native to England as Locksley's kin would be absurd. It would be absurd unless there was the assumption of a migration of tropical people to England in bygone days. If so, fine. But the handwaving of things for the sake of an artificial diversity isn't diversity at all.



Let me ask you this: do you require players who want to play a blond or redheaded character in a _D&D_ analogue of medieval England to "justify" why someone with such an egregiously non-native ethnic appearance was around, or do you just accept that their ancestors showed up a couple of hundred years earlier?


----------



## eyebeams (Jul 1, 2008)

Here's the thing:

* The quote that won the thread, won the thread.

* Even if you dismiss that, there are many, many instances where less-pale folks traveled to and lived throughout much of Europe -- more than is commonly believed, it seems. Plus of course, the medieval European cultural sphere included many places that were pretty cosmopolitan, and there were cosmopolitan areas that bordered it. The idea that one could not construct a varied demographic in a fantasy setting when the sources are there is ludicrous -- and that's assuming quasi-historicity is important to you, which is  a questionable motive when there are elves and teleportation and an odd form of polytheism that never really existed and would have created a vastly different society if it ever did.

* Our current conception of race is relatively recent (and informed by appalling history and its vile cultural remnants, no less), making it very difficult to make definitive statements in a number of instances where people in the past did not think as we did. Europeans didn't even use the word "black" to talk about the specific range of skin tones we often assume. They didn't pay much attention to skin tone or ethic accuracy in art, either, and didn't spend a lot of time writing about it.

* In general, a lot of things some people think they know, they don't know. While a relatively fixed selection of people travelled regularly in the Middle Ages, they travelled a lot, and cultures were not as isolated as people often assume. Also, they were close to your average height and probably had better teeth than you for most of the period.

* There's been a ton of goalpost shifting in this thread. Apparently, to justify black dwarves we must now examine the panoply of human history to find a suitable parallel. What's the motive for this? It bugs me.

* The "black samurai" thing also bugs me because it's rhetorical dirty pool. Japan was unique in closing its borders for centuries, so it's not a fit example for the argument. Plus, people almost never mean "samurai" when they use it in an RPG character context. They mean a dude with a katana -- just like nobody really means "knight" in the sense of the very expensive, feudally obligated, part-human weapons system.


----------



## Wyrmshadows (Jul 1, 2008)

eyebeams said:


> Here's the thing:
> 
> * Even if you dismiss that, there are many, many instances where less-pale folks traveled to and lived throughout much of Europe -- more than is commonly believed, it seems. Plus of course, the medieval European cultural sphere included many places that were pretty cosmopolitan, and there were cosmopolitan areas that bordered it. The idea that one could not construct a varied demographic in a fantasy setting when the sources are there is ludicrous -- and that's assuming quasi-historicity is important to you, which is a questionable motive when there are elves and teleportation and an odd form of polytheism that never really existed and would have created a vastly different society if it ever did.




There were less pale folks living in Europe in the Dark/Middle Ages but if they were natives of Europe they varied in skin tone between fair skinned nordics and darker mediterranians. These types were native to Europe because of the climate of Europe. Others dwelling in Europe at the time were a miniscule minority compared to the natives and the ancestors of the non-natives themselves developed in climates and environments different than that of Europe ergo they looked different.



> * Our current conception of race is relatively recent (and informed by appalling history and its vile cultural remnants, no less), making it very difficult to make definitive statements in a number of instances where people in the past did not think as we did. Europeans didn't even use the word "black" to talk about the specific range of skin tones we often assume. They didn't pay much attention to skin tone or ethic accuracy in art, either, and didn't spend a lot of time writing about it.
> 
> * There's been a ton of goalpost shifting in this thread. Apparently, to justify black dwarves we must now examine the panoply of human history to find a suitable parallel. What's the motive for this? It bugs me.




Lets not call into question the motives of those of us who prefer not to handwave differences in coloration and culture and have our fantasy cultures blended together into a homogenous brew that would actually make the entire setting, from nation to nation and place to place the same. You can go with the "gods did it" I'll go with tribal/cutural migration patterns.



> * In general, a lot of things some people think they know, they don't know. While a relatively fixed selection of people travelled regularly in the Middle Ages, they travelled a lot, and cultures were not as isolated as people often assume. Also, they were close to your average height and probably had better teeth than you for most of the period.




True but it was a very, very small number of well traveled cosmoplitan types compared to the number of people who never traveled more than a few miles from their villages. I have said in multiple posts on this thread that great trading centers would be ideal for a diverse blending of human racial/ethinic groups and customes. Outside of the centers of trade, nations were far more homogenous than not.




> * The "black samurai" thing also bugs me because it's rhetorical dirty pool. Japan was unique in closing its borders for centuries, so it's not a fit example for the argument. Plus, people almost never mean "samurai" when they use it in an RPG character context. They mean a dude with a katana -- just like nobody really means "knight" in the sense of the very expensive, feudally obligated, part-human weapons system.




It doesn't matter, the european references are rife throughout all of D&D fantasy. Just because there are wierd anomalies like the monk and a katana or two in the settings there is no doubt that the primary cultural assumptions of the core D&D experience is western ie. European fantasy a la Tolkien, Howard, Lieber, etc. A token weapon, class, piece of armor, etc. does real cultural blending make. There are knights, kings, dukes, western armor types, primarily western weapons (outside of those that are fantastic and even they cannot be assigned to another culture outside of the western imagination), Tolkienish elves, dwarves, orcs. There are the western folklore trolls, ogres, goblins, hobgoblins, gnomes, etc. There are of course those fantastic creatures outside the folklore of any culture and the random token critter from another land ie. the ogre mage which would have been an oni. Even the golden dragon has gotten away from the wingless oriental creature it once was.

I am not saying that D&D's western european vision is in any way accurate, but I am saying that is still strongly and primarily a western ie. european fantasy vision. This is neither good nor bad, it simply is the reality. 

Would anyone really want to see a reissue of Oriental Adventures of Rokugan with a bunch of white guys dressed up like shou lin monks, kensai, and samurai? Would anyone want to see the creation of an Aztek/Mayan setting made to be inhabited by Asians (I know these folks came over the land bridge from asia but you get my meaning)? Maybe you would, but I would bet that such abominations would not sell. Al Qadim was Al Qadim because it was Arabic (with some African types in the art as well because of the historic proximity of such cultures/ethnicities). I don't want the great sultan of the desert nomads to be white for the sake of diversity. If he is going to be white make it something interesting because he is an oddity.

Why can't the various racial/cultural groups be valued unto themselves in a fantasy millieu instead of being artificially and arbitrarily made to fit into western fantasy/folkloric realities. The real world had enough examples of ethnic mixing where there was trade between peoples where such interchanges were both believable and satisfying. There is no reason to toss out real diversity just because it is fantasy. All good fiction, even fantasy has a baseline of plausability in regards to things that are non-fantastic.




mhacdebhandia said:


> Let me ask you this: do you require players who want to play a blond or redheaded character in a _D&D_ analogue of medieval England to "justify" why someone with such an egregiously non-native ethnic appearance was around, or do you just accept that their ancestors showed up a couple of hundred years earlier?




In the game settings we have all used (the published ones anyway) had histories of tribal migrations and a semblance of reality regarding ethnic distributions of humans. Greyhawk, Harn, Kalamar, FR, etc. all had notes as to the distribution of various tribal groups and by default the distribution of human racial characteristics.

The exception is not the rule and it is silly for folks to try to rationalize everything through the exception to the rule. Even in blondest communities there are brunettes and vice versa. African, European and Arab lands do NOT ever "pop out" random full blooded Asians...doesn't happen unless there is a mixed ethnic reality which will lead to cultural mixing as well. I am pretty sure that the entire world isn't fantasy quasi-europe so in any ethinically mixed society we should see evidence of other CULTURES coming together and not just randomly placed europeans who just happen to have different skin colors. The cosmopolitan hubs that are sparked by cross-culteral trade are the exception and not the rules. Most nations are homogenous outside of trade capitals and great cities.

If we are going to be diverse, be diverse with some depth and not just the United Colors of Benneton aound Arthur's Round Table. Lets see the actual influence of various cultures in clothing, custom, armor, weapons, laws, etc. (just having katanas lying around isn't Asian culture) and not just non-europeans in western fantasy (faux medieval european) armor/clothing. Lets see lords in a western based society picking up customs like the harem. How about eastern meditative spiritual practices adapted and adopted by priests of Bahamut (not the monk...real clerics with that flavor). Lets see the the influence of actual cultures on the traditional D&D settings and not just the token non-european face here and there.

In my setting, where there is high degrees of mixing between human ethnicities, it isn't just black, yellow, red, and brown faces mixining with white faces, it is actual cultural realities. The exchange of customs, mores, and paradigms is what makes this mixing more than a PC tolerance exercise. This honors both a sense of believability in the settings as well as honoring real diversity.



Wyrmshadows


----------



## Incenjucar (Jul 1, 2008)

In my own fantasy setting work, I try to mix things up as best I can and make sure things make sense, while providing an identification outlet, particularly since I hope to eventually publish with it.

I have made an effort to establish distinct cultures with the non-human races as well as the various ancestries of humans, all of it being wholly non-mechanical, of course, but for humans I have four "mega-cultures," which roughly correspond to their appearance, but with a great deal of bleed-through due to migrating populations.  There are numerous cosmopolitan centers, almost to the point of being a rule once you have a full-sized city, with tribalism being stuck more with, well, tribes.  Within them, they range from small, primitive villages, to epic civilizations, from mudhuts to crystal palaces, as it were.  The four human cultures run, roughly, as follows:

Culture 1: Tan-skinned and brown-haired, with a broad range and a tendency for freckles and other interesting mottling, this culture formed from an island-hopping, boat-based lifestyle, in temperate to subtropical waters.  Their pigmentation is thus in the middle ground, because while they can get a lot of sun exposure at sea, they also have plenty of access to shady island foliage.  Their eyes are generally blue, to better handle the glaring blue of the sea.

Culture 2: Pale-skinned but quick to tan, blond but occasionally red-haired, and universally green-eyed, this culture's appearance largely results from the severity of their cultural habits -- the culture is based on a deep self-loathing for their own humanity, which generally leads them to either adopt totem animals, or to worship an ideal along the lines of immortality through petrification.  They wear masks, cover their bodies at least in paint, but cloth when they can, and the culture is largely split between jungle-dwelling hunter/gatherers, and those who dwell in stone-carved cities in which they stride around in robes, like something out of the Neverending Story.  Their bodies basically just gave up on persistent pigmentation due to the rarity of good and proper sun exposure, and the lack of effect that coloration could have on general survival.

Culture 3: Dark-skinned, dark-haired, eye color tending toward brown but having plenty of variety, this culture dominates the blazing-hot, arid planes and steppes, where horses and minerals are abundant.  As a middle finger to the historic spite of the farmer's tan in all cultures, dark skin is a mark of prestige in this culture, because it's proof that you don't spend all your days digging in the mines or covered in armor.  It's also associated with the richness of soil and general good health and prosperity, while paleness is associated with bones and death and poverty.  Their culture tends to range between ancestor worship and prestige worship, ala Ancient Greece.

Culture 4:  Pale-skinned, dark-haired, gray-eyed with that tell-tale almond shape to reduce fog glare, this culture is, quite simply, inspired by those Frazetta pictures of women holding spears while hanging out with large cats.  They dwell on a long, foggy coastal area, with their society tending to be more complex as it goes inland and uphill, to where the mists are pierced by their towers.  Their pale skin helps get in what sun is available when the fog parts, while their dark hair is vaguely useful for making them more visible in the fog, which is rather useful since their culture tends to rely on spears and halberds -- you don't want to accidentally poke someone in the back of the head.  Their culture tends to revolve around patience, due to fishing and having to walk slow carefully to keep from falling into holes, relaxation, and the arts that can survive constant moisture in the air.  Scarves of various length are a culture-wide accessory, with various patterns, and are often treated like Scottish tartan patterns, and came about due to the ancient use of netting as an extra layer of clothing for those chilly early morning fishing trips.  They also ride large cats, ala He-Man, though they have to feed them red meat to get them big enough - the all-fish diet that commoners give their cats don't get them any bigger than large dogs, leaving the battlecat cavalry in the hands of royals and the rich.  Which is just fine because jousting is nasty business on a foggy beach.

