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

[Hussar]

/snip I'd rather see armored females like on http://womenfighters.tumblr.com/ than the typical Red Sonja style chainmail bikini.



/snip

Thanks for the link:

 

[NewJeffCT]

When my old group met some new NPCs for the first time, i would sometimes want to find an image online of what I imagined the NPC to look like to hand out. One was a serious female warrior and when I googled female warriors and a bunch of other iterations, I got tons of women in chainmail or leather bikinis. Couldn't find anything good until a few people here pointed me in the right direction -

http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...of-female-fighters-knights-in-realistic-armor

 

[Obryn]

At least we haven't had anybody call somebody else "Hitler" in this thread.

Isn't that another internet rule - the longer a thread goes, the more likely it is that somebody is called "Hitler" by another poster?

Ummm, I did tell someone who PMed me something ridiculous to go back to Stormfront where he'd feel more at home, so I think we crossed that line.

-O

 

[mythago]

I personally believe that holding artwork to the same moral dimensions as reality is the first step towards the justification of censorship (e.g. "we need to suppress this because it could corrupt the youth"). I believe that, if you find some artwork to be personally distasteful, it's enough to simply ignore it, as it's not hurting anyone.

I find this argument very strange on a couple of levels. Ironically, you argue for the suppression of criticism by drawing a straight line from criticism to censorship; then you argue, in essence, that art is powerless and frivolous.

The first is an argument that free speech and opinion is one way. If I choose to express an idea in my art - "Chicks with swords should be sexy!" - then, in essence, I get a free no-tagbacks, because anybody who finds that expression distasteful ought (in your argument) to simply shut up and turn away if they don't like it; if they say "That's lame" or "Your idea offends me," then I can raise the specter of suppression and censorship to, in effect, close down THEIR right to express an opinion.

The second assumes art cannot do anything other than entertain. You present the inverse argument (e.g., violent video games/art lead inexorably to violence), point out that is flawed, and then flip it around to say that art therefore has no influence in any way. I...think that kind of misses the point of art, no? And it's also very dismissive of gaming as a medium.

 

[El Mahdi]

Whether or not women are smaller and weaker than men on average (which people use to derive justification for penalties or limits) is not the point for an RPG. That the average exists does not rule out women possessing the same high strengths as men...there are just less of them. But since an adventuring group is just a small sample of both male and female populations, there most certainly can exist a female with the same strength limit as any other man. Not too mention that since we aren't talking about professional sports and the resultant screenings, it wouldn't be at all outside of the realm of possibility for a woman with higher than normal testosterone levels or even male attributes due to genetic issues (and I'm not that this or something similar needs to be a requirement or justification for a high strength female adventurer).

With those considerations, enacting either a penalty or a limit for female characters is actually unrealistic.

But for those that do want such a penalty or limit so as to model their view of reality, then I have some questions for you:

Do you also require that the makeup of your adventuring group adhere to demographic limitations? (i.e.: Humans are the most populous race, so x% of the group must be Human; Elves make up only x% of the population, so the group is limited to having x% of Elves in the group; etc, etc, etc.)

Do you limit the classes that are represented in your players group based on the percentages of each present within the worlds population? (i.e.:Wizards make up x% of adventurers, so only x% of the group can be Wizards; etc., etc.)

Do you limit characters ability scores based on the percentage of people within society that posess such levels? Do you limit ultra genius level intelligences to characters that can also roll a 100 on a d100 three or four times in a row (representing the 0.0001% of the population that has that level of IQ)...?

Do you require all your players to have "average" stats in all abilities since you're also enforcing an "average" strength upon female characters?

Have you in past editions, made a rule to limit any character from having a Strength score higher than 23, as 23 is the highest recorded strength score for any real-world human? (Hossein Rezazadeh - Iran - Current World Record Holder in the Clean and Jerk, Super Heavyweight Class)

More than likely, you don't do any of the above except in special situations or campaigns. As far as stats go, you let the dice be the randomizer (or limit through point allocation). So if you don't do the above, then why single out only average female strength to model reality? Compared to "reality", it's the exact same kind of consideration; the same reasoning. And if you don't have an answer for that question, will you honestly consider that their may be some unconscious sexism involved in your thinking? Will you honestly consider that you may be influenced by artificial gender roles? (...and don't be ashamed to say Yes, most all of us are to at least some extent, including myself.)



Anyways, here's some interesting data I dug up the last time there was a conversation like this on ENWorld. Data that highlights some of our biggest misconceptions, such as bigger is stronger, small is weaker, women are physically limited, women are not/cannot be warriors, etc., etc.

