D&D 5E Honor & Sanity

[aramis erak]

inless you have a spare room I can hide out in, I could not say that to half the women I know...

Then the problem is either you or the women. (My wife says "both." If you & they want to play that genre, "it can be a blast!")

My wife knows that if she plays a female knight in Pendragon, she gets the blunt end of the discrimination stick... and makes much fun of the challenges. She's played male knights, and female knights. She did try playing a non-sorcerer non-knight... but found that playing sorcerers and "normal women" can be amusing, "but there are long periods where it's boring as ****!"

One game I ran, I had an exotic dancer in the group; she's the only gal I know who chose to play a normal woman. It made for a very interesting game; her participation was often by cutscene, and by manipulation of the court. Not a weak character at all; she was quite memorable, and quite active, in a game with 8 players. (4 of them women - in that group, one gal played a male knight, one played a sorceress, one played a female squire, and Jen played that daughter of a household knight... ) The active discrimination against the female characters was pointed out before hand. But I'd have been just as hard on a person playing a guy who cast love magic. All of them wanted to play the genre, not a watered down variation on the genre.

Do I run D&D that way? No. Never have. But that's because D&D is a different genre. It's not the gritty Arthuriana of Mallory, Wagner or Boorman; nor is it the casual racism of Barsoom, nor the overt cultural bigotry of Conan (be it Howard or Lieber)... It borrows from these and Tolkien, and spawns a bunch of different subgenres, some of which include open bigotry.

Hell, AD&D 1E included a racial bigotry table in the DMG... But it's important to note that most of the game worlds don't use it much. And that's fine... but not Barsoom nor Gary's Greyhawk. (The published Greyhawk quite clearly diverges from Gary's...)

 

[Mouseferatu]

There's a difference between racism/sexism in a game/story, and a racist/sexist game/story.

If you're playing in a setting that discriminates against female knights, then as long as all your players are on board, there's nothing wrong with that. If the game itself treats female characters or players differently--won't even allow for a female knight, only includes people of other races as primitives, only ever portrays women as victims in art or sample fiction--that's when you're getting into problem areas. Nobody's saying that elves hating dwarves makes a game racist.

(Leaving aside the fact that women were much more involved in battle and leadership throughout history than most people believe.)

 

[I'm A Banana]

If you're playing in a setting that discriminates against female knights, then as long as all your players are on board, there's nothing wrong with that. If the game itself treats female characters or players differently--won't even allow for a female knight, only includes people of other races as primitives, only ever portrays women as victims in art or sample fiction--that's when you're getting into problem areas. Nobody's saying that elves hating dwarves makes a game racist.

Some elements of Dragonlance make me a little squicky even now (sigh, comic relief races).

And the gender dynamics are one of the reasons that I've got little interest in ever actually playing a Pendragon game. I've no desire to emulate a genre predicated on those tropes. I know too many people and too many instances where those tropes have caused real damage to real people for me to have fun playing make-believe in a world that makes extensive use of them.

Or I see the "all satyrs are male" thing in 4e (and perhaps earlier, don't remember) and I give a little wince, because I kind of get where they're coming from (it's myth! They're magical creatures! Source material!) but I can't get on board with where that (probably unintentionally) leads (It is a male-only race that is defined in large part by their pursuit of sexual partners in a way that is a little rape-y, because it was a LOT rape-y in the source material...clearly we are saying that only males have that interest and desire as a definitive character element).

I'm perhaps more sensitive to this stuff than most, and I certainly wouldn't say that EVERYONE must have a problem with this stuff, but my point is that the line between having a gender or racial dynamic in the game and it being used as a vehicle for being kind of a jerk about human difference can be a blurry and subjective line. Archetype and stereotype blend together at a certain point, and the fantasy games we play reflect the world the players live in, too.

Though I don't think Honor mechanics cross that line (they're pretty explicitly not just for being Asian), there's plenty of even-recent game mechanics that dance close to it and might be on either side depending on your perspective.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

(Leaving aside the fact that women were much more involved in battle and leadership throughout history than most people believe.)

one of my DM/Players (male) is a history teacher (with masters) with his specility being Asian studies, and he tells of many VERY sexist societies where women did a lot of the warfair(if not actual fighting) and just didn't get much credit

Then the problem is either you or the women. (My wife says "both." If you & they want to play that genre, "it can be a blast!")

my girlfriend told me what to say, but I think the enworld filters would explode...

My wife knows that if she plays a female knight in Pendragon, she gets the blunt end of the discrimination stick... and makes much fun of the challenges. She's played male knights, and female knights. She did try playing a non-sorcerer non-knight... but found that playing sorcerers and "normal women" can be amusing, "but there are long periods where it's boring as ****!"

for some reason (I really wont try to guess) I know more men who play women then women that play men...

Do I run D&D that way? No. Never have. But that's because D&D is a different genre. It's not the gritty Arthuriana of Mallory, Wagner or Boorman; nor is it the casual racism of Barsoom, nor the overt cultural bigotry of Conan (be it Howard or Lieber)... It borrows from these and Tolkien, and spawns a bunch of different subgenres, some of which include open bigotry.

I totally don't understand you. I may have a lip service or two (obviously wrong people) but I would never have heroes or friendly NPCs act that way...

Hell, AD&D 1E included a racial bigotry table in the DMG... But it's important to note that most of the game worlds don't use it much. And that's fine... but not Barsoom nor Gary's Greyhawk. (The published Greyhawk quite clearly diverges from Gary's...)

are you now insinuating Gary would have given a woman player a hard time if she was a fighter?!?!!?

