Equality in the DnD world

[Zappo]

Usually, there is no sexism, though cultures may vary. I reason that all D&D worlds have dozens of different intelligent creatures, and that racism and sexism lose their spark when speciesism is so much more interesting.

 

[Hand of Evil]

Never really looked at it but I have Drow (nuff said), the Amazons, the Island Witches (priates & witches), the Sisterhood of Night (good vampire clerics)....

 

[Jürgen Hubert]

I actually think it is easier to write adventures for a world with gender inequalities of some sort than for one without them.

Think about it: Adventures thrive on conflict. Any kind of conflict. And conflicts between what people of either gender want from live, and what the structures of their society will normally allow, have been a gold mine for stories, novels, movies, and yes, even role-playing games in some cases.

Introducing near-total gender equality to a game world because you don't want to deny PCs of either gender the chance to pursue any career they want to pursue is one thing. But you shouldn't feel the need to do so merely for the sake of political correctness...

 

[Paragon Kobold]

So yes, there is a very subtle sexism. I see it in which characters are rolled up. I doubt anyone would admit to it, but I see it.

If you are the only one who sees something, you have either succeeded a Spot Check
or failed a Will Save...

 

[StupidSmurf]

I do see, occasionally, a sexist tone towards female characters. It's rare, and it's not immediately obvious, but it's there.

I see women encouraged to play Sorcerers and Thieves, and in some cases it has become the 'thing' to do for female player characters.
And that is sexist.

Why?

Sorcerers, and to a lesser extent Thieves, are perceived as having 'innately' gained their powers or abilities (in the case of thieves, through long hopeless days of scrounging.)
Neither of these classes requires a 'formal' education, in the sense that - say - wizards and assassins receive 'formal' training. Or the way a fighter receives formal training.

The implication, although very, very indirect, is that females have no capacity to be trained, that they are not worth the effort and time to try and train.

In the older editions of the game, females were often mages. There was subtle sexism there as well, in an absurd assumption that it is somehow easier to become a wizard than it is a fighter or cleric.
Nevermind that the training of a wizard is just as bad as a fighter's, and nevermind that surviving as a wizard is just as hard (or harder) as it is to be a fighter.

So yes, there is a very subtle sexism. I see it in which characters are rolled up. I doubt anyone would admit to it, but I see it.

I do NOT see sexism in pronouns. Swordmaster and Swordmistress are the same to me. So are mage and magistress. Priest and priestess. (Of course, warrior is warrior, paladin is paladin, and bard is bard.)

The cynical part of me adds that I think that females are encouraged to play rogues and sorcerers because a) Rogues wear lots of leather, and b) Sorcerers require high Charisma and don't wear any of that pesky body part-covering armor.

 

[sckeener]

Setting by Setting basis and if it matters to the plot

Ultimately it is the setting and plot that the GM throws at the players that determine if men and women are equal.

I recently ran an Egyptian themed game where I basically asked for pain. I had arranged marriages, children marring children, promiscuity before marriage, a culture that valued successful delivery of children more than legitimacy of said children, and where the royal blood line flooded from the mother.....

basically a culture where every man had a female side and every female had a male side....

Egypt was nice that way.

http://www.thekeep.org/~kunoichi/kunoichi/themestream/egypt_column.html

 

[Altalazar]

I think in a world where women can equally become archmages or bishops who could blow up a country with a single gesture, it would be ALOT harder to keep them from having equality.

I think magic, like technology today, is the great equalizer in fantasy worlds, and so it becomes very hard to justify male dominance, which historically was based on brute strength being the primary factor in warfare and power.

 

[Numion]

I've got a couple of friends who're married, and they have they have their balls so badly in a vice when it comes to finding time to play that it's only fitting to extend that 'equality' to within a D&D game

But yeah, it's mostly equal in my world. Leveling and physical capability are equal in the rules, so no 5th level expert wife is going to take crap from his commoner 2 husband.

 

[Psychic Warrior]

I've got a couple of friends who're married, and they have they have their balls so badly in a vice when it comes to finding time to play that it's only fitting to extend that 'equality' to within a D&D game

But yeah, it's mostly equal in my world. Leveling and physical capability are equal in the rules, so no 5th level expert wife is going to take crap from his commoner 2 husband.

Unintentional teh funney?

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

I see women encouraged to play Sorcerers and Thieves, and in some cases it has become the 'thing' to do for female player characters.

You have obviously never played with my group.

One female member of our group has recently played a string of Barbarians, Rangers, Brb / Rng, Soulknives, and gun-toting Scoundrels (SW d20).

My wife has played Rangers, Barbarian / Bards, Jedi Guardians, and, only recently, a Sorceror in a one-shot because (and I quote), "I think I want a character who can light things on fire."

Our other female member is currently playing a Wilder because, again, she likes to blow things up with her mind. This is the only character, I think, who might fit with your rather silly theory - but, again, she picked the character class.

And, if the sexism is subtle that no one notices it, is it really sexism?