Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Riley37" data-source="post: 6592560" data-attributes="member: 6786839">Whoah.If you're against the specific tactic in which people assert that restrictive gender roles in actual history, are therefore a justification of imposing equally-restrictive or MORE-restrictive gender roles on D&D, or related games, then sure, so am I. History tends to include exceptions to those roles, such as Joan of Arc. A game designer who is *less willing to compromise than France was* probably has some kind of personal motivation dominating their game design. (There's a certain game designer making a big deal about how he'll include orcs and trolls in a gladiator game, but NO WOMEN.)That's not the same thing as categorically refusing to consider anything from history ever. When a party is trudging along the road, ON THEIR WAY TO ASSAULT A GORRAM DRAGON'S LAIR, I still base their travel rate on the historical info about horses and wagons and people in armor walking along Roman-designed roads. Invoking BUT HISTORY! as an excuse for sexism in D&D, is a flimsy excuse. That's one thing. I'm not sure that's what Shidaku is doing. There's also starting with the historical Middle Ages, and adding magic, and using that as a setting. That's not necessarily sexist. Especially considering the well-documented egalitarianism of the Dragonborn.</blockquote>