This guy:

Le Maosheng (China) Height: 5’ 4"
Weight: 136 lbs.
Men’s Olympic Weightlifting World Record
(Clean & Jerk) – 62 kg. weight category – 401.2 lbs.
Approximate D&D Strength: 21


...and this woman:

Jang Mi-Ran (Republic of Korea) Height: 5’ 7"
Weight: 275 lbs.
Current Women’s Olympic Weightlifting
World Record Holder (Clean & Jerk) – 412.3 lbs
Approximate D&D Strength: 21


...are much more stronger than this guy:

Arnold Schwarzenegger (Austria/USA)
Height: 6’ 2"
Weight: 260 lbs. (235 lbs. competition, pictured – 5%-10% body fat)
6-Time Champion – Mr. Olympia
Top Lifts: 605 lbs. deadlift, 300 lbs. Clean & Jerk, 265 lbs. standing press
Approximate D&D Strength: 18/19

(Body builders lift for muscle size and shaping, not strength – though they are by no means weak. However, powerlifters concentrate on developing strength and are much stronger than straight bodybuilders, even though sometimes being "smaller".)


So who says a Halfling can't have extraordinary strength!?!? Just look at Le Maosheng!


And women with extraordinary strength don't all need to look like Jang Mi-Ran...
Robin Coleman (USA)
Height: 6' 1"
Weight: 220 lbs.
Worlds Strongest Woman Competitor
and Female Bodybuilder
Top Lifts: 700 lbs. deadlift, 350 lbs. press
Approximate D&D Strength: 19 (as strong or stronger than Arnold)


Joan Rhodes (UK)
Height: 5' 7"
Weight: 145 lbs.
Actress and Strongwoman Performer
(notably with Bob Hope)
Top Lifts: 700 lbs. deadlift, 275 lbs. press
Approximate D&D Strength: 18




And as far as real women warriors, history is replete with them:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_warriors
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_warfare_and_the_military_in_the_ancient_era
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boudica
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_warfare_and_the_military_in_the_medieval_era
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikelgaita
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matilda_of_Tuscany
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_samurai
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_warfare_and_the_military_in_the_early_modern_era
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_warfare_and_the_military_in_the_19th_century

And I'm betting not a single one of the above mentioned women ever fought in a chainmail bikini!

A woman by the name of Walpurgis depicted in a 1300 Fechtbuch training with sword and buckler.


Women are just as capable and can be just as strong as any Man; and more and more, the artificial gender roles that society has been saddled with for centuries are starting to evaporate. I think RPG writers need to be more aware of this, and reflect this in their games.

 

[Alzrius]

I find this argument very strange on a couple of levels. Ironically, you argue for the suppression of criticism by drawing a straight line from criticism to censorship; then you argue, in essence, that art is powerless and frivolous.

I'm not arguing in favor of suppressing criticism (I think that saying that art is immoral is a bad thing to do, which is not to say that I think that should be suppressed - I don't like it, but I don't think that it's alright to try and silence people's opinions).

The first is an argument that free speech and opinion is one way. If I choose to express an idea in my art - "Chicks with swords should be sexy!" - then, in essence, I get a free no-tagbacks, because anybody who finds that expression distasteful ought (in your argument) to simply shut up and turn away if they don't like it; if they say "That's lame" or "Your idea offends me," then I can raise the specter of suppression and censorship to, in effect, close down THEIR right to express an opinion.

If that were true I wouldn't keep having this debate, since I'd have turned away from most of the comments I've received.

All kidding aside, my saying that it's enough to ignore artwork was meant to convey that it was "enough" in relation to calling for its suppression, not for discussing the thing itself; if I didn't make that clear before, then that was an error on my part. If you don't care for some art, by all means you should be able to (civilly) talk about it - it's when you say that that art shouldn't exist (or otherwise should be censored) because you find it immoral, that I think you've started to express favor of what would be an immoral act. Given that, would simply ignoring it while respecting its right to exist not be better?

Remember, this is a deontological argument. Creating artwork, whatever the art may be, has no moral dimension - it neither violates a negative duty nor fulfills a positive one. The suppression of creative expression, on the other hand, violates one of the negative duties (e.g. do not suppress creative expression), and so is immoral. Hence why I think that labeling some art as immoral is worth becoming nervous about - since we want to stop actions that are of an immoral nature, this is, rather ironically, an expression that often forms the basis for an immoral action (e.g. the act of suppression).

(I want to go ahead and preemptively state that "stopping actions that are of an immoral nature" applies specifically and only to actions, which does not include opinions. Opinions, I believe, cannot be judged as moral or immoral - only actions that are undertaken fall under that judgment.)

That doesn't mean that the debate should be "closed down" however (and I'm not even sure how you'd do that, short of breaking the medium people are using to communicate). Rather, it's all the more reason to have the debate in the first place, to exchange ideas and try to offer and receive new perspectives.

