D&D 5E Should the next edition of D&D promote more equality?

[bogmad]

Equality may or may not be a myth, but it's not exactly a harmful one (you're opinion may vary). If you want to make such inequality a part of your fantasy realm's campaign I'm not going to tell you you can't, nor would I be against playing in one (A campaign that promoted discrimination I'd be less enthused about, but I won't go into that).
Since the standard game is presumably going to be marketed towards children I'd like any standard core to be pretty culturally diverse and open with women just as easily soldiers as men, etc. Let it be all "Star Trek" so at least the core product doesn't encourage children to think any racial or gender discrimination is a good thing. In terms of prejudice, let dwarves hate elves if you want, but it doesn't need to be some heavy handed allegory about the evils of apartheid or something. If you want to tell that story later with a campaign setting though, by all means go for it.

 

[Morrus]

WOW...! Equality is a myth and those that truely believe in it are truely living in a fantasy realm. As for gender bending...heck no! We have enough problems with players acting all wierd that WotC does not need to praise it in a rule set. In my campaings men have on average two extra points in strength and intelligence while women have two extra points of agility and charm. What is next....men and boy love societies in game???? Madness needs to end. What is the modern human condition...sick

Just before I catch my train for UKGE...

MrHemlocks, those comments are not only inappropriate on EN World, they are inappropriate anywhere. We do not permit sexism or racism on these boards. Since this thread brings out that side of you, please do not post in it again.

Everyone else - please do not respond to that comment.

 

[WheresMyD20]

Down with inequality! Not just gender-based inequality, but also age-, physical appearance-, body type-, and disability-based inequality as well!

A female barbarian should be just as strong as a male barbarian.
An elderly rogue should be just as nimble as a young rogue.
An ugly bard should be just as charming as a handsome bard.
An obese fighter should be just as effective as a fit fighter.
A blind ranger should be just as accurate as a sighted ranger.

Down with inequality!!!

 

[Morrus]

Down with inequality! Not just gender-based inequality, but also age-, physical appearance-, body type-, and disability-based inequality as well!

A female barbarian should be just as strong as a male barbarian.
An elderly rogue should be just as nimble as a young rogue.
An ugly bard should be just as charming as a handsome bard.
An obese fighter should be just as effective as a fit fighter.
A blind ranger should be just as accurate as a sighted ranger.

Down with inequality!!!

You appear to be struggling with the words "equal" and "identical".

All people are equal. They are not identical.

 

[WheresMyD20]

You appear to be struggling with the words "equal" and "identical".

All people are equal. They are not identical.

That's the point to the sarcasm. The whole discussion of promoting "equality" in D&D often gets twisted into promoting "identical-ness". I remember having a discussion with a friend of mine back in the 80s over ability score modifiers and limits for females AD&D 1e. She was convinced that the modifiers and limits were sexist and should be removed from the game. Is that promoting equality? Is the only way to make men and women equal to make them identical?

 

[delericho]

I remember having a discussion with a friend of mine back in the 80s over ability score modifiers and limits for females AD&D 1e. She was convinced that the modifiers and limits were sexist and should be removed from the game. Is that promoting equality?

That's a bad example, though, because in every instance where the limits are different, the female limit is lower. That's pretty unambiguously unequal, and the removal of those limits is therefore a set forward for equality.

Conversely, in 3e (and, I think, Pathfinder) there are a handful of Prestige Classes that are women-only or men-only. (I'm not aware of any that are for characters who don't fit into the male/female dichotomy, though.) If you assume the classes are balanced*, and assuming a roughly equal number of such classes, that could be considered a form of equality without enforcing identical paths.

* Of course, as we well know, the classes in 3e (and, probably, Pathfinder) are not equal. But I don't think that breaks down on a male/female axis - both can be spellcasters; both can be non-spellcasters.

Also, wrt your previous post: You might enjoy reading "Incompetnece" by Rob Grant.

 

[Roland55]

Frankly, I'm just hoping that the new edition brings ... fun.

Just that. Fun.

I fear to ask for anything more. Wouldn't want to complicate the task.

 

[Morrus]

That's the point to the sarcasm. The whole discussion of promoting "equality" in D&D often gets twisted into promoting "identical-ness". I remember having a discussion with a friend of mine back in the 80s over ability score modifiers and limits for females AD&D 1e. She was convinced that the modifiers and limits were sexist and should be removed from the game. Is that promoting equality? Is the only way to make men and women equal to make them identical?

Penalising the characters that half the player base identifies with? Yeah. That's not equality. To the players, let alone the characters.

By all means mess around with fictional things like orcs and elves. Prescribing limits for groups who exist in real life and are hopefully at that very game table? No; I'll never be on board with that. That sends a message to women (or whatever other group bring penalised) that they're not welcome.

 

[Dausuul]

Down with inequality! Not just gender-based inequality, but also age-, physical appearance-, body type-, and disability-based inequality as well!

A female barbarian should be just as strong as a male barbarian.
An elderly rogue should be just as nimble as a young rogue.
An ugly bard should be just as charming as a handsome bard.
An obese fighter should be just as effective as a fit fighter.
A blind ranger should be just as accurate as a sighted ranger.

Down with inequality!!!

So, you've got no problem with a female fighter who can slay dragons a hundred times her size with her pinprick of a sword; who can leap off a 200-foot cliff and not only survive, not only bounce back to her feet and stride away, but do this reliably; who can singlehandedly tackle dozens of foes and emerge victorious; but you have a problem with her being able to lift as much weight as a man.

Yeah, okay. Whatever.

 

[Obryn]

That's the point to the sarcasm. The whole discussion of promoting "equality" in D&D often gets twisted into promoting "identical-ness". I remember having a discussion with a friend of mine back in the 80s over ability score modifiers and limits for females AD&D 1e. She was convinced that the modifiers and limits were sexist and should be removed from the game. Is that promoting equality? Is the only way to make men and women equal to make them identical?

Oh gosh, why not codify gender roles so female fighters are strictly worse than male ones? Nothing stirs the imagination like rigid adherence to flawed biological determinism!

Look, if you want your own character to adhere to sexual dimorphism, that's your call, but don't put it into the game rules.

-O