Gender and Sexuality in Golarion

Imaculata said:

Gender only plays a role in my setting in regards to flavor and world building. How one culture views the role of the sexes may differ from another.

For example, I have a culture of pirates in my homebrew setting that worships women as gods (-or being in close connection to the gods). This means female characters are treated very differently by this culture, and it also means that male characters must be mindful to be very respectful towards women when dealing with them. It has been fun watching the players interact with unknown cultures, and adapting to their peculiar beliefs and rules.

Click to expand...

Now see, this is the approach that I personally find interesting. One of my favorite parts of gaming lies in attaching setting information to mechanics. It's weird to think of a character's gender as a game mechanic, but consider the character sheet. One of the first things you jot down when rolling up a new dude is a ♀, ♂, , right at the top. Having a society in the game that actually reacts to that decision feels more interesting than the Azeroth approach (though I'm still grateful that they at least took the time to make a statement and acknowledge the choice).

Paizo's lashunta are particularly interesting for me. In Pathfinder, these guys were strictly regimented by biological sex, which includes in-game mechanics:

https://www.d20pfsrd.com/races/other-races/more-races/advanced-races-11-20-rp/lashunta-11-rp/

In the thousands-of-years-later setting of Starfinder, either biological sex can choose either set of bonuses:

http://www.starjammersrd.com/races/lashuntas/

That implies some interesting setting changes over the course of centuries, and in my book makes for a richer game world.

Fauchard1520 said:

[FONT=&]but here's the big question for my fellow pathfinders: How do you deal with gender and sexuality at your table? Do you downplay it? Make it a major setting detail? Try to ignore it? Is it even something you think about when you play?
[/FONT]

Click to expand...

(shrugs) It depends upon the group & the stories we're telling for that particular campaign.

Pauper said:

I am quoting you verbatim. You said:

"I also don't think it is nearly as relevant as some people think it is, as I don't think whether or not the only differences between the genders are cosmetic matters much."

Click to expand...

No, you are quoting me out of context.

The follow-on phrase makes it clear that the 'it' you are referring to is the original poster's quote about the only game differences between genders being cosmetic.

Click to expand...

No, the antecedent of the pronoun is logically and properly in the prior sentence, so that I said was, "I also don't think [whether the difference between the two genders in real life is purely cosmetic] is nearly as relevant as some people think it is, as I don't think whether or not the only differences between the genders are cosmetic [in real life] matters much." You can't just attach a pronoun willy-nilly to whatever you think it applies to. Further, if you quote the remainder of the paragraph you'll see that I'm supporting the above thesis with my points, and not the crap you are trying to attribute to me.

Further, you are now back peddling, since your first statement regarding what I said is not the same as your second statement regarding what I said. Both assertions are inaccurate, but they are also not equal to each other.

I actually didn't say very much at all about presentation of gender, or what I thought of mechanics around gender, although the fact that I wrapped up my statements about real life by saying, "Unlike an RPG, in the real world the value of a person is not based on the number of points on their character sheet.", does in fact suggest that I think that there is at least one basis for stating that RPG's logically don't and maybe even shouldn't try to emulate the real gender differences - whether or not you think those gender differences are real.

In any event, I could continue Fisking all your unreason, sentence by sentence, but given that I've just overthrown the entire basis of your argument, I don't see why I have to and I'm disinclined to give you more time anyway. There are a few points I want to address as low hanging fruit though.

And I explained that reference without once denigrating your reading comprehension skills! Some might call that being respectful....

Click to expand...

Some might, but they are apparently the same sort of people that call coming in hurling around a bunch innuendo, well-poisoning, slander, passive aggression, racialism, negative stereotypes, and general dickery "respectful", so I don't think there opinion on what is respectful matters that much. You'd have been actually more polite being insulting and actually saying what you mean, than your condescending pretense - and even then you couldn't help throwing around terms like "barely-washed straight white dudes". You are the one the is reeking in here.

If it's not the side you want to be associated with, I imagine that's a problem you need to work out.

Click to expand...

I'm not in the habit of thinking that there is two sides, and that we are in some sort of war, or of throwing down you are either for me or against me gauntlets. I generally find that the opinions I hold aren't equitable to any 'side', but likewise I'm not in the habit of claiming that everyone that disagrees with me is "bad people".

I think you do care, otherwise you wouldn't have taken the time to respond.

