Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="fusangite" data-source="post: 1925710" data-attributes="member: 7240">Turjan, you're right about there being no general social pattern regarding the social standard of people who perform child-rearing functions. My assumption that evil humanoid societies would accord low-value status to those who raised children had more to do with their assumed militaristic and evil natures as outlined in the MM and other books. In my view, there is a predisposition on the part of evil and militaristic societies to accord low value to childcare, with the possible exception of the former East Germany. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />As for your point about Gloranthan trolls, I must differ with you. I can no longer recall which supplement said it, but trolls and other darkness creatures are evil; they are just our allies in the war against chaos. Runequest does have a good-evil axis of lesser importance than its law-chaos axis but it does have one.In statistics, there is no "way too many exceptions" in any absolute numerical sense, only as a proportion. Calculating an accurate average for a group of 6 billion people is easier, not harder than calculating one for a group of 10 people. There most certainly is overwhelming statistical evidence that men are 10% (or more) stronger than women. While making a similar argument about other attributes is more difficult, especially with the way that mental attributes are less quantifiable than physical ones, in the interest of game balance, a proportional reward would simply have to be offered to female characters to make this work. I remain more inclined towards Wisdom, because of its correlation in the game to sensory perception: women are less likely to have tunnel vision, more likely to notice things in their field of vision that men would likely be oblivious to, less likely to be colour blind; they also have, and I understand there is some statistical validity to this, a better sense of smell, on average.Failing wisdom, I think Charisma is reasonable if one is running a society like this one. There is no way it would fly in ancient Greece or Rome but in this society, people (both men and women) are more likely to buy magazines with pretty girls on the cover. Still, I think the Charisma case is weaker -- men continue to dominate in areas where Charisma is an active force, rather than a passive one, like politics, even if women are now in the lead in the latter area.Constitution is a hard case to make. Yes, women can do certain extremely painful, constantly painful or stomach-churning things better than men but many of the things that make them better at these specific tasks reduce their overall Constitution, such as the specially designed circulatory system.Psion, can you explain to me how exactly you guys are disagreeing? Jack said the rules take no position on something; you countered by arguing that the rules take no position on something.What you say would be literally true if it were not for the fact that sex and gender map 1:1 in most human societies. If people of the female gender were equally likely to be of the male sex as the female sex what you are saying would be true of humans. Of course, it is not because in our society, mapping 1:1 between sex and gender is so important that we spend a lot of money, public money even on sex change surgery so that people can switch gender roles. I think it is pretty unrealistic to have an identity in physiological performance between creatures across sex unless they are a hermaphrodite species that switches sexes. As long as there is a greater than 0:1 correlation between sex and gender, though, your argument won't really fly with species of non-hermaphrodites. I think Ursula Leguin is pretty much bang-on in Left Hand of Darkness and even there, sex and gender are still somewhat conflated because some of the creatures are predisposed to spend more of their time as one sex than another.</blockquote>

Verification