NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 5550997" data-attributes="member: 4937">Do you really or do you think it is out the window in just special contexts?  I'd be very much surprised if you really felt it was out the window and I've never yet played the game where it was.  For one thing, a game in which reality was out the window would require so much exposition to understand, that it could only be played by people who'd spent a life time contemplating alternatives.  To begin with, how do you know I don't bat an eye at giant flying birds or humanoids a hundred feet tall.   I used to play with the GULLIVER house rules for GURPS 3e.   I think that more than sufficiently demonstrates a commitment on my part to internal physical consistancy.  But beyond that, while I have no problem with someone saying, "In my fantasy reality, insects can weigh 400 lbs and still be agile and women are as strong as men" (and my rules reflect that), I equally have no problem with "In my fantasy reality, insects can weigh 400 lbs and still be agile, but women are realistically less strong than men."   Those are entirely preferences and I don't see them as unreasonable.   Oh dear.  So, I suppose you have no problem with humans being the baseline for races?   Having two possible genders to select would not being having "men as the baseline for people".   Men are the baseline for people by default when you don't have gender selection.  When you don't have explicit mechanical gender selection, then you are playing a man mechanically and your non-male gender is fluff.  (This is another thing that gets lampooned well in 'Dorkness Rising'.)  In my case, the baselines for women is that they are identical to men; you only get away from that baseline deliberately.   In my opinion, you've got it exactly backwards: "Why is the default assumption that a female character has to essentially be a pretend male..."?  Indeed.  That is exactly it.Why is it that in order to express respect for femeninity you have to pretend it doesn't exist?   Why is it that to express respect for women, you have to value them for excelling at the traditional martial virtue of "beats people up good", and if they are not burly she-males that kick butt and have casual sex then in some fashion we aren't portraying 'strong women' and we are sexist?  I see it exactly the opposite of that.   All these females with 18 STR and capable of out brawling 250 lb hulks are merely demonstrating our hatred or discomfort with feminity.  They aren't women at all, but men in sexy woman suits.  We may prefer fantasy women to real ones, but that discomfort with reality doesn't make one less sexist.Holding that men and women are of equal legal, social, moral, and spiritual worth in no way requires me to live in a fantasy where they are identical.  I can choose to do so for the purpose of a fantasy game, but some one chooses to not do so I don't regard it as a moral failing.  (And perhaps quite the opposite.)Well, first of all, "second class citizen" is intended to cover all situations where the character is discriminated against in the society whether for racial reasons (the character is a half-goblin) or social reasons (such as the character is a slave).   My world is heavily grounded in the ugly realities of the ancient world, which often as not, are not so distantly removed realities as we'd like to think.   So it certainly wasn't created with women only in mind.Secondly, "Fairer Sex" was created as an alternative to forcing someone with a female character concept into conforming to reality because in the fantasy world - much as I disapprove of the sterotype - the character concept of 'kick butt woman' exists.  I'm not going to force someone not to play a Sydney Bristow, Kim Possible, Beatrix Kiddo, etc. etc. if that is what they want, but frankly I find the model to be inherently sexist (and unnecessary).  Mary Edwards Walker didn't win awards for valor because she could out punch heavy weight champion boxers.  Leigh Ann Hester has martial credentials that are second to none, but doesn't need to be put into a ring to prove it.   There isn't some sort of competition where women have to have male upper body strength and melee skill to be valuable, least of all in a world where magic is real.Honestly, "Fairer Sex" isn't realistic either though.  It's purpose is to provide some degree of balance to the option of playing a female in a game that relative to real life puts a much greater emphasis on the value of beating things up.   I doubt even in the ancient world martial prowess was quite as key to success in life as it is in a fantasy RPG, and its that unreality that I have to deal with.Courage? Noble Rank?  Personally, I'm pretty much inclined to say "Why not?" providing you can back up the words with mechanics of some sort.  What mechanics did you have in mind behind the ideas, or are you just throwing words around?  As soon as you can define what either means in game terms, I'd probably consider them.Maybe so, but by and large those real roles didn't include 'front line martial combatant'.  The game itself is skewed however to valuing martial combat and prowess.  That's why the game 'revolves around men'.  For the most part, war and battle are 'a man's world' with women as intruders, and to the extent that you make the game about war and battle you are making it revolve around "masculine virtue".  You don't make the world revolve around men by having stat differences.  You make the world revolve around men by making prowess in melee combat the standard by which people are judged to have worth.  Because if that is your standard, then it doesn't matter whether you have stat differences, you are saying essentially the only thing that matters is that one thing that men uniquely excel at and the only way for a women to be valuable is for her to pretend to be a man in female form.</blockquote>

Verification