Comfort withcross gender characters based on your gender

[Bagpuss]

So, yeah, there are going to be cases where gender really isn't part of the character at all. I get that. Exceptions always exist. I guess my basic point was that players, when choosing things, should keep an eye on how these choices are going to play out at the table and probably make some effort to play them out at the table.

It seems @Riley37 has decided to block me. That's his choice I suppose but it's a shame since he seems to have some useful contributions.


Cogent point, for TRPG. Today I learned: in canonical Eberron, House Cannith makes "male" and "female" Warforged. (Like a sexy robot lamp with a sword?)

It seems obvious to me that Warforged would be made in male and female models. If you look at the androids being made today, or any robots from fiction, they are more often than not assigned a gender, if they have a humanoid form. Even if they don't look human at all, like "Robbie the Robot". I don't get the sexy robot lamp reference though, assigning a gender to robots for the majority of them isn't about making them sexy (except for sexbots obviously), it's just a matter of convenience. Much of our language is gendered, we tend not to like referring to things at it, people give gender to cars and boats when they don't look remotely human or sexy. It is just a natural thing to do, so it seems an obvious step to assign a gender to a creation like Warforged.

 

[Hussar]

It seems @Riley37 has decided to block me. That's his choice I suppose but it's a shame since he seems to have some useful contributions.


Cogent point, for TRPG. Today I learned: in canonical Eberron, House Cannith makes "male" and "female" Warforged. (Like a sexy robot lamp with a sword?)

It seems obvious to me that Warforged would be made in male and female models. If you look at the androids being made today, or any robots from fiction, they are more often than not assigned a gender, if they have a humanoid form. Even if they don't look human at all, like "Robbie the Robot". I don't get the sexy robot lamp reference though, assigning a gender to robots for the majority of them isn't about making them sexy (except for sexbots obviously), it's just a matter of convenience. Much of our language is gendered, we tend not to like referring to things at it, people give gender to cars and boats when they don't look remotely human or sexy. It is just a natural thing to do, so it seems an obvious step to assign a gender to a creation like Warforged.

And, let's be fair, if we're going to have a player race, giving that race relatable genders is a pretty easy way to go. It might be a lot more difficult to insist that warforged have no genders and then expect everyone playing one to be groovy with being called "it".

 

[aramis erak]

My experience is that millennials feel very comfortable role playing characters whose gender does not match their own, and seem to navigate the "challenge" or lack thereof quite well.

Gender roles are not nearly as well defined any more.

Which also makes it easier to cross over.

 

[Bagpuss]

Gender roles are not nearly as well defined any more.

Which also makes it easier to cross over.

I think playing alien races, century old vampires, sexless droids and the like helps a bit, compared to that playing a gender that you've spent all your life around should be pretty straight forward.

Also a lot of people GM where you are required to play the opposite gender a lot of the time, so why should it be an issue when you switch to playing a PC?

I do wonder how people uncomfortable with cross gender character handle opposite gender NPCs? If you don't have an issue with them why with a PC?

 

[evileeyore]

Why is does it seem like this is an actual issue now with things like gender bending elves? If it was groovy back then, then, why are people questioning it now?

There was no "Ideological Purity" requirement then being shoved done people's throats.

You'll find people are more comfortable swallowing things at their own pace, rather when they are being force fed it.

No. The presumption is that your character is the same gender as you because you are the one portraying the character.

That's a terrible presumption. I'm not gonna to ask the strawman nonsense questions of "so then everyone at your table is playing a human with poor combat skills then". I mean I will, but only by presumption.

If your elf behaves exactly like your human character then why are you playing an elf?

Depends on the system... but at first blush for the inherent racial benes, duh.

Or because I enjoy playing elves like the stuck up egotistical jackholes they are, and no one does egotistical as well as an elf (they really are better at everything [/joke]).

It's theoretically possible that Inkyrius sired the children and V bore the children, but V sure doesn't act like the one who nursed them.

Ehhhh.... knee-jerk pedantry: Vaarsuvius' and Inkyrius' children are adopted.

Sorry, sorry... I couldn't help myself.

What if I make a character of the same gender as mine with those exact traits?

No, I've come to understand it based on this thread, even if you are a sexy lamp in real life, you may not play one in game.

Sorry.

Yikes, Conan as turn-on?

Really? Jason-freaking-Momoa?