 

[fuindordm]

Along with XP, I see reputation/honor as tools to align the players' incentives with the desired flavor for the campaign. I can understand why native Asians would find the name irritating. I'm sure if I were a native American I would roll my eyes at an RPG where all spells were described in a chapter called "Medicine".

So henceforth I shall call the stat "Reputation", which I think is sufficiently neutral and cross-cultural.

The original Oriental Adventures had many terrible flaws, cultural stereotyping not being the least of them, but the honor statistic was used correctly from a game design standpoint. The players had a concrete incentive to keep their honor high, which predisposed them to make role-playing choices that were "honorable". The end result was to create a party that behaves more like respected members of society and less like murderhobos, at least if enough of the PCs belong to classes that care about honor.

So it's a very useful stat when you want a campaign where the PCs are embedded in society and want to keep their reputation high so that they derive all the benefits from that society. It's not so useful if you're just dungeon crawling and hitting town to rest, carouse, and resupply.

 

[Li Shenron]

At gen con 4 or 5 years ago I sat down at a shadow run table to play. The DM had 6 players and 8 pregen characters... 5 male 3 female. The problem was the only woman who sat down wanted to play a combat character, and the two he made (Troll bruiser and human street samari) were both male. The story teller kept asking why she didn't want to play the face, deck, or other face he made. I picked up and wanted to play the decker, but he told me "Oh I have a male one too."

Lesson learned a long time ago: if you pregenerate PCs, just leave the name and gender up to the player to finalize.

It makes absolutely no difference if you don't pre-defined those.

 

[GreenTengu]

are you now insinuating Gary would have given a woman player a hard time if she was a fighter?!?!!?

Given that in the raw, straight, printed rules female characters automatically received a -1 penalty to strength (the same penalty received by Halflings)....?
Seriously, that rule was still in the book during 2nd edition! All female characters receive an automatic penalty for being female and are incapable of achieving the highest levels in the Fighter's most important attribute in order to be an effective Fighter.

 

[halfling rogue]

Given that in the raw, straight, printed rules female characters automatically received a -1 penalty to strength (the same penalty received by Halflings)....?
Seriously, that rule was still in the book during 2nd edition! All female characters receive an automatic penalty for being female and are incapable of achieving the highest levels in the Fighter's most important attribute in order to be an effective Fighter.

You betray yourself by saying it is a penalty. It's not a penalty, it's a reflection of certain characteristics. Halflings aren't as strong as a human man. That's not a penalty, it's just a game mechanic to reflect a difference in physique. Human women are more often than not, not as strong as human men. Again it is a game mechanic looking to reflect a difference in physique. This is different than 'giving women a hard time'.

 

[GreenTengu]

You betray yourself by saying it is a penalty. It's not a penalty, it's a reflection of certain characteristics. Halflings aren't as strong as a human man. That's not a penalty, it's just a game mechanic to reflect a difference in physique. Human women are more often than not, not as strong as human men. Again it is a game mechanic looking to reflect a difference in physique. This is different than 'giving women a hard time'.

You betray yourself by being a dishonest human being.

The reduction of a number on the character sheet that automatically results in the character having a smaller chance of success on rolls has ALWAYS and will ALWAYS be a "penalty". And I am willing to bet that in every single other instance YOU refer to it as a penalty.

I have every single confidence that in such editions when your character was poisoned and your character's Strength and Constitution were reduced by 1d6 points, you were not leaping for joy and exclaiming "YAY!! A -3 Strength and Constitution BONUS!!"

No. You didn't. You can cut the disingenuous crap right there. It is a penalty. It has ALWAYS been a penalty. And you call it so when you aren't being a bald-faced liar.

For the -1 Strength PENALTY, Halflings received a +1 Dexterity Bonus. And, yes, this reflected that Halflings were the size of children-- weighting only a third of the weight of an average adult human.

The difference in size between men and women is NO WHERE near that extreme. Not even remotely close. Even if you were to argue a 10% or even 20% average difference in strength, that is no where near the difference between a full adult human and a 7-year old child as we are talking about with the Halfling.

Moreover, that PENALTY that applied to ALL FEMALE CHARACTERS. REGARDLESS OF RACE, mind you, did not come with any off-setting bonus. None. Zip. ZERO. It was just flat out slap-in-the-face penalty for daring to play as a female in a game designed by men for men for the pleasure of men. Women were nothing more than prostitutes or wives-- as reflected in pretty much every single random NPC table in every single AD&D Sourcebook or Adventure where you were likely to see 3 different types of prostitutes as likely types of female NPCs that could be encountered.

That -1 Strength meant that no female Fighter could ever be a decent Fighter by 2nd edition where to be a good Fighter you first had to have an 18 and then roll a 1d100 in order to get to those elite categories. Of course... as a Fighter... you were worthless trash by level 10 anyway (which was at least better than a Rogue who was worthless trash at level 1 and never got better), but without that starting requisite 18, you weren't going to contribute much.

Now, I suppose a dishonest person like you could argue that a female player could always play a male character. After all, the PENALTY, as you would call it if you weren't dishonest, only applied to female CHARACTERS and not female PLAYERS. But it still said much about about views of women. The applied penalty is a very clear message that females are inferior living creatures that have absolutely no positive traits or advantages whatsoever. The best they can ever be is a weaker version of exactly what a male is.

No honest person can misinterpret that. It was what it was and had nothing to do with reflecting reality.

 

[fuindordm]

OK, I think this thread just died a messy death.