Gender in Mechanics

[Imret]

Mine are proactive all the time, but that could be because I don't keep them busy 100% of the time. The frontier areas and most of the major human lands have a standing bounty on the most common evil humanoids in the area, just in case a foursome of hard-edged adventurer types is in the neighbourhood and in need of something to do. It struck me as a little more realistic than the "everywhere adventurers go, something bad is happening right at that moment" arc.

It's probably a playing style thing, but...I've had parties go hunting evil creatures for their own reasons. The Waist-High Warriors (2nd Edition; 2 dwarves, 2 halflings, and a gnome) hunted orcs because...well...they hated orcs, and orcs are evil. It was great fun.

/hijack

On a much older topic from the thread, I disagree with all of you. The Queen was sentient (or so Resurrection suggests), the adult stage a hivemind soldier/worker/gatherer, and the facehuggers a nonintelligent infection vector, in my opinion. I've always felt the Aliens were more a force of nature than an individually intelligent species. YMMV.

 

[fusangite]

I think our society is still a bit schizophrenic (in the non-clinical, multiple-personality sense) about women in combat, as illustrated by the whole Jessica Lynch situation in Iraq. On the one hand, society wants to say "You go girl!" and let women do whatever men do. On the other hand, society winces at the though of women actually getting blown away or molested by enemy troops in combat.

No disagreement here. Like almost everything I enjoy discussing here, what I enjoy is how D&D comprehends and reflects the culture in which it is played. It's great to have someone here who also thinks these things through.

 

[Ogre Mage]

In the Wheel of Time RPG, the spellcasters are gender-divded -- the A'Sedai (female) and Asha'Man (male). Both have their own PrC.

The role of females varies widely from culture to culture, species to species. In some, they are subservient and usually non-combatants (orcs) in others they are bigger and/or stronger (trolls, drow). Even in societies where females are weaker or perceived weaker, the possibility of elite characters (PC or NPC) means that assumptions are dangerous. The BoED goes too far in assuming women are helpless noncombatants; in many cases this is far from the truth. It would be difficult to classify a female ogre or troll as such.

 

[Templetroll]

Some organization-based Prestige Classes (and sometimes feats).

E.g.: The FR have at least 2 Witch of Rashemen-specific classes, hathran and durthan (female only). Maybe there was also a class for male (only) spellcasters in Rashemen, I forgot.

Not sure if that counts.

The male spellcasters were hidden away and protected because they made magic items; sounds like fun to play. I guess they could disguise themselves as a Witch, since they wear masks and be able to get out and adventure. I could see that as a oneshot thing; or each adventure starts with the male spellcaster sneaking out like that guy on the A-Team kept having to escape from the mental institution.

Men normally became berserkers but the PrC for them, Battle scarred Berserker had an illustration of a woman. I didn't understand that since I don't recall any mention of female berserkers in Rashamen.

 

[trowizilla]

Hm. How about other gender differences?
Maybe a -20 to all rolls if a male character takes a hit to the family jewels?

I rather like that idea. Magic Missile is a force spell that never misses. Just aim for the codpiece.

 

[Darkness]

Hm. How about other gender differences?

Well, you can explain a symbol of pain's effects however you like.

 

[shilsen]

Hm. How about other gender differences?
Maybe a -20 to all rolls if a male character takes a hit to the family jewels?

I don't use separate mechanics for men and women in my game, but I did recently describe a successful stunning blow on a PC as a kick to the testicles Since the PC was a changeling (Eberron campaign), his first thought after being hit was, "Should have impersonated a woman today! AARRGH!"

 

[Torm]

I was thinking about this very topic recently when reading through a thread on the differences in the different editions. It occurred to me that possibly the exceptional Strengh limit for women made sense, and should maybe be countered by an exceptional Charisma limit for men. But then it occurred to me that this is, ultimately, a bloody GAME that is meant to be enjoyed, and PCs are supposed to be exceptional, in general. So no limits. If the DM wants to design NPCs this way, maybe that makes sense, but you could assume that a female PC is that one in 10,000 women (or whatever) with the capacity to potentially train up to whip Tyson's butt.

This whole thread has put into my head an image of a large keep in the middle of a city, where the nobles live - the higher in the keep you go, the more important the nobles. But on a staircase halfway up is a large glass sheet that only allows males to pass through......
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh - a matter of information for someone who posted earlier: Males and females are called "witches". A warlock is someone who betrayed their circle.

 

[Imret]

Oh - a matter of information for someone who posted earlier: Males and females are called "witches". A warlock is someone who betrayed their circle.

From "woer" - 'faith, pledge' (a relative of English 'very' and German wahr 'true') and "loga" - 'liar' (a derivative of 'leogan', the ancestor of modern English 'lie'). More or less literally, "oath-breaker".

However, when taken from Old Norse instead of Old English, the root is "varth-lokkr" meaning (essentially) 'one who locks (something) in' or 'one who encloses'." As a term of honour, it is used to describe an exorcist or a magician who traps and disposes of unwanted entities. This is, however, a much less common usage.

I love symbols, and language is just a series of common symbols. So I bother to know stuff like this.

 

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

What gets lost in the anachronism of fantasy is that without baby formula or the ability to store milk, without a daycare system, and without things like disposable diapers, raising a child is a full-time chore that's going to require more female involvement than male involvement, at least when we are dealing with mammals. Historically, women dominated those professions that were compatible with child rearing -- gathering, cooking, textiles, etc. Elizabeth Barber discusses this in her book Women's Work: The First 20,000 Years.

In addition, modern Western birthrates are catastrophically low because of the liberation and economic advancement of women, the development of birth control, and the devaluation of parenthood (related, in part, to how expensive it is to become a parent). As a result, much of Europe and Japan are well below replacement levels with some countries having a birth rate in the range of 1.3 children per women. Projected out, that yields empty countries in a few hundred years. In a fantasy setting with nasty monsters killing people left and right, it's a complete disaster. So if you want to sustain your fantasy society or have it grow, you need women who are willing to have children and raise them, at least as infants. Of course the presence of healing spells and such means that women don't need to have nearly as many of them as they did in historical times, nor will childbearing be as deadly.

An important point that, at least as far as I could tell was missing from this, is that the liberation of men from the household also has a significantly detrimental effect on the rate at which children live to productive adulthood. I would guess that in all but the most sheltered communities you'd have both genders trained in warfare and fighting since the chance of something coming after the homes is so great, but that on both there would be a strong encouragement to keep those skills at home.

The bottom line is that any adventurer already represents a liberated type that the society in no way expects to care for children or behave in anything like a conventional or, honestly, productive manner. So the question simply becomes one of how such societies sponsor/select such types and how willing they are to incorporate women. Which for most societies that recognize leadership roles as exceptions to the pattern of society is a fairly open question.

I should note that I sincerely doubt adventureres would be groomed for leadership except at the higher levels, but the idea of an exceptional caste does translate.

On a side note: John Marrow you might want to check out the Spring 2004 issue of Foriegn Affairs Quarterly, it had a fantastic article on population bust. I remain unconvinved about how much of a problem that will be long term except that we will have a lot of ruined urban sprawl.