Gender in Mechanics

[Turjan]

But what is the "civilian sense" in a game that assumes physiologically equal men and women living in societies that do not discriminate in terms of occupations, etc.?

I'd just take it as a simple oversight. On our way to the completely gender- and raceless society, we still tend to stumble - sometimes !

 

[Dark Jezter]

And are there other instances when gender affects the game at a mechanical level?

There are several female-only PrCs in various D&D books I've seen. But the only male-only PrC I can recall seeing is the eunuch warlock from OA.

It makes me curious as to whether or not male-only PrCs are seen as sexist, while female-only PrCs are considered okay.

 

[Dinkeldog]

Some might have taken Darkness' subtle participation in the thread as notice enough that the mods would pay attention to this thread and watch out for real world politics and political statement. For those that might not pick up on the subtlety, I'll be less subtle.

Carry on.

 

[fusangite]

There are several female-only PrCs in various D&D books I've seen. But the only male-only PrC I can recall seeing is the eunuch warlock from OA.

It makes me curious as to whether or not male-only PrCs are seen as sexist, while female-only PrCs are considered okay.

It's just a precise reflection (no judgement as to their legitimacy/reasonableness) of present-day North American values. At least where I live, the courts and government tend to believe that you can only legally discriminate on the basis of gender if you discriminate against men. I think D&D would be more controversial/abnormal if it didn't mirror the way modern society works. From what I have seen of published settings, D&D also seems to mirror our under-representation of women amongst political and martial elites despite their legal equality.

I think it's a bit of a shame that D&D feels the need to do this but that's just me.

EDIT: I just saw the above post. I hope this post doesn't cross the line that is being drawn.

 

[Turanil]

It makes me curious as to whether or not male-only PrCs are seen as sexist, while female-only PrCs are considered okay.

It is the politicaly correct age dude!

 

[Turjan]

Some might have taken Darkness' subtle participation in the thread as notice enough that the mods would pay attention to this thread and watch out for real world politics and political statement. For those that might not pick up on the subtlety, I'll be less subtle.

Carry on.

Let me clarify, in case it was not clear enough: My post was just meant to point at the fact that writers and editors are not unfailing in their attempt to follow the gender-related guidelines that are given with 3E. Sometimes, our education breaks through to the surface, and this education did not exactly follow the guidelines of today. Nothing to worry about, but nothing to draw deep conclusions from, either. *shrug*

 

[Turanil]

But then I read that killing the "women and children" of evil races is defined as evil in the Book of Exalted Deeds. Now that males and females are equally martially proficient amongst humanoid races, what do people make of this?

It's not a question of gender. It's a question of killing people who are not pillaging and killing around, but raising children in their cave. It doesn't mean that killing female warriors is evil, it means that killing unarmed person who raise helpless children is evil. Then, the role of raising children is assumed to be the province of women while male are assumed to be only good to go out on a killing spree. However, in an amazon society, killing men and children would be the evil thing...

 

[Darkness]

It makes me curious as to whether or not male-only PrCs are seen as sexist, while female-only PrCs are considered okay.

I think apart from special organizations (that probably are religion-based anyway), priest classes and, to a lesser extent, arcane spellcasters are the most likely candidates for a gender restriction.

Even so... Gender limitations for priests seem pretty damn rare in D&D 3.5 so there've been few, if any, such classes so far.
Lolth could have one, I guess.
Kiaransalee, even more likely - AFAIK, her 2e priests all were female.

 

[Wisdom Penalty]

im all for a gender-equal society, but gods forbid a gender-less one.

i think D&D does itself and its players a disservice by becoming so politically correct that it ignores certain aspects of "reality". yes, yes - i know this is a fantasy game, but verissimilitude results from parallels between earth as we know it and our fantasy campaigns. gravity works, the sun rises and sets, and man and woman are two different creatures. not only is this a good thing, it's a wonderful thing.

i appreciate the differences that gender can inject into a campaign. part of the fun of d&d is the variability and the differences that it offers to gamers who enjoy the RP aspects of gaming. if a writer were to base mechanics on gender (e.g., males receive a +2 racial bonus to Strength), the yawps of "Sexist!" would echo throughout the d20 world. i think the issues we touch with kid gloves in the real world - racism, sexism, etc. - can make for extremely potent and interesting factors of gameplay. with the right (read: mature) group, of course.

as an aside, i found it a bit awkward while reading the phb when 3E first came out to see so many interspersed "he" and "she" pronouns. it seems wotc in particular doles out iconics in equal amounts of gender.

so back to the first question - i have no problems with "killing women and children" being more "evil" than killing (able-bodied) men. as someone suggested, perhaps they should have said "defenseless" humans instead. really doesn't matter much, i think.

but your mileage may vary - im the one with a penalty to my wisdom.


W.P.

 

[Mark]

(...) verissimilitude results from parallels between earth as we know it and our fantasy campaigns. (...)

Setting aside your conclusions, verisimilitude results from having a satisfactory level of explanation for anything that is not taken for granted as acceptable regardless of the real world.