You don't understand how Conan can be a sexy, sexy, sexy, sexy, ummm... I lost my train of thought.

No, I've never seen anyone who played their barbarian like a sexy walking stick.

You need to sit at the table with me. I think every Barbarian I've ever played has been a sexy walking stick.

If I may ask, what about playing female characters makes them fun for you? What, specifically related to the gender of your character, makes it fun?

Depends on the setting. Sometimes it's about upsetting the inherent social power-dynamic. Sometimes it's because otherwise the party would be a total sausage fest. And sometimes it's because I know it will specifically make someone uncomfortable.


Currently I'm playing a female Ogre barbarian/wrestler with a bit of a 'Red Sonja' complex (she won't take a mate unless they can best her). Which is a bit difficult when she is literally the strongest creature so far encountered in the campaign... (she keeps hoping to 'meet a real man', by which she means another mountain ogre, a male, and of course one stronger than as she is so she can finally settle down. It might be easier if she were to go anywhere such a guy might be found, but she hasn't figured that out yet).

Just previously I played a female troll wizard, because I wanted to play a troll wizard and the GM said "in this world the only trolls that can work magic are female". So... female it was.

Sure, you introduced your character five months ago (in real time), but, since then, never once mentioned that your character is _____. It's not too farfetched that people might not recall that given that you (generic you) have never actually referenced ___ other than at that session 1.

If _____ has never mattered since session 1 (if it even mattered then*), then why should I go out of my way to reinforce that my character is _____?


* I once played a gay character in a very long campaign. It never mattered (the Characters almost never had time for anything personal, the mission was always foremost) and her sexuality only came up when towards the end of the campaign another Player had gone back and reread the campaign diary that we were all writing in all along.

In another it was very obvious I was playing a flamboyantly, cringingly, gay character. But as he was rich, powerful, and had tremendous social capital, he delighted in being as inappropriate as he could be, since being gay in that culture wasn't exactly accepted. It wasn't illegal, or even socially abhorrent, it was simply something kept 'on the down low' or at least kept 'respectfully quiet'. So he was loud as possible. Which also explained why his family was happy whenever he decided to run off and go adventuring.

It seems very odd to me that this isn't the case for most game groups; of the last dozen long campaigns I've been in, all of them have had characters who have sex quite often.

That's generally not a feature of 'Orc and Pie', of which an awful lot of D&D is.

 

[Thomas Bowman]

of course Red Sonja is portrayed, especially by the male artists drawing her, as a sword swinging gal in a bikini, it is slightly unrealistic than any sort of fighter would eschew the protection of armor just so she could show off her body. Joan of Arc was clad in full plate armor instead, that is a more realistic picture of what a swordswoman would be.

 

[Bagpuss]

of course Red Sonja is portrayed, especially by the male artists drawing her, as a sword swinging gal in a bikini, it is slightly unrealistic than any sort of fighter would eschew the protection of armor just so she could show off her body. Joan of Arc was clad in full plate armor instead, that is a more realistic picture of what a swordswoman would be.

Yeah but Red Sonja is in the same world as Conan who isn't known for wearing very much when illustrated, and he's one of the greatest fighters in the setting. Seem in that universe the less armour you wear the more competent you are.

 

[Istbor]

I am not sure I personally understand the difference in this context between being comfortable and indifferent. To me it is basically the same thing. If that is your character, then so be it. Makes no difference to me so long as you are participating at the same as everyone else.

 

[Bagpuss]

No it isn't really clear. I took uncomfortable to mean you don't like other people doing it; indifferent to mean you don't mind other people doing it, but you don't really do it much yourself (or it is okay except for certain behaviours), and comfortable to mean it is something you do yourself, or you have no objections to others doing.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

Yeah, the intended meaning behind "indifferent" and "comfortable" is problematic. I voted "indifferent" because I don't care if a player plays a character not of their own gender. Obviously, any DM is going to have significant issues in even playing the game AT ALL if they have issues with running characters not of the DM's own gender. As a player I have played plenty of characters that are female. As a DM a huge number of characters I run are female, especially in an egalitarian game world/setting. So, in a sense that means that I am quite comfortable with the idea, but really I don't care if players play only their own gender or not - I am indifferent and I don't care if the PC's OR NPC's that I play are either gender unless it's for some reason a biological requirement to fit the character. So then what's the intended difference between "comfortable" and "indifferent"?