Post/Author/DateTime	Post
DoctorRomulus 03-22-05, 01:04 PM	My group and I have decided to create a shared world or more accurately I’m taking my game world and making it a shared world so I can finally flesh it out. One of the issues we’re discussing is the roles of the sexes as well as relations between them. We were looking at the role of women in our society until recently and of those around the world where women in many cases were second-class citizens at best and just a tad above chattel in others. I mean why is it that women were kept in these positions for so long and what exactly kept them in their place so to speak.. So just from a role-playing aspect in the world we’re working on the women don’t have the same rights as men. They have their place and it is not on the battlefield or in the market. Another thing we considered was that the occupations (classes) that women would be allowed to pursue would either be they are Clerics or Sorcerers because of the perceived “softness” of those vocations. Not that a woman couldn’t pursue any other class, just that it would be a hell of a lot harder. Case and point a woman who decides to be a Fighter would probably be challenged quite often and in some places not be allowed to enter at all. And if she were single traveling with a whole male party it might be considered downright scandalous. What do you guys think and have you tried this on for size at all in any of your campaigns. Just looking to see if there might be some rewarding role-playing aspect to such conditions in our world.
StormKnight 03-22-05, 01:07 PM	Personally, I think you sound like a sexist jerk who's insisting on perpuating problems women have been fighting for who knows how long to overcome in a purely fantasy environment in which you could feel free to ignore such things.
moustache guy 03-22-05, 01:17 PM	Hi Doc! So perhaps in the dominant culture, it is against the norm for a woman to be a fighter or fighter type. That still leaves bard, rogue, druid, cleric, sorceror and maybe wizard. At the same time, I believe that such a culture would also find it unsuitable for males to pursue a certain career. Perhaps men can't be bards. (I don't know, just throwing something out.) You also described this as a role-playing world So I'm sure that different cultures will look at the role of the sexes differently. Perhaps certain barbarian tribes don't care what path men or women take, but they universally fear wizards in particular. Don't forget, that some exceptional women worked past the social mindset.
jnrhayz 03-22-05, 01:18 PM	Just looking to see if there might be some rewarding role-playing aspect to such conditions in our world. It can be rewarding, but it is fun to turn the tables also. Most worlds have nations. So have a nation like this, but also have a nation where men are treated the same way. There are examples of societies on earth where men are not allowed to make decisions. Some people do not think these kinds of things are fun (view previous post), but it adds realism to the world, just as racism does. People hate half-orcs in most game worlds. If you use this sparringly and in an adult way, it adds realism and complexity to your game world. How you go about it, would be best handled within your group, but I would suggest having only small pockets of these things throughout the world, where most of the world is pretty tolerant. Good Luck
Board_Rider 03-22-05, 01:35 PM	I am of the same mind as Moustache Guy. Certainly, realistically, the WHOLE world would not be this way. Some woman, somewhere would eventually lead some sort of revolt. But it is your world so, whatever. I am curious though as to why you feel that certain classes are "soft". All races and classes can be equal for any gender...thats the D&D abstract.
smaugchow 03-22-05, 01:40 PM	If you perpetuate this in your fantasy world, you are likely to annoy any female players who might like to ignore the inequality they have lived with all their lives and just want to smash something. If you are shooting for realism, then it makes some sense to keep it in. Women have been traditionally devalued largely because men are stronger. Thats all. Ever hear the term "The winners write the history books?" Same thing. Some comedian had a funny but biting joke about men and women. A woman can have 4 degrees, an IQ of 215, be a millionaire and have 3 Nobel prizes and 2 Olympic medals around her neck, but the 6th grade dropout meth junkie loitering behind the Circle-K looking for a purse to nab can beat the stuffing out of her in about 10 seconds. It ain't right, but it is reality.
Lxarth 03-22-05, 01:53 PM	If you perpetuate this in your fantasy world, you are likely to annoy any female players I don't think this would be the case as long as the female players are aware that this is going to happen so they can decide if they want to play a male. Just look at some Underdark cities run by Drow...Places like Ched Nesad and Menzoberranzan, where Female Clerics rule and men are scum. Thats not to say they men dont want to play drow because most people will be aware of this unbalance before game starts. The next time I plan on running an Underdark game it will not be in any of these cites. My female player found it to hard to Roleplay correctly (as in killing any upstart male PC's) and kepping the game going. I think you can do this in your game, just dont make it the norm. But if you do want it to be very widespread just make sure your female players (or males playing females) know about this so they can play/plan accordingly.
DoctorRomulus 03-22-05, 01:56 PM	Personally, I think you sound like a sexist jerk who's insisting on perpuating problems women have been fighting for who knows how long to overcome in a purely fantasy environment in which you could feel free to ignore such things. Uh, yeah...., First off we're trying to add a more realistic aspect to our game so the PC's can do a little roleplaying. Secondly, I think there are many more things in this world "perpetuating problems" for women than fantasy rpg. I may sound like "sexist jerk", but you sound a Plain Vanilla Jerk to me. One of the other aspects of pseudo-medieval society you're ignoring friend is the nobility. Does that mean those who play D&D are in a pure fantasy are "perpetuating problems" that the common man has been fighting for who knows how long too?
DoctorRomulus 03-22-05, 02:00 PM	Don't forget, that some exceptional women worked past the social mindset. This is one of the things we're trying to shoot for in the game.
DoctorRomulus 03-22-05, 02:03 PM	It can be rewarding, but it is fun to turn the tables also. Most worlds have nations. So have a nation like this, but also have a nation where men are treated the same way. There are examples of societies on earth where men are not allowed to make decisions. Some people do not think these kinds of things are fun (view previous post), but it adds realism to the world, just as racism does. People hate half-orcs in most game worlds. If you use this sparringly and in an adult way, it adds realism and complexity to your game world. How you go about it, would be best handled within your group, but I would suggest having only small pockets of these things throughout the world, where most of the world is pretty tolerant. Good Luck I would agree with to some extent, but tolerant societies will be few and far between in this world just as they've been in the real world. What some gamers seem to forget is that our "enlightened tolerant" society is a very rare and recent thing. And even in our society certain groups even now are being targeted by some with intolerance.
Nor'Morgwae 03-22-05, 02:05 PM	First off if there are any women in your group you need to make sure they are ok with this first. You also need to make sure you keep the in game culture's view of women is not also represented by the gaming group, if it is for realism in he game, keep it in-game only. Also, keep in mind that the stereo type that women are not equal to men is usually more prominent among upper-classes. Peasents have to spend so much of their time working to survive that these issues simply do not come up (and because the women are doing just as much as the men, often even the same types of work). This also means that survivalist cultures are equally unlikely to have a gender based social caste. It would also be good to balance this with an Amazonian culture in the campaign world. You will also want to consider other races as well. Elves and Dwarves are unlikely to belittle the women in their cultures. Halflings are likely to have certain roles assigned to the genders but anyone breaking a halfling social norm with be widely gossiped about (this includes all adventurers). Gnomes would probably be a good choice for a comepletly open society with no social expectations specific to either gender.
DoctorRomulus 03-22-05, 02:08 PM	I am of the same mind as Moustache Guy. Certainly, realistically, the WHOLE world would not be this way. Some woman, somewhere would eventually lead some sort of revolt. But it is your world so, whatever. I am curious though as to why you feel that certain classes are "soft". All races and classes can be equal for any gender...thats the D&D abstract. From a mechanics standpoint you're right, however what I said was that the people in this world would view those occupations as "soft" and therefore suitable for women more than men.
DoctorRomulus 03-22-05, 02:15 PM	First off if there are any women in your group you need to make sure they are ok with this first. You also need to make sure you keep the in game culture's view of women is not also represented by the gaming group, if it is for realism in he game, keep it in-game only. Also, keep in mind that the stereo type that women are not equal to men is usually more prominent among upper-classes. Peasents have to spend so much of their time working to survive that these issues simply do not come up (and because the women are doing just as much as the men, often even the same types of work). This also means that survivalist cultures are equally unlikely to have a gender based social caste. It would also be good to balance this with an Amazonian culture in the campaign world. You will also want to consider other races as well. Elves and Dwarves are unlikely to belittle the women in their cultures. Halflings are likely to have certain roles assigned to the genders but anyone breaking a halfling social norm with be widely gossiped about (this includes all adventurers). Gnomes would probably be a good choice for a comepletly open society with no social expectations specific to either gender. Right now we haven't decided how the other races handle gender just humans. I'd also like to know if anyone has done this in their campaign worlds and how it was handled. There will also be various races and ethnicities of humans. "He's a Saldareen, you know how they are!" That kind of thing.
StormKnight 03-22-05, 02:16 PM	Uh, yeah...., First off we're trying to add a more realistic aspect to our game so the PC's can do a little roleplaying. Secondly, I think there are many more things in this world "perpetuating problems" for women than fantasy rpg. I may sound like "sexist jerk", but you sound a Plain Vanilla Jerk to me. One of the other aspects of pseudo-medieval society you're ignoring friend is the nobility. Does that mean those who play D&D are in a pure fantasy are "perpetuating problems" that the common man has been fighting for who knows how long too? I suppose if I lived in a country ruled over by monarchs who interfered with my life, I might be bothered by such things in a game. Since neither I nor anyone I know has ever had a problem with the social difference between the local monarchs and themselves, its not really an issue. However, I know several women who get fed up with sexism on a daily basis, and fantasy gaming in general is absolutely full of it. Does a fantasy game right high on the scale of what causes problems? No. But it is also absolutely and totally in your control. There is absolutely NO reason to cause such problems unless you want them to be. So, how are you planning on being realistic, eh? Women are going to be allowed to be clerics because its "soft"? All feminine, gentle, and nice, right? Yeah right. Clerics are the VOICE OF THE GODS. This is not a position you give to people you want to keep in line. Ever. No way, no how. Notice how sexism promoting religions DO NOT have female priests in real life. You just can't put someone you want to keep in a line in a position of power like that. But in a vaguely standard D&D world, the gods decide who receives their power. If the diety decides to grant power to person X, she's got power. So either you've got: A) Women get power. Men say "oops, our gods want women to have power, we better stop standing in the way." B) Women get power. Men say no and try to stop them. Gods get ticked at men for defying their will. Smitings, plagues, curses and all manner of havoc follow. This might make for an interesting setting, but do you really want your entire campaign based around sexual contention? Because you're making that into a MAJOR feature of your game world. C) Gods don't give women power. Well, you decide what the gods do, so you have just decided to create a world that is not only sexist, but sexist on DIVINE levels? Congrats, you've made a major decision about the world just to "keep women in their place". Women can be sorcerors because they are all soft too eh? Yeah, fireballs and disintegration spells are all cuddly and nice, and totally non-threatening to people in power. Upper body strength will sure come in handy in enforcing your rules on someone that can incinerate you from a hundred yards away. I assume since you are being "realistic" you also won't have adventures. PCs will be conscripted into armies if they are going to fight and hope desperately to survive and get to return to their simple crops and families and enjoy life. To me, your doing one of two things. You're either saying "Hey, we want sexism in our games so its more like what we think medieval times were like", and pretty much ignoring any of the consequences of the fantasy environment or the many facets of medieval life you are probably leaving out just so you can have your male-dominated society, or you are deliberately putting effort into designing your campaign world just to be sexist. Either way, the jerk comment stands.
DoctorRomulus 03-22-05, 02:17 PM	I don't think this would be the case as long as the female players are aware that this is going to happen so they can decide if they want to play a male. Just look at some Underdark cities run by Drow...Places like Ched Nesad and Menzoberranzan, where Female Clerics rule and men are scum. Thats not to say they men dont want to play drow because most people will be aware of this unbalance before game starts. The next time I plan on running an Underdark game it will not be in any of these cites. My female player found it to hard to Roleplay correctly (as in killing any upstart male PC's) and kepping the game going. I think you can do this in your game, just dont make it the norm. But if you do want it to be very widespread just make sure your female players (or males playing females) know about this so they can play/plan accordingly. Thank you. Can you explain it to Stormknight, thanks.