Copyright me etc.  

And, of course, if a player wants another option for appearance, guess what, daddy wore a mask and momma rode a horse and so yes you can have mocha skin and flaming red hair or whatever else.

It shouldn't be hard to pick out the references to real world cultures there, but nobody could accuse me of pigeon-holing anyone into a niche.  The whole "It's like a stereotype of the dark ages near London, but different!" thing doesn't appeal to me unless we're actually playing a game IN London.


----------



## Korgoth (Jul 1, 2008)

mmadsen said:


> Christians were captured by two methods. First, there was the seizing of ships by straightforward piracy. The ship itself became a prize along with its crew and passengers. Second, there were raids on the coasts of European countries. Spain, France, and Italy were worst affected, but the pirates sometimes ventured further afield. In 1627 they kidnapped 400 men and women from Iceland.
> 
> The victims in either case would be taken back to one of the Barbary ports — the main ones were Algiers, Tunis, and Tripoli — and sold in a slave market, by auction. They ended up either as the domestic slaves of private persons, or as slaves owned by the state, to be put to work rowing galleys, or constructing public works. The first of these two fates was usually preferable, as there was some chance of humanity from a private owner. Prof. Davis’s account of the lives of galley slaves is hard to read, and state slaves employed on public works were not much better off. There was no large-scale private-enterprise slavery as in the plantations of the Old South. The North African states had little commercial culture.
> ​




I'm already thinking of how I'm going to spend my reparations.


----------



## AtomicPope (Jul 1, 2008)

Wyrmshadows said:


> I am personally multi-racial (African American, Caucasian, and Cherokee) and I think that a decent amount of racial diversity in artwork is a good thing.
> 
> However, let me say upfront that if I am running a game in a traditionally Europeanesque Western Fantasy setting than I am going to presuppose that *most* of the NPCs are white people. In the heartlands of FR, Greyhawk, and most every fantasy setting the default is caucasian European features as the baseline.
> 
> I am ok with this because it adds versimilitude *if* one is running with the European default assumptions of the standard D&D/Western fantasy campaign.



Agree. However I'd like to point out that Greyhawk isn't a "white world." The original continent of Oerik was inhabited by the Flan (hence Flanaess) who are not white. So the common playing territory isn't a white continent. It's a shared (not really, humans don't share) continent. The Amedio jungle is populated by the Olman while the jungle island of Hepmonaland is populated by the Touv. The Free City of Greyhawk has a population of Renee wanderers (gypsies) that are unrelated to any human race on Oerth. It's also important to note that Kara Tur was stolen from GH like all of the nonhuman deities.


----------



## S'mon (Jul 1, 2008)

Wyrmshadows said:


> We both know there is a geographical and climatalogical reason for different skin colors and I see no reason to pretend that those realities aren't part of anything but the most absurd fantasies.




Well, you can use fantasy logic rather than real-world logic; like the Wilderlands' blue-skinned Avalonians with affinity to water & ice or green Viridians descended from a water god.  Maybe humans descended from the god of the day have white skin and humans descended from the god of the night have black skin.  Maybe when they interbreed their children have stripey zebra skin!  



mhacdebhandia said:


> Let me ask you this: do you require players who want to play a blond or redheaded character in a _D&D_ analogue of medieval England to "justify" why someone with such an egregiously non-native ethnic appearance was around, or do you just accept that their ancestors showed up a couple of hundred years earlier?




There are blond and red headed indigenous folk in England.  Red is more common on the Celtic fringe, blond is found throughout.


----------



## CountPopeula (Jul 1, 2008)

mmadsen said:


> Anyway, my point was not that all non-whites should be expunged from quasi-medieval fantasies, just that it would be silly to include 21st-century American demographics in such a setting.




Oh, i agree with this. My whole point is that there should be more minority characters in the foreground. Things like demographics and racial population breakdown... those are background details, they're really utterly insignificant in most cases. We can assume, if we like, that even though the artwork in the rulebooks features people who look african and asian and persian and so on, that pretty much everyone in the background is whatever color you like.

But when we're talking about the heroes, the actual stars, the people being focused on, they should be multicultural. Because they should in some way represent the audience.

I don't want to come to anyone's house and tell them that they have to have every village filled with diverse ethnicities. All I'm saying is the rulebooks should have ethnically diverse artwork if they want to attract an ethnically diverse audience.


----------



## Steely Dan (Jul 1, 2008)

I, personally, would like more hot tranny art in my D&D, especially Drow.


----------



## Ginnel (Jul 1, 2008)

S'mon said:


> Well, you can use fantasy logic rather than real-world logic; like the Wilderlands' blue-skinned Avalonians with affinity to water & ice or green Viridians descended from a water god. Maybe humans descended from the god of the day have white skin and humans descended from the god of the night have black skin.




This is what I was thinking, why the heck does a skin colour have to have a scientific reason for being where they are? people with dark skin in an artic environment their hunters use a natural flower pigment to blend in against the snow.

A pale skin race could exist in the desert and not be bothered by the excessive sun, but why the melonin!! I hear you cry, pffft tis magic or things just don't work like that 

People look like whatever you want them to look like, if your going for a campaign setting your producing you can go the whole jarring (according to our stereotypes and preconceptions see my post on page 9), dark skinned people in kimono's, who wear metal plate armor, have a Theocracy based society, and a didgeridoo style instrument is the height of musical entertainment, there is simply no way this couldn't happen 

but then again you can go for a human culture of pale skinned humans who wear plate armor, and go hunting and celebrate victorys with massive feasts, they are ruled by a Monarchy.

Both can exist, this isn't the case of one is right and the other is not.

Yet again I say there is no reason not to have racially diverse art depicted in the core rulebooks of D&D (it is a fantasy game after all), however a campaign setting can and should have its own flavour, either leaning on stereotypes or blowing conventions out of the water or somewhere inbetween


----------



## Imaro (Jul 1, 2008)

Wyrmshadows said:


> Lets not call into question the motives of those of us who prefer not to handwave differences in coloration and culture and have our fantasy cultures blended together into a homogenous brew that would actually make the entire setting, from nation to nation and place to place the same. You can go with the "gods did it" I'll go with tribal/cutural migration patterns.




I'm not going to comment on motivations, but the goalposts have been moved in this thread by certain posters.  If you want tribal/cultural migrations that's great, if another person wants to use magic... great as well.  But both justify more diverse artwork in the corebooks.  The corebooks as well as core supplements are suppose to, especially with 4e's very shallowly implied setting, a generic base upon which each individual can build their individual campaign world.  Thus, IMHO, the books should encompass a wide range of diversity to accomodate the most people.  What's even more disturbing is the fact that D&D 4e now describes not only humans as having any complexion but also most of the non-human PC races... yet again this is not reflected in the artwork.  This isn't something people are making up in their own worlds, it's suppose to be the default for the D&D PoL setting.



Wyrmshadows said:


> True but it was a very, very small number of well traveled cosmoplitan types compared to the number of people who never traveled more than a few miles from their villages. I have said in multiple posts on this thread that great trading centers would be ideal for a diverse blending of human racial/ethinic groups and customes. Outside of the centers of trade, nations were far more homogenous than not.




And then there was Greece and/or Rome, which just as much of D&D's implicit setting is based on.  In fact I feel with the numerous ancient empires that have fallen, D&D has way more in common with the ancient world now than medieval europe. 




Wyrmshadows said:


> It doesn't matter, the european references are rife throughout all of D&D fantasy. Just because there are wierd anomalies like the monk and a katana or two in the settings there is no doubt that the primary cultural assumptions of the core D&D experience is western ie. European fantasy a la Tolkien, Howard, Lieber, etc. A token weapon, class, piece of armor, etc. does real cultural blending make. There are knights, kings, dukes, western armor types, primarily western weapons (outside of those that are fantastic and even they cannot be assigned to another culture outside of the western imagination), Tolkienish elves, dwarves, orcs. There are the western folklore trolls, ogres, goblins, hobgoblins, gnomes, etc. There are of course those fantastic creatures outside the folklore of any culture and the random token critter from another land ie. the ogre mage which would have been an oni. Even the golden dragon has gotten away from the wingless oriental creature it once was.




Howard & Lieber=/= european fantasy, Lieber has peoples that encompass numerous ethnicities and in the city of Lankhmar they are all present.  In fact this seems a common trope in swords & sorcery.  EVen Howard, much as his depictions of other races was at time offensive, acknowledges they are present and mixed throughout his world.

You realize if you have enough anomalies... suddenly it's pretty hard to claim D&D is based on european fantasy.  You've glossed over the influences from Greece/Rome/Mesopotamia/Africa/Japan and China that are a part of or have been a part of the game.

I also believe some of your references are in error...you realize swords, spears, shields, etc. are not inherently trappings of europe.  Many cultures outside of europe developed these weapons and used them.  There is no "knight" class, and there are quite a few monsters, demon names, etc. that are taken from other cultures.  I think you are seeing the influences you want instead of looking at the bigger picture.  D&D isn't about any one real world culture, it has it's own culture which is a mish mash of historic and purely fantastic tropes from everywhere. 



Wyrmshadows said:


> I am not saying that D&D's western european vision is in any way accurate, but I am saying that is still strongly and primarily a western ie. european fantasy vision. This is neither good nor bad, it simply is the reality.




This is * your* reality, not the reality of D&D per say.  I've said it once and I'll say it again, D&D has more in common with pulp sword & sorcery than any real world culture.  Alot of the examples you give are universal, and not restricted to europe.  The longsword, shortsword, bow, axe, scimitar, dagger, spear, shield, villages, towns, kingdoms, dungeons, wizards, warriors, hunter/trackers, rogues, holy men, holy warriors, warrior-commanders, sorcerers who made pacts,  etc. are all found in cultures besides those in europe.  Just a quick glance through the monster manual, in which I ignored animals without a european basis and wholly made up monsters... I found quite a few based off of universal, ancient world or the mythology of other cultures...
Cyclops, Oni, Chimera, Sphinx, Rakshasa, Ghost, Ghoul, Giants, Gorgon, Harpy, Hydra, Lycanthrope, Medusa, Naga, Minotaur, Satyr, Vampire, and Zombie.  



Wyrmshadows said:


> Would anyone really want to see a reissue of Oriental Adventures of Rokugan with a bunch of white guys dressed up like shou lin monks, kensai, and samurai? Would anyone want to see the creation of an Aztek/Mayan setting made to be inhabited by Asians (I know these folks came over the land bridge from asia but you get my meaning)? Maybe you would, but I would bet that such abominations would not sell. Al Qadim was Al Qadim because it was Arabic (with some African types in the art as well because of the historic proximity of such cultures/ethnicities). I don't want the great sultan of the desert nomads to be white for the sake of diversity. If he is going to be white make it something interesting because he is an oddity.




You see the difference between a specific setting like Rokugan or a specifc sourcebook like OA... and a general game like D&D is that they try to emulate a specific real world culture... D&D disregards this by mixing and matching everything.

As far a feasability... Eberron sold and it does exactly what you claim would break most gamers emersion...Iron Kingdoms & Midnight sold and both these settings mix racial diversity without forcing a pseudo-real world culture to explain or justify themselves.  Why? Because it's fantasy, and the creators are not trying to emulate the real world, and for me that pretty much explains it.



Wyrmshadows said:


> Why can't the various racial/cultural groups be valued unto themselves in a fantasy millieu instead of being artificially and arbitrarily made to fit into western fantasy/folkloric realities. The real world had enough examples of ethnic mixing where there was trade between peoples where such interchanges were both believable and satisfying. There is no reason to toss out real diversity just because it is fantasy. All good fiction, even fantasy has a baseline of plausability in regards to things that are non-fantastic.




