Can sexism be good for plot?

[Glyfair]

Keep one thing in mind - the difference in male/female strength and constitution (whether perceived or real) in our real world does not hold true in 3rd edition; Males and Females statistically are equally strong and hardy in a 3rd edition default world, so the "weaker sex" connotation is lost there. Not to say there might not be other differences, but if there is no perceived physical difference, there is little grounds for sexism out of the gate.

I consider this to be specifically for player characters, who are special individuals who often don't meet the general population's restrictions. While PC femaleswill be on equal ground with PC males on a statistics level, I don't necessarily feel this has to apply to the general population. In my campaign you'll tend to see the same tendancies as you'd see in the "real world" among the general population.

As far as gender roles, I like the way it works in Glorantha (specifically with Sartarites). There are gender roles, but in all cases there are examples of people crossing those roles and it's accepted. Yes, those people are considered a bit strange. However, they aren't really ostracized for their preference.

I haven't had a lot of overt sexism in my campaign, but I would have no problem adding it. Like racism, it's a matter of knowing your players. Some are comfortable with different levels of "real-life" intruding on a fantasy campaign. If I'm not sure whether something I'm considering might cross this line, I'd discuss it with my players before introducing it (I might make a casual in-game reference to see the player's reaction without discussing it first).

 

[milotha]

How do you treat the issue of gender in your worlds?

Do you include elements of gender roles, sexism, etc.?
Do you opt for largely ignoring sexism for the sake of your female players?

Sexism can go both ways, so it might not be ignored just for the sake of the female players.

Most of the games I've been in have just assumed that the genders are equal. As 3.5 currently stands, it's rules are fairly non gender biased. I think this makes for a more fun world. The effectiveness of your PC isn't determined by gender, and thus it doesn't limit your options, especially if others are min maxing their characters.

In addition, I play games to have fun and escape reality. There are some aspects of reality, such as sexism, that aren't fun, and I just enjoy the game better if it's left out. It is after all a game and not a reality simulator.

 

[Brother MacLaren]

I think at least *some* cultures or countries should have various prejudices, superstitions, taboos, and so on. If the DM creates a wide variety of cultures, it doesn't make sense that they would all happen to be egalitarian and logical, since history is full of cultures swayed by beliefs that are not rational to our modern understanding (e.g., racism, divine right of kings, Christian prohibition against charging interest on loans).

Not every culture can or should be nice. Some cultures can have a totalitarian LE streak. Some can have a "don't tell me what to do" CN streak. And some cultures can be very patriarchal - perhaps the gods of some realms or tribes really *do* require treating women as second-class citizens, and punish women who try to exceed their place (much as Lloth does to males). Now, I would suggest that the culture the PCs come from be one of the more egalitarian ones (unless they really want to be fighting the system), but it's certainly worthwhile to have nasty cultures exist as places in the world.

The fact that one woman in 10,000 can toss fireballs in a D&D world does nothing to defeat the idea of discrimination. Discrimination isn't based on an actual difference in physical capabilities, it's based on erroneously assumed differences in capabilities (physical, mental, emotional). People still believed that women were not mentally fit to vote for hundreds of years after capable women had led mighty empires... reality has a hard time defeating prejudice.

 

[Henry]

I consider this to be specifically for player characters, who are special individuals who often don't meet the general population's restrictions. While PC femaleswill be on equal ground with PC males on a statistics level, I don't necessarily feel this has to apply to the general population. In my campaign you'll tend to see the same tendancies as you'd see in the "real world" among the general population.

The only thing is, even for "average" NPC's, there aren't two sets of stats for male-female in the default rules; there's only one set of default stats for non-player characters, hence no gender difference there, either. It's perfectly fine to vary this for individual campaigns, of course, but the core rules mechanically speaking suggest that the kind of small physiological differences between men and women regarding strength, constitution, fortitude, et. al. aren't present.

 

[Gez]

Yes, but it depends on race and culture.

While evil-aligned races (goblins, orcs, etc.) just love racism, sexism, religious intolerance, and all other methods that allow to "justify" treating other people as less-than-animals, good-aligned races (dwarves, gnomes, etc.) don't have such bias, and neutral races (halflings, humans, etc.) are between both.

Then there's cultural factors. In a land where, say, the main faith is of Cruella, goddess of strife, opportunism, and greed; people will be more biggoted than elsewhere. And in a land of cockaigne where war is but a tale to frighten children, and there's plenty for everyone, bias will be reduced to near inexistance.