Callista 03-22-05, 02:25 PM	Personally, I think you sound like a sexist jerk who's insisting on perpuating problems women have been fighting for who knows how long to overcome in a purely fantasy environment in which you could feel free to ignore such things. Hey, don't judge this guy before you know why he's doing this. From his post, it seems as though he's wanting a world that's closer to our own history rather than an idealized fantasy world--which is fine. I'm a girl, and I wouldn't have problems with it; just keep the prejudice to Neutral or Evil aligned people, or at least those ignorant enough to believe in it. Don't handicap female characters too much, though. A Drow or Orc should have way more problems fitting into society than a female fighter or ranger or paladin (wow, there's an interesting idea... a female paladin in a society where women don't fight! Sounds like Joan of Arc to me, except with military skills rather than Saint-ish Charisma). How mature are your players? If they're not very old or mature--if they're anywhere below 20 or so, and not acting mature for their age--they're probably not ready for playing in a world where women are oppressed. Remember that adventurers are already subject to prejudices, especially in the pseudo-medieval world you're trying to make... kinda like Gypsies... they don't settle down like normal people; they're powerful; they're rich... resentment over all that is probably going to overshadow anything that female adventurers get for swinging a sword. They may end up keeping company more with the men of the town, and having to prove themselves, rather than the women, who might think it's a very improper thing for a girl to do. Do NOT limit female characters to certain classes; but do tell them that society in general will look askance at them if they choose these classes--though, again, not nearly as much as if they'd played a monster race, and never enough to handicap them. Thankfully, only the Paladin is a Charisma-based combat class, and that only partially; the high-CHA "party face" will probably be a rogue or sorcerer, and thus fine dealing with others whatever gender they are. Remember that disguising yourself or someone else as a different gender is easy enough to do; and glamered armour is relatively cheap (so the fighter can look like a sorcerer); so if they have to blend in, they can do so. Ideas for adventures come out of this backwards view on women you're putting into your world. For example, the characters might meet an NPC woman who's obviously being battered by her husband, but no one's doing anything about it... add a few twists--let's say he's got information they need, or they have to escort them from somewhere to somewhere else--and you have an interesting encounter. Or they might meet a young boy who, a Spot check later, is actually a young girl running away from an arranged marriage. If you have a lot of Chaotic PCs, they'll be fine with turning the social order upside down. If it were me and my fellow gamers, we might start a women's rights movement. Or we might end up playing Lawfuls and try to have laws for the proper treatment of women put into place. I don't recommend an Evil party in this setting though--you're just asking for trouble. Weigh your options. Will you get more fun out of having a morally relativistic world that's closer to our own history; or do you want a completely fantasy world where things are more black-and-white, and your players know where they stand? Either one can be fun. I tend towards the latter, myself.
lifespeed 03-22-05, 02:42 PM	Doc, I have to applaud you and your players for deciding to make a more realistic world, at least in his aspect. All to often RPG settings ignore racial, sexual and religious inequality in order to be "pc" about things and not **** off women players and the like. This kind of bugs me, but I can understand it from a marketing standpoint, and from the fact that a lot of peopel are unconfortable playing out racism and the like, and if they don't want it in their game, then that's fine, it's their game. Secondly, StormKnight, revisionist history is bad, very bad. By thinking that Doc is a sexist pig because he wants to represent his world realisticly is stupid, that doesn't make him sexist. Your actions, trying to ignore the past and pretend that women weren't oppressed is stupid, because it makes everything that the women's movements have won seem pointless. You have to acknoledge the past because it happened, deal with it and move on, and frankly, I doubt that Doc had much to do with oppressing women. You should guard your tongue and not insult people so easily. On to the topic at hand, now that I'm off my soapbox. Women for the most part didn't really gain the rights they have now until the West began to industrialize, and there's a few reasons for that. In England for example, a lot of upper middle and upper class women started to get bored, because they had maids and such to do everything for them, and all they did was plan activites and sit around, they started to look for things to do and realized that they were dnied a lot of things,a nd it ****** them off. This pervades to the lower class too, as women living in cities needed somethign to do while there was no farm work to be done and their husbands were off at factories and such. Boredom, essentially, breeds gender equality. In a standard fantasy world, it's resonable for there to be above average women adventurers and such because all such people are above average, there's no reason not to allow women. Furthermore, much of what people consider sexist doesn't really apply to ancient and midevial society, because these are societies where women are actually doing a lot, and many of the jobs outside the home are nasty and violent or very labor intensive, something that is better for men because they can't nurse children or birth them. Don't think that being a mother is now or ever was an easy job (because you again do women a dis-service), especially in times were infant mortality rates were much higher. As for women leaders, this is something that is determined almost entirely by society and religion. The fact that men are going off to do a job for a certain period of time each day (in some cases) means that they have time to socialize and such, a housewife's job never ends, where her husband gets breaks. With time for breaks, you have time to philosophise and the like, and with mostly men doing this, they become the ones deciding things. See above and remember that boredom begets gender equality. So, decide where you want the societies to sit economically and technologically, as these two factors have a lot of influence on gender rights, the figure out the religion as well and let that factor influence things. Finally, somebody mentioned cultures where women have all the power. Such matriarchal cultures are uncommon and pretty much always small in scale and quite often tribal, and while there is nothing wrong with this, when you explode it to a larger scale, be careful to keep in mind how the society survives, because each gender is better suited to differant roles. Finally, this is fantasy, so toss out whatever you don't want, add what you do, and have fun.
DoctorRomulus 03-22-05, 02:44 PM	First of all this is a work in progress and the “consequences” of how the world is affected is yet to be worked out. Second I’ve come to the conclusion that you are so abhorrently naïve or just so ignorant that you have to have knee-jerk reaction to anything that’s even vaguely not politically correct or “progressive”. And third, that being the case why should I even begin to care what you think. So unless you have something constructive to contribute I’ll thank you very much not to comment at all. I suppose if I lived in a country ruled over by monarchs who interfered with my life, I might be bothered by such things in a game. Since neither I nor anyone I know has ever had a problem with the social difference between the local monarchs and themselves, its not really an issue. However, I know several women who get fed up with sexism on a daily basis, and fantasy gaming in general is absolutely full of it. Does a fantasy game right high on the scale of what causes problems? No. But it is also absolutely and totally in your control. There is absolutely NO reason to cause such problems unless you want them to be. So, how are you planning on being realistic, eh? Women are going to be allowed to be clerics because its "soft"? All feminine, gentle, and nice, right? Yeah right. Clerics are the VOICE OF THE GODS. This is not a position you give to people you want to keep in line. Ever. No way, no how. Notice how sexism promoting religions DO NOT have female priests in real life. You just can't put someone you want to keep in a line in a position of power like that. But in a vaguely standard D&D world, the gods decide who receives their power. If the diety decides to grant power to person X, she's got power. So either you've got: A) Women get power. Men say "oops, our gods want women to have power, we better stop standing in the way." B) Women get power. Men say no and try to stop them. Gods get ticked at men for defying their will. Smitings, plagues, curses and all manner of havoc follow. This might make for an interesting setting, but do you really want your entire campaign based around sexual contention? Because you're making that into a MAJOR feature of your game world. C) Gods don't give women power. Well, you decide what the gods do, so you have just decided to create a world that is not only sexist, but sexist on DIVINE levels? Congrats, you've made a major decision about the world just to "keep women in their place". Women can be sorcerors because they are all soft too eh? Yeah, fireballs and disintegration spells are all cuddly and nice, and totally non-threatening to people in power. Upper body strength will sure come in handy in enforcing your rules on someone that can incinerate you from a hundred yards away. I assume since you are being "realistic" you also won't have adventures. PCs will be conscripted into armies if they are going to fight and hope desperately to survive and get to return to their simple crops and families and enjoy life. To me, your doing one of two things. You're either saying "Hey, we want sexism in our games so its more like what we think medieval times were like", and pretty much ignoring any of the consequences of the fantasy environment or the many facets of medieval life you are probably leaving out just so you can have your male-dominated society, or you are deliberately putting effort into designing your campaign world just to be sexist. Either way, the jerk comment stands.
DoctorRomulus 03-22-05, 02:47 PM	Thank you Callista. Hey, don't judge this guy before you know why he's doing this. From his post, it seems as though he's wanting a world that's closer to our own history rather than an idealized fantasy world--which is fine. I'm a girl, and I wouldn't have problems with it; just keep the prejudice to Neutral or Evil aligned people, or at least those ignorant enough to believe in it. Don't handicap female characters too much, though. A Drow or Orc should have way more problems fitting into society than a female fighter or ranger or paladin (wow, there's an interesting idea... a female paladin in a society where women don't fight! Sounds like Joan of Arc to me, except with military skills rather than Saint-ish Charisma). How mature are your players? If they're not very old or mature--if they're anywhere below 20 or so, and not acting mature for their age--they're probably not ready for playing in a world where women are oppressed. Remember that adventurers are already subject to prejudices, especially in the pseudo-medieval world you're trying to make... kinda like Gypsies... they don't settle down like normal people; they're powerful; they're rich... resentment over all that is probably going to overshadow anything that female adventurers get for swinging a sword. They may end up keeping company more with the men of the town, and having to prove themselves, rather than the women, who might think it's a very improper thing for a girl to do. Do NOT limit female characters to certain classes; but do tell them that society in general will look askance at them if they choose these classes--though, again, not nearly as much as if they'd played a monster race, and never enough to handicap them. Thankfully, only the Paladin is a Charisma-based combat class, and that only partially; the high-CHA "party face" will probably be a rogue or sorcerer, and thus fine dealing with others whatever gender they are. Remember that disguising yourself or someone else as a different gender is easy enough to do; and glamered armour is relatively cheap (so the fighter can look like a sorcerer); so if they have to blend in, they can do so. Ideas for adventures come out of this backwards view on women you're putting into your world. For example, the characters might meet an NPC woman who's obviously being battered by her husband, but no one's doing anything about it... add a few twists--let's say he's got information they need, or they have to escort them from somewhere to somewhere else--and you have an interesting encounter. Or they might meet a young boy who, a Spot check later, is actually a young girl running away from an arranged marriage. If you have a lot of Chaotic PCs, they'll be fine with turning the social order upside down. If it were me and my fellow gamers, we might start a women's rights movement. Or we might end up playing Lawfuls and try to have laws for the proper treatment of women put into place. I don't recommend an Evil party in this setting though--you're just asking for trouble. Weigh your options. Will you get more fun out of having a morally relativistic world that's closer to our own history; or do you want a completely fantasy world where things are more black-and-white, and your players know where they stand? Either one can be fun. I tend towards the latter, myself.
