The Campaign Builder's Guild

When it comes to skin color in setting, you often don't see a lot of variance. Mostly, the main peoples of the setting are white and those far far away are black or dark-skinned.
The reason for this is probably simply that most setting makers are caucasian, but it still seems a bit lacking. Personally, I'd like to add some color to my setting, but the question is where?
Traditionally, black skin develops in tropical regions, but supposedly black-skinned migrants can keep the color if they live off fish and other food sources rich in vitamin D (or that is what wikipedia tells me...), and since it directly depends on UV radiation it might also develop/stay in mountaineous regions.
Also, there is that inevitable question of culture. Many revert to the black-skinned being tribal. I actually don't think this has much to do with racism, but rather is a result of both tribalism and black skin being associated with the distant and the exotic. So is this the way to do it? Why aren't there more powerful black-skinned empires?  

So what are your thougts on this? How have you implemented skin color in your own setting? When does the inclusion of skin color in a certain culture or climate region conflict with suspension of disbelief?

and for good order, a disclaimer: if this in any way seems racially insensitive (I sincerely hope it's difficult to interpret it that way), then I apologize.  

Interesting topic CC. I don't think anthropologists consider themselves racist when they discuss the distribution of racial qualities across the world.

  I really can't say I ever really thought about it. I think of Robert E. Howard and his work on Conan's world. He used names for people and places that naturally conjured an aesthetic, granted it was a drastically different time for society in the 20's and 30's, but he was definately on to something when he used names like Vanahem and Asgard to bring to mind fair skinned peoples, with a distinct barbarian/nordic quality.
   Likewise, mysterious names like Vendhya, and Khitai bring to mind distant lands (when using the west as a point of reference).
   Not to mention blatant use of Zembabwei in some of his southern (predominantly black) kingdoms. Probably a poor example, given the racial tension of the times. Actually I think the reason nobody ever brings it up is precisely for that reason.

  Then again one would hope that creators such as ourselves would have the maturity to pursue racial diversity in a setting, breaking the norms (i.e. your tribal example) and stereotypes.
 
   

In my own work I have rarely described the skin tones of humans. I think this leaves it somewhat open to interpretation. As to how I imagine their pigmentation myself, I will say I rarely imagine them as being black or east-asian people, but similarly they are rarely exactly caucasian as such. I suppose I tend to think of the human inhabitants of my settings as being essentially members of a kind of "fantasy" human race which is, perhaps obviously, neither European, African, or Asian but may share some qualities with peoples originating in all three.
The exception would be when my cultures are to a greater or lesser degree based on real-world analogues, such as in my current Iron Heroes game, where I will imagine the people to be of roughly the same racial type as their real-world analogues - so the Severians, for example, are roughly Mediterranean in appearance, while the barbarian peoples of the further north look more Germanic/Scandinavian/slightly Slavic.

Interesting post! I tried to mitigate this in my setting by tying skin color to different things besides UV radiation and worldly location, such as magic, or perhaps moons. It's a little "out there," but it generally made me exempt from my players claims that I never mentioned there being any dark skinned people in my setting, to which I responded "But I never described any of them as light skinned either!" In that sense, I can relate with Kindling in that I rarely describe the skin colors of the people around my players... but I can attribute that more to my own laziness rather than actually intending for it to remain universally "open to interpretation."

I think it would be refreshing to see a setting that actually brought this to the front burner and worked with it, especially if it was ever inverted: perhaps light skinned people were, for whatever reason, the more stereotypical tribal types, and dark skinned people were chalked up to being more "modernized" and whatnot. For me, having the dark skinned people remain as the typical "foreigner" was always easy, since I could easily mention the skin color and my players would leap to that conclusion without further analysis (all the more reason to really flip their lids with an introversion on the trope!). I don't think that makes me or anyone else racist or anything, we're probably just a little too comfortable within the stereotype or unintentionally naive to it.

Quote from: Cataclysmic CrowAlso, there is that inevitable question of culture. Many revert to the black-skinned being tribal. I actually don't think this has much to do with racism, but rather is a result of both tribalism and black skin being associated with the distant and the exotic. So is this the way to do it? Why aren't there more powerful black-skinned empires?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cb/Egyptian_races.jpg[/img]

One kingdom aside from the Egyptians in North Africa was the Kush, made up of the aforementioned Nubians, located just south of Egypt on the Nile.  We don't actually know much about them, and most of what we do know is through Egyptian.  But this is clear, they were in a constant back-and-forth with the early Egyptian kings, being conquered for a time, gaining independence, and later conquering Egypt, with territory running from modern-day Ethiopia to modern-day Jordan, and left behind a distinct style of pyramid.

Now on to the other parts of Africa, which few people know about.  As a quick note, the Sahara Desert at the end of the last Ice Age was actually a fertile valley.  In West Africa, you might recognize the name of a city: Timbuktu.  It was a city in the Mali Empire, and rivaled Alexandria as a seat of knowledge and learning.  The Mali Empire would later become the Songhai Empire.  Eventually, after ruling a large portion of West Africa, it fractured due to civil wars in to numerous small kingdoms, which were later swallowed up by the European rush to colonize Africa.

East and South Africa were never heavily civilized into kingdoms or empires, but did have many city-states.  East Africa was renowned as a trading location, especially between the Persian Gulf and India (and further areas East).  South Africa was marked with the expansion of the Bantu people, who brought agriculture from Central Africa, and their descendants founded the Kingdom of Zimbabwe in the Iron Age, and the much later Zulu Kingdom, which is well-known for its struggle against the British Empire's attempt to colonize Southern Africa (and to push the existing Dutch settlers out).

