roleplaying across the gender line

[mythago]

I like to run games in which there are societies which make sense.

Wow. So you're saying a society that has a roughly equivalent number of men and women in visibly public life doesn't "make sense"? Or that if women do not get an automatic Charisma bonus from men, those women are otherworldly creatures bearing no resemblance to "real" women?

See previous post about limited imagination.

I assume, btw, that you don't run a humans-only D&D game?

 

[fusangite]

Snoweel says:

Cause see, fusangite? It's fantasy. It's not real. Stuff doesn't have to make any sense at all.

Tsyr responds:

Exactly. It doesn't. Now, you're free to try to reshape it into whatever form you desire, and impose any logic you see fit, but none of that has to happen. You are not "right" for having done so any more than we are "wrong" for not having done so.

Here I think we may be approaching the problem with this thread. It has to do with the use of the word "human" in D&D. I think I speak for SnowEel, Teflon Billy and probably Al when I say that using the word "human" to describe one of the races in D&D, is a cue to us that the creatures so described should behave like human beings with the same psychology, reproductive process, etc. If you want to run a campaign in which the dominant race has motivations and social organization that are not intelligibly human, let me suggest that you not call them "human" -- the rest of us find it confusing.

 

[Tsyr]

Here I think we may be approaching the problem with this thread. It has to do with the use of the word "human" in D&D. I think I speak for SnowEel, Teflon Billy and probably Al when I say that using the word "human" to describe one of the races in D&D, is a cue to us that the creatures so described should behave like human beings with the same psychology, reproductive process, etc. If you want to run a campaign in which the dominant race has motivations and social organization that are not intelligibly human, let me suggest that you not call them "human" -- the rest of us find it confusing.

And let me "suggest" that you would be in error in assuming that my characters are "not intelligibly human". Further more, let me "suggest" that you do not "suggest" to me what I call humans because you find it confusing, as I find them quite human enough.

 

[Oni]

This is just my impression, but I get the feeling from reading this thread that some people feel their sexuality threatened or questioned by males playing female characters, and they have come up with various justifications ranging from the mechanical to social so that they can dismiss anyone wanting to play a cross gender character as either a powergamer or as having "issues". Now, I don't know that to be the case, but that is how some posters are coming across to me, and so perhaps they are coming across that way to others as well.

 

[Fenes 2]

I am still confused how female PCs somehow are more influential and better leaders in a male-dominated society than in a equal society, according to some posters.

Just because they seem to be able to use sex as a bribe makes them that more powerful? Even though many males will not take them seriously or just abuse and oppress them?

I can just not see how sexual favors are that powerful, not when most males in power in feudal societies can often have any pretty peasant or servant they want. And when a monetary bribe serves as well - that guard can go to the local whorehouse, and does not even have to leave his post during duty.

If we are talking realism, what about glass-ceiling? What about the right to vote? What about gender discrimination?

If women were that powerful in history thanks to a male-dominated society, why is there still a problem with gender discrimination?

 

[fusangite]

Wow. So you're saying a society that has a roughly equivalent number of men and women in visibly public life doesn't "make sense"?

I believe what was being said was the majority of people in combatant roles are. And no, it does not make sense to assume there will be an equal number of men and women in combatant positions.

 

[Fenes 2]

Perhaps we should first clear what we use Charisma and social skills in our games for. I get the impression that some people just use charisma to basically beg some favors during pillow talk, not to lead and convince people in many situations. I have a small problem with a bunch of chauvinist knights following the orders or even suggestions of a pretty wench.

 

[CmdrSam]

This nonsense has got to stop.

The last couple of pages have been full of women's rights crusaders arguing the point, ignoring reality and using the disappointingly absurd PHB definition of men and women (two distinct genders which are in all ways identical except for appearance (Ember notwithstanding)) to support their ridiculous statements.

Welcome to my ignore list!

--Sam L-L

 

[Fred Delles]

Throwing in my two coppers.

For every male character I play, I play two females. (I'm male, obviously.) The reason I play women? They're the underdog. Just as I might play a (male) halfling barbarian who would yell, "Your knees are MIIIIINE!", the female elf templar would be pretty interesting. I mean, who plays halflings (except for roguish comic relief) or female non-wizard elves? They end up pretty unique characters in my mind (and that elf chick, well...)

And who (besides powergamers) doesn't like playing the underdog, especially in a role-playing world?

Fantasy IS sexist, end of story. But whether men or women may get the shaft is anyone's guess. You have the misogyny of Robert E. Howard's Conan and John Norman (who's that guy again?)'s Gor; you also have the femininism of Anne McCaffery and Marion Zimmer Bradley. And there are far, far more examples than those.

(Of course, women, most notably MZB, who write about other women often toss 'em in an uber-patriarchal society, attempting to make us like them more. Bleh! Then again, men can make ridiculously strong women, so the balance persists.)


And who is that cheesehead who prohibits allowing men playing women (and possibly, women playing women) in his roleplaying world, because females gain advantages!? They are at a disadvantage in 95% of their worlds. You might think of women using their attractiveness into getting what they want, but they can only go so far (no bluffing that you are the captain of the guard), and in patriarchal societies, that would turn out as a disadvantage, as a woman's attractiveness would only lead to arranged marriage, harrasment, or even worse...

Note that I did not say "charisma". Attractiveness and charisma are completely unrelated.

Also, gender-related bonuses are always conditional. In a patriarchal society, a charismatic woman might seduce a strong, tough man and steal the invasion plans, but she would NEVER be able to convince the local uber-lawful guard that she is the emissary/vizier/captain/etc. Here is proof that she gets a penalty to her Charisma check! Conversely, the 70-year-old ugly-looking (yet charismatic!) sorcerer would get slaughtered by the big dude ("Hey, foo', I can kick your arse!" "Yeah, right!"), but might be able to get past the guards the woman would not be able to pass. Bonus to charisma!

From this, the net gain for the overall de facto enhancement bonus to Charisma for the man and woman stand at a zero, and with both situations about equally likely, biases notwithstanding, the overall factor still remains at zero.

(Edit)
And Fenes 2: I definitely agree with you. BTW, based on the fact that women use attractiveness and lack real-life leaders, is it safe to say that women should actually be LESS charismatic than men?

 

[Piratecat]

I think everything's been said that needs to be at this point. Time to close this subject down until the next time.

Thread closed.