Click to expand...

I don't think logic is your strength any more than reading comprehension is. When a person is misquoted and slandered by a journalist, the person so misused doesn't reply because they care particularly what the journalist thinks of them, because the journalist has already revealed themselves to a reprehensible person. Rather, a person that has been slandered takes the time to correct the record, because they care what other people who aren't acquainted to them might think, and because not responding might be seen as conceding the truth of the slander. So what you think is simply wrong.

Remember, when a miscommunication occurs, it's because the message wasn't understood. This could be because of the receiver, the messenger, *or both*.

questions and clarifications are better than arguing

Celebrim said:

... you've just outted yourself as having insufficient reading comprehension to understand what you read...

Click to expand...

And you've just outed yourself as being willing to insult fellow posters to "win" the argument. That's not acceptable. Please don't post in this thread again.

Ancalagon said:

questions and clarifications are better than arguing

Click to expand...

Agreed!

--
Pauper

In our home games, we tend to downplay both gender and sexuality, though we do acknowledge it. Some players have played gay or lesbian characters, have even sparked relationships with NPCs, but we don't go into great detail (other than the occasional "blue" humor.)

I see it like this:

Gender roles and norms exist, just IRL and they mostly conform to how it is in reality, at least, in human societies and those that have similar cultures.

However, due to the presence of magic, gods, adventurers and such, those roles and norms are a lot less strict than they were IRL through history. Even in reality, there were always individuals, who didn't conform to those and in a fantasy setting, it's a lot more frequent.

So, a female town guard captain is less likely than a male one, but nobody would bat a second eyelash seeing one, especially characters who travelled a lot, or living in cosmopolitan places. They aren't once-in-a-blue-moon totally out of place, just less frequent.

But anyway, it's not in the focus, just basic assumptions as background.

PMárk said:

I see it like this:

Gender roles and norms exist, just IRL and they mostly conform to how it is in reality, at least, in human societies and those that have similar cultures.

However, due to the presence of magic, gods, adventurers and such, those roles and norms are a lot less strict than they were IRL through history. Even in reality, there were always individuals, who didn't conform to those and in a fantasy setting, it's a lot more frequent.

So, a female town guard captain is less likely than a male one, but nobody would bat a second eyelash seeing one, especially characters who travelled a lot, or living in cosmopolitan places. They aren't once-in-a-blue-moon totally out of place, just less frequent.

But anyway, it's not in the focus, just basic assumptions as background.

Click to expand...

I like that. It leaves room for the possibility of addressing gender and sexuality, while removing the necessity of dealing with it. Those who want to examine gender inequality in their roleplay have the opportunity to do so, and those who want to escape to a world where those inequalities are negligible can do so as well. I might adopt this for Human societies in my own games.

Personally, I like to take advantage of the fantasy aspect of the game. As with matriarchal drow in Forgotten Realms, it can be fun to play with non-Human peoples having different cultural views on gender and sexuality. Maybe dwarves have very strict gender roles but those roles are very different than what we see in Human society. Maybe elves, with their fluid nature, don’t have a cultural concept of men and women, but have a completely different understanding of identity and how it relates to physiology. Maybe gnolls are even more intensely matriarchal than drow. Maybe gnomes consider experimentation with one’s sexuality, gender identity, and gender presentation not only normal, but expected to a certain degree (I mean, gotta hold off The Bleaching somehow, right?) A fantasy world opens up all sorts of possibilities for looking at sex, gender, and sexuality in different and interesting ways.

I kinda think that there are two different levels of the issue here. One in a DM issue, and one is a player issue. In a more inclusive age there is a much stronger pressure on DMs to be inclusive in their world building - somewhat dependent on what they know about their group. If you know your group and their expectations conform pretty much to yours then you do not have to worry so much. But if you are doing open recruitment then you should probably be thinking more about the characters you are presenting. This is basically the same pressure that exists on game companies - just they know their "group" is going to be diverse and demand inclusivity.

If you are just a player then the standards are lower. You may not be the most thrilled with the choices of your fellows but you should be willing to tolerate most of it. Your own characters sexuality is your own business though - no one should be haranguing you make your character conform to their sexual expectations even in the service of progressive values. This is no different then the old concern that it can be really creepy for male characters on female characters if there is some element of "proxy" at work. I just think it too bears repeating in an "updated" form.