Quote from: Cataclysmic CrowSo what are your thougts on this? How have you implemented skin color in your own setting? When does the inclusion of skin color in a certain culture or climate region conflict with suspension of disbelief?

Basically, I have it line up to climate.  I like using stuff from anthropology and biology when I make a setting.  I do not, however, line it up with culture; the only relation there is our perceptions from the real world, many of which are less than optimal.

I generally assume a middling skin tone - not white, but also not very dark - unless there's a good reason to say otherwise.

Great post, limetom. That is all :)

In a lot of fantasy and sci-fi settings, various sentient species (elves, dwarves, aliens, whatever) can make a handy stand-in for race, in that they allow us to examine themes of xenophobia, prejudice, etc. while keeping contentious real-world issues comfortably at arms' length.

This is important, because it's clear that even in fiction, race issues are volatile when handled incautiously-- consider the recent Resident Evil (I think?) videogame, about putting down a voodoo zombie uprising in Haiti (I think?), and how many people read that in terms of "heroic white protagonist guns down scores of shambling black enemies".

Anybody remember Kingdoms of Kalamar? (Anybody? Is it just me?) This was a standard D&D setting, human-centric, detail-focused. It had a handful of different human subraces which were obviously direct analogues to real-world human ethnicities-- the Mediterranean dudes, the African dudes, etc. I don't remember whether there was a stat difference involved in picking one over another (but ugh, I think there was), but it made me more than a little uncomfortable!

But how would you react to, e.g., black-skinned people in mountaineous or arctic regions?

I have a slightly related question here (hope I don't derail this). What are people's thoughts on alternative skin pigmentation (reds, greens, blues, etc)?

For humans or for other races?
I've always been more interested in nonhuman races, so just applying colors to "humans" would seem trivial and unoriginal to me (even slightly annoying; what's up with the Pathfinder gnomes?!). (orcs are in this case considered unhuman to me).
On other races it doesn't bother me.

Quote from: SarisaI really can't say I ever really thought about it. I think of Robert E. Howard and his work on Conan's world.
[...]
   Not to mention blatant use of Zembabwei in some of his southern (predominantly black) kingdoms.

Nothing blatant about it. Howard himself defined Conan's world as being our world in a past, forgotten era some 10,000+ years ago. Memories of words and names from that age were supposed to have carried over to languages of later times.

Anyway, if you want to find racism in REH's setting, forget about the names and look at the plots and characterization in the stories. *cough*TheValeofLostWomen*cough*

Quote from: The_Weave05I think it would be refreshing to see a setting that actually brought this to the front burner and worked with it, especially if it was ever inverted: perhaps light skinned people were, for whatever reason, the more stereotypical tribal types, and dark skinned people were chalked up to being more "modernized" and whatnot.

In the Earthsea books by Ursula K. Le Guin most of the civilized peoples are dark or somewhat dark-skinned, while the white-skinned blond-haired Kargs are nasty barbarians.

Quote from: Cataclysmic Crowhow would you react to, e.g., black-skinned people in mountaineous or arctic regions?

I'd ask for some explanation (could be supernatural such as "the god(s) created them and put them there", or something natural such as "they migrated there fairly recently"), seeing as it clearly contrasts with how human evolution reacted to sunlight conditions on Earth. Less so in the case of mountaineous regions, though - I really don't see how living up on the mountains would influence skin tone much. I'd expect tropical mountain-dwellers to be as dark-skinned as tropical lowlanders.

Quote from: Cataclysmic CrowFor humans or for other races?
I've always been more interested in nonhuman races, so just applying colors to "humans" would seem trivial and unoriginal to me (even slightly annoying; what's up with the Pathfinder gnomes?!). (orcs are in this case considered unhuman to me).
On other races it doesn't bother me.

Other races, reason I ask is I do it blatantly in Mare Eternus. The only race that has human skin tone is the Nicu. All the others are pigmented differently (Maeri = blue, Gerrag = green, Aerlin = white, Tilei = brown/tan/green).

I'd say at that point it may become questionable whether those people truly are humans, or something else that you've decided to label as humans.

I guess it could work. I know I would have no problem with a fantasy setting where a peculiar "race" of humans had some minor, yet obviously unnatural features, such as four-fingered hands, or webbed feet, while being considered by other humans as no more weird nor distinctive than those with a different color of skin from their own.

It really depends on the underlying philosophy of the setting; on how humanity (and the distinction of species from one another in general) is defined/approached. The more "scientific" the world-view is, the more difficult it is to deviate from real world norms without jeopardizing the feel of the setting.

Quote from: GhostmanI'd say at that point it may become questionable whether those people truly are humans, or something else that you've decided to label as humans.

I guess it could work. I know I would have no problem with a fantasy setting where a peculiar "race" of humans had some minor, yet obviously unnatural features, such as four-fingered hands, or webbed feet, while being considered by other humans as no more weird nor distinctive than those with a different color of skin from their own.

It really depends on the underlying philosophy of the setting; on how humanity (and the distinction of species from one another in general) is defined/approached. The more "scientific" the world-view is, the more difficult it is to deviate from real world norms without jeopardizing the feel of the setting.

Was this a response to my post? Because Mare Eternus doesn't have humans.

Going by what we know of anthropology and science and what have you would be the best way to go about it IMO.

Normally, I tend to just gloss over it. That being said, most people in my settings tend to look somewhat mediterranean (no idea why).