Why do we have to be limited by real-world examples, when a world with magic would have evolved in a totally different way?  Why would different skin tones have developed when a sorcerer or wizard could easily cast a spell to protect people from the elements?  Why wouldn't people mix more and adopt each others cultures when you have magic that can span oceans and even other planes?  With D&D 4e's preponderance for great fallen empires, teleportation circles, etc, IMHO, it seems the default would be vastly more mixing of ethnicities and cultures than what some are seeing as the "default".  You know, sorta like Rome. 





Wyrmshadows said:


> In the game settings we have all used (the published ones anyway) had histories of tribal migrations and a semblance of reality regarding ethnic distributions of humans. Greyhawk, Harn, Kalamar, FR, etc. all had notes as to the distribution of various tribal groups and by default the distribution of human racial characteristics.




And yet this diversity still wasn't reflected in the 3.x lines artwork.



Wyrmshadows said:


> The exception is not the rule and it is silly for folks to try to rationalize everything through the exception to the rule. Even in blondest communities there are brunettes and vice versa. African, European and Arab lands do NOT ever "pop out" random full blooded Asians...doesn't happen unless there is a mixed ethnic reality which will lead to cultural mixing as well. I am pretty sure that the entire world isn't fantasy quasi-europe so in any ethinically mixed society we should see evidence of other CULTURES coming together and not just randomly placed europeans who just happen to have different skin colors. The cosmopolitan hubs that are sparked by cross-culteral trade are the exception and not the rules. Most nations are homogenous outside of trade capitals and great cities.




When did "Africans", "Arabians", "Asians" and even "Europeans" become default in D&D?  I can't find a reference to any of this in the core.  And yet the default D&D 4e setting has had at least 3 great empires come and go, this, along with the exsistence of magic, in itself would lead to alot more of these "exceptions" of cultural and ethnic melding and mixtures, than what you imply.  Wars are fought, slaves are taken, people are integrated into these empires over time, and their cultural and ethnic identities merge and combine until when these empires fall you have much more diversity... they may end up in totally different places than they originally came from, and may have accepted the dominant culture of where they end up.



Wyrmshadows said:


> If we are going to be diverse, be diverse with some depth and not just the United Colors of Benneton aound Arthur's Round Table. Lets see the actual influence of various cultures in clothing, custom, armor, weapons, laws, etc. (just having katanas lying around isn't Asian culture) and not just non-europeans in western fantasy (faux medieval european) armor/clothing. Lets see lords in a western based society picking up customs like the harem. How about eastern meditative spiritual practices adapted and adopted by priests of Bahamut (not the monk...real clerics with that flavor). Lets see the the influence of actual cultures on the traditional D&D settings and not just the token non-european face here and there.




Uhm, the thread is about artwork...and I really don't see how you could get what you are asking for in the D&D corebooks.  There is no detail and specifics are left intentionally vague.  I think where the artwork comes into play is that it shapes players and GM's perceptions of how the game can and/or should be played... I mean the MM relies almost totally on artwork to spark a DM's imagination.  By including diversified artwork you pave the road for these things to appear in more specifc "campaign books" and they are accepted without people's suspension of disbelief becoming broken.  It's steps and in the corebooks the first steps woiuld've been having artwork that actually depicted the different races more in line with the variety their descriptions state.

In my setting, where there is high degrees of mixing between human ethnicities, it isn't just black, yellow, red, and brown faces mixining with white faces, it is actual cultural realities. The exchange of customs, mores, and paradigms is what makes this mixing more than a PC tolerance exercise. This honors both a sense of believability in the settings as well as honoring real diversity.



Wyrmshadows[/QUOTE]


----------



## S'mon (Jul 1, 2008)

Imaro, I was wondering if you'd be happy with 4e core rulebook art reflecting the ethnic and racial makeup of the modern USA, with ca 67% white European, 13% black African, 15% Hispanic (mostly white), and 5% east-Asian, Amerindian and other?  If I were you I'd probably prefer the art to have more than 13% of characters looking vaguely like me.


----------



## mmadsen (Jul 1, 2008)

Imaro said:


> I'm not going to comment on motivations, but the goalposts have been moved in this thread by certain posters.



Which posters moved the goal posts from where to where?


----------



## Imaro (Jul 1, 2008)

S'mon said:


> Imaro, I was wondering if you'd be happy with 4e core rulebook art reflecting the ethnic and racial makeup of the modern USA, with ca 67% white European, 13% black African, 15% Hispanic (mostly white), and 5% east-Asian, Amerindian and other?  If I were you I'd probably prefer the art to have more than 13% of characters looking vaguely like me.




You know S'mon, part of me wants to say... if it's cool artwork then it doesn't matter.  But, this sentiment breaks down when you realize there are those in R&D that don't judge by this ideal and instead work purposefully against diversity.  

IMHO, It's not even about my particular ethnic group, It's about there being * at least* enough diversity that when I show my friends, or my son ( who is half african-american and half puerto-rican) the PHB, he has something besides a white...human, dwarf, elf, eladrin or halfling that he can identify with.  I want him to first and foremost see that people like him can be heroes in the game as well.  I think that that is what D&D and rpg's in general are about, being heroes and I think when the artwork and setting are diversified it doesn't put one race on a pedestal as heroes while the others are oddities or non-existent. As an example I feel this picture would have been right at home in the PHB and IMHO, looks much cooler than Jozan.









mmadsen said:


> Which posters moved the goal posts from where to where?




I feel we started talking about diversity in artwork of the generic corebooks (which do not have a default european setting...barely have a setting at all).  Into discussions of having to justify the artwork with pseudo-real world campaign settings as well as how diverse artwork would break suspension of disbelief in very specific campaign settings, when this wasn't what was being discussed and is a whole other argument.  If I knowingly purchase a setting or game to play in historic China, no I don't expect there to be diversified artwork.  If I buy fantasy game 1 with no specific setting that draws from numerous mythologies and cultures...yeah I do.  Two totally different situations.


----------



## Desdichado (Jul 1, 2008)

I think Lockwood's comments now are certainly out of date.  I was just flipping through the cover art galleries on Wayne Reynolds page, and there's certainly plenty of racial diversity there.

The comments earlier about pairing race with culture in the same way that our world has done so; why would we even have the same races at all that our culture does?  The racial make-up of the earth is very much influenced by things that happened on earth, there's no reason to assume that humans on a completely different world would have developed the same way.

The only reason to use earth ethnicities is to promote identification for an earth audience.  Realistically, humans should have developed completely different ethnicities altogether on another world.


----------



## ShinHakkaider (Jul 1, 2008)

Imaro said:


> IMHO, It's not even about my particular ethnic group, It's about there being * at least* enough diversity that when I show my friends, or my son ( who is half african-american and half puerto-rican) the PHB, he has something besides a white...human, dwarf, elf, eladrin or halfling that he can identify with.  I want him to first and foremost see that people like him can be heroes in the game as well.  I think that that is what D&D and rpg's in general are about, being heroes and I think when the artwork and setting are diversified it doesn't put one race on a pedestal as heroes while the others are oddities or non-existent.




THIS.

I know it was a factor when I was watching the Justice League Animated Series that my son was able to see John Stewart (and later on Vixen and Mr. Terrific) as one of the heroes. That brown people CAN and ARE heroes (despite the griping of the fanboys about the choice). Also it helped that even in the background scenes there was a mix of colors and nationalities in the show. Now I know it's not fantasy, but it's something that can be replicated in a fantasy setting without too much trouble.


----------



## Imaro (Jul 1, 2008)

Hobo said:


> I think Lockwood's comments now are certainly out of date.  I was just flipping through the cover art galleries on Wayne Reynolds page, and there's certainly plenty of racial diversity there.
> 
> The comments earlier about pairing race with culture in the same way that our world has done so; why would we even have the same races at all that our culture does?  The racial make-up of the earth is very much influenced by things that happened on earth, there's no reason to assume that humans on a completely different world would have developed the same way.
> 
> The only reason to use earth ethnicities is to promote identification for an earth audience.  Realistically, humans should have developed completely different ethnicities altogether on another world.




Do you have a link?


----------



## Desdichado (Jul 1, 2008)

mhacdebhandia said:


> I don't believe the _Dungeons & Dragons_ settings published these days are or should be quasi-medieval.



  Should be, that's one thing.  Are you saying that Forgotten Realms isn't quasi-medieval?  Or Greyhawk?

Eberron, maybe you've got a point (maybe) but speaking in broad terms, that's an extremely hard statement for me to take seriously.


			
				macdaddy said:
			
		

> Let me ask you this: do you require players who want to play a blond or redheaded character in a _D&D_ analogue of medieval England to "justify" why someone with such an egregiously non-native ethnic appearance was around, or do you just accept that their ancestors showed up a couple of hundred years earlier?



Huh?  Are you seriously trying to say that blond or red-headed people didn't exist in medieval England?

Let me just clarify before I say anything, because I don't want to misconstrue you and take a lot of effort showing how absurd that is if that's not actually what you meant.


Imaro said:


> And then there was Greece and/or Rome, which just as much of D&D's implicit setting is based on.  In fact I feel with the numerous ancient empires that have fallen, D&D has way more in common with the ancient world now than medieval europe.



Are you trying to say that ancient Greeks and Romans weren't white too, though?  I mean, where are you going with this?


			
				Imaro said:
			
		

> Howard & Lieber=/= european fantasy, Lieber has peoples that encompass numerous ethnicities and in the city of Lankhmar they are all present.  In fact this seems a common trope in swords & sorcery.  EVen Howard, much as his depictions of other races was at time offensive, acknowledges they are present and mixed throughout his world.



[/QUOTE]
Howard most certainly is.  True, Conan wandered in what was the Hyborian equivalent of the Middle East and North Africa a fair amount, but the Hyborian Age map was very clearly a map of fantasy Europe, with Europe's proximate neighbors thrown in as well.

Leiber may not have been as overt, but Fafhrd was clearly a Viking-esque character too.

It's a bit much to say that pulp fantasy is non-European.  A bit _too_ much, with some vague exceptions.

I'll grant that the style of storytelling was probably more heavily influenced by the Orientalism movement and Arabian Nights type stories rather than actual European histories or sagas, at least until Tolkien came along.

I appreciate what you're saying here, but lets not get carried away and make claims that are overtly wrong to support your position.  Western fantasy is very heavily invested in European medievalism.  D&D, as an extension of western fantasy, is as well.

If anything, I think the push to make D&D illustrations more multicultural is nothing more than trying to reflect the demographics of its largest market, the US.


----------



## mmadsen (Jul 1, 2008)

Imaro said:


> IMHO, It's not even about my particular ethnic group, It's about there being *at least* enough diversity that when I show my friends, or my son ( who is half african-american and half puerto-rican) the PHB, he has something besides a white...human, dwarf, elf, eladrin or halfling that he can identify with.
> [...]
> I feel we started talking about diversity in artwork of the generic corebooks (which do not have a default european setting...barely have a setting at all).  Into discussions of having to justify the artwork with pseudo-real world campaign settings as well as how diverse artwork would break suspension of disbelief in very specific campaign settings, when this wasn't what was being discussed and is a whole other argument.  If I knowingly purchase a setting or game to play in historic China, no I don't expect there to be diversified artwork.  If I buy fantasy game 1 with no specific setting that draws from numerous mythologies and cultures...yeah I do.  Two totally different situations.



Let me clarify what I've said, because I'm not against racial diversity; I'm against "forced" diversity that doesn't fit an implied setting.

If you're playing a swords-and-sorcery style game, in the style of Robert E. Howard's Conan, you should have all kinds of diversity in races and cultures in the game world.  You have analogs to medieval French knights, English longbowmen, American Indians, sub-Saharan Africans, Mongols of the steppes, Asian Indians, etc.

What you don't have is an African-American French knight -- for Diversity.

Is it impossible to have a character from quasi-Africa come to quasi-France and serve as a knight?  No, but it's clearly improbable, and that character isn't just one of the many African-French knights in arms.  He's an outlander, like Conan, and everyone will refer to him as such, etc.  And the quasi-French countryside will not have a mix of races from around the world; it will have a few folks on the borderlands from the next closely related race over.