DoctorRomulus 03-22-05, 02:50 PM	Thank you, Lifespeed Doc, I have to applaud you and your players for deciding to make a more realistic world, at least in his aspect. All to often RPG settings ignore racial, sexual and religious inequality in order to be "pc" about things and not **** off women players and the like. This kind of bugs me, but I can understand it from a marketing standpoint, and from the fact that a lot of peopel are unconfortable playing out racism and the like, and if they don't want it in their game, then that's fine, it's their game. Secondly, StormKnight, revisionist history is bad, very bad. By thinking that Doc is a sexist pig because he wants to represent his world realisticly is stupid, that doesn't make him sexist. Your actions, trying to ignore the past and pretend that women weren't oppressed is stupid, because it makes everything that the women's movements have won seem pointless. You have to acknoledge the past because it happened, deal with it and move on, and frankly, I doubt that Doc had much to do with oppressing women. You should guard your tongue and not insult people so easily. On to the topic at hand, now that I'm off my soapbox. Women for the most part didn't really gain the rights they have now until the West began to industrialize, and there's a few reasons for that. In England for example, a lot of upper middle and upper class women started to get bored, because they had maids and such to do everything for them, and all they did was plan activites and sit around, they started to look for things to do and realized that they were dnied a lot of things,a nd it ****** them off. This pervades to the lower class too, as women living in cities needed somethign to do while there was no farm work to be done and their husbands were off at factories and such. Boredom, essentially, breeds gender equality. In a standard fantasy world, it's resonable for there to be above average women adventurers and such because all such people are above average, there's no reason not to allow women. Furthermore, much of what people consider sexist doesn't really apply to ancient and midevial society, because these are societies where women are actually doing a lot, and many of the jobs outside the home are nasty and violent or very labor intensive, something that is better for men because they can't nurse children or birth them. Don't think that being a mother is now or ever was an easy job (because you again do women a dis-service), especially in times were infant mortality rates were much higher. As for women leaders, this is something that is determined almost entirely by society and religion. The fact that men are going off to do a job for a certain period of time each day (in some cases) means that they have time to socialize and such, a housewife's job never ends, where her husband gets breaks. With time for breaks, you have time to philosophise and the like, and with mostly men doing this, they become the ones deciding things. See above and remember that boredom begets gender equality. So, decide where you want the societies to sit economically and technologically, as these two factors have a lot of influence on gender rights, the figure out the religion as well and let that factor influence things. Finally, somebody mentioned cultures where women have all the power. Such matriarchal cultures are uncommon and pretty much always small in scale and quite often tribal, and while there is nothing wrong with this, when you explode it to a larger scale, be careful to keep in mind how the society survives, because each gender is better suited to differant roles. Finally, this is fantasy, so toss out whatever you don't want, add what you do, and have fun.
lifespeed 03-22-05, 02:54 PM	(wow, there's an interesting idea... a female paladin in a society where women don't fight! Sounds like Joan of Arc to me, except with military skills rather than Saint-ish Charisma). Actually, I think this sounds just like Joan, she was at least tactical if the legends are to be believed, leading all those battles and stuff. I'd say the real differance probably lies in personal skill, a female paladin would probably be better in a fight than Joan, but that's a pretty weird kind of comparison, RPG class vs. historically grounded (after a fashion) saint.
lifespeed 03-22-05, 02:55 PM	No problem Doc, hopefully my post is of some help.
True Cavalier 03-22-05, 03:03 PM	My campaign setting is very close to western european dark ages. (women wizards? Where's my torch... well alright, it's not THAT bad). But it does not hold true for all kingdoms, and it works on humans mostly. And dwarves, but in a different way. And Joan, if anything, was Charismatic (Paladin? Bard?) though I am not an expert.
hiryuu 03-22-05, 03:08 PM	One of my home brew worlds has some clearly defined gender roles, though in recent years these have been waning, especially in rural areas ("Can you haul a bag of sand? Then I don't care if you got four horns and your skin is blue, get to workin'"). Traditional gender roles follow standard patterns. In the Neolithic cultures of the world, the men went hunting, leaving the women at home to run things there. This resulted (with no nomadic tribes or Aryans to deal with) in this particular facet becoming dominant. Men are the workers, while women are the strategists and economists. That is, you may encounter a business run by men, but with female advisory boards and executive branches. Women are often drafted as village guards while men are drafted into armies. When it comes time to pay the bill, the barkeep looks at the woman first. When war broke out, both men and women were conscripted (a mage with a smaller frame would blast just as hard....), and women were mostly given mobile units, usually the air forces (typically smaller frames meant less weight for flying beasts to carry aloft). Marital arts programs to take advantage of the "pilots'" small frames were passed around, and it was men who lead the charge lines and women who did logistical and tactical work. The militaries are slowly changing, and maybe in another hundred years there will be equal integration, but for now, I tried my best to avoid "one is worse than the other." They are merely different.
MasterRookie 03-22-05, 03:10 PM	Personally, I think you sound like a sexist jerk who's insisting on perpuating problems women have been fighting for who knows how long to overcome in a purely fantasy environment in which you could feel free to ignore such things. Its called realism you jack ass.
DoctorRomulus 03-22-05, 03:12 PM	I like that "Joan of Arc" thing, female farm girl has vision. Leads the armies of Hyarnd against the Vor horde along the having to constantly prove herself to the men she runs into in order to finally lead them. At the end they'd be her most stout supporters. Actually, I think this sounds just like Joan, she was at least tactical if the legends are to be believed, leading all those battles and stuff. I'd say the real differance probably lies in personal skill, a female paladin would probably be better in a fight than Joan, but that's a pretty weird kind of comparison, RPG class vs. historically grounded (after a fashion) saint.
MasterRookie 03-22-05, 03:14 PM	If you perpetuate this in your fantasy world, you are likely to annoy any female players who might like to ignore the inequality they have lived with all their lives and just want to smash something. If you are shooting for realism, then it makes some sense to keep it in. Women have been traditionally devalued largely because men are stronger. Thats all. Ever hear the term "The winners write the history books?" Same thing. Some comedian had a funny but biting joke about men and women. A woman can have 4 degrees, an IQ of 215, be a millionaire and have 3 Nobel prizes and 2 Olympic medals around her neck, but the 6th grade dropout meth junkie loitering behind the Circle-K looking for a purse to nab can beat the stuffing out of her in about 10 seconds. It ain't right, but it is reality. If here medal is in wrestling or Judo I think not.
RogerWilco 03-22-05, 03:25 PM	A few more or less relevant points I 2want to make: 1) In medieval society nobility was the most important in determining rank, Queen Victoria, Isabella of Castille, Margareta of Austria, Queen Elisabeth, Marie, Duchess of Burgundy, Cleopatra, to name a few. 2) Sexism still exists, although in a more veiled way, things like "the glass ceiling", etc. 3) WotC has been trying very hard with 3.0/3.5 Edition to get away from the stereotyped chainmail bikini fantasy warrioresses. http://elfwood.lysator.liu.se/art/l/i/lissa/bikinis.jpg.html 4) I agree that in a sexist society religion would be used to justify the status quo, maybe even resulting in a male-only pantheon, altough the Greek and Roman and Egyptian pantheons featured both gods and godesses. The vestal virgins even had some amount of power in Rome. 5) Next to the forementioned "boredom" caused by the industrialization, birth control has been a mayor factor in emancipation. (Guess who's against it, the Roman Catholic church for example?) 6) Exceptions have always existed, Joan of Arc being one of the most famous ones. 7) The traditional roles were basically determined by men having more strength, and women being pregnant much of their lives. (10+ pregnancies was normal) Infant mortality was high, and a lot of women died giving birth. If you realy want to do this, I think you need to change some mechanics too, as the game has explicitly been designed to not have a bias. Give women -2 STR +2DEX +2CON, then reason what effect that would have on the distribution of classes to see how this works out in the game.
DoctorRomulus 03-22-05, 03:29 PM	:D :D :D :D :D You said, "Marital Arts" :D :D :D Sorry, couldn't resist! :P One of my home brew worlds has some clearly defined gender roles, though in recent years these have been waning, especially in rural areas ("Can you haul a bag of sand? Then I don't care if you got four horns and your skin is blue, get to workin'"). Traditional gender roles follow standard patterns. In the Neolithic cultures of the world, the men went hunting, leaving the women at home to run things there. This resulted (with no nomadic tribes or Aryans to deal with) in this particular facet becoming dominant. Men are the workers, while women are the strategists and economists. That is, you may encounter a business run by men, but with female advisory boards and executive branches. Women are often drafted as village guards while men are drafted into armies. When it comes time to pay the bill, the barkeep looks at the woman first. When war broke out, both men and women were conscripted (a mage with a smaller frame would blast just as hard....), and women were mostly given mobile units, usually the air forces (typically smaller frames meant less weight for flying beasts to carry aloft). Marital arts programs to take advantage of the "pilots'" small frames were passed around, and it was men who lead the charge lines and women who did logistical and tactical work. The militaries are slowly changing, and maybe in another hundred years there will be equal integration, but for now, I tried my best to avoid "one is worse than the other." They are merely different.
MasterRookie 03-22-05, 03:37 PM	I suppose if I lived in a country ruled over by monarchs who interfered with my life, I might be bothered by such things in a game. Since neither I nor anyone I know has ever had a problem with the social difference between the local monarchs and themselves, its not really an issue. However, I know several women who get fed up with sexism on a daily basis, and fantasy gaming in general is absolutely full of it. Does a fantasy game right high on the scale of what causes problems? No. But it is also absolutely and totally in your control. There is absolutely NO reason to cause such problems unless you want them to be. So, how are you planning on being realistic, eh? Women are going to be allowed to be clerics because its "soft"? All feminine, gentle, and nice, right? Yeah right. Clerics are the VOICE OF THE GODS. This is not a position you give to people you want to keep in line. Ever. No way, no how. Notice how sexism promoting religions DO NOT have female priests in real life. You just can't put someone you want to keep in a line in a position of power like that. But in a vaguely standard D&D world, the gods decide who receives their power. If the diety decides to grant power to person X, she's got power. So either you've got: A) Women get power. Men say "oops, our gods want women to have power, we better stop standing in the way." B) Women get power. Men say no and try to stop them. Gods get ticked at men for defying their will. Smitings, plagues, curses and all manner of havoc follow. This might make for an interesting setting, but do you really want your entire campaign based around sexual contention? Because you're making that into a MAJOR feature of your game world. C) Gods don't give women power. Well, you decide what the gods do, so you have just decided to create a world that is not only sexist, but sexist on DIVINE levels? Congrats, you've made a major decision about the world just to "keep women in their place". Women can be sorcerors because they are all soft too eh? Yeah, fireballs and disintegration spells are all cuddly and nice, and totally non-threatening to people in power. Upper body strength will sure come in handy in enforcing your rules on someone that can incinerate you from a hundred yards away. I assume since you are being "realistic" you also won't have adventures. PCs will be conscripted into armies if they are going to fight and hope desperately to survive and get to return to their simple crops and families and enjoy life. To me, your doing one of two things. You're either saying "Hey, we want sexism in our games so its more like what we think medieval times were like", and pretty much ignoring any of the consequences of the fantasy environment or the many facets of medieval life you are probably leaving out just so you can have your male-dominated society, or you are deliberately putting effort into designing your campaign world just to be sexist. Either way, the jerk comment stands. Question what if the gods don't give two ***** about the petty squabling of mortals over gender and they give divine power to those who seem most pietous. I'm guessing your just one of those jerk offs who bring gods into everything and think just because they have power they use it constantly. Sorcerors seem "soft" because they don't get sweaty, dirty, beat up or anything else that would normally require toughness. As for clerics it could be a system where clerics are like nuns, or there is even a genderally segregated clerical system. He's trying to add flavor to his game. Your being ingnourant now get lost. I have a thought for clerics. Only men should be aloud to be clerics, but there can be women paladins. Mankind not wanting to interfere with the gods wishes no mater what the gender, alows women called to the Paladin's path to go about their buissness. Femal Paladins can be Jone of Arc type characters. Often men would probably question whether or not a woman truely is a paladin. There may be a harsh punishment for anyone who impersonates a Paladin, Femal paladins would probably be nearly the only ones ever accused. Women should be forbiden from most military organizations, however on occasion femal Mercenarys may be hired durring wartime. Women could be aloud to make up millitias durring war time when all the men have been drafted. It is likely that a powerful class such as the wizard would not be acceptant of women in a patriarcal society. However sorceror classes are not organized so a women sorceror can exist. It is likely that Patriarcal societys would not accept women sorcerors and may even have them executed. Rogues would likely accept women however male rogues would probably be extremely indignat towards them. Bard hood would probably be the only class that women are equal itn.
smaugchow 03-22-05, 03:44 PM	If here medal is in wrestling or Judo I think not. Did you see the celebrity boxing match where Joanie Laurer (sp - Chyna from WWF) fought Joey Buttafuocco? Hyper-ripped, very athletic woman (though not true sport, pro wrestling requires immense athletic ability) versus a big fat jerk. Joey pushed her around like she was his 90-pound teenaged girlfriend. Obviously not every guy can best every woman.