 

[Fenes]

I base the amount of sexism (and racism) in my games on the same criteria like anything else: Does it add to the enjoyment of the game? Depending on the players and the characters in the party sexism and racism may be encountered daily, or it may be something the characters have only rarely to deal with.

For the rest of the world, my Forgotten Realms are generally much grittier than the FRCS states, so racism and sexism are wide-spread. Usually it menas that while women are not barred from entering traditionally male jobs, or achieving positions of power they are uncommon or rare in either.

 

[frankthedm]

The only thing is, even for "average" NPC's, there aren't two sets of stats for male-female in the default rules; there's only one set of default stats for non-player characters, hence no gender difference there, either. It's perfectly fine to vary this for individual campaigns, of course, but the core rules mechanically speaking suggest that the kind of small physiological differences between men and women regarding strength, constitution, fortitude, et. al. aren't present.

................
Keep one thing in mind - the difference in male/female strength and constitution (whether perceived or real) in our real world does not hold true in 3rd edition; Males and Females statistically are equally strong and hardy in a 3rd edition default world, so the "weaker sex" connotation is lost there. Not to say there might not be other differences, but if there is no perceived physical difference, there is little grounds for sexism out of the gate.

Male / Female weight/ height differences are still included. "Mechanically speaking" the core rules just suggest the differences are not worth modifying ability scores over.

 

[gridion]

</Lurk>

It seems that, once again, where Doña goes I am sure to follow.

I certainly have no objection to including even vibrant sexism in my campaign settings, though I rarely do so. I usually make the conscious decision to leave the sexism and racism settings on low for two reasons:

1) Where a society is heavily racist / sexist, it tends to obscure the plot, either taking the limelight or (as someone suggested) encouraging my more progressive players to leave the city/society to seek more comfortable climes;

2) Where a society is less racist / sexist, the inequity tends to be ignored or treated with less importance that it deserves, making it (at best) a null issue or (at worst) insulting to those who care about such issues IRL.

That being said, I don't "white-wash" my worlds (Doña wouldn't let me, even if I tried). There are certainly gender stereotypes, gender roles, and some gender inequities. One of the most prominant NPCs in my current world was the eldest daughter of a line of patriarchs. She was raised to be a queen, and gifted with all of the characteristics of royalty: intelligence, wisdom, and charisma. Then her father and elder brother died. Her other brother (a PC) didn't want the job and, frankly, wasn't suited for it. So, she took up her father's sword and declared herself King. No one objected (it was a BIG sword). Even so, the NPC is clearly motivated by gender concerns (like sticking women into the line of succession) even though feminism/gender discrimination is not a driving force in the world.

I think that -isms can be included in the framework of a good world and a good game, but doing so requires a lot of effort to ensure that it is given the appropriate level of scrutiny and consistency. There are probably also some special concerns when a game includes infrequent or new players. So, unless I want to make an -ism one of the more important elements of a world/game, I typically set it aside to a large extent.

As usual, just my 2 cents. YMMV.

Gridion

<Lurk>

 

[Orblivia]

I think sexism in a game should be something that is consciously placed there not a defaul on the part of the DM (male or female). You need to consider is sexism saying anything about the overall messages and themes you want to get at in your campaign. If it is there for "flavour" consider how your players would react to this type of flavouring.

I am not a fan of it in a game world. The idea is your playing a hero, and heros are in some way transcendant of stuff. Yes say in FR there are societies that are patriarchal (dwarven society if I recall correctly) or matriarchal (Rashemen comes to mind) and that should be played.

Ultimately sexism or any -ism can have a vaulable place in a game but be mindful of why your placing it there and how it may affect your players.

 

[scholz]

What is wrong with being sexy?.... Uh, that's "sexist". Oh sorry. -Spinal Tap

I lke having wierd cultural differences, and prejudices. They are fun to roleplay although most PCs have trouble adapting to them. That is one reason I am running Monte Cook's Arcana Unearthed Diamond Throne (there is Giantism).
However, I think reinforcine the bad parts of our own society is pretty pointless. Why bother, when it is a fantasy world. I have gay kings, female demons, female arch mages. clerics, paladins etc.. They form about 50% of the major NPCs.

I have another question though. Do you as DMs do anything about the sexism "at the Table" that is, among the players. I try to build groups of people I like, and I don't like racists or sexists. But I notice that in a predominantly male pasttime like D&D when it is mostly guys around the table, talk can get borderline sexist, female players can be marginalized, and similar problems seem to arise.

I nearly joined a guy's game (we were talking about co-dming) until he told me he refused to game with women, because it ruined the experience for him. He felt he couldn't relax with a woman there. Anyone else run into this sort of situation?