Another option is to create your fantasy world from whole cloth, with little or no reference to real-life historical cultures and races, like Edgar Rice Burroughs in his Barsoom stories.  The red men and the black men aren't American Indians and Africans; they're just red men and black men.  We can't conjure up an image of their clothing, culture, facial structure, speech patterns, etc. from those names, but that can be both good as well as bad.

Even in a setting like that though, I wouldn't expect a homogeneous blend of different races throughout the game world.  I would expect the red lands to be red and the black lands to be black, with a good story explaining why a region might be mixed but not blended.


----------



## eyebeams (Jul 1, 2008)

Korgoth said:


> I'm already thinking of how I'm going to spend my reparations.




This would be because you face systematic discrimination now because the social relationships in your country have been altered to your disadvantage, because you're descended from slaves, right?


----------



## Imaro (Jul 1, 2008)

Hobo said:


> Are you trying to say that ancient Greeks and Romans weren't white too, though?  I mean, where are you going with this?




There were numerous ethnicitiies that were a part of the Roman empire, served in the legions, etc.  My point was that Greece and Rome were hodgepodges of ethnicities and it would not be unrealistic to have a black in roman armor or a toga and with roman weapons...  You've taken my statement out of context.  



Hobo said:


> Howard most certainly is.  True, Conan wandered in what was the Hyborian equivalent of the Middle East and North Africa a fair amount, but the Hyborian Age map was very clearly a map of fantasy Europe, with Europe's proximate neighbors thrown in as well.
> 
> Leiber may not have been as overt, but Fafhrd was clearly a Viking-esque character too.
> 
> It's a bit much to say that pulp fantasy is non-European.  A bit _too_ much, with some vague exceptions.




I said it wasn't medieval european based, again you are twisting what I said... if anything S&S has more in common with the ancient world than medieval europe.



Hobo said:


> I'll grant that the style of storytelling was probably more heavily influenced by the Orientalism movement and Arabian Nights type stories rather than actual European histories or sagas, at least until Tolkien came along.
> 
> I appreciate what you're saying here, but lets not get carried away and make claims that are overtly wrong to support your position.  Western fantasy is very heavily invested in *European medievalism*.  D&D, as an extension of western fantasy, is as well.




I love how here you again switch to using "European Medievalism"  yet above it's not what you use to argue your point.  And again claiming "western fantasy" is based on european medievalism does not jibe with the tropes of sword & sorcery...no knights, no advanced armor, jousting, etc.



Hobo said:


> If anything, I think the push to make D&D illustrations more multicultural is nothing more than trying to reflect the demographics of its largest market, the US.




This statement makes no sense.  Seriously I don't understand what you are saying here...


----------



## Cadfan (Jul 1, 2008)

> If you're playing a swords-and-sorcery style game, in the style of Robert E. Howard's Conan, you should have all kinds of diversity in races and cultures in the game world. You have analogs to medieval French knights, English longbowmen, American Indians, sub-Saharan Africans, Mongols of the steppes, Asian Indians, etc.



Why does everything have to be analogs?


----------



## hamishspence (Jul 1, 2008)

*probably cos thats what many authors do.*

Warhammer is one of the worst for making analogs: hard to find a race that isn't drawing heavily on mythology or geography or both.

Lizardmen: very Central American themes
Bretonnians: France/Arthurian myth
High Elves: Atlantis

Skaven are probably the furthest from anything familiar

Faerun does the same, many of the races are analogs:
Illuskans: Scandinavians
Mulan: Ancient Egypt/Sumer
Shou: "Oriental"

fantasy that avoids overdoing the parallels is to be commended.


----------



## ShinHakkaider (Jul 1, 2008)

Cadfan said:


> Why does everything have to be analogs?




I don't know I just...

I dont have these issues when I run my games. 

When I play in games I play characters that resemble me. I don't worry about why my PC has brown skin and the next PC doesnt. If we WANT to delve into that we just do. But apparently I've been doing it wrong. 

Some of the posts especially MMadsen's last one comes across like if you're playing a fantasy RPG if you're not white you HAVE to justify your existence in the game. If the game were a simulation of Europe I'd whole heartedly agree with him. But at least to me, it's NOT. I shouldnt have to justify my PC's existance in a fantasy world if my white / asian counterparts dont have to. And to suggest the other extreme is just as strange: Black Men , Red Men? WTF? Seriously? I get the examples that he was citing but that's the extreme that I should go to so that I can play a character or want to play a character that looks like me?


----------



## Desdichado (Jul 1, 2008)

Imaro said:


> There were numerous ethnicitiies that were a part of the Roman empire, served in the legions, etc.  My point was that Greece and Rome were hodgepodges of ethnicities and it would not be unrealistic to have a black in roman armor or a toga and with roman weapons...  You've taken my statement out of context.



No, I haven't.  You've made a statement that, while true, doesn't really encompass reality very well.  The romans were multicultural, true, but in artwork, you or I'd be hard pressed to tell a Roman citizen of a Roman, Illyrian, Anatolian, Thracian, Gaulish or British background.  The romans did have some light presence in North Africa and Egypt was a province for a time, and the border between the Parthian or Persian empires and Rome shifted from time to time, but you _imply_ a kind of anything goes approach to the roman empire that wasn't true.  An actual sub-saharan black man or far eastern Asian from China or Tibet or wherever would have been _extremely_ exotic in Rome.


			
				Imaro said:
			
		

> I said it wasn't medieval european based, again you are twisting what I said... if anything S&S has more in common with the ancient world than medieval europe.



I am not "twisting" what you said, I'm disagreeing with what you said.


			
				Imaro said:
			
		

> I love how here you again switch to using "European Medievalism"  yet above it's not what you use to argue your point.  And again claiming "western fantasy" is based on european medievalism does not jibe with the tropes of sword & sorcery...no knights, no advanced armor, jousting, etc.



This part of your post has no content.  I'm switching positions?  Using something else to argue my point?  Perhaps you'd be kind enough to specifically point out where I've done so.  Specifically.

Also, you'd be well served by not mistaking the very end of the Medieval Period with the entirety of the Medieval Period.  Just because D&D doesn't resemble France in the 1400s  or _La Morte d'Arthur_ doesn't mean that it isn't medieval.  The medieval period started with the fall of Rome.  Most of the medieval period also didn't have knights, advanced armor, jousting, etc.


			
				Imaro said:
			
		

> This statement makes no sense.  Seriously I don't understand what you are saying here...



I don't know why not.  There's nothing nonsensical about it, and I don't know how to say it any more clearly.


----------



## mmadsen (Jul 1, 2008)

Cadfan said:


> Why does everything have to be analogs?



Perhaps you should read the whole post.

Everything doesn't have to be analogs, but if you're going to use analogs, you should probably be consistent; otherwise there's not much point.

If you want to eschew real-world races and cultures entirely, that's perfectly fine -- but you're also giving up the obvious thematic resonance of a land like Arthur's England, etc.

It's when you go half-way in between that things get silly -- a quasi-medieval English countryside with modern London demographics.


----------



## Afrodyte (Jul 1, 2008)

ShinHakkaider said:


> When I play in games I play characters that resemble me. I don't worry about why my PC has brown skin and the next PC doesn't. If we WANT to delve into that we just do. But apparently I've been doing it wrong.
> 
> Some of the posts especially MMadsen's last one comes across like if you're playing a fantasy RPG if you're not white you HAVE to justify your existence in the game. If the game were a simulation of Europe I'd whole heartedly agree with him. But at least to me, it's NOT. I shouldn't have to justify my PC's existence in a fantasy world if my White/Asian counterparts don't have to. And to suggest the other extreme is just as strange: Black Men, Red Men? WTF? Seriously? I get the examples that he was citing but that's the extreme that I should go to so that I can play a character or want to play a character that looks like me?




Precisely.


----------



## Wyrmshadows (Jul 1, 2008)

*Analogues can be both a good and a bad thing*



Cadfan said:


> Why does everything have to be analogs?




Regarding the use of analogues.

Historical and cultural analogues are useful and even somewhat necessary because most fantasy settings are earth-like and we as earthlings relate easily to those things with historical precedent. These things are part of our shared consciousness and therefore carry a certain resonance of "reality" with them.

One can create a setting that has no or very, very few analogues such as Tekumel, Jorune (sp?) or Dark Sun but then you have cultures and peoples that can be too alien for most gamers to grasp. Dark Sun, though limited in its analogues certainly had analogues of meso-america, ancient greece, africa, etc. in various city states. Draj had elements of Greece, Nibenay those of Africa, Gulg possessed elements of Aztec culture. This isn't a slam against the setting, I loved it. I am just pointing out the analogues.

If one wants to create a setting without analogues then one is going to have to create new types of social structures, weapons, armors, customs, etc. in other words, like Tekumel, a totally reimagined world of humans. A lack of analogues isn't an excuse for laziness. _"I don't have analogues so I'l just slap peoples and customes together randomly"_ which is what I fear would happen to most settings if analogues weren't used. This isn't because their creators aren't creative, its because most aren't historians or anthropologists with the knowledge needed to create cultures that do not draw upon earth's rich history and cultural landscape.

Well done analogues can bring a setting to life, badly done analogues seem cheap and artificial. Its all in how its done.



Wyrmshadows


----------



## Imaro (Jul 1, 2008)

Wyrmshadows said:


> Regarding the use of analogues.
> 
> Historical and cultural analogues are useful and even somewhat necessary because most fantasy settings are earth-like and we as earthlings relate easily to those things with historical precedent. These things are part of our shared consciousness and therefore carry a certain resonance of "reality" with them.
> 
> ...




And yet Dark Sun, even with these analogs felt no need to define skin color by them.  Another thing about "historic analogs" is they can be used as justification for exclusion or minimization.  Analogs are just that, analogs... not historical recreations.  Exalted has analogs and easily incorporates differing ethnicities, Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms, Eberron, etc.  all have reasons for diversity within their settings.

What's hillarious to me is people keep pulling out a need for justification... well it's there in the campaign settings and in the description of the races in the corebooks, so why is a pseudo real world analogy necessary for it to appear in the artwork?  I haven't seen anyone address this issue who keeps talking of justification and it'll shatter the simulation of psedo-europe that D&D strives so hard to emulate .


----------



## Cadfan (Jul 1, 2008)

I just disagree with reasoning that appears to go:

1. D&D has a default imaginary world which includes farming villages with roughly medieval European levels of technology, feudal system governance, and mostly medieval European weapons.
2. Therefore, black people don't fit because they weren't in real medieval Europe.

Its _not_ real medieval Europe.  Its a magical fantasy land.  If you can't imagine a magical fantasy land in which black people live in European style medieval villages, that's _your_ problem.

http://wen-m.deviantart.com/art/Anima-no-9-54164471

If that piece of art breaks your ability to believe in or enjoy a setting, or if you look at it and demand to know how a native American-looking dude ended up wearing those clothes or holding that weapon, seriously, _you have problems._


----------



## mmadsen (Jul 1, 2008)

ShinHakkaider said:


> Some of the posts especially MMadsen's last one comes across like if you're playing a fantasy RPG if you're not white you HAVE to justify your existence in the game.



I feel like you're reading in a lot of things I didn't write.

I will say, yes, if you want to play an African knight of Gondor or rider of Rohan, that takes some explaining.

If you're playing in a game world with kingdoms whose rulers live in castles, with walls covered in tapestries, and who ride out on war horses while clad in mail and carrying lances, etc., that is thematically medieval Europe, and I see nothing wrong with populating that land entirely with white people.  I don't think it's racist or insensitive.

I also see nothing wrong with a made-up world with made-up races and cultures that don't closely resemble medieval Europe, etc.  It gives up the resonance of Arthur's England or Tolkien's Middle Earth, but it works in its own way.  You don't have to follow ERB's model of red men, black men, etc.; that's just a clear way of saying that the races involved don't correspond to real-world races and cultures.