RogerWilco 03-22-05, 03:45 PM	Bard hood would probably be the only class that women are equal itn. Please note that traditionally women weren't alowed to play in theaters, all female roles were actually played by men in most cases. I think you'll find female rogues, sorcerers, druids and maybe clerics and some bards in a very male dominated society. The stereotype of the Witch has often been a way to take action against knowlegdable and powerfull women.
StormKnight 03-22-05, 03:46 PM	Secondly, StormKnight, revisionist history is bad, very bad. By thinking that Doc is a sexist pig because he wants to represent his world realisticly is stupid, that doesn't make him sexist. Revisionist history is irrelevant to this. Its Doc's world. It can be anything he wants. If he wants it to be sexist, that's his choice. If he were asking "I'm running a historical game set in the Crusades, but I'm wondering how to deal with the problems that female characters may face, how should I handle it?" my response would be totally different. If you include social injustice in your game, your opening a can of worms. I think most players want to have exciting adventures, fight evil, and go on epic quests. They don't want to struggle with moral dilemnas and trying to change society. But, if you've got severe social injustice in your game, and are a good character with power, why SHOULDN'T you try to deal with it? What does it matter if you stop the <insert whatever evil force here> from enslaving the land if most of the people are already enslaved? How can you in good conscience NOT try to fight such things? Its called realism you jack ass. Well, I gotta agree. Sexist jerks are realistic. No argument there. Second I’ve come to the conclusion that you are so abhorrently naïve or just so ignorant that you have to have knee-jerk reaction to anything that’s even vaguely not politically correct or “progressive”. Naive or ignorant? Well, I suppose if I were I wouldn't know? Knee jerk reaction to anything not PC? Doubtful, though there's definetly a knee-jerk reaction to sexism. But then, how would I know if I had a knee-jerk reaction to anything else? You can look on the D&D boards and at least once a week and see a "Hey I want my campaign to be sexist" or "How do I keep women out of my gaming group" or "How do I justify making female characters weaker", but I have yet to see a "Hey, how do I handle blacks being slaves in my game" or "My game will feature an evil race of humans who have darkish skin and bow to their home city at certain times of the day in worship. They are all impure infidels and the game will focus on wiping them out." Aren't these two things historically "realistic?" Do you honestly think someone wouldn't be flamed off the boards in an instant, and possibly just have the thread locked if they made a comment like that? Would anyone argue with someone calling one of these people a jerk. The gaming hobby is still rampantly sexist. It still tries to keep women out. Yes, there are many women who overcome that and get into the hobby. Things like this may not bother them - the've already overcome massive sexism to get into the hobby, a little more probably won't bother them. There are many more women who won't get into the hobby or will try to and get turned away from it because "its just for boys", and as long as people keep perpetuating sexist stereotypes in the game it will stay that way. There is a point when it will be perfectly acceptably to include sexism, or racism, or whatever, as an interesting historical element and a challenge to a game - that is the point at which it is no longer a source of pain to players, or an active force keeping players away from the game. We don't play games about struggling through a day of mindless tedium at work because we have no interest in confronting things that we hate and we deal with any way. Guess what, sexism if the same - something we hate (well, I and many people I know do) and must confront everyday. We certainly don't want to play escapist fantasy and have to go through it there to.
Thoronmir 03-22-05, 03:52 PM	As long as your players go along with it, and are mature enough to keep your gender inequality in its proper perspective, I say do what you want. I will mention however that I would not play in such a setting. I’m not particularly “politically correct,” but I see no reason to perpetuate either racial or gender stereotyping. It’s not “ignoring history” to prefer to set a better example whenever possible. If you were playing a truly historical game, perhaps it would be less offensive. But, in a world that includes such non-historical elements as magic and dragons, I would hope that tolerance would have taken root at some point. If not, and I was a player in such a campaign, I would strive to overturn the unenlightened mores of the day. You asked about roleplaying opportunities, well there’s a good one. Have the party lead the charge to trigger equality between the sexes. As others have noted, your world’s “perception” of which classes are “fit” for women to pursue is flawed. Historically, priests were not viewed as “soft” … and we know how few women have historically held positions of true power in most religions. Your basis for distinguishing between Sorcerers and Wizards is quite vague, but I assume it derives from your world’s view that women historically aren’t as skilled scholars as men. Perhaps when you described the distaff classes as “soft” you really meant “intuitive.” If you’re going to embrace unfounded stereotypes, you ought to at least give the women their due. Historically, women were viewed to rely on intuition while men relied on logic. If you choose to adhere to that fallacy, then women ought to be perceived as well-suited for any class that rewards a high Wisdom score (e.g., Clerics). Also, women were perceived to live “closer” to nature than men, so Druid would be an apt class for women. If society deems it “unseemly” for women to stray into more aggressive roles, I trust that you intend to balance the scales by imposing similar stigmas on men who engage in such feminine pursuits as Divine Magic and Sorcery.
DoctorRomulus 03-22-05, 03:55 PM	"and are a good character with power, why SHOULDN'T you try to deal with it?" Because you don't see it as an injustice?? Maybe that's just the way things are?? Good people throughout the ages tolerated, even took part in doing things that we today might consider to be socially unjust. Just because that's the type of society they grew up in. It takes alot more than just being "a good person", and one thing people don't seem to consider when they claim they're fighting social injustice. They never stop to consider that they may setting in motion a series of events that might create a whole new set of social injustices.
Arrowhen 03-22-05, 03:58 PM	Second I’ve come to the conclusion that you are so abhorrently naïve or just so ignorant that you have to have knee-jerk reaction to anything that’s even vaguely not politically correct or “progressive”. While he may have expressed his objections with a bit more vitriol than necessary, he also raised some good points: Women are going to be allowed to be clerics because its "soft"? All feminine, gentle, and nice, right? Yeah right. Clerics are the VOICE OF THE GODS. This is not a position you give to people you want to keep in line. Ever. No way, no how. Notice how sexism promoting religions DO NOT have female priests in real life. You just can't put someone you want to keep in a line in a position of power like that. But in a vaguely standard D&D world, the gods decide who receives their power. If the diety decides to grant power to person X, she's got power. So either you've got: A) Women get power. Men say "oops, our gods want women to have power, we better stop standing in the way." B) Women get power. Men say no and try to stop them. Gods get ticked at men for defying their will. Smitings, plagues, curses and all manner of havoc follow. This might make for an interesting setting, but do you really want your entire campaign based around sexual contention? Because you're making that into a MAJOR feature of your game world. C) Gods don't give women power. Well, you decide what the gods do, so you have just decided to create a world that is not only sexist, but sexist on DIVINE levels? Congrats, you've made a major decision about the world just to "keep women in their place".
DoctorRomulus 03-22-05, 03:58 PM	You know what Stormknight? Not only are you incredibly naive, but you have issues to boot. Revisionist history is irrelevant to this. Its Doc's world. It can be anything he wants. If he wants it to be sexist, that's his choice. If he were asking "I'm running a historical game set in the Crusades, but I'm wondering how to deal with the problems that female characters may face, how should I handle it?" my response would be totally different. If you include social injustice in your game, your opening a can of worms. I think most players want to have exciting adventures, fight evil, and go on epic quests. They don't want to struggle with moral dilemnas and trying to change society. But, if you've got severe social injustice in your game, and are a good character with power, why SHOULDN'T you try to deal with it? What does it matter if you stop the <insert whatever evil force here> from enslaving the land if most of the people are already enslaved? How can you in good conscience NOT try to fight such things? Well, I gotta agree. Sexist jerks are realistic. No argument there. Naive or ignorant? Well, I suppose if I were I wouldn't know? Knee jerk reaction to anything not PC? Doubtful, though there's definetly a knee-jerk reaction to sexism. But then, how would I know if I had a knee-jerk reaction to anything else? You can look on the D&D boards and at least once a week and see a "Hey I want my campaign to be sexist" or "How do I keep women out of my gaming group" or "How do I justify making female characters weaker", but I have yet to see a "Hey, how do I handle blacks being slaves in my game" or "My game will feature an evil race of humans who have darkish skin and bow to their home city at certain times of the day in worship. They are all impure infidels and the game will focus on wiping them out." Aren't these two things historically "realistic?" Do you honestly think someone wouldn't be flamed off the boards in an instant, and possibly just have the thread locked if they made a comment like that? Would anyone argue with someone calling one of these people a jerk. The gaming hobby is still rampantly sexist. It still tries to keep women out. Yes, there are many women who overcome that and get into the hobby. Things like this may not bother them - the've already overcome massive sexism to get into the hobby, a little more probably won't bother them. There are many more women who won't get into the hobby or will try to and get turned away from it because "its just for boys", and as long as people keep perpetuating sexist stereotypes in the game it will stay that way. There is a point when it will be perfectly acceptably to include sexism, or racism, or whatever, as an interesting historical element and a challenge to a game - that is the point at which it is no longer a source of pain to players, or an active force keeping players away from the game. We don't play games about struggling through a day of mindless tedium at work because we have no interest in confronting things that we hate and we deal with any way. Guess what, sexism if the same - something we hate (well, I and many people I know do) and must confront everyday. We certainly don't want to play escapist fantasy and have to go through it there to.
Roboradish 03-22-05, 03:59 PM	I suppose if I lived in a country ruled over by monarchs who interfered with my life, I might be bothered by such things in a game. Since neither I nor anyone I know has ever had a problem with the social difference between the local monarchs and themselves, its not really an issue. However, I know several women who get fed up with sexism on a daily basis, and fantasy gaming in general is absolutely full of it. Does a fantasy game right high on the scale of what causes problems? No. But it is also absolutely and totally in your control. There is absolutely NO reason to cause such problems unless you want them to be. So, how are you planning on being realistic, eh? Women are going to be allowed to be clerics because its "soft"? All feminine, gentle, and nice, right? Yeah right. Clerics are the VOICE OF THE GODS. This is not a position you give to people you want to keep in line. Ever. No way, no how. Notice how sexism promoting religions DO NOT have female priests in real life. You just can't put someone you want to keep in a line in a position of power like that. But in a vaguely standard D&D world, the gods decide who receives their power. If the diety decides to grant power to person X, she's got power. So either you've got: A) Women get power. Men say "oops, our gods want women to have power, we better stop standing in the way." B) Women get power. Men say no and try to stop them. Gods get ticked at men for defying their will. Smitings, plagues, curses and all manner of havoc follow. This might make for an interesting setting, but do you really want your entire campaign based around sexual contention? Because you're making that into a MAJOR feature of your game world. C) Gods don't give women power. Well, you decide what the gods do, so you have just decided to create a world that is not only sexist, but sexist on DIVINE levels? Congrats, you've made a major decision about the world just to "keep women in their place". Women can be sorcerors because they are all soft too eh? Yeah, fireballs and disintegration spells are all cuddly and nice, and totally non-threatening to people in power. Upper body strength will sure come in handy in enforcing your rules on someone that can incinerate you from a hundred yards away. I assume since you are being "realistic" you also won't have adventures. PCs will be conscripted into armies if they are going to fight and hope desperately to survive and get to return to their simple crops and families and enjoy life. To me, your doing one of two things. You're either saying "Hey, we want sexism in our games so its more like what we think medieval times were like", and pretty much ignoring any of the consequences of the fantasy environment or the many facets of medieval life you are probably leaving out just so you can have your male-dominated society, or you are deliberately putting effort into designing your campaign world just to be sexist. Either way, the jerk comment stands. This man is correct. 5 or 6 high level sorcerors, wizards or clerics can masking up for any small to large city. I'm talking 'Raze the buildings, kill the inhabitants, and salt the ashes' levels of masking up. Level twenty characters can fight demons on their home planes and win. Imagine if they applied this to their homelands. Edit: Wow, sorry Stormknight, but I read some of your other posts and you really are a PC idiot.
