Gender in Mechanics

[Psion]

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.?

Non-combatants.

Precisely. The game doesn't define gender demographics. Which percentage of a society's genders are warriors as opposed to commoners is pretty much up to the GM, and many are going to make the assumption that the typical humanoid society mimicks a typical historical human society on this score and make most of the NPC combatants male unless they have a specific reason to do otherwise.

 

[NewJeffCT]

I think the point is how you want to balance the strength penalty. STR is the most important D&D score, so you have to shell out a good bit of advantages in compensation. If you balance the -2 STR with +2 INT and +2 CHA, you will get protests of the other kind: are women more intelligent than men ? +2 WIS and +2 CHA might be more acceptable, also from a mechanics point of view.

Btw, it's not a general rule that male of the species are the stronger subjects compared to females. There are countless examples of the opposite. So, any ruling like that would not be general, but different from species to species (or race to race).

Actually, how about a +2 CON for women? Carrying a baby & childbirth is a lot of work... and, I remember stories about how in old times, they used to use women to dive for pearls because they could handle being underwater longer and with more frequency than men. I think women generally tend to handle extreme temperatures better

But, in general, I think there are too many exceptions to STR, CON, CHA, WIS, etc to justify a + or - by sex.

 

[JackGiantkiller]

Hiya, Fusangite. Jumping in with both feet:

In the RAW, 'women and children' is meaningless. Women, as the rules are written, are just as likely to be cobatants as men. Children, yes, i can see that. Killing the young might be evil...OTOH, I've already stated elsewhere the principle of destroying things that are inherently evil at the larval stage.

In the movie Aliens, Ripley destroys a whole bunch of eggs. The Aliens are arguably sentient. Is destroying the eggs evil? I say it's just smart. Plus, talk about some dangerous babies...


Next/
Ability score modifiers: If we take this controversial step...IMO, women get a Con bonus, and possibly Charisma...but not Wisdom. They are just as irrational as males are. But they do deal with pain that men can't really imagine when giving birth, and even monthly. You might also want to give female monks a bonus to kicking damage, as female humans tend to have stronger legs than males, in equally developed specimens. I don't see a Dex bonus, I know just as many clumsy women as men.

 

[Turjan]

Actually, how about a +2 CON for women? Carrying a baby & childbirth is a lot of work... and, I remember stories about how in old times, they used to use women to dive for pearls because they could handle being underwater longer and with more frequency than men. I think women generally tend to handle extreme temperatures better

But, in general, I think there are too many exceptions to STR, CON, CHA, WIS, etc to justify a + or - by sex.

A +2CON is not completely equivalent to a -2STR, that's why I used the two attribute example, but if you like it, go with it. The exceptions that you mention are handled by the die rolls during character generation (if you don't use point buy).

Personally, I agree that it's too much hassle to assign attribute changes by sex, but this is always the question how far you want to go with detailing resource management .

 

[Psion]

Women, as the rules are written, are just as likely to be cobatants as men.

Where in the rules does it say this?

It doesn't. This is left entirely in the province of the GM.

 

[Rikandur Azebol]

From Mechanical point of view there is easy solution for this problem. No modifiers, except racial pluses and minuses. But how to diffrence genders on mechanical level ?
Well ... there is mechanical way, building points for nations and rough desriptions of gender roles in society.

For example in patriarchal society, where menfolk work in the field while women tend the homes and manage children. Menfolk would build up more their Strenght and Charisma, first to be useful for the society, second to dominate over other males. Among those who are at the top, excepted is that they are the most Charismatic and Strong, Tough and Wise. Or at least Smart. Guy have to be a winner, or will be replaced with someone more suitable.
Womenfolk are expected here to be Wiser, capable of managing the mess that menfolk leave after them. So my choice will be giving points in Constitution and Wisdom.
And good new, since they are not excepted to dominate in, boys only club, they have less worries about social position.

Second example, menfolk are crafters and caretakers, womenfolk rule and serve in army. Boys will need Inteligence, and Dexterity for their crafty work, and Wisdom to manage conflicts among children/animals/pets/slaves left in their care. Their position depend on how important their wife/owner/mistress is making them proud and dominating in their "circle" as well as their own skills wich are giving them their position on the "top" among other crafters.
Girls will build Strength, for obvious reason"We are beating them into the ground with strength of arm, not charm of good heart".
Constitution, because martial training will kill all weaknesses and I doubt that in team would be tolerated someone worthless from military perspective.
Charisma, leaders must have "this something" that make people obey, don't You think ?

Obviously both my examples are bit extreme, with very strictly divided roles for genders. Assuming that particular race have just two genders.

My final note ? People change to fit to their environment, I would surely say no to flat rule that Men have +2 Str, Women +2 this, and +2 that so they would not feel discriminated. No, No, No.
This is discrimination of menfolk ! We are not just stupid brutes incapable of speaking coherently like such ruling would suggest. Belive me.

In my opinion it should depend on cultural limitations and roles how genders build up their atributes/abilities, and I say no to flat unchangable rules ... because they rob us of diversity. Howgh.

 

[JackGiantkiller]

Sorry. Meant to say that the rules as written *imply* that the likelihood of females being combatants is as high as males because there is no mechanical reason whatsoever why they should not be. Cultural reasons will of course always be within the purview of the DM.

In the real world, while the sexes are equal overall, there are significant differences. Females have stronger lower bodies than males, on average. The reverse is true for the upper body, on average. As most weapons are wielded in the hands, this makes males more likely hand to hand combatants in a pre-technological age. As unarmed combatants, things are much more equal, presuming equal levels of training. Women tend to have higher pain thresholds, and can sustain extended effort better, men have more 'fast twitch' musculature and snap into action slightly more quickly. Etc.

edit: I'm waiting to be pummeled...

 

[Henry]

What the statement "killing the women and children" implies to me is not sexism - it's recognition of genocide. If you kill the males of a society, but leave the females and children largely intact, then the society continues (through the male and female children if nothing else). Killing Men, Women, AND children implies genocide - wiping them out.

That there are women combatants is not the issue - the issue is, do you draw the line at wiping an entire culture out, or not?

 

[drnuncheon]

Where in the rules does it say this?

I think he means by implication, since there is no rules-based reason for them not to be. Thus, 'by the rules', with no mention of social issues, etc.

Anyway, I think the reason there's no gender dimorphism in the rules is that a) the rules are not fine-grained enough to support it whne taking into accound other races and such, and b) the designers want the rules to support popular archetypes like Xena (or for an older example, Red Sonja).

If you want to have males have a tendency to be stronger and women a tendency to be more wise/healthier/more charismatic/whatever, then just assign the stats appropriately. Only if there's a fairly significant change to the range should there be a stat modifier.

J

 

[JackGiantkiller]

Good point, Henry. And one still being debated in the alignment threads. Some of us think genocide *is* acceptable..under an absolute alignment system, when dealing with irreddemable creatures that are evil by nature (which ones those are varies by campaign.) See my above post on the Aliens movie....where Ripley and company are continuously attempting genocide. And we are all rooting for them.