Again though, if you go half-way and present a place like Arthur's England, but with a rainbow of different races from Imperial Britain's many colonies, that's jarring; it's "forced".


----------



## eyebeams (Jul 1, 2008)

mmadsen said:


> Perhaps you should read the whole post.
> 
> Everything doesn't have to be analogs, but if you're going to use analogs, you should probably be consistent; otherwise there's not much point.




If you are consistent, there's not much point in an analogue without Christianity, either. The inventiveness required to make something medieval Europe-like appear without it is at least equal to the inventiveness required to tweak demographics.



> If you want to eschew real-world races and cultures entirely, that's perfectly fine -- but you're also giving up the obvious thematic resonance of a land like Arthur's England, etc.




That'd be the place where legends have less-pale knights, right? I mean, can anybody cite a passage in a single Arthurian legend where the ethnic demographics of the peasantry mattered at all to the story? You lose way more Arthuriana without Christianity then without Dark Ages English peasant demographics.



> It's when you go half-way in between that things get silly -- a quasi-medieval English countryside with modern London demographics.




By this standard, it's equally silly without Jesus, the Normans and wars over France. There is apparently a huge amount of "silliness" people are willing to accept. Drawing the line at ethnicity is a distasteful bias.



Steely Dan said:


> I, personally, would like more hot tranny art in my D&D, especially Drow.




If the drow are like many other cultures with strong gender-based role segregation, it would in fact be entirely plausible to have people routinely adopt gender roles different from their physical sex, and for there to be formal traditions around doing so. It happens all the time.


----------



## Wyrmshadows (Jul 1, 2008)

Imaro said:


> And yet Dark Sun, even with these analogs felt no need to define skin color by them. Another thing about "historic analogs" is they can be used as justification for exclusion or minimization. Analogs are just that, analogs... not historical recreations. Exalted has analogs and easily incorporates differing ethnicities, Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms, Eberron, etc. all have reasons for diversity within their settings.




No, no, no.

Don't even begin to claim that those who, like myself, desire a little versimilitude want to exclude or minimize anyone or anything. That, if I may say so, is crap. If someone were to look at the history of Athas, I would assume that different human groups became blended together in the great wars that rocked the planet many year before. I am sure that the peoples of Gulg came from somewhere other than those of Draj, Tyr and Nibenay. These groups become ethnically and culturally blended in a way that makes sense. They weren't merely arbirary add ons to the pseudo-europe that is traditional western fantasy. Athas worked preceisely because it wasn't traditional and cannot be used as an argument against my point.

Traditional western fantasy is an analogue of a medieval pseudo-european world...not of a single european nation, but of a broad fictionalized europe the same way Al Qadim was a broad fictionalized analogue of the middle east. Non traditional worlds don't have analogues and therefore can do as they wish.




> What's hillarious to me is people keep pulling out a need for justification... well it's there in the campaign settings and in the description of the races in the corebooks, so why is a pseudo real world analogy necessary for it to appear in the artwork? I haven't seen anyone address this issue who keeps talking of justification and it'll shatter the simulation of psedo-europe that D&D strives so hard to emulate .




In the core books, I am all in favor of non-euro ethnic types in western gear for the sake of the demographics of the audience (asians in plate mail, africans in Gandalf's robes, etc.) *I know there are no asians and africans but I prefer these terms to just speaking in terms of skin color because some would be offended.

In settings that do have specific cultural/ethnic realities I want to see the art reflect those realities. In a book on northern barbarians, I expect to see a bunch of armor clad, axe weilding white guys and I feel the same regarding any such regional artwork.


Wyrmshadows


----------



## mmadsen (Jul 1, 2008)

eyebeams said:


> If you are consistent, there's not much point in an analogue without Christianity, either. The inventiveness required to make something medieval Europe-like appear without it is at least equal to the inventiveness required to tweak demographics.



The Arthurian tales go from pagan tales of great warriors to Christian tales of pious knights, but, sure, you'd want a "knights in shining armor" setting to involve _pious_ knights who fight in the name of a merciful god.  That has always been the point of the D&D paladin -- although I'll agree that the polytheistic setting assumptions don't work well with it.


eyebeams said:


> I mean, can anybody cite a passage in a single Arthurian legend where the ethnic demographics of the peasantry mattered at all to the story?



What could anyone conceivably provide you that would satisfy you on that point?  Seriously.  Of course the peasant demographics aren't mentioned in any story, because everyone knows the peasants are dirty, white farmers.

If we injected some black sharecroppers into an Arthurian tale, they would be laughably out of place.


eyebeams said:


> By this standard, it's equally silly without Jesus, the Normans and wars over France.



We'll have to agree to disagree on this.



Imaro said:


> Another thing about "historic analogs" is they can be used as justification for exclusion or minimization.



I hope you realize how insulting that is.  Playing in, say, a "white" Middle Earth is just an excuse for exclusion or minimization?

Who are these sinister people whose primary agenda in producing an RPG setting is to exclude and minimize other races?  And why do these same people often enjoy playing non-white characters in games set in non-white settings?


----------



## Imaro (Jul 1, 2008)

Wyrmshadows said:


> No, no, no.
> 
> Don't even begin to claim that those who, like myself, desire a little versimilitude want to exclude or minimize anyone or anything. That, if I may say so, is crap. If someone were to look at the history of Athas, I would assume that different human groups became blended together in the great wars that rocked the planet many year before. I am sure that the peoples of Gulg came from somewhere other than those of Draj, Tyr and Nibenay. These groups become ethnically and culturally blended in a way that makes sense. They weren't merely arbirary add ons to the pseudo-europe that is traditional western fantasy. Athas worked preceisely because it wasn't traditional and cannot be used as an argument against my point.
> 
> ...




First Wyrmshadow, my above comment wasn't directed at you but a comment on how these types of things (like minimization) can be justified with arguments of verisimilitude even when we're talking about fantasy that isn't based in those tropes, like D&D.

I mean the hardest thing I'm having trouble grasping is those using the "it's not realistic to medieval europe" argument... especially since by the descriptions in the 4e book it isn't medieval europe and the difference in skin color is for the default (and in fact most campaign settings) of D&D very much justified.  I am not talking about a person's individual homebrew...I am talking default D&D, so again I ask why would diversified art break peoples suspension of disbelief * in the D&D corebooks or generic supplements *


----------



## Wyrmshadows (Jul 1, 2008)

eyebeams said:


> If you are consistent, there's not much point in an analogue without Christianity, either. The inventiveness required to make something medieval Europe-like appear without it is at least equal to the inventiveness required to tweak demographics.




Religion is not a genetic reality the way racial variance is. Racial/ethnic variance is dependant on climate and geography while religion, Christianity is a case in point, can transcend its origins and through cultural pressures become a more universal spiritual expression. 

Any religion can take root anywhere depending on the times and social climate.  



> That'd be the place where legends have less-pale knights, right? I mean, can anybody cite a passage in a single Arthurian legend where the ethnic demographics of the peasantry mattered at all to the story? You lose way more Arthuriana without Christianity then without Dark Ages English peasant demographics.




Much of the basic socio economic realities of the medieval period would have exsited even if Christianity didn't. It isn't Christianity per se, but the medieval church and its value system that matters. Any fantasy religion with similar values could be hot swapped with Christianity with similar resuts.



> By this standard, it's equally silly without Jesus, the Normans and wars over France. There is apparently a huge amount of "silliness" people are willing to accept. Drawing the line at ethnicity is a distasteful bias.




We are taking about analogues...not recreating historical events. Actually discussions of ethnicity/race have much more to do with fundamental issues of anthropology than with history because humans are assumed to be humans no matter what the setting...the histories are different, but the nature of humanity generally stays the same.



Wyrmshadows


----------



## Cadfan (Jul 1, 2008)

> If we injected some black sharecroppers into an Arthurian tale, they would be laughably out of place.



No one is disagreeing with this per se.  We're disagreeing with your insistence upon declaring generic Dungeons and Dragons to be inextricably Arthurian, and then using that to justify whitewashing a fantasy world.

It is sad that _even in an imaginary world_, this guy is just too much for people to handle.


----------



## ShinHakkaider (Jul 1, 2008)

mmadsen said:


> I feel like you're reading in a lot of things I didn't write.



Okay.

ME: Some of the posts especially MMadsen's last one comes across like if you're playing a fantasy RPG if you're not white you HAVE to justify your existence in the game.

YOU:


mmadsen said:


> I will say, yes, if you want to play an African knight of Gondor or rider of Rohan, that takes some explaining.





ME:Some of the posts especially MMadsen's last one comes across like if you're playing a fantasy RPG if you're not white you HAVE to justify your existence in the game.

YOU:


mmadsen said:


> If you're playing in a game world with kingdoms whose rulers live in castles, with walls covered in tapestries, and who ride out on war horses while clad in mail and carrying lances, etc., that is thematically medieval Europe, and I see nothing wrong with populating that land entirely with white people.  I don't think it's racist or insensitive.




NOTE: Thematically medieval Europe. Not actually medieval Europe. Either way you've pretty much said that it's a world that would be closed off to my character. 

ME:Some of the posts especially MMadsen's last one comes across like if you're playing a fantasy RPG if you're not white you HAVE to justify your existence in the game.

YOU: Bolded for Emphasis.


mmadsen said:


> I also see nothing wrong with a made-up world with *made-up races* and cultures that don't closely resemble medieval Europe, etc.  It gives up the resonance of Arthur's England or Tolkien's Middle Earth, but it works in its own way.  You don't have to follow ERB's model of red men, black men, etc.; that's just a clear way of saying that the races involved don't correspond to *real-world races* and cultures.




So if I want to play a character that looks like me, it's better off that he's a made up race and not a real world race? Gotcha.

ME:Some of the posts especially MMadsen's last one comes across like if you're playing a fantasy RPG if you're not white you HAVE to justify your existence in the game.

YOU:


mmadsen said:


> Again though, if you go half-way and present a place like Arthur's England, but with a rainbow of different races from Imperial Britain's many colonies, that's jarring; it's "forced".




I dont see how am I misunderstanding your point. 

I'd like to play a character who looks like me in a D&D fantasy RPG. You've said repeatedly that my character would seem forced in anything that would resemble "Arthur's England" or "medieval Europe". So by your own admission if the world that my character is in is close to those two, his existence needs to be justified or his existence in these worlds are "forced".


----------



## Cadfan (Jul 1, 2008)

Wyrmshadows said:


> Religion is not a genetic reality the way racial variance is. Racial/ethnic variance is dependant on climate and geography while religion, Christianity is a case in point, can transcend its origins and through cultural pressures become a more universal spiritual expression.
> 
> Any religion can take root anywhere depending on the times and social climate.



Of course religion isn't a genetic reality.  You know what else isn't a genetic reality?  The correspondence between plate armor and lances with caucasian skin.


----------



## mmadsen (Jul 1, 2008)

Cadfan said:


> We're disagreeing with your insistence upon declaring generic Dungeons and Dragons to be inextricably Arthurian...



I have explicitly said the opposite: I will say, yes, if you want to play an African knight of Gondor or rider of Rohan, that takes some explaining.

If you're playing in a game world with kingdoms whose rulers live in castles, with walls covered in tapestries, and who ride out on war horses while clad in mail and carrying lances, etc., that is thematically medieval Europe, and I see nothing wrong with populating that land entirely with white people. I don't think it's racist or insensitive.

I also see nothing wrong with a made-up world with made-up races and cultures that don't closely resemble medieval Europe, etc. It gives up the resonance of Arthur's England or Tolkien's Middle Earth, but it works in its own way. You don't have to follow ERB's model of red men, black men, etc.; that's just a clear way of saying that the races involved don't correspond to real-world races and cultures.

Again though, if you go half-way and present a place like Arthur's England, but with a rainbow of different races from Imperial Britain's many colonies, that's jarring; it's "forced".​


Cadfan said:


> It is sad that _even in an imaginary world_, this guy is just too much for people to handle.



Too much to handle?  The character just doesn't fit.  If you want to create a fantasy world where sub-Saharan African blacks wear plate armor in the style of medieval French or English knights, go right ahead, but it's obviously jarring -- and it's presumably _intended to be_.