DoctorRomulus 03-22-05, 04:06 PM	This man is correct. 5 or 6 high level sorcerors, wizards or clerics can f*** s*** up for any small to large city. I'm talking 'Raze the buildings, kill the inhabitants, and salt the ashes' levels of f***ing s*** up. Level twenty characters can fight demons on their home planes and win. Imagine if they applied this to their homelands. You're assuming he's right about how religion and magic work in my world. As I mentioned earlier, people tend to go with things because that's the way it's always been. As for your 5 or six clerics, wizards or sorcerers. You're assuming they wouldn't be hunted by another 5 or 6 clerics, wizards or sorcerors with an army to back them in order to snuff out these attackers on the status quo.
MasterRookie 03-22-05, 04:12 PM	Doc, I have to applaud you and your players for deciding to make a more realistic world, at least in his aspect. All to often RPG settings ignore racial, sexual and religious inequality in order to be "pc" about things and not **** off women players and the like. This kind of bugs me, but I can understand it from a marketing standpoint, and from the fact that a lot of peopel are unconfortable playing out racism and the like, and if they don't want it in their game, then that's fine, it's their game. Secondly, StormKnight, revisionist history is bad, very bad. By thinking that Doc is a sexist pig because he wants to represent his world realisticly is stupid, that doesn't make him sexist. Your actions, trying to ignore the past and pretend that women weren't oppressed is stupid, because it makes everything that the women's movements have won seem pointless. You have to acknoledge the past because it happened, deal with it and move on, and frankly, I doubt that Doc had much to do with oppressing women. You should guard your tongue and not insult people so easily. On to the topic at hand, now that I'm off my soapbox. Women for the most part didn't really gain the rights they have now until the West began to industrialize, and there's a few reasons for that. In England for example, a lot of upper middle and upper class women started to get bored, because they had maids and such to do everything for them, and all they did was plan activites and sit around, they started to look for things to do and realized that they were dnied a lot of things,a nd it ****** them off. This pervades to the lower class too, as women living in cities needed somethign to do while there was no farm work to be done and their husbands were off at factories and such. Boredom, essentially, breeds gender equality. In a standard fantasy world, it's resonable for there to be above average women adventurers and such because all such people are above average, there's no reason not to allow women. Furthermore, much of what people consider sexist doesn't really apply to ancient and midevial society, because these are societies where women are actually doing a lot, and many of the jobs outside the home are nasty and violent or very labor intensive, something that is better for men because they can't nurse children or birth them. Don't think that being a mother is now or ever was an easy job (because you again do women a dis-service), especially in times were infant mortality rates were much higher. As for women leaders, this is something that is determined almost entirely by society and religion. The fact that men are going off to do a job for a certain period of time each day (in some cases) means that they have time to socialize and such, a housewife's job never ends, where her husband gets breaks. With time for breaks, you have time to philosophise and the like, and with mostly men doing this, they become the ones deciding things. See above and remember that boredom begets gender equality. So, decide where you want the societies to sit economically and technologically, as these two factors have a lot of influence on gender rights, the figure out the religion as well and let that factor influence things. Finally, somebody mentioned cultures where women have all the power. Such matriarchal cultures are uncommon and pretty much always small in scale and quite often tribal, and while there is nothing wrong with this, when you explode it to a larger scale, be careful to keep in mind how the society survives, because each gender is better suited to differant roles. Finally, this is fantasy, so toss out whatever you don't want, add what you do, and have fun. Housewivery. Depends what period. 50s housewivery is a much different matter of sexism. Its not opression and enslavement, rather housewivery is a suggestion that women cannot be selfsuficent and must live off of their husbands and in return do chores for them and give birth to their children. It is quite possible for a woman to hold a job and clean up the house, now if you demand a woman do this then thats opressive.
Lord Ian Stark 03-22-05, 04:13 PM	I see where Storm Knight is coming from. In the end, all these worlds DM's create out there, you will have people doing different things. For all those people who think women are "soft," then I ask you to visit an all women's prison. As a long time Prison Guard I have seen both men and women imprisoned. Let me tell you, if you had a choice to be a guy in an all men's prison or a woman in an all women's prison, pick the guy's. The female human can be the most vile, ruthless, uncarring being on this planet when they let themselves fall to the darkside. If you think I am full of it, you have not seen enough of what the real world holds. I've been around some cruel and twisted men, but none of them can stand up to there female counterpart. Men instinctively use strength first. Women use there enemies weakness. There are a lot of young posters in here and I would expect much flaming about this post. However, if you have been around the block a few times you would know what I mean. I also spent over 6 years in the Army and have seen some powerful women (Physically and Mentally). In the end it boils down to the person. Physical strength or weakness is only one aspect of the abilities of humans. To judge everything on that average is ingnorant and sorely incorrect.
MasterRookie 03-22-05, 04:15 PM	Did you see the celebrity boxing match where Joanie Laurer (sp - Chyna from WWF) fought Joey Buttafuocco? Hyper-ripped, very athletic woman (though not true sport, pro wrestling requires immense athletic ability) versus a big fat jerk. Joey pushed her around like she was his 90-pound teenaged girlfriend. Obviously not every guy can best every woman. Yeah but a meth adict purse snatcher certainly can't best a two gold medal, judo or wresting champion. That was the point I was making.
nightwing 03-22-05, 04:17 PM	I think having a society that views certain occupations as "acceptable" for certain sexes is flavorful. I would not restrict PC's to those "acceptable" occupations, though. For example, if a player wanted to have a female human ranger character, which happened to be frowned upon in her homeland, that's fine. It just adds even more flavor to the story. For example: "The Wizards of Yarush had never accepted a female initiate before, so when Elhandra was awarded the red mantle of apprenticeship, the whole community was shocked. Now she is viewed with awe by some and with hatred and disgust by others. She is constantly struggling to prove herself and be "accepted", even though no one doubts the strength of her powers."
pres_man 03-22-05, 04:17 PM	Instead of focusing on prejudices, focus on gender roles in societies. Now some small minded folks will say they are the same, but they are not. Females tend to have roles in society that are more nurturing and less physical then men. The reason is simply, because a woman who has a child must be a part of that child's life from the time it is conceived to the point where it is weaned (in societies where there is no substitute for a mother's milk). Now most likely women that do not embrace roles in society that fit the above (become fighters for example) are probably going to be viewed as "weird" for a society. Just as men who take roles where they are nurturers. As such they will probably be treated differently then others, most especially by members of their own sex. Notice the above is only really true of mammalian humanoids, reptilian humanoids would not have these problems usually since eggs are layed and the young are not nursed. In those societies it may very well be that females are larger and males are smaller and gender roles may be non-existant or they may be reversed as to the mammalian humanoids. Females may lay the eggs and leave and it is up to the males to protect and raise the young perhaps. Perhaps all evil kobold warriors are females!
Thoronmir 03-22-05, 04:22 PM	You're assuming he's right about how religion and magic work in my world. As I mentioned earlier, people tend to go with things because that's the way it's always been. As for your 5 or six clerics, wizards or sorcerers. You're assuming they wouldn't be hunted by another 5 or 6 clerics, wizards or sorcerors with an army to back them in order to snuff out these attackers on the status quo.I’m not sure you get their point. You’re the one who said that society would push female adventurers into the Cleric and Sorcerer classes because they are “soft” when compared to other classes. So, if most of the female adventurers are Clerics and Sorcerers (and Druids, I would argue), why would they continue to accept their inferior status once they achieve sufficient power? Inequality may “seem right” and “the way things are” to the men of your world, but are you suggesting that the women don’t even sense that they’re second-class citizens? Lord Ian, I agree with you (and I’m old enough to have seen much of what you describe). However, Doc’s world is not based on the reality of the differences between men and women, but rather on his world’s embrace of stereotyped gender roles for the sake of historical accuracy. On that basis, he’s right … women were long viewed as “the weaker sex” and discriminated against for that reason.
NeoReavent 03-22-05, 04:22 PM	I made a society that divided its roles primarily by gender where women were the spellcaster, specifically druids, due to their ability to give birth (something considered semi-divine by the society) but were forbidden to use any item composed of metal, it was considered taboo due fact it was pulled by force from the earth. They wielded grew power but lived very humble and isolated lives while the men were the primary warriors and fighters of their society and made most of the major choices they always confired with the wisewomen first. If you want to include something in your campaign setting then do it because this game is not about politically correct behavior, its about having fun, try not to forget that in the big debate of things.
Lord Ian Stark 03-22-05, 04:22 PM	Did you see the celebrity boxing match where Joanie Laurer (sp - Chyna from WWF) fought Joey Buttafuocco? Hyper-ripped, very athletic woman (though not true sport, pro wrestling requires immense athletic ability) versus a big fat jerk. Joey pushed her around like she was his 90-pound teenaged girlfriend. Obviously not every guy can best every woman. Well I saw that match and China was clearly trying to "box" by the rules. Joey was showing his true colors of being a dumb fat jerk by not caring about the rules. Put those two on the street. China would only lose if Joey got one good shot in. Otherwise she would be ravaging him with chairs, pots, pans, anything she could find. Thats how a woman fights. They know they are physically superior so they have no qualms about using a lethal weapon instead. Would a guy use something? No because he thinks with strength first.
MasterRookie 03-22-05, 04:29 PM	Revisionist history is irrelevant to this. Its Doc's world. It can be anything he wants. If he wants it to be sexist, that's his choice. If he were asking "I'm running a historical game set in the Crusades, but I'm wondering how to deal with the problems that female characters may face, how should I handle it?" my response would be totally different. If you include social injustice in your game, your opening a can of worms. I think most players want to have exciting adventures, fight evil, and go on epic quests. They don't want to struggle with moral dilemnas and trying to change society. But, if you've got severe social injustice in your game, and are a good character with power, why SHOULDN'T you try to deal with it? What does it matter if you stop the <insert whatever evil force here> from enslaving the land if most of the people are already enslaved? How can you in good conscience NOT try to fight such things? Well, I gotta agree. Sexist jerks are realistic. No argument there. Naive or ignorant? Well, I suppose if I were I wouldn't know? Knee jerk reaction to anything not PC? Doubtful, though there's definetly a knee-jerk reaction to sexism. But then, how would I know if I had a knee-jerk reaction to anything else? You can look on the D&D boards and at least once a week and see a "Hey I want my campaign to be sexist" or "How do I keep women out of my gaming group" or "How do I justify making female characters weaker", but I have yet to see a "Hey, how do I handle blacks being slaves in my game" or "My game will feature an evil race of humans who have darkish skin and bow to their home city at certain times of the day in worship. They are all impure infidels and the game will focus on wiping them out." Aren't these two things historically "realistic?" Do you honestly think someone wouldn't be flamed off the boards in an instant, and possibly just have the thread locked if they made a comment like that? Would anyone argue with someone calling one of these people a jerk. The gaming hobby is still rampantly sexist. It still tries to keep women out. Yes, there are many women who overcome that and get into the hobby. Things like this may not bother them - the've already overcome massive sexism to get into the hobby, a little more probably won't bother them. There are many more women who won't get into the hobby or will try to and get turned away from it because "its just for boys", and as long as people keep perpetuating sexist stereotypes in the game it will stay that way. There is a point when it will be perfectly acceptably to include sexism, or racism, or whatever, as an interesting historical element and a challenge to a game - that is the point at which it is no longer a source of pain to players, or an active force keeping players away from the game. We don't play games about struggling through a day of mindless tedium at work because we have no interest in confronting things that we hate and we deal with any way. Guess what, sexism if the same - something we hate (well, I and many people I know do) and must confront everyday. We certainly don't want to play escapist fantasy and have to go through it there to. Dumb ass this guy has women in his campain and they think its a great Idea, he isn't trying to keep girls out of his campain. As for your racism comments we're talking about history of this time not history in general. "I'm going to have a patriarcal society in my campain because they were prominent in the time period I'm basing it off" is quite different from "I hate jews so I'm going to put jews in my campain and have a hitler figure start killing them all because that happened once" If you thought for even five seconds you'd notice this. Societys have prejudices, one may be against elves, others agains dwarves, some may be against people of an ethnicity originating from one area or another, and some yes may be against women. These cultures make a realistic game. Unlike you claim most of us do like moral and culteral struggles more then or as much as hack and slash. We'll never listen to you because we all know your wrong. If you think your the sole voice of reason then its usually because your arragant and refuse to admit your wrong.
