Sexism in your campaign settings

[Nisarg]

I find it to be one of the curiosities of RPGs that most fantasy settings are pseudo-medieval in aesthetic, but entirely middle-class American in their values. That is to say, its "medieval" because it has castles, but it definitely doesn't have any sexism, racism or religious genocide (three pretty common features of that culture). Instead, the fantasy realm tends to feel more like the "American dream" where a female character is just as likely to be king, hundreds of religions co-exist peacefully (except the "evil" ones, but everyone knows they're REALLY evil, not like in the real world where every religion calls every other religion "evil"), and humans and non-humans interact peacefully in cities, never mind humans of different colours (there are of course, certain races that are "evil"; but again, here the "Orcs" are REALLY evil). Its a very black and white world. It allows us to have all the real villains (the "evil" religions and the "evil" races) that religious and racial prejudice enjoy in the real world, but with a kind of moral certitude that makes it "ok" to hate them.

There's even a handful of non-fantasy examples of this. Deadlands would be the worst criminal of the lot in this case. Its an alternate history america where the Confederacy never fell, and yet, they conveniently abolish slavery, blacks and whites are treated completely equally in the setting, women can be sheriffs or anything else without prejudice... everyone in that setting "gets off" (except masons, for some insane reason). Its a politically correct wet dream that totally whitewashes american history.

Generally, when I run an Rpg I try to find some kind of balance between playability (ie. players being able to have a good time) and realism; but I do try to have realistic prejudices and a lack of these black-and-white villain scenarios (except in cases where its essential to the setting, ie. ravenloft.. though in ravenloft you ironically get a more black-and-white motivation for most of the villains, you know the dread lords are evil, but they have good reasons for why they became that way.. unlike some of the other D&D settings where the bad guys are just mustache-twirling EEEVIL guys).
In general, if one of my players chooses to play a female or minority character (including, in certain settings, a demi-human), I will make it clear to them that it might have some serious consequences as to their opportunities and some pitfalls they might face. Usually the player finds that to be fair and interesting, as its fuel for role-playing and will become part of what makes their character interesting.

Nisarg

 

[S'mon]

I think another simple twist to your campaign is to not accentuate sexism.

I don't, certainly not in this campaign. I thought I had a fair number of male & femle NPCs; it may have been that I haven't presented the female ones in positions of authority very well, eg the high priestesses seem to be seen as pretty passive. Also whenever a male ruler has a female magist/wizard the players (m&f) seem to assume the female spellcaster is little more than a concubine to the ruler, which seems weird to me, it's not intentional on my part & I'm not sure where they got that from.

 

[billd91]

I think a certain amount of background sexism is fine (just like a certain amount of bigotry, racism, intolerance) because it adds a bit of realism to your game, which I think makes it easier for players to relate to. I think we'd find worlds completely devoid of any of these -isms kind of hard to relate to since it's not in keeping with our own experiences.
But aside from that. Even with overt sexism in the game, there can certainly be exceptions as Drifter Bob points out with historical examples. And if you look at those examples, they'll help you find good places to put those exceptions. There are various factors that, historically, seem to have helped form sexist practices including concentration of wealth (the more concentrated, the more inheritance was at stake and the more men dominated the women to ensure that the heir was really their own blood) and the dominance of military power over politics (if men are the primary warriors and that's the main route to political power, then men will dominate politically). As you move away from these two factors, women tend to have more freedom. Have elements in your game that reflect that and I think players will easily understand it.
Add a few other power resources like magic (for an example of magic dominance helping women, see the writeup on Hardby in a recent Dungeon magazine) and alignment tendencies (figure lawful cultures will have more rigid hierarchies, including sexism, than chaotic ones that favor individuals more) and you can have some interesting variations. And you'll help players figure out where they can find good female role-model NPCs if they're willing to look for them. Just find the power resources that don't tend to favor men and you could see more prominent women as the rule rather that exeptions to them.

 

[S'mon]

Nisarg - your approach was my approach also, I'm a bit unsure of it now. My female players told me that since they deal with gender prejudice in everyday life, they would rather not have to deal with it in my game. Their PCs are not explicitly discriminated against, it's more subtle than that - because the general culture is sexist, they say they feel that they find it harder to achieve anything than if they were playing male PCs. The campaign world greatly predates the current group of players, even the current setting has been around a few years longer than I've known them, so altering it is much harder than it would be at the start of a game.

 

[Kemrain]

A friend of mine played in a game wheere, apparently, no one had ever figured out the idea of slavery. This was solely because one fo the players couldn't handle a game in which there were slaves, and the GM acomidated them. This example may be a little off, because it wasn't "I'm feeling uncomfortable" it was "I can't play with this," but, the point remains the same. The GM's creativity is wasted if she has no players; you gotta keep your players happy. It is a game, after all, and we play to have fun.
After hearing that there was no slavery in this game, because of one player, I got upset (I was young at the time, forgive me.) I had wanted to play in that game, but found it less fun without the reality of slavery. I didn't join the game, but played with the GM in another game, and that was cool. I grew out of the upset I felt, but I still wouldn't play in a game that had things I didn't like in it, be they concepts or people.

