Gender Reversal in D&D

[Tonguez]

But more on Topic I think gender descrimination IN GAME is fine as long as it is justified by the 'story'

so say a religion that beleives that woman were created as the conduits by which Life enters the world.

The religion thus teaches
1. Woman are the source of life and life must be protected
2. No woman should put herself in harms way and thus threaten the life that flows within her

ergo a woman who seeks to become a warrior and thus put herself in danger is anaethema for she threatens destruction not only of herself but of the life within her
ergo only males can be fighter-types but equally only woman can be divine casters
Anyone can be an Arcane casters - but as they subvert the power of Life they are despised

works for me

 

[Pseudonym]

Also, I was very glad to be able to buy a bunch of old WoTC Chainmail minis from SVgames and _finally_ get a bunch of fully clothed & armoured female fighter minis! I had a lot of female fighter figs already, but most were of the scantily-clad Larry Elmore-inspired bikini-model type, and I needed more variety.

I'll have to give those a better look. I've been searching for a miniature for my fiancee's cleric, but most of the female Reaper minis I've looked at are either wispy enchantresses in frilly dresses or going for the halter top and chain miniskirt theme. Perhaps there will be something in the Chainmail line more to her liking.

 

[Pseudonym]

I feel like throwing my two cents in here... Basically, the movement towards the "imbalance" of the gender tables in DnD started when WotC took over the line from TSR. If you check out the ADnD 2e PHB released by WotC they have a section of about two or three paragraphs explaining their movement to "gender neutral" pronouns, which consisted of a mixing the male and female uses.

That reminds me of the example character, Karlerren, in the Stronghold Builder's Guidebook who switches gender in each sidebar, and sometimes from paragraph to paragraph within each sidebar.

 

[Kesh]

It's what I like to call "victimization culture." Basically, any group that used to be oppressed or persecuted are allowed to get away with things that the majority can't.

Not entirely. I'm reminded of a college course on history, where a young man raised his hand and asked, "Why do we make such a big deal out of Black History month? Why isn't there a White History month?"

There was silence for a moment. Then the professor answered, "What do you think the other eleven months are?"

 

[Ogre Mage]

I would make the assumption that if asked, many would think it was sexist and chauvanist, yet the female stations would be considered in a much kinder light and no where near sexist. Why is that? I don't know, but my only guess would be that "minorities" have more rights when it comes to empowerment of the whole than "majorities".

This assumption would probably be incorrect. I have never heard any woman complain about Spike (the TV station for men). I have heard two women I know, however, complain that they found Lifetime (the TV station for women) to be sappy with a tendency to portray women as victims. Most women understand that men someetimes need their own space just as they do and wouldn't simply assume it to be "women bashing, misogyny time."

It's what I like to call "victimization culture." Basically, any group that used to be oppressed or persecuted are allowed to get away with things that the majority can't.

"Used to be?" As a person of color and gay to boot, I can unequivocally state that oppression and persecution is STILL AROUND. Just because it is more subtle doesn't mean it is gone. And what exactly is it that I can get away with?

 

[Dark Jezter]

"Used to be?" As a person of color and gay to boot, I can unequivocally state that oppression and persecution is STILL AROUND. Just because it is more subtle doesn't mean it is gone. And what exactly is it that I can get away with?

Chris Rock and Eddie Griffin are black comedians, and much of their stand-up material consists of jokes at the expense of white people. But if, say, Rodney Dangerfield, Jeff Foxworthy, or Dennis Miller were to start telling jokes about black people, what do you think the reaction would be?

Last year, Rush Limbaugh was publically attacked for saying that that the only reason the media was paying so much attention to NFL quarterback Donovan McNabb was because he was black. A few months ago, Spike Lee commented that the only reason retired NBA player Larry Bird was regarded as one of the greatest players of all time was because he was white. Yet, there were no public outcry against Spike Lee.

Those are just two examples off the top of my head. Care for me to continue?

 

[Ogre Mage]

Chris Rock and Eddie Griffin are black comedians, and much of their stand-up material consists of jokes at the expense of white people. But if, say, Rodney Dangerfield, Jeff Foxworthy, or Dennis Miller were to start telling jokes about black people, what do you think the reaction would be?

Those are just two examples off the top of my head. Care for me to continue?

I fail to see how Chris Rock is any different from, say, Andrew Dice Clay, Sam Kinison, Axl Rose or Eminem all of whom had not-very-nice things to say about various oppressed groups. This did not stop the careers of any of them in their heyday. I have heard some people say Chris Rock is in bad taste just as some people back in the day said that Andrew Dice Clay was in bad taste. Others like their un-PCness. The ability to say un-PC things and get away with it is not limited to minorities.

 

[Shard O'Glase]

Well I think its kind of silly especially when the female dominated societies where men are oppresed are considered good societies like the hathrans in FR.

I also think the lack of Human prestige classes is moronic beyond comprehension. While they may be the default, humans last time I checked have societies on the various game worlds. And those societies could develop a thing or two maybe even a prestige class, and maybe humans just might be distrusting/racist enough not to share there prestige class with other races.

 

[Hardhead]

Well I think its kind of silly especially when the female dominated societies where men are oppresed are considered good societies like the hathrans in FR.

Well, a society can be good if it engages in this kind of stuff. It's a huge black mark against them, but they could still balance it out. The fact is, morality is more gray than in D&D. Just because you're CG doesn't mean you can't have one or two "evil" traits.

For instance, take the rural south in the early-mid 20th century. What kind of society is that? People were polite. When a neighbor needed to build a house, the neighborhood pitched in. If someone on the block knew plumbing, you got your plumbing installed for free. Locking your doors was almost unheard of.

Oh yeah, and they were deeply, deeply racist. Sometimes violently so.

What the hell kind of society is that, on the D&D alignment scale? Generally, a CG society, except for one exception. But boy, is that a big exception! I'm not even going to try and answer my own question. I don't think there is an answer.

Simply put: real societies aren't the simple Equality Lands that D&D portrays (and when D&D has societies without eqauality, they're either horribly evil or the inequality is glossed over, both of which are shallow treatments of important and interesting societal questions, whether you're role-playing or not).

 

[Shard O'Glase]

I could somewhat accept that but the oppresion of 1/2 the populaiton should be a huge mark, big enough to knock them out of good but not necesarrily to evil, but I've never seen anything in any FR materials that suggests its even a blemish on there record.(I'll freely admit I'm not a FR expert, I've read a decent amount of 2e materials and the 3e, 3.5 materials though I could of missed stuff) And this could be them just glossing it over as you put it, or it could be them acting like it actually isn't bad cause well its only men.