DoctorRomulus 03-22-05, 04:35 PM	While I don't fully agree with you about women being more "vile, ruthless, and uncarring" as I don't think either sex has the market cornered on those things. What I will say is that despite all you've said here, women did not as whole begin to have rights until the last century in this country and they still don't have any rights at all in many parts of the world. The question is, WHY? And I wanted to add this aspect along with some others to the world we're putting together to give it a little more roleplaying potential. That is all this post was about. It was not about men or women being superior or not. Or trying to stuff 21st century thinking into a basically even if it's fantasy medieval mindset. I see where Storm Knight is coming from. In the end, all these worlds DM's create out there, you will have people doing different things. For all those people who think women are "soft," then I ask you to visit an all women's prison. As a long time Prison Guard I have seen both men and women imprisoned. Let me tell you, if you had a choice to be a guy in an all men's prison or a woman in an all women's prison, pick the guy's. The female human can be the most vile, ruthless, uncarring being on this planet when they let themselves fall to the darkside. If you think I am full of it, you have not seen enough of what the real world holds. I've been around some cruel and twisted men, but none of them can stand up to there female counterpart. Men instinctively use strength first. Women use there enemies weakness. There are a lot of young posters in here and I would expect much flaming about this post. However, if you have been around the block a few times you would know what I mean. I also spent over 6 years in the Army and have seen some powerful women (Physically and Mentally). In the end it boils down to the person. Physical strength or weakness is only one aspect of the abilities of humans. To judge everything on that average is ingnorant and sorely incorrect.
MasterRookie 03-22-05, 04:36 PM	I see where Storm Knight is coming from. In the end, all these worlds DM's create out there, you will have people doing different things. For all those people who think women are "soft," then I ask you to visit an all women's prison. As a long time Prison Guard I have seen both men and women imprisoned. Let me tell you, if you had a choice to be a guy in an all men's prison or a woman in an all women's prison, pick the guy's. The female human can be the most vile, ruthless, uncarring being on this planet when they let themselves fall to the darkside. If you think I am full of it, you have not seen enough of what the real world holds. I've been around some cruel and twisted men, but none of them can stand up to there female counterpart. Men instinctively use strength first. Women use there enemies weakness. There are a lot of young posters in here and I would expect much flaming about this post. However, if you have been around the block a few times you would know what I mean. I also spent over 6 years in the Army and have seen some powerful women (Physically and Mentally). In the end it boils down to the person. Physical strength or weakness is only one aspect of the abilities of humans. To judge everything on that average is ingnorant and sorely incorrect. We don't think they're soft at all, but ancient cultures from the Greeks to the British sure did. In primitive societys on average the gender more prone to physical strength is dominant. Also your saying getting ass raped is better then whatever happens to women. I don't think it is so much capacity for evil that women are more posesant of. Sounds to me like they're more insidius and cunning in their cruelty. In any case men are more prone to such actions them women. The male prison poplulation is much larger then the women. Even if women reach greater heights of corruption men have greater numbers. If you know the sickest are women then tell me, How many femal Charles Mansons are there out there, Or have you ever heard of a women who killed people raped them and made their corpses into colthing and furniture.
MasterRookie 03-22-05, 04:41 PM	I’m not sure you get their point. You’re the one who said that society would push female adventurers into the Cleric and Sorcerer classes because they are “soft” when compared to other classes. So, if most of the female adventurers are Clerics and Sorcerers (and Druids, I would argue), why would they continue to accept their inferior status once they achieve sufficient power? Inequality may “seem right” and “the way things are” to the men of your world, but are you suggesting that the women don’t even sense that they’re second-class citizens? Lord Ian, I agree with you (and I’m old enough to have seen much of what you describe). However, Doc’s world is not based on the reality of the differences between men and women, but rather on his world’s embrace of stereotyped gender roles for the sake of historical accuracy. On that basis, he’s right … women were long viewed as “the weaker sex” and discriminated against for that reason. I say that women restricted to cleric and sorceror could work as long as they didn't make up the majority. If one wizard in every five was a woman then I doubt she's going to revolt any time soon.
MasterRookie 03-22-05, 04:45 PM	Well I saw that match and China was clearly trying to "box" by the rules. Joey was showing his true colors of being a dumb fat jerk by not caring about the rules. Put those two on the street. China would only lose if Joey got one good shot in. Otherwise she would be ravaging him with chairs, pots, pans, anything she could find. Thats how a woman fights. They know they are physically superior so they have no qualms about using a lethal weapon instead. Would a guy use something? No because he thinks with strength first. Well that is called being cheap. If a chick goes strait for the balls she's admitting that she has no hope of winning otherwise. Thats why when fighting a girl you must stay sideways to keep that target safer. As for grabbing stuff. Thats refurred to as fighting dirty. But hey if they fight dirty and I'm not a tenth degree black belt I'm grabbing a pot or chair of my own. See all this is just saying girls need an unfair advantage in a fight.
MasterRookie 03-22-05, 04:48 PM	Did you see the celebrity boxing match where Joanie Laurer (sp - Chyna from WWF) fought Joey Buttafuocco? Hyper-ripped, very athletic woman (though not true sport, pro wrestling requires immense athletic ability) versus a big fat jerk. Joey pushed her around like she was his 90-pound teenaged girlfriend. Obviously not every guy can best every woman. By the way there both professional athletes it sounds like. Besides Fat can hide serious muscle and makes great impact absorbition.
Thoronmir 03-22-05, 04:50 PM	I say that women restricted to cleric and sorceror could work as long as they didn't make up the majority. If one wizard in every five was a woman then I doubt she's going to revolt any time soon.Congratulations MasterRookie! You finally managed to post on this thread without resorting to profanity or vulgar references. Here, you deserve a :cookie: Edit: Nevermind, after your last posts, I'm taking the :cookie: back. :( A 5:1 ratio of men to women adventurers is extremely arbitrary. But, it’s Doc’s world and he can rig the game to preserve its sexist premise. Also, it wouldn’t take a revolt per se … as female adventurers gain power, they can influence change. Even if there were five male Wizards available, do you really want to be the one to tick off the level 20 Druidess? Finally, do yourself and the rest of us a favor. Please tone down your offensive language. You’re the only one making an [a s s] of himself in this thread. I know you're only 15, but you really ought to know better.
MasterRookie 03-22-05, 04:55 PM	To me, your doing one of two things. You're either saying "Hey, we want sexism in our games so its more like what we think medieval times were like", and pretty much ignoring any of the consequences of the fantasy environment or the many facets of medieval life you are probably leaving out just so you can have your male-dominated society, or you are deliberately putting effort into designing your campaign world just to be sexist. Either way, the jerk comment stands. actually he's paying plenty of attention to the fantasy aspect. He's deciding how women of each class would be treated in a patriarcal society. Where in there does he ignore "the consequences of the fantasy environment". There is a simple answer to your moronic gods comment, THE GODS DON'T CARE. There dumb ass they don't give a **** or want man kind to accept women on their own instead of interfearing.
MasterRookie 03-22-05, 04:57 PM	Congratulations MasterRookie! You finally managed to post on this thread without resorting to profanity or vulgar references. Here, you deserve a :cookie: Edit: Nevermind, after your last posts, I'm taking the :cookie: back. :( sry I'm a bit high strung on message forums. But I've made several posts that weren't vulgar or profain. Just that guy who keeps arguing when everyone says he's wrong is ******* me off. He's pretty vulgar too. Fight fire with fire they say. Although water does work much better.
Arrowhen 03-22-05, 05:04 PM	You're assuming he's right about how religion and magic work in my world. As I mentioned earlier, people tend to go with things because that's the way it's always been. As for your 5 or six clerics, wizards or sorcerers. You're assuming they wouldn't be hunted by another 5 or 6 clerics, wizards or sorcerors with an army to back them in order to snuff out these attackers on the status quo. It's starting to look like you're simply determined to have a sexist world and are willing to set up whatever conditions are necessary to ensure it stays that way. Is there anything wrong with that? No. Does it mean that you are sexist? No. You are, however, going to have to do a lot of thinking about the nature of both divine and arcane magic in your world in order to keep everything consistent. You mentioned Cleric and Sorcerer being the primary classes open to women. Why the Sorceror but not the Wizard? You can say that Wizardry is a traditionally male-dominated pursuit, but why is it like that? To answer that question, you're going to have to develop the history of magic in your campaign. How did magic work in pre-literate societies? When people started writing things down, what conditions existed to keep women from participating? With female Clerics it gets even trickier: it's hard to imagine a culture where "second class citizens" are allowed to serve as agents of the gods.
Thoronmir 03-22-05, 05:11 PM	sry I'm a bit high strung on message forums. But I've made several posts that weren't vulgar or profain. Just that guy who keeps arguing when everyone says he's wrong is ******* me off. He's pretty vulgar too. Fight fire with fire they say. Although water does work much better.First, the worst thing StormKnight has said is that Doc was a "sexist jerk" ... practically every post of yours in this thread is laced with much more offensive language. Second, not "everyone" says he's wrong ... I, for one, agree with him. I find the premise Doc proposes for how his world views women to be offensive and, as I said, I wouldn't play in such a game. Third, if your buttons get pushed by someone who sticks to his opinion, you're gonna need a Zanex prescription if you frequent this (or any other) board. There is no definitive “right” answer as to whether this “patriarchal” campaign Doc proposes is offensive or not … it’s a matter of opinion. StormKnight has defended his opinion by making some good points. You should not personalize the debate as you have.
UltimateReality 03-22-05, 05:13 PM	I understand you're going for realism by introducing gender roles into your campaign world, to the point of blatant sexism. One of the reasons I game is to get away from reality.
MasterRookie 03-22-05, 05:14 PM	It's starting to look like you're simply determined to have a sexist world and are willing to set up whatever conditions are necessary to ensure it stays that way. Is there anything wrong with that? No. Does it mean that you are sexist? No. You are, however, going to have to do a lot of thinking about the nature of both divine and arcane magic in your world in order to keep everything consistent. You mentioned Cleric and Sorcerer being the primary classes open to women. Why the Sorceror but not the Wizard? You can say that Wizardry is a traditionally male-dominated pursuit, but why is it like that? To answer that question, you're going to have to develop the history of magic in your campaign. How did magic work in pre-literate societies? When people started writing things down, what conditions existed to keep women from participating? With female Clerics it gets even trickier: it's hard to imagine a culture where "second class citizens" are allowed to serve as agents of the gods. Thats why I recomend women forbidden as Clerics in most countrys but alowed to be Paladins. As for sorcerors the reason for that is the sorceror is born magical. You can't stop fate. I recomend Wizardry forbidden for Women. And possibly femal sorcerors are forbidden to practice their abilitys in certain cases. Of course a woman can always be taught magic illegally, which adds plenty of exitement to the story. There may be certain temples that accept women and others that don't. Temples of male gods may only accept male clerics, and as such Patriarcal societys might only accept those gods.