----------



## ShinHakkaider (Jul 1, 2008)

mmadsen said:


> I hope you realize how insulting that is.  Playing in, say, a "white" Middle Earth is just an excuse for exclusion or minimization?




I dont know about anyone else here but I'M not talking about playing in Middle Earth OR Arthurian legend. I'm asking you why is it a problem for someone like me to play someone that looks like me in a fantasy RPG setting?

And according to you, it IS a problem.



mmadsen said:


> Who are these sinister people whose primary agenda in producing an RPG setting is to exclude and minimize other races?  And why do these same people often enjoy playing non-white characters in games set in non-white settings?




There's no conspiracy. It's just thoughtlessness and maybe perhaps laziness. I'm mean it's fairly obvious if you go to a con that RPG's a white man's hobby and that there are few brown faces at these things. That still doesnt mean that those of us who ARE in the hobby don't appreciate it when we see representations of ourselves in these RPG books. 

And it doesn't mean that we don't get annoyed when we are told that we cant really be part of a fantasy world without justifying our existence IN that world because of our skin color.


----------



## Barastrondo (Jul 1, 2008)

ShinHakkaider said:


> I'd like to play a character who looks like me in a D&D fantasy RPG. You've said repeatedly that my character would seem forced in anything that would resemble "Arthur's England" or "medieval Europe". So by your own admission if the world that my character is in is close to those two, his existence needs to be justified or his existence in these worlds are "forced".




I think rather it comes down to whether or not you think that D&D implies, by default, a pastiche of medieval European culture (only with pantheism and gender equity and extra cultures). Some people do, and some people don't. I'm firmly in the "don't" camp, but for people who cut their teeth on Arthur and Tolkien, they may see a much stronger connection than is necessarily present. 

From what I see of 4e art, there's not too much that says "medieval Europe." The armor and weapons have been deliberately stylized to look more like D&D than history. The architecture is high fantasy, all over the place. You could build Arthur with the warlord class, but you could also build Zhuge Liang. They even use Al-Qadim-esque examples right in the DMG for sample worldbuilding and adventure design. Hence, i gotta think that the European model is a matter of personal taste, not some sort of fact about "how modern fantasy works."


----------



## Wyrmshadows (Jul 1, 2008)

Cadfan said:


> Of course religion isn't a genetic reality. You know what else isn't a genetic reality? The correspondence between plate armor and lances with caucasian skin.




Of course there isn't a genetic reality to plate mail armor but their is a climatalogical and geographic reality to clothing, armor, customs, values, etc. These climatic and geographic realities create the various differences in human types as well as strongly influences the cultures which they create.

There is a reason that historically caucasians created plate armor and there is a reason that desert peoples wouldn't wear plate mail, it would be deadly. The kinds of wepons, clothing, etc. a culture creates, as I am sure you know, is based on necessity as well.

I am all for diversity, just not a handwaved superficial diversity that goes along the lines of "Well its fantasy, so it doesn't matter." I want to see real diversity in traditional D&D were asian doesn't just mean a katana and middle eastern influence isn't just in regards to tossing some djinn around and calling it a day. What I would like to see is an asian-type warrior wearing western armor (because the climate allows it) but add some asian flair to it in regards to regalia and ornamentation and maybe think in somewhat different terms so the character isn't merely another traditional faux-european D&D character who happens to look faux-asian. Plus, in a traditional D&D setting this guy would be exotic...and what is wrong with that exactly?



Wyrmshadows


----------



## eyebeams (Jul 1, 2008)

mmadsen said:


> The Arthurian tales go from pagan tales of great warriors to Christian tales of pious knights, but, sure, you'd want a "knights in shining armor" setting to involve _pious_ knights who fight in the name of a merciful god.  That has always been the point of the D&D paladin -- although I'll agree that the polytheistic setting assumptions don't work well with it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## mmadsen (Jul 1, 2008)

ShinHakkaider said:


> I dont see how am I misunderstanding your point.



I do.  You are definitely reading in a lot of things I didn't write.


ShinHakkaider said:


> I'd like to play a character who looks like me in a D&D fantasy RPG.



Then do so.

My point is that a black sub-Saharan African does not naturally fit into a quasi-European setting.  A fair-haired Nordic European does not naturally fit into a quasi-African setting.  Neither fits into a quasi-Japanese setting.

If you want to play a racially black sub-Saharan African without it being jarring, you want a fantasy setting without obvious racial expectations approximating Europe, the Middle East, Asia, or the Americas (before global travel).

Or you need a good story for why an exotic foreigner would be in a land so far from home.


----------



## Wyrmshadows (Jul 1, 2008)

Imaro said:


> First Wyrmshadow, my above comment wasn't directed at you but a comment on how these types of things (like minimization) can be justified with arguments of verisimilitude even when we're talking about fantasy that isn't based in those tropes, like D&D.




But so much of the art of D&D and western fantasy is certainly of a european type that I don't know how one can claim that there isn't a link between D&D and the tropes of western ie. european fantasy. The fantasy that D&D is based on is of a european bent such as that of Tolkien, Arthur, Beowulf, folklore and various American and european fantasy authors.



> I mean the hardest thing I'm having trouble grasping is those using the "it's not realistic to medieval europe" argument... especially since by the descriptions in the 4e book it isn't medieval europe and the difference in skin color is for the default (and in fact most campaign settings) of D&D very much justified. I am not talking about a person's individual homebrew...I am talking default D&D, so again I ask why would diversified art break peoples suspension of disbelief *in the D&D corebooks or generic supplements *




I think that you are right about 4e because the implied setting is so vague as to be nearly non-existant in regards to the distribution of human racial/ethnic groups. Cool with me and fitting for the core books. However, I still want the art to represent diversity in culture as well as skin tone. If there are to be analogues let them be believable, if analogues aren't assumed then the cultures should be different enough to see to it that human racial diversity looks like more than a marketing decision and something based on the internal consistancy of the implied setting if such a thing as internal consistancy can even be applied to something as vague as the POL "setting."


Wyrmshadows


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 1, 2008)

Nice pix there, eyebeams!


----------



## Imaro (Jul 1, 2008)

mmadsen said:


> I hope you realize how insulting that is.  Playing in, say, a "white" Middle Earth is just an excuse for exclusion or minimization?
> 
> Who are these sinister people whose primary agenda in producing an RPG setting is to exclude and minimize other races?  And why do these same people often enjoy playing non-white characters in games set in non-white settings?




Huh?  So me saying it *can* be used for minimization (which in many forms of media it has been) is the same as me saying it was used that way in someone who wanted to play in an all-white Middle Earth?  Remember earlier when we talked about switching goalposts and twisting words?

Well I don't know about sinister people but the original post was started because one of 3e's original artists came out and said R&D at WotC pushed for less diversity intentionally.  What does playing a non-white character in a non-white setting have to do with it?  if anything,  It speaks to the ironic nature of people who would play one of these "non-white settings "... (your words, not mine) but then have a fit because there being mixed in a, by default, mixed setting.


----------



## mmadsen (Jul 1, 2008)

eyebeams said:


> It's a good thing actual medieval Europeans were more openminded: [...] That's St. Maurice, head of the Theban legion, as he was represented in the Middle Ages. They didn't have a problem with him wearing their armour.



You clearly haven't been reading what I've been writing.  There's nothing wrong with an exotic foreigner from a faraway land in European garb -- but he's an exotic foreigner.


----------



## Barastrondo (Jul 1, 2008)

Wyrmshadows said:


> Of course there isn't a genetic reality to plate mail armor but their is a climatalogical and geographic reality to clothing, armor, customs, values, etc. These climatic and geographic realities create the various differences in human types as well as strongly influences the cultures which they create.
> 
> There is a reason that historically caucasians created plate armor and there is a reason that desert peoples wouldn't wear plate mail, it would be deadly. The kinds of wepons, clothing, etc. a culture creates, as I am sure you know, is based on necessity as well.




On the other hand, cataphracts. Persia is a pretty warm place, and they had heavily armored cavalry. And if people are forging heavy armor for adventurers to go into the cool, shady depths of a dungeon or ruin, why wouldn't cultures closer to the equator equip their delvers in such a fashion?


----------



## Wyrmshadows (Jul 1, 2008)

eyebeams said:


> It's a good thing actual medieval Europeans were more openminded:
> 
> [imagel]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/5f/Saint_maurice.jpg[/imagel]
> 
> ...




Again, are we really claiming the exception...the very rare exception, is used as default assumption regarding the realities of the medieval period in regards to race/ethnicity.

The fact is that most of the folks in europe during the dark ages and medieval period were ignorant and illiterate and would believe the most outlandish things about foreigners. It is believed by many historians that creatures like ogres weaved themselves into folklore not merely from vivid imagination but from european misconceptions regarding non-europeans.

I am not glorifying it in any way, but the european middle/dark ages were rife with supersition, ignorance and xenophobia of a degree that even most of the grittiest fantasy settings cannot emulate because they would be too disturbing to modern sensibilities.


Wyrmshadows


----------



## Seonaid (Jul 1, 2008)

Wyrmshadows said:


> Lets see lords in a western based society picking up customs like the harem. How about eastern meditative spiritual practices adapted and adopted by priests of Bahamut (not the monk...real clerics with that flavor).



This would be really cool, and I agree. I'm sure that people are doing this, and splatbooks are doing this. The point is that the GENERIC core books should not impress anything upon their audience. The original question was about artwork in the core books, which are designed specifically to be generic.







Imaro said:


> You see the difference between a specific setting like Rokugan or a specifc sourcebook like OA... and a general game like D&D is that they try to emulate a specific real world culture... D&D disregards this by mixing and matching everything.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...



Quoted because it bears repeating.







Imaro said:


> If I knowingly purchase a setting or game to play in historic China, no I don't expect there to be diversified artwork.  If I buy fantasy game 1 with no specific setting that draws from numerous mythologies and cultures...yeah I do.  Two totally different situations.



Again, quoted because it bears repeating and is something with which I agree.







Hobo said:


> The only reason to use earth ethnicities is to promote identification for an earth audience.  Realistically, humans should have developed completely different ethnicities altogether on another world.



Agreed.







ShinHakkaider said:


> I don't worry about why my PC has brown skin and the next PC doesnt.



And I don't think most people do (I'm not arguing against you, just jumping off from your post). But what some people don't seem to get is that this isn't about individual campaigns and players and groups, but generic core artwork depicting a wide range of things. Ask yourself: Is a single dark-skinned character in plate mail and a shield more, less or equally jarring than that character paired with a light-skinned character in druid's garb (and I know that druids are gone, at least temporarily)? If the answer is "less," then there's an issue, in my eyes.







mmadsen said:


> If you're playing in a game world with kingdoms whose rulers live in castles, with walls covered in tapestries, and who ride out on war horses while clad in mail and carrying lances, etc., that is thematically medieval Europe, and I see nothing wrong with populating that land entirely with white people.



What if said world had kingdoms exactly as you described, but populated (almost) entirely by dark-skinned people? Is that problematic?







Cadfan said:


> It is sad that _even in an imaginary world_, this guy is just too much for people to handle.



You know, if this is really what it comes down to, then I give up. Because I think that is damn cool and wouldn't bat an eye at something like that. I think that if I were in a group and someone said to me, "No, you can't play a black knight," I'd get up and walk out unless they had a DAMN good reason (like, no one had ever been dark-skinned in the history of the universe of that game--and even then I'd question it).







Barastrondo said:


> I think rather it comes down to whether or not you think that D&D implies, by default, a pastiche of medieval European culture (only with pantheism and gender equity and extra cultures).



And whatever persons X, Y, and Z think, D&D SHOULDN'T imply medieval European culture. That's not only good business sense, but it also represents the product more properly.







Wyrmshadows said:


> What I would like to see is an asian-type warrior wearing western armor (because the climate allows it) but add some asian flair to it in regards to regalia and ornamentation and maybe think in somewhat different terms so the character isn't merely another traditional faux-european D&D character who happens to look faux-asian.



