Eberron: no sexism

[ssampier]

Right. You should only punish female characters if it's more fun.

Spoiler

Like in Gor: The Spanking.

-- N

In the game, I suppose. As for your private life, that's none of my business.

 

[Gez]

I have to point out that Eberron features asexual creatures (Warforged) and hermaphrodites (Changelings). As Pratchett could say, males and females lived in perfect harmony and ganged up on robots.

I like to point out places in our modern society that show gender bias (even the gender names themselves are biased... "female" is just "male" with a prefix, as if females were just a different type of male) because I'm aware we come from a long history of sexism and I believe we won't really start pulling away from that until we all become aware of it.

Female is a deformation (indeed influenced by "male") of Old French (and Modern French too, but that's not the point) "femelle" which comes from the Latin "femella," which is the diminutive form of "femina"; while "male" comes from "masculus" where the middle syllable got elided at some point in time.

Therefore, "female" is not a prefixed male. This belief is on the same level as the one which says "history" is "his story" (something else that is all manner of false and wrong and stupid).

As a linguist, cunning or not, mistaken etymologies are a pet peeve of mine.

 

[Plane Sailing]

I've just had to delete one personal insult - if I have to delete any more there are likely to be suspensions.

Please remember this is a potentially sensitive topic which is being discussed.

Thanks

 

[Jürgen Hubert]

I think the ultimate question here is whether or not sexism in a campaign setting will make adventures in it more or less enjoyable for players.

It will make it less enjoyable if they want to get away from real world sexism.

It will make it more enjoyable if they see it as an enjoyable challenge to be overcome by their characters.

Which of these applies will depend strongly on the players in question.

 

[Merkuri]

I think the ultimate question here is whether or not sexism in a campaign setting will make adventures in it more or less enjoyable for players.

It will make it less enjoyable if they want to get away from real world sexism.

It will make it more enjoyable if they see it as an enjoyable challenge to be overcome by their characters.

Which of these applies will depend strongly on the players in question.

Regardless of whether more people prefer to overcome the challenge of sexism, I think leaving it out by default is a good call. If people want to deal with it they can write it in later, but if it's part of the default setting or even part of the game mechanics then it's a lot harder to remove and may offend people who want to escape from real life.

That's not to say that settings that include sexism are bad, just that they should make it known that they include "sensitive" ideas like that (as in the setting quoted above) and let the DM/players decide whether they want to use the setting based on that disclosure. But I could see WotC not wanting any of their standard settings to involve sexism except in small isolated areas that the characters can easily avoid.

 

[The Edge]

Im sorry for being an ape-man but I like sexism in my game,The historical precidence for trained female warriors in history are rare no matter how politically correct revisionism tries to change this.Now other classes I have no problem with.But in my game no female warriors(Yes to female Paladins and Rangers) unless they are non human.

Rare, but they did exist. Japan used females in its armys I belive, typicaly weilding bows and spears. Sure there are others. But yes, female fighters are less likely, but of course in fantasy that doesn't matter. All depends on whether the game world/players want that little streak of 'realism'. Of course, even in a setting where sexism is prevailent, it could be interesting if say the next kindom was very opposite in that view.

 

[Klaus]

Rare, but they did exist. Japan used females in its armys I belive, typicaly weilding bows and spears. Sure there are others. But yes, female fighters are less likely, but of course in fantasy that doesn't matter. All depends on whether the game world/players want that little streak of 'realism'. Of course, even in a setting where sexism is prevailent, it could be interesting if say the next kindom was very opposite in that view.

The Naginata is traditionally considered a woman's weapon in Japan, iirc.

The celts had a warrior queen (there was even a book about her, but I can't remember the title).

The Greek legend of the Amazons is supposed to have a historical root (probably a polis whose men were slain in combat and the women had to take up arms to defend it).

There's Joan of Arc, warrior maiden of France.

 

[Dr Simon]

I've seen D&D-like (as in, characters have 6-8 abilities that range from 3-18ish that define what the character can do) computer games that give female characters a bonus/penalty the way races often have bonuses and penalties to stats. It's usually something like -1 STR, +1 DEX. I seem to have an inkling that this was the way it was in 2e D&D, but it's been so long that I played that I don't remember (and I don't feel like poking through my AD&D book to find out).

I don't recall it in 2nd Ed., but I think first edition had the "Maximum Scores for..." line in the stats tables.

3rd Edition RuneQuest had an option to roll slightly lower Strength and Size scores for female humans (oddly, every other player character race had no gender difference), but also allowed for female player characters to be 'of a more heroic scale' and use the same 3D6 roll as males.

Every player of female characters, regardless of player gender, in all the games I ran, chose to use the 'same as men' option and, predictably, always ended up with some hulker who was far bigger and stronger than all the male party members. Well do I remember Morgana who fought with a two-handed maul and ended up married to a minor noble who we decided looked like Osgood from Some Like it Hot.

 

[Mercule]

I don't recall it in 2nd Ed., but I think first edition had the "Maximum Scores for..." line in the stats tables.

3rd Edition RuneQuest had an option to roll slightly lower Strength and Size scores for female humans (oddly, every other player character race had no gender difference), but also allowed for female player characters to be 'of a more heroic scale' and use the same 3D6 roll as males.

Every player of female characters, regardless of player gender, in all the games I ran, chose to use the 'same as men' option and, predictably, always ended up with some hulker who was far bigger and stronger than all the male party members. Well do I remember Morgana who fought with a two-handed maul and ended up married to a minor noble who we decided looked like Osgood from Some Like it Hot.

I think the default of no sexism is very good for the game. It's pretty easy to add something more "historically accurate" if desired. Especially so, considering that almost everything involved would be roleplay related. On the other hand, if you include anything sexist in the core, it's a lot harder to convince women to play.

As far as settings go, I tend to prefer some sort of parity. It doesn't have to be explicit, but there are only so many times I want to deal with prejudice, whether racial or sexual.

If I am going to bring it up, I'd still rather have some sort of grand equality, even if there are different gender roles. Men are bigger and stronger, so brute power comes easier and they tend to be better represented in fighter-type roles. But, with the easy access to magic (relatively speaking), women have a huge equalizer at their disposal and may be better represented in those professions.

Actually, magic is going to be a major point, regardless of specific setting, when using the 3E rules. When there are magic items that can add several hundred pounds to your carrying capability, who really cares about that 20-50 pounds of natural difference?

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

Men are usually bigger and stronger, so brute power comes easier and they tend to be better represented in fighter-type roles. But, with the easy access to magic (relatively speaking), women have a huge equalizer at their disposal and may be better represented in those professions.

Slight correction to your statement (I know it was implied). I can think of several women who could mop up the floor with me, and not because I think women are more proficient with mops.

Actually, magic is going to be a major point, regardless of specific setting, when using the 3E rules. When there are magic items that can add several hundred pounds to your carrying capability, who really cares about that 20-50 pounds of natural difference?

That and once again the fact that PCs are not average people, they tend to be the exceptional ones. Female PCs with great strength may be more exceptional than male PCs with the same strength, but perhaps male PCs with great wisdom are more exceptional than female PCs.