Thoronmir 03-22-05, 05:15 PM	Why the Sorceror but not the Wizard?Because, to quote Barbie, "Math is hard!" (remember those "Talking Barbies" ... what a PR mess that turned into). Womyn just isn't as gooder stoodents as us's mens.
MasterRookie 03-22-05, 05:17 PM	First, the worst thing StormKnight has said is that Doc was a "sexist jerk" ... practically every post of yours in this thread is laced with much more offensive language. Second, not "everyone" says he's wrong ... I, for one, agree with him. I find the premise Doc proposes for how his world views women to be offensive and, as I said, I wouldn't play in such a game. Third, if your buttons get pushed by someone who sticks to his opinion, you're gonna need a Zanex prescription if you frequent this (or any other) board. There is no definitive “right” answer as to whether this “patriarchal” campaign Doc proposes is offensive or not … it’s a matter of opinion. StormKnight has defended his opinion by making some good points. You should not personalize the debate as you have. Well the way he writse makes him seem pretty rude. At any rate I happen to swear a lot in real life. I consider curse words to be no big deal most of the time so I use them even more on this particular board.
MasterRookie 03-22-05, 05:19 PM	I understand you're going for realism by introducing gender roles into your campaign world, to the point of blatant sexism. One of the reasons I game is to get away from reality. So you have a great deal of trouble getting accepted into the local army or wizard school in real life.
Lord Psilos 03-22-05, 05:20 PM	If I ran a world like that, I'd have a kind of conspiratorial "Sisterhood" that works to perpetuate the cultural norm in the mens' eyes. They LIKE everyone thinking they're inferior. Meantime, they take their sorcery to new heights during little 'social' visits to each other. Then maybe one day, when they've amassed enough power. Well, that's the sorceress I'd love playing in that world. Kudos to you. I like your ideas. Consider a few stolen, DoctorRomulus. I myself have been trying to jazz up my game. I give my players quirks and attitudes that are plainly "wrong". I should write up my ideas on the Wolda Imperium. Let you critique it.
MasterRookie 03-22-05, 05:23 PM	Because, to quote Barbie, "Math is hard!" (remember those "Talking Barbies" ... what a PR mess that turned into). Womyn just isn't as gooder stoodents as us's mens. Because Wizardry is taught so the men would be able to keep the women out but Sorcery is natural and cannot be contained. But I think the real reason is he just hadn't thought of wizards. I'm still yet to hear anyone mention monks.
Finarin Panjoro 03-22-05, 05:31 PM	As long as the players are in agreement that it is okay for sexual prejudice to be included in the world I don't see a problem. In fact it could provide some female players with the opportunity to live out fighting the system through the game in a way they are unable to do in real life. But I definitely would not restrict the players choice of class based on this simply because it means that you will wind up with people unable to play classes that they really want too. I don't care if the world is limited in some way if I want to play a barbarian and I'm told that I can only be a cleric or sorceror its not going to be as much fun. Make the PCs exceptions to the rule (they're exceptions to about everything else anyway) maybe their fathers took special care to teach them unique skills so they could survive in this sexist world. Also realize that in a fantasy world if any of the gods are women than you have a problem justifying a sexist culture becuase they can clearly see that women are equal to men as far as divinity is concerned. Also if women can recieve spells as clerics then the gods have no problem with them wielding equal power to the men. Typical D&D worlds have far less realistic reasons for sexism because of the existence of actual gods and real divine power manifested by mortals. So you might want to consider having all of your gods be formless and vague, or all male (in which case the sexism is going to seem to be the natural order to most people). Even better might be to have a group of "lost" female dieties who are assisting the players (perhaps making the players the ONLY female clerics/druids/paladins in the world) in an attempt to return to the world. This does provide you with a lot of interesting story and plot opportunities, just be sure your players are comfortable with it and don't use it as a means of hampering only the women players.
Lord Ian Stark 03-22-05, 05:32 PM	Put it this way. Why do men do anything? To get a piece of arse. The end. Whether thats by niceties or brutality is up to the guy. I have another one for you. What do people do to something that is more powerful than they are? They try and control or oppress it to do there bidding. Why? Because they know in the end if it was unleashed and allowed to do what it wants they are beat. Hmm, men oppressed woman in just about every culture out there in their history. :eek: I liked the arse rape comment. :D Butt (hehe) it shows you that you have no clue what goes on in a women's prison because you had nothing to offer from that side. :) I am not arguing the fact that history is fact. We all know that. However the perception of history's facts is in the eyes of the beholder. Were women oppressed? Yes. Why? Well, thats for the sages. As far as why women have not been the Ted Bundy style murderer is because they aren't as sexually oppressed as guys are that need to do such stupid things to satisfy themselves. Also taking flesh from a human and making furniture is sick but once someone is dead they are dead. Women know to hurt someone that killing them is not the way to do it. Killing there loved ones yes but not them. If you look at the sexually abused, men handle it different then women do. Again I don't expect anyone to agree or disagree with my post, it's just what I have seen in my stay on this planet thusfar. If you think women can not be more vile, ruthless, and uncarring then men than consider yourself lucky to not have seen with your own life experience. (And NO, for the record, I was never divorced or abused by any woman or anything like that)
MasterRookie 03-22-05, 05:41 PM	we're not talking max capacity. That is a matter of opinion after all. on average the prison population is mainly male. And my rape comment was a question really.
Lord Ian Stark 03-22-05, 05:45 PM	we're not talking max capacity. That is a matter of opinion after all. on average the prison population is mainly male. And my rape comment was a question really. Find some guys that have worked in the prison system for a few years and have knowledge of female inmates. Don't take my word for it. Capacity means nothing to what I am talking about.
MasterRookie 03-22-05, 05:48 PM	umm your saying women can become more evil then men. thats capacity. You said your worked in the system for years you made the post so I'm asking a question, I'm currious as to what sort of abuse femal inmates suffer. As I said I doubt that women are more capable of cruelty I think they're just better at it because women often have natural manipulation skills.
Lord Ian Stark 03-22-05, 06:02 PM	Abuse is more than physical you know. Thats why men, as I have said will do the strength thing and physically abuse more so then mentally. The more "butch" women in prison do this to, however the majority of the fear/control the females put on the lesser one's in prison is more psychological then physical. This includes abandonment, ridicule, humiliation, domination, and other more subtle long lasting forms of abuse that scar the mind not the flesh. Does this happen in the men's prison? Yes, but no where near the extent it does at the women's facilities. I am not about to go into detail of the many horrid stories I have seen or heard about as there are kids on this forum. ;) As I said, don't take my word for it, do some research of your own. If someone wants to play a game that is set during the time of female oppression, the inquisition, the holocaust, slavery and the other parts of histories evil side then go ahead. Just remember this is a game and that some people like to play a game to have fun. Whether fun is on the backs of those thousands or millions of people hurt is up to you and your players.
MasterRookie 03-22-05, 06:09 PM	Abuse is more than physical you know. Thats why men, as I have said will do the strength thing and physically abuse more so then mentally. The more "butch" women in prison do this to, however the majority of the fear/control the females put on the lesser one's in prison is more psychological then physical. This includes abandonment, ridicule, humiliation, domination, and other more subtle long lasting forms of abuse that scar the mind not the flesh. Does this happen in the men's prison? Yes, but no where near the extent it does at the women's facilities. I am not about to go into detail of the many horrid stories I have seen or heard about as there are kids on this forum. ;) As I said, don't take my word for it, do some research of your own. If someone wants to play a game that is set during the time of female oppression, the inquisition, the holocaust, slavery and the other parts of histories evil side then go ahead. Just remember this is a game and that some people like to play a game to have fun. Whether fun is on the backs of those thousands or millions of people hurt is up to you and your players. I still don't understand how being sexually assaulted or worse isn't as much a humilliation as anything else. But I don't care overly much. It is likely that If I do study these things I'll wish I hadn't. I'll simply say it doesn't sound like your a criminal phychologyst so although you may have more experiance then the average joe you may still have a misconseption. Also another point you inadvertently made yourself. Are there any femal Adolf Hitlers. I've never heard of a holocause RPG. I can't think of how any Holocaust game could be fun.
Lord Ian Stark 03-22-05, 06:26 PM	I still don't understand how getting ass raped or worse isn't as much a humilliation as anything else. But I don't care overly much. It is likely that If I do study these things I'll wish I hadn't. Exactly my friend. Innocence is a beautiful thing. Also another point you inadvertently made yourself. Are there any femal Adolf Hitlers. Now how in the hell could a women have had a chance to do this in history where we have already pointed out that women have been to oppressed to even vote for someone in power let alone be in that power! Come on dude. :ahem: Enough is enough. You are just one of those kids that will only whine until you give them a cookie. So here's your cookie and live in your own little world my friend. :tantrum: + :cookie: = :cloud9:
MasterRookie 03-22-05, 06:28 PM	Queen Eilzabeth. I'm not whining I like to discuss
DoctorRomulus 03-22-05, 09:15 PM	First of all if you really believe this drivel I feel really sorry for you. This idea that you have about how women were oppressed because men saw them as a threat???!!! What are you kidding me???!!! And this other thing about how men only do anything because it all revolves around getting some???!!! Do you really believe this nonsense?? That aside this thread was not started to continue the "oppression" of women. Whatever that means. It's just to get a discussion going on adding a little roleplaying content to my "sexist" campaign. If you feel offended, that's tough for both you and your girlfriend and anyone else who feels offended by reality. As for my group which has at least two female players it's an opportunity to roleplay and they see nothing wrong with it. Or maybe that's because I'm "oppressing" them or maybe they're not as "enlightened" as you. And the funny thing is I really like the "Joan of Arc" Campaign arc someone here suggested. A woman beating the odds and rising above the expectations society has placed on her as a woman to defend her country. And this is a bad thing??? But you and some others here are what happens when you politicize a form of entertainment like rpgs. You ruin it. You just cant' leave the politics home and just come up with interesting worlds or ideas for adventures because it might in some really twisted and overblown way, offend or "oppress" <enter victim group here>. You know what, get over it. I'm happy with my "sexist""racist""bigoted" campaign and there's not a thing you or any other "offended" party can do about it. Put it this way. Why do men do anything? To get a piece of arse. The end. Whether thats by niceties or brutality is up to the guy. I have another one for you. What do people do to something that is more powerful than they are? They try and control or oppress it to do there bidding. Why? Because they know in the end if it was unleashed and allowed to do what it wants they are beat. Hmm, men oppressed woman in just about every culture out there in their history. :eek: I liked the arse rape comment. :D Butt (hehe) it shows you that you have no clue what goes on in a women's prison because you had nothing to offer from that side. :) I am not arguing the fact that history is fact. We all know that. However the perception of history's facts is in the eyes of the beholder. Were women oppressed? Yes. Why? Well, thats for the sages. As far as why women have not been the Ted Bundy style murderer is because they aren't as sexually oppressed as guys are that need to do such stupid things to satisfy themselves. Also taking flesh from a human and making furniture is sick but once someone is dead they are dead. Women know to hurt someone that killing them is not the way to do it. Killing there loved ones yes but not them. If you look at the sexually abused, men handle it different then women do. Again I don't expect anyone to agree or disagree with my post, it's just what I have seen in my stay on this planet thusfar. If you think women can not be more vile, ruthless, and uncarring then men than consider yourself lucky to not have seen with your own life experience. (And NO, for the record, I was never divorced or abused by any woman or anything like that)
DoctorRomulus 03-22-05, 09:44 PM	I'd like to thank everyone who contributed their ideas constructively to my campaign setting. It's too bad this couldn't have been a more open discussion. It's really too bad that even my beloved hobby which I've enjoyed for over 20 years could not escape the taint of political correctness and victimology that seems to fester in almost every form of entertainment these days. Just seems to be more and more like those witchhunts of old where the slightest sniff of offense gets you burned. But I at least I know I can hold my own and that I am not alone.