The second assumes art cannot do anything other than entertain. You present the inverse argument (e.g., violent video games/art lead inexorably to violence), point out that is flawed, and then flip it around to say that art therefore has no influence in any way. I...think that kind of misses the point of art, no? And it's also very dismissive of gaming as a medium.

I'm not sure how much you can really say that art has a "point" at all, beyond defining it as aesthetics. It's also in no way dismissive of gaming to suggest that I don't think that it has any notable influence on the people who game.

Likewise, you're misunderstanding me if you think I've said that all art can do is entertain (it can certainly evoke other emotions). It's more correct to say that I don't think that art has, in and of itself, any moral dimension. As such, I personally object to those who assign it any such dimension.

Moreover, I didn't say that art has no influence in any way; I do, however, think that any influence it may have is minimal, as I don't believe that people are helpless in the face of any message they may receive (moreover, the nature of art is that it's completely open to interpretation; the viewer takes away whatever message they read into it, rather than it being a perfect way of communicating whatever intent the creator may have had).

What influence it does have is the normal byproduct of communication (even communication where intent is not clearly made, and can be wildly misinterpreted). Given how fundamental such communication is, even if we don't like (what we see as) the content, it's more important that it be allowed to happen, than to try and police it. Opinions on it, on the other hand, are natural, and discussing them is good.

 

[Hussar]

So who says a Halfling can't have extraordinary strength!?!? Just look at Le Maosheng!

See, this is a problem though. Le Maosheng is FIVE TIMES the size of a halfling. A halfing is about 25 pounds, tops out at about 35 IIRC. A halfling is literally the size of a two year old human child. There is no realistic way for that character to have anything approaching top end human strength.

But, we accept it as part of the game. Note, gnomes are in the same basket here as well.

But, like I said, if being 1/4 the size of a human results in a -2 strength score, how in the heck can you justify any modifier between male and female humans?

The system is just nowhere near granular enough to encapsulate this.

Not that I think you are arguing for sex based stat adjustments. I just think that some people are.

 

[mythago]

All kidding aside, my saying that it's enough to ignore artwork was meant to convey that it was "enough" in relation to calling for its suppression, not for discussing the thing itself; if I didn't make that clear before, then that was an error on my part. If you don't care for some art, by all means you should be able to (civilly) talk about it - it's when you say that that art shouldn't exist (or otherwise should be censored) because you find it immoral, that I think you've started to express a hostile intent. In that case, it's better to simply not pay attention to it.

You seem to be conflating a couple of things here - saying one wishes X art didn't exist (or was different, or that there shouldn't be so groudon much of X) is not identical to saying that X art 'should be censored', particularly given that the definition of censorship generally involves some kind of government coercion. Additionally, if the problem is a hostile intent, then rather than 'not pay attention to it', shouldn't the exhortation be 'express your dislike in a way that doesn't advocate censorship'?

Less verbosely, you seem to be suggesting that if someone finds a piece of art sexist and offensive, they really ought to just say nothing and move on, lest something they say place a foot on the slippery slope of suppressing Art. That seems a rather tenuous conclusion.

Remember, this is a deontological argument. Creating artwork, whatever the art may be, has no moral dimension - it neither violates a negative duty nor fulfills a positive one. The suppression of creative expression, on the other hand, violates one of the negative duties (e.g. do not suppress creative expression), and so is immoral.

Not actually following here. Creating artwork can never have a moral dimension? Creative expression is amoral? Criticism of creative expression is immoral?

I understand that you don't believe art has a moral dimension per se, but I don't know how you square this with the claim that creative expression does take on a moral dimension if and only if the potential result of that creative expression is that it results in some kind of 'censorship'. In effect, you've created a subclass of creative expression that does have moral implications because you don't like them.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

I'm with Alzrius on this. I most enjoy games when they are as realistic as possible, where the fantasy elements are limited to what the game is about. As a simplistic example, D&D is about fighting monsters with magic and swords, so I expect fantastic monsters and magic, but not normal humans with the ability to jump over buildings.

So men being stronger than women in-game sounds just fine to me, unless a main theme of my game is "What if women were as strong as men?" Though if a player came to me and said "I want to play a woman fighter who's as strong as a man" that would be just fine too, as that's obviously a theme that player wants to address in the game.

 

[Hussar]

I'm with Alzrius on this. I most enjoy games when they are as realistic as possible, where the fantasy elements are limited to what the game is about. As a simplistic example, D&D is about fighting monsters with magic and swords, so I expect fantastic monsters and magic, but not normal humans with the ability to jump over buildings.

So men being stronger than women in-game sounds just fine to me, unless a main theme of my game is "What if women were as strong as men?" Though if a player came to me and said "I want to play a woman fighter who's as strong as a man" that would be just fine too, as that's obviously a theme that player wants to address in the game.

Ok, let's run with this.

What modifier should women have? How do you express this in a game, so that it is as realistic as possible?