What exactly does "asian flair" mean, in D&D?


----------



## Wyrmshadows (Jul 1, 2008)

Barastrondo said:


> On the other hand, cataphracts. Persia is a pretty warm place, and they had heavily armored cavalry. And if people are forging heavy armor for adventurers to go into the cool, shady depths of a dungeon or ruin, why wouldn't cultures closer to the equator equip their delvers in such a fashion?




That might work. There is no reason delvers going into cooler climes couldn't wear heavier armors for protection. I am just arguing against a setting wide cultural/ethnic homogeny that exists outside the exceptions like you point out. And about the Persians, I am not against "plate mail" for non-european analogue cultures, but in cases like this one couldn certainly see the difference between the Persia plate and French plate.


Wyrmshadows


----------



## eyebeams (Jul 1, 2008)

mmadsen said:


> You clearly haven't been reading what I've been writing.  There's nothing wrong with an exotic foreigner from a faraway land in European garb -- but he's an exotic foreigner.




St. Maurice wasn't considered an exotic foreigner. He's dressed that way because the convention was to dress militant saints in arms from the artist's period. He was the commander of a Roman Legion. His appearance comes from the fact that he's been assumed to be of that ethnicity from at least the 12 Century onward. At times, he's been portrayed with a different appearance but once again, actual Europeans did not consider skin color a feature that needed to be literally represented for most of the medieval period.


----------



## mmadsen (Jul 1, 2008)

Imaro said:


> What does playing a non-white character in a non-white setting have to do with it?  if anything,  It speaks to the ironic nature of people who would play one of these "non-white settings "... (your words, not mine) but then have a fit because there being mixed in a, by default, mixed setting.



I have no idea what you mean by this.

My point was that I sincerely doubt any sinister motives -- or even unconscious bias -- on the part of game designers and artists when they create a setting with a medieval European theme.  These same people happily play in games set in mythical China or Japan -- and they don't clamor to play white ninja, as far as I know.


----------



## Leontodon (Jul 1, 2008)

*Flavour*

I think whats annoying to many is that there is a cultural blurring in characters like african-looking knights. If we turn a society, which still has peasants, guilds and other european medieval stuff, into a modern multi-cultural society by changing the demographics it appears odd and forced. in medieval europe there were very sharb ethnical cleavages. A southern french was very different from a northern french, scots still had tribal societies, ... you get the idea. IMO you cant take medieval social structure and then eliminate all the underlying conditions.

 I think its better (and honors the culture of other civilizations more) when we keep looking after, lets say some kind of african fighter who fits in. There are RW examples like the knights of Makuria (modern day Ethiopia). They were christian, clad in mail and black. They fill the role of a honourable mounted fighter without looking ... forced. And I could perfectly imganie some kind of knights templar travelling with Makurian knights and fighting alongside them. 

A white guy in samurai armor looks wrong as does a black guy in a Merlin outfit or a japanese dressed as Dartagnan.


----------



## Barastrondo (Jul 1, 2008)

Wyrmshadows said:


> That might work. There is no reason delvers going into cooler climes couldn't wear heavier armors for protection. I am just arguing against a setting wide cultural/ethnic homogeny that exists outside the exceptions like you point out.




The thing is, it's D&D: are they exceptions? Because from what I understand, we don't know. 

Black man in plate mail. Some people say "That's jarring," because they envision plate mail as a sign that he's from a European-analogue culture. Others say, "Hm, interesting," and posit that he's from a Parthian-analogue culture that advanced their armor tech further. Still others don't even think in terms of analogues: they wonder about the culture only if it gets brought up in play, or they go with thoroughly ahistorical ideas like magocracies and Parliaments of Fire and things like that.

To me, the idea of having multiple ethnicities in D&D art is not establishing one particular setting — it's implying a very loose, freeform setting that can be interpreted or rewritten however you want. Maybe the black guy in plate is the outsider in this picture. Maybe the Caucasian elf is. We don't know. But it's left up to us to decide, because that's the basic premise of the game: you build the setting you like, one brick at a time. Maybe you start with a particular preference or baggage — but I still maintain that "D&D as quasi-European" is a personal preference, not something enforced or even all that implied by the game.


----------



## eyebeams (Jul 1, 2008)

Wyrmshadows said:


> Again, are we really claiming the exception...the very rare exception, is used as default assumption regarding the realities of the medieval period in regards to race/ethnicity.




The reality is that medieval types did not think of race the way we do and did not pay much attention to it. Nationality and religion was far more important. These things are *far* more important to the period than skin tone distribution. If you play fast and loose with those, any pretenses to authenticity are false.



> The fact is that most of the folks in europe during the dark ages and medieval period were ignorant and illiterate and would believe the most outlandish things about foreigners. It is believed by many historians that creatures like ogres weaved themselves into folklore not merely from vivid imagination but from european misconceptions regarding non-europeans.




The real St. Maurice dressed in totally different, utterly Western armor, being a Roman commander and all. The point, however, is that people actually *living* in the period are apparently more openminded than some of us. This suggests to me a massive screwed up fantasy fandom.



> I am not glorifying it in any way, but the european middle/dark ages were rife with supersition, ignorance and xenophobia of a degree that even most of the grittiest fantasy settings cannot emulate because they would be too disturbing to modern sensibilities.




Their xenophobia really didn't have much to do with ethnicity as we understand it.


----------



## Imaro (Jul 1, 2008)

mmadsen said:


> I have no idea what you mean by this.
> 
> My point was that I sincerely doubt any sinister motives -- or even unconscious bias -- on the part of game designers and artists when they create a setting with a medieval European theme.  These same people happily play in games set in mythical China or Japan -- and they don't clamor to play white ninja, as far as I know.




Uhm...my contention didn't start off about designers or artists...in fact if you read the original post, the artist at WotC was pushing for more diversity and R&D basically didn't want it.  And again read my post about specific vs. kitchen sink settings.  D&D =/= specific setting...even the artists and I assume designers realize this.


----------



## Leontodon (Jul 1, 2008)

eyebeams said:


> mmadsen said:
> 
> 
> > The Arthurian tales go from pagan tales of great warriors to Christian tales of pious knights, but, sure, you'd want a "knights in shining armor" setting to involve _pious_ knights who fight in the name of a merciful god.  That has always been the point of the D&D paladin -- although I'll agree that the polytheistic setting assumptions don't work well with it.
> ...


----------



## Lurks-no-More (Jul 1, 2008)

eyebeams said:


> Their xenophobia really didn't have much to do with ethnicity as we understand it.




If I'm not mistaken, the "modern" racism and emphasis on skin color etc. started only with the Age of Exploration, and the colonialism that followed.


----------



## MrApothecary (Jul 1, 2008)

While D&D doesn't have to be in a pseudo-European setting, but if in an individual campaign it _is,_ then anyone who wants to play a black character should probably be a foreigner. Or unless they is part of a migrant ethnic group, like the Roma (Gypsies) that originally come from India. They shouldn't have ancestry indigenous to a pseudo-European climate, because dark skin doesn't make any sense as an adaption there.

Which is why the Drow have always annoyed me. They should be pale as snow. I could say they use if for camoflouge in the shadows, but they have white hair that would render it moot.


----------



## The Little Raven (Jul 1, 2008)

Lurks-no-More said:


> If I'm not mistaken, the "modern" racism and emphasis on skin color etc. started only with the Age of Exploration, and the colonialism that followed.




I dunno, I found Pope Urban II's speech to incite the Crusades to be chock full of the elements of modern racism. Deus vult, and all that.


----------



## Wyrmshadows (Jul 1, 2008)

Leontodon said:


> The work takes great delight in describing the color of this brother as mixed, with white and black patches.
> 
> So racial diversity was not known in Europe at that time.




LOL patches.

Indicates that the writer never met a mixed race individual as would be expected. There was a medieval travalogue, I forget its name, that describes men of the east as having mouths in their stomachs for Christ's sake and apparently such a bizarre detail was believable to the niave populace of the medieval/dark ages.

That was the way it was bacause outside of trading hubs and cosmopolitan capital cities of expansive empire the common man/woman had no contact with those outside of their own kind. 


Wyrmshadows


----------



## Celebrim (Jul 1, 2008)

eyebeams said:


> The reality is that medieval types did not think of race the way we do and did not pay much attention to it. Nationality and religion was far more important.




Errr.. much of the reason that a medieval person would not think of race in the way we do is that its virtually impossible to separate the concepts of race, nationality, and religion in a medieval text.  The medievals or ancients wouldn't have spoken of a race, but of a nation with the assumption that the members of that nation were of a single common ethnic origin.  Similarly, they could understand religious conversion to be an individual and national event in a way that we simply don't. 

For all practical purposes, this is still playing out in Europe, as it seems every different historic ethnic group wants to carve out its own sovereign nation.

Skin color in medieval Europe plays a small role in defining nationality and ethnicity in no small part because the average medieval would have encountered such a small range of skin tones.  A 'swarthy' skinned person could have meant almost anything including north africans that we today would tend to lump together with 'white'.  St. Maurice has a black face for much the same reason that he's wearing high medieval armor - the artist has very little conception of what St. Maurice might have looked like.  As evidence, witness the various items passed off as relics of or associated with St. Maurice that are obviously of medieval origin - and not even what we'd call 'forgeries' since they make no attempt to look like 3rd century weapons.   St. Maurice has a black face solely because he's associated with Africa.  It's not meant to protray his actual skin tone, even if the artist had some idea what a 3rd century Egyptian woudl have looked like, but to simply convey 'African' to the viewer of the icon.



> The real St. Maurice dressed in totally different, utterly Western armor, being a Roman commander and all. The point, however, is that people actually *living* in the period are apparently more openminded than some of us. This suggests to me a massive screwed up fantasy fandom.




I think you are far more charitable with medievals for far less cause than you are with other people in this thread.  I love the medieval period, and there are all sorts of misconceptions about it especially in portraying its people as stupid, dirty, etc.  However, I know of no particular evidence that they were any different in thier racial intolerance than anywhere else.

The real St. Maurice, if such a person existed, did not leave enough evidence behind for us to know how he dressed.  If he really was from a Roman Legion drawn from North Africa, he probably used a style of armor appropriate to that (now largely vanished) culture.  That might have been scale mail or chain mail or who knows.  But even then, we can't really be sure because Roman carvings representing soldiers often seems to show the Legions in a sterotyped manner not intended to represent actual appearance but to convey simple ideas in much the same manner as the Catholic icons.  We can't know what the Theban legion looked like, nor can we know if it was uniform in appearance.

I don't think anyone here would object overly to fantasy to unique heroes with an exotic origin in some alien cultures, whether that alien culture be Drow Elves or Saracen inspired African/Persian kingdom.  Nor do I think anyone would object to a well realized cosmopolitan setting where different racial groups live side by side.

But the notion that these are inherent to historical D&D and not merely potentials rarely realized and certainly rarely emphasized is not I think very supportable.  For one thing, if this were the case, it would not have been necessary to have analogue non-European settings like Kara-Tur and most of the map of the Forgotten Realms.  There aren't analogue northern European settings because the core setting has always been primarily European in conception and execution.   Even Eberron's core setting is to a certain extent industrial age Europe.

The point is that there is a vast difference between taking ideas for a variaty of cultures and integrating them into a campaign world, and superficially painting in a few non-white heroes solely for the sake of them appearing non-white to satisfy some self-appointed commisars of what is political correct.  The former is interesting.  The latter is neither interesting nor as respectful to anyone as it would like to pretend to be.   

It is rather annoying that there is a double standard that a European centered fantasy setting is exclusive, but that Kara-Tur or Nyambe is not.



> It's a problem with cultural attitudes that is deeply ingrained and needs to be corrected with *analysis*. Remember: This thread is actually about commercial representation -- or was before all the conceptual teleportation that's been invoked to keep alive the limp, sputtering flame of monoethnic ideas. Careful analysis should be *expected* of WotC, and we should **demand* an ethical, inclusive position*, rather than one that simply panders to bias. This bias is a problem, but it's important to remember that it is almost never the result of malice. It's a culturally ingrained reflex.



