Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Caliban" data-source="post: 7183248" data-attributes="member: 284">Ok...So who do you think is actually making this somewhat convoluted claim?&nbsp;&nbsp; It certainly isn't me.&nbsp;&nbsp; At least I don't think so, since it mostly sounds like gibberish to me.Ah yes, something I had no knowledge of before now should be my first clue that I'm wrong.&nbsp; Absolutely brilliant reasoning!&nbsp; <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/laugh.png"&nbsp; class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":lol:" title="Laughing&nbsp; &nbsp; :lol:" data-shortname=":lol:" />&nbsp; I think MechaPilots stance is that it is sexist if you are only applying gender based modifiers to a single gender.&nbsp; Not so much str in particular, but only giving women a penalty in the game mechanics so that (everything else being equal) they actually are inferior to men within the game.&nbsp;&nbsp; For example, it would be equally sexist if you gave males a penalty to Wisdom (because males are inherently more prone to reckless behavior and risk taking - testosterone giveth, testosterone taketh away), but didn't give women any stat penalties.If 5e made it so that women had a penalty to Str and men had a penalty to Wis, then it's probably not sexist (or at least equally sexist to both genders, which I guess is better?).&nbsp; But it would certainly make it less likely to ever see a male cleric or a female heavy weapon fighter.&nbsp;&nbsp; If you are playing a game that places a premium on Str for certain in game activities (i.e. heavy weapon users in 5e), and men have no such limitation in any other area of the game...then yes, that is exactly what the game rules are saying.&nbsp; i.e. Men can do everything, women can do almost everything.&nbsp;&nbsp; Game balance wise, men should have a similar limitation in a different area (if you really are going to limit women's physical strength in the game).&nbsp; But realistically - people (both men and women) will still object, because then you are pushing men and women into stereotypical gender-based roles.&nbsp;&nbsp; Which is probably why D&amp;D quickly dropped the gender based modifiers - why lose potential players over something that is really minor in relation to the rest of the game?&nbsp; I'd probably object to this if I understood it.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Caliban, post: 7183248, member: 284"] Ok...So who do you think is actually making this somewhat convoluted claim? It certainly isn't me. At least I don't think so, since it mostly sounds like gibberish to me. Ah yes, something I had no knowledge of before now should be my first clue that I'm wrong. Absolutely brilliant reasoning! :lol: I think MechaPilots stance is that it is sexist if you are only applying gender based modifiers to a single gender. Not so much str in particular, but only giving women a penalty in the game mechanics so that (everything else being equal) they actually are inferior to men within the game. For example, it would be equally sexist if you gave males a penalty to Wisdom (because males are inherently more prone to reckless behavior and risk taking - testosterone giveth, testosterone taketh away), but didn't give women any stat penalties. If 5e made it so that women had a penalty to Str and men had a penalty to Wis, then it's probably not sexist (or at least equally sexist to both genders, which I guess is better?). But it would certainly make it less likely to ever see a male cleric or a female heavy weapon fighter. If you are playing a game that places a premium on Str for certain in game activities (i.e. heavy weapon users in 5e), and men have no such limitation in any other area of the game...then yes, that is exactly what the game rules are saying. i.e. Men can do everything, women can do almost everything. Game balance wise, men should have a similar limitation in a different area (if you really are going to limit women's physical strength in the game). But realistically - people (both men and women) will still object, because then you are pushing men and women into stereotypical gender-based roles. Which is probably why D&D quickly dropped the gender based modifiers - why lose potential players over something that is really minor in relation to the rest of the game? I'd probably object to this if I understood it. [/QUOTE]

Verification