In my current game, there's plenty of sexism. As a player, I'm fine with that. My character hates it with a burning passion, but that's understandable given that she grew up without discrimination. Not only are there sexists, and racists, but there are cultures who'd sooner lynch someone than allow them to cast Arcane Spells. My character faces more descrimination than most, being a Female Half-Demon Arcane Caster, but I brought that upon myself, and I live with it. Conflict makes the game interesting, and I like an interesting game.

Another thing worth mentioning. Many sexist cutures are the way they are because the patriarchal societies fear the empowerment of women. There's nothing more frightening (to them at least) than a woman with control.

- Kemrain the Ism.

 

[S'mon]

bild - good points - the current campaign as it stands definitely emphasises "the dominance of military power over politics (if men are the primary warriors and that's the main route to political power, then men will dominate politically)" - I'm looking at changing the campaign setup & moving into other areas than warfare & power politics may help. Also maybe a bit of an attitude adjustment on my part, I probably do make too many female NPCs who conform to sword & sorcery stereotypes, at least on the surface - and players often don't get the chance to see past the surface. Eg I think I've only ever once created a female fighter NPC who was over 40 and still commanding troops, female spellcasters are usually either young-ish & beautiful or (rarely) old crones. I like the tropes of s&s but I should probably aim to branch out a little.

 

[WayneLigon]

If they don't like it, I would not include it. If you still wish to include it, a compromise could be reached in several ways. Comparisons to our real world only go so far because (1) we never had magic and (2) we never had the presence of powerful goddess figures who actively granted spells.

In many literary worlds that have a male-dominated society, women often have several professions that are 'outs' for them where members of that profession or guild are considered equal to men and can move freely in society if perhaps not totally 'acceptable'.

In many worlds, magic is traditionally a profession where merit = professional standing. Indeed in some worlds only females can work magic, or they are better at it than men. But magic-users are typically considered outsiders anyway; 'polite society' uses them but never really accepts them as equals because they defy too many conventions.

Religion may also be a way out. Having a powerful goddess figure will give women in the society role models that are very powerfull politically, magically and spiritually. Indeed with having powerful goddesses it's unlikely an Earth-like male-dominated society is going to exist anyway save in small areas, because there won't be an all-male clergy.

 

[Nisarg]

Add a few other power resources like magic (for an example of magic dominance helping women, see the writeup on Hardby in a recent Dungeon magazine) .

Except that if you're talking a standard "medieval european fantasy world but with magic" scenario, that magic would also very quickly be monopolized by men if it at all could be. That is, unless magic was absurdly easy to learn/get, you would see men shutting women out of the study of magic.
And if you had a scenario where women were he only gender capable of magic use, you would almost certainly see men declaring it "evil" and wiping the magic using women out. So again unless it was ridiculously powerful or ridiculously easy to learn, I don't think magic does anything to overcome the gender barrier.

Nisarg

 

[Nisarg]

Nisarg - your approach was my approach also, I'm a bit unsure of it now. My female players told me that since they deal with gender prejudice in everyday life, they would rather not have to deal with it in my game. Their PCs are not explicitly discriminated against, it's more subtle than that - because the general culture is sexist, they say they feel that they find it harder to achieve anything than if they were playing male PCs. The campaign world greatly predates the current group of players, even the current setting has been around a few years longer than I've known them, so altering it is much harder than it would be at the start of a game.

Well, S'mon, my solution to this issue would be that you can either switch from playing in that setting to a different one (and you can certainly have fantasy settings where there is gender equality: either one where its an unrealistic setting and just accepted that way, or one that is fantasy but not "medieval european" fantasy), or you can tell the players that this is an inherent function of their setting and they can either cope with it, try to get their pcs to help change it, or choose to "outvote" you and play something else.

Nisarg

 

[Nisarg]

Another thing worth mentioning. Many sexist cutures are the way they are because the patriarchal societies fear the empowerment of women. There's nothing more frightening (to them at least) than a woman with control.

- Kemrain the Ism.

This is a bit of a "chicken and egg" question. Does patriarchy arise because men "fear" empowered women, or do men in these societies fear women in control because of Patriarchy. What came first, patriarchy, or the fear of women?

Personally, I vote patriarchy. The reasons for the patriarchal model being so prominent in human society seems to be due to more psychological and even physiological issues than with some kind of simplistic "woman-fear", but a sense of fear about women in power is probably a byproduct of the social conditioning created by patriarchy.

Nisarg