 - emphasis added

Speaking of biases and culturally ingrained reflexes...


----------



## Wyrmshadows (Jul 1, 2008)

Leontodon said:


> eyebeams said:
> 
> 
> > Well your right that medieval europeans had no problems with other races, but they were not used to it and found the appearance of others very interesting. If you read the story of parcifal you will come across a part were he meets his brother. The brother is of mixed origin because parcifals father slept with a moor princess. The work takes great delight in describing the color of this brother as mixed, with white and black patches.
> ...


----------



## Seonaid (Jul 1, 2008)

Celebrim said:


> For one thing, if this were the case, it would not have been necessary to have analogue non-European settings like Kara-Tur and most of the map of the Forgotten Realms.  There aren't analogue northern European settings because the core setting has always been primarily European in conception and execution.



I would argue that there aren't analogue northern European settings because the majority of the consumer base will not need those to be fleshed out. How many average American Joes know enough about east or south Asia to portray it (even unfaithfully*!)? Compare that to how many average American Joes can portray "medieval Europe."

*I'm not talking about knowing the differences between the Chinese empires, I'm talking about knowing enough to have some sort of "realism" (even if that realism is based on stereotype--as much of popular knowledge about "medieval times" is).


----------



## Imaro (Jul 1, 2008)

Celebrim said:


> Celebrim said:
> 
> 
> > The point is that there is a vast difference between taking ideas for a variaty of cultures and integrating them into a campaign world, and superficially painting in a few non-white heroes solely for the sake of them appearing non-white to satisfy some self-appointed commisars of what is political correct.  The former is interesting.  The latter is neither interesting nor as respectful to anyone as it would like to pretend to be.
> ...


----------



## eyebeams (Jul 1, 2008)

Celebrim said:


> Errr.. much of the reason that a medieval person would not think of race in the way we do is that its virtually impossible to separate the concepts of race, nationality, and religion in a medieval text.  The medievals or ancients wouldn't have spoken of a race, but of a nation with the assumption that the members of that nation were of a single common ethnic origin.




No. Clerical history is particularly illustrative of this. One of the primary figures in the Christianization of the British Isles was from Africa. Between the Church and European presence/colonization in the Levant, this assumption . . . is not a great assumption.



> Skin color in medieval Europe plays a small role in defining nationality and ethnicity in no small part because the average medieval would have encountered such a small range of skin tones.  A 'swarthy' skinned person could have meant almost anything including north africans that we today would tend to lump together with 'white'.  St. Maurice has a black face for much the same reason that he's wearing high medieval armor - the artist has very little conception of what St. Maurice might have looked like.  As evidence, witness the various items passed off as relics of or associated with St. Maurice that are obviously of medieval origin - and not even what we'd call 'forgeries' since they make no attempt to look like 3rd century weapons.   St. Maurice has a black face solely because he's associated with Africa.  It's not meant to protray his actual skin tone, even if the artist had some idea what a 3rd century Egyptian woudl have looked like, but to simply convey 'African' to the viewer of the icon.




Maurice's name can be translated as "the moor." Furthermore,  his representation in art as I've shown actually precedes illustrations where he has a local ethnicity. But yes, your statements have merit -- and are kind of my point.



> I think you are far more charitable with medievals for far less cause than you are with other people in this thread.  I love the medieval period, and there are all sorts of misconceptions about it especially in portraying its people as stupid, dirty, etc.  However, I know of no particular evidence that they were any different in thier racial intolerance than anywhere else.




The evidence is in the statements you yourself have made. The categorization that pervades modern public life did not exist. This doesn't mean they weren't mean folks, but they were mean about different things.



> The real St. Maurice, if such a person existed, did not leave enough evidence behind for us to know how he dressed.  If he really was from a Roman Legion drawn from North Africa, he probably used a style of armor appropriate to that (now largely vanished) culture.  That might have been scale mail or chain mail or who knows.  But even then, we can't really be sure because Roman carvings representing soldiers often seems to show the Legions in a sterotyped manner not intended to represent actual appearance but to convey simple ideas in much the same manner as the Catholic icons.  We can't know what the Theban legion looked like, nor can we know if it was uniform in appearance.




The point is that Europeans from the period were able to apply their imagination to being a figure they admired into a relevant place for them, despite the fact that this person didn't look like them.



> But the notion that these are inherent to historical D&D and not merely potentials rarely realized and certainly rarely emphasized is not I think very supportable.




What the hell is "historical D&D?" If you mean assumed D&D settings, the second fantasy setting ever (Greyhawk) is multi-ethnic, cosmopolitan and largely nonwhite.



> For one thing, if this were the case, it would not have been necessary to have analogue non-European settings like Kara-Tur and most of the map of the Forgotten Realms.  There aren't analogue northern European settings because the core setting has always been primarily European in conception and execution.




No, it's been American. It was the private work of a bunch of white Americans. It is now a template for creative work by thousands of people with widely different backgrounds. It should evolve accordingly.

As for the Realms, the parts of it that were stapled on post-hoc, including Kara-Tur, are pretty obvious outsider fantasies of exotic cultures, because that sells to people's desires for these. The existence of these does not make the Realms quasi-Europe. The Realms is a fantasy parody of Eastern Ontario with a mix of pulp ad fantasy ideas from all over the place. I actually live in the geographic inspiration for the Dales.



> The point is that there is a vast difference between taking ideas for a variaty of cultures and integrating them into a campaign world, and superficially painting in a few non-white heroes solely for the sake of them appearing non-white to satisfy some self-appointed commisars of what is political correct.  The former is interesting.  The latter is neither interesting nor as respectful to anyone as it would like to pretend to be.




Why is it a choice between a choice between whiteness and "superficial" diversity? It's an absurd, false choice that cannot find traction in history, fantasy or even the evolution of D&D -- and make no mistake, even *after* all of that, the right position is to say "screw it" and be diverse no matter what. It's a meta-fail.



> It is rather annoying that there is a double standard that a European centered fantasy setting is exclusive, but that Kara-Tur or Nyambe is not.




There's no double standard for me. Kara-Tur was dumb because it was rigidly pseudohistorical in a way other D&D settings are not. I have no idea about Nyambe.



> Speaking of biases and culturally ingrained reflexes...




Inclusivity really is superior. Fantasy gaming has no special exception to the rule that pervades every other aspect of public life.


----------



## S'mon (Jul 1, 2008)

Imaro said:


> My point was that Greece and Rome were hodgepodges of ethnicities and it would not be unrealistic to have a black in roman armor or a toga and with roman weapons...




Although they'd almost certainly be Nilo-Saharan Ethiopians or Nubians/Sudanese, not Bantu-speakers from west Africa.  They'd look a lot more like Barack Obama than Morgan Freeman.

Talking of Bantu speakers, I think a fantasy version of the Bantu expansion and conquest of Africa would make for a cool setting.  The lack of written records make it one of the great unsung stories of human history; but the genetic evidence shows that ca 500 AD a small group of people in West Africa began an expansion that would last a thousand years and conquer a vast continent.


----------



## WayneLigon (Jul 1, 2008)

Wyrmshadows said:


> LOL patches.
> 
> Indicates that the writer never met a mixed race individual as would be expected.




Or the person in question suffered from vitiligo. It's a skin disorder that destroys or changes the pigmentation in patches. In blacks it's really noticable since it gives them large patches of pale white skin.


----------



## Wyrmshadows (Jul 1, 2008)

WayneLigon said:


> Or the person in question suffered from vitiligo. It's a skin disorder that destroys or changes the pigmentation in patches. In blacks it's really noticable since it gives them large patches of pale white skin.




I thought about that, but considering the fact that mixed race individuals would be exceedingly rare at the time and that medieval/dark age people were rather credulous and superstitious...I went with the option I did.


Wyrmshadows


----------



## mmadsen (Jul 1, 2008)

Imaro said:


> You know I'd really like some examples of diversity and integration that came about naturally and through everyone just accepting it... especially in the U.S.



I don't think we should veer off into explicitly political terrain, but I will say that many, many Americans are descended from people who belonged to despised minorities when they first arrived in the US -- only we don't even think of them as minorities now.  They didn't demand integration; they simply integrated.


Imaro said:


> As minorities I think there comes a realization that in order to diversify institutions, media, or whatever you have to start small.



I don't even begin to see a noble cause in bringing Diversity to imaginary lands ruled by knights in shining armor.


Imaro said:


> D&D has set it's own precedence for what is default and people are just asking that it better represent this through it's artwork.



I don't think anyone's objected to having humans of various shapes and colors each living _somewhere_ in a fantasy world.  What they've objected to is the notion of a 21st-century multicultural society spread across an entire fantasy world.  That feels really, really forced.



eyebeams said:


> Why is it a choice between whiteness and "superficial" diversity?



It seems pretty straightforward really.  If each society is composed of a mix of races who are no different from one another except in superficial ways, then that is _superficial diversity_.  Some Gondorian knights just happen to be black under such a system.  It doesn't matter to anyone though.


eyebeams said:


> Inclusivity really is superior. Fantasy gaming has no special exception to the rule that pervades every other aspect of public life.



Wow.  The ideology is thick.


----------



## Imaro (Jul 1, 2008)

mmadsen said:


> I don't think we should veer off into explicitly political terrain, but I will say that many, many Americans are descended from people who belonged to despised minorities when they first arrived in the US -- only we don't even think of them as minorities now.  They didn't demand integration; they simply integrated.




This is so absurd I'm going to leave it alone.



mmadsen said:


> I don't even begin to see a noble cause in bringing Diversity to imaginary lands ruled by knights in shining armor.




Please stop doing this, where do I mention "noble causes"  Was getting on tv really all that "noble"?  No, but it was still a good thing.  Why are you again assigning intent to what I said I made no statements quantifying how noble something was.



mmadsen said:


> I don't think anyone's objected to having humans of various shapes and colors each living _somewhere_ in a fantasy world.  What they've objected to is the notion of a 21st-century multicultural society spread across an entire fantasy world.  That feels really, really forced.




I'm sorry, so are you saying, it's ok if a dark-skinned character is represented in D&D artwork... as long as he has dark-skinned peoples weapons, and dark-skinned peoples clothing, and a dark-skinned peoples background.  Give me a break.  The multitude of skin colors is default...plate mail armor is default  in default D&D they can go together.


----------



## Barastrondo (Jul 1, 2008)

mmadsen said:


> I don't think anyone's objected to having humans of various shapes and colors each living _somewhere_ in a fantasy world.  What they've objected to is the notion of a 21st-century multicultural society spread across an entire fantasy world.  That feels really, really forced.




Surely you see, though, why it seems a bit... prickly to be told "Nobody objects to humans of your skin color living _somewhere_ in the world, it just seems forced for them to be accepted and commonplace _here_"? 

Though the use of the term "21st-century" does bring up one question: Just how many centuries of trade and travel have been going on in the "assumed" D&D world? Most I've been exposed to have had at least as many millennia of past history as our own world has, if not more, just to rationalize a decent number of elven generations. It seems perfectly logical to have lots of cultures interacting — which, again, makes the itch for Eurocentricism really seem far more like a personal choice than some sort of underlying assumption of how the game works.


----------



## S'mon (Jul 1, 2008)

Cadfan said:


> It is sad that _even in an imaginary world_, this guy is just too much for people to handle.




Mmm, this looks just like how I imagined Lord Than, the father of my Midnight-setting Sarcosan PC Zana Than, to look.

In fact, y'know, I think I've changed my mind.  I came into this argument kinda anti-Diversity - "They're stealing my Tolkien!" - but I think I've changed my mind.  Just make sure the art for the non-white PCs looks cool, as cool as the art for the white ones.


----------



## el-remmen (Jul 1, 2008)

Well, I think this thread has run its course, and is treading into political/social ground far beyond art in D&D books, and as fascinating as I find the topic, I feel that I should close it before it becomes something ugly as opposed to the (generally) polite and productive discussion it was.

Peace.


----------