Kellendros 03-22-05, 09:55 PM	Despite StormKnight’s violently PC stance, he’s got a point (which you’ve already refuted but just to lay it out clearly I’ll recap). Facts by Core D&D rules: Men are not inherently stronger than women; everyone uses the same Stat Array/Point Buy/Dice Rolls to get their stats, and there are no gender modifiers to those stats, thus, any given woman has exactly the same chance of having as much strength as any given man. Sorcerers, Paladins, and Clerics (since you don’t need to worship a God in 3.X to be a Divine Caster; you can serve an Ideal instead) have no controllable source for their power; it’s inborn/self-discovered, not taught, and thus it is impossible for either gender to prevent the other from being these things. Bards* as a Class have crazy manipulative abilities and thus are the “media outlets” of D&D, and the media is a very powerful tool for influencing cultural views. (*- Bards are pretty much a give-in for an “allowed” female class choice in a sexist society; “entertainment” was one of the few things that women were allowed to do.) Common assumptions/expectations by Core D&D rules: Female gods exist, and have (at least the chance to have) just as much power as male gods, thus it’s a fair assumption that they’d have an interest in promoting that equality. Non-human Races; if you’ve got them, there’s bound to be at least one or two races that have full equality (no matter what the reasons), traditionally this is Elves & Dwarves. If the example exists, it’s pretty hard not to expect other races to be totally resistant to its influence on their own cultures. Given the above Facts & Assumptions, you can see that it’s pretty much impossible for a world as a whole to have predominantly sexist cultures as the norm. The only way it works is if the sexist cultures actively and aggressively enforce that view; they have to hunt down & punish to whatever degree is necessary any violators of what they decree as the “norm” for either gender. In short, you literally need house rules that actively make women weaker, because you need to restrict female Gods, restrict female stats to make them weaker, and have setting based repercussions to smack-down any woman that gets “out of line”. It also means that all your cultures will be Lawful Evil by the Core definitions of standard Alignments—possibly, just possibly Lawful Neutral in the more “lenient” of the sexist cultures. And do not try and argue against this; by definition an actively sexist society is “hurting, oppressing, and killing others”; to be precise, 50% of it’s population. Citing that “that’s just the way it is” does not make it Good or even Neutral by Core D&D Alignment standards. I’m not saying you can’t do it, I’m saying that your argument that sexists societies are “realistic” is inherently flawed by Core D&D rules; it’s actually not realistic given the above factors. The only way it can be implemented “realistically” is with the above changes. If you want play in such a world setting, that’s fine, just so long as you do make it realistic by the above needed changes, because any other way does not work. Without some sort of “over oppression” (like a supreme sexist god or something) or many smaller societal oppressions to keep women in line, women can and will become equals by Core D&D rules; it’s inevitable. So if you do do it, it boils down to “we want the setting to be this way” and nothing else. And barring crippling Stat reductions, I would so be running a female warrior, Sorceress/Bard, or Rogue + Shadowdancer + Assassin intent on raising an army/enough political & magical power/network of followers to bring down your setting. But that’s just me.
olshanski_home 03-22-05, 10:15 PM	It's really too bad that even my beloved hobby which I've enjoyed for over 20 years could not escape the taint of political correctness and victimology that seems to fester in almost every form of entertainment these days. Just seems to be more and more like those witchhunts of old where the slightest sniff of offense gets you burned. But I at least I know I can hold my own and that I am not alone. Yeah, I hate those tainted "political correct" ideas that women either are equal to men, or if they are not equal, they deserve to be treated equally. It's just like those witchhunts... which, if I recall correctly, were used to kill women that didn't act as subservient as the men wanted them to. You picked a perfect analogy there.
FriendoftheDork 03-22-05, 10:19 PM	DoctorRomulus, I'm behind you all the way. There is more to life than political correct RPGs. In one campaign I play in (Al Quadim) the sexes are not equal. People in general are not equal, and station is all important. Even slavery is allowed. Still, it's a fun setting even if you play women, thieves, outlanders or even slaves. In my own game I play a Drow campaign and everyone knows males are inferior to females. No one complianes about such "sexist" rules. In my Cormyr, FR campaigns I tone it down quite a bit. Mainly because FR is supposed to be very liberal when it comes to this, yet the stereotypes remain (at least in 2nd ed.). So there is some equality between the sexes in my Cormyr, yet it hasn't always been so. So peoples attitudes is similar to 1930s europe. Women can become purple Dragons and whatnot, but alot of the older generation grumbles about it, and most women do keep their gender roles. Of course adventurers are beyond the norm anyway and can be as controversial as they like. Someone asked if there is injustice in a D&D game, why doesen't the mighty heroes do anything about it? Well that's just it, they might not perceive it as injustice or wrong if they believe it is right. Where every Roman citizen evil because they thought it was nothing wrong with slavery? No, because that was what they were used to. Still, they should object to mistreating of slaves. But if you look at a typical D&D game you will see that human society might be percieved as just but by today's standards it's not. Most D&D societies are either Monarchies or Feudalistic, therefore undemocratic and inequal. So why does the heroes save the princess when they should rather kidnap her and demand social justice? Because they beleive the King is right and that monarchy is good and legitimate. So if these heroes comes from homes where women are "naturally" submissive and men dominant, why should they object to that? It's the natural order of things after all... RPGs is npt just about swinging sword and playing an idealized version of yourself, it's about delving into others' minds and others' ways of thinking.
Alynn 03-22-05, 10:21 PM	A dynamic that most seem to have overlooked thus far is this, a woman pretending to be a man in order to fit in. It has happened multiple times, mostly in military settings where a woman pretended to be a man in order to serve in the army. Personally my world is Patriarcal in nature, women can be any class, but you will never find a woman in the high priest position... Women are basically caregivers in the commoner classes, while men have warrior. Experts are men mostly, with a few women, mostly jewlers... basically among the common people, men are more dominant, it is different in the PC realm though.... Although, on the Plataeu of Wind (Barbarian territory) the strongest tribe is that of (what are traditionally though of as Amazons) The Farn, the strongest tribe of Barbarians on the Plateau, mostly because race doesn't matter to them, many females find homes with them. And many beaten women escape to the Platau to find the Farn and learn from them, then return to their significant other, and make them.... less significant... So basically, the strongest class of all, is dominated by women... Anyway, bottom line... if your players are cool about it, then go for it...
UltimateReality 03-22-05, 10:21 PM	So you have a great deal of trouble getting accepted into the local army or wizard school in real life. :heehee If this was supposed to be an insult of some kind, I'm sorry, I don't get it, but I'll retract my smiley. :P An issue like gender-biased roles is so fraught with politics IRL that it'd be awfully hard to include it in most games I've seen without major controversy, and I game in order to smash some orcs and tell a good story, damnit, not to have discussions on gender politics. :yuck: Different strokes for different folks -- just make sure you're all paddling the same canoe in the same direction or it gets kinda damp. ;)
Sukugaru 03-22-05, 10:29 PM	What do you guys think and have you tried this on for size at all in any of your campaigns. Just looking to see if there might be some rewarding role-playing aspect to such conditions in our world. I haven't read all the replies, but I have something important to say: "Dungeons and Dragons is not equal to medieval Europe." You can make your setting more like medieval Europe if you like, but it's not necessarily making DnD more realistic. Just more like medieval Europe. I'm not saying don't do it - if you and your players are fine with such a change, go ahead. I just grow tired of people attempting to make DnD more 'realistic' by applying aspects of medieval Europe to it.
Lord Ian Stark 03-22-05, 10:33 PM	DoctorRomulus may I ask why you think I was against your idea? You don't need to bash my views on why men or women do things. Obviously I am keeping to the lighter side of this possibly volatile subject. You tell me I was offended? When did I ever say that? And I'm married by the way. I know I know, that doesn't always mean I don't have a girlfriend too, but I actually don't. :P Dude you need to take a chill pill and quit lashing out at people. I never even mentioned you in my posts? Are we a bit zealous? I think so. This is a forum. If you are not grown up enough to realize people have different views on life then you do than perhaps you shouldn't post in here.
Lord Ian Stark 03-22-05, 10:39 PM	Oh and yes it is unfortunate that the FCC is leading a champaign that will only hurt America for what it is. All this sensoring and hush hush will only cause more problems in an already tight lipped society. Basically everyone in America is starting to get embarrassed by anything and everything like a 13 year old girl going through puberty. :rolleyes:
FriendoftheDork 03-22-05, 11:12 PM	I haven't read all the replies, but I have something important to say: "Dungeons and Dragons is not equal to medieval Europe." You can make your setting more like medieval Europe if you like, but it's not necessarily making DnD more realistic. Just more like medieval Europe. I'm not saying don't do it - if you and your players are fine with such a change, go ahead. I just grow tired of people attempting to make DnD more 'realistic' by applying aspects of medieval Europe to it. D&D is a strange blend of feudalistic society (see DMG for details) which is common only in the middle ages, and a liberal version of the renaissance. Some DMs like it more one way, some like it the other way. I got no problem with either, but do dislike misconceptions that are hailed as thruths. In my games it's bascially late medieval/renaissance style, yet I tried to be somehat true to the period. Anachronisms just ruins the nfun for me and others. Nothing prevents you from using rifles in D&D either (there are even rules for it) but it ruins my suspension of disbelief of a quasi-medieval setting.
moustache guy 03-23-05, 12:46 AM	Wow, Doc. I leave you alone for a few hours, and you get this many posts to your thread. Anyhow, I'm going to skirt the contents of most of the above posts to bring in a new idea. Namely, that in some societies, men and women accepted and enjoyed their roles in society. Not all the time, mind you, but sometimes people actually liked their roles. Here's some exerts from a code of chivalry describing the relationship and roles of men and women. Thou shalt respect all weaknesses and shalt constitute thyself the defender of them. Being obedient in all things to the commands of ladies, thou shalt ever strive to ally thyself to the service of Love. These exerts suggest that men often kept women from, say, war in an effort to protect them. The women, in turn, would respect the sacrafice that the men made for them. Perhaps you have a particularly chivalrous society. No flaming please! Just trying to bring up a nicer, if not idealized, part of historical society. Also, to address a comment about female gods made earlier, the Greeks had female gods, and heros, yet women in their society were kept from voting. It all depends on what roles the female gods fill. Also, don't limit player character classes based on sex. PCs are supposed to be exceptional, so there should always be a round about story of how a male or female PC attained a class normally not available to them.
StormKnight 03-23-05, 01:33 AM	I'll admit I don't know the first thing about Doc. Maybe his games are normally totally unbiased, and he's actually just so incredibly unsexist personally that the concept that sexism in a game could be a problem and not just a game element never even occurred to him. Its possible. From what I have seen, the 'normal' mode of though for most male gamers (and some women gamers to) seems to be "women in games are there as scenery, victims, to scream when the monster arrives, and to look sexy. PC women are maybe a wierd exception." I don't think they usually actually THINK this, but it becomes pretty clear when every single female in their game fits that description. Now, I'm not saying anyone here needs to fit that. That's a rough bellcurve average, but it seems sadly true. Its a widespread, subtle attitude, and I believe the entire attitude is extremley damaging to the gaming hobby as a whole. So when I see a post about putting sexism into a game, I pretty much assume that the gamer in question is STARTING from the point I just described and wants to make it WORSE. I don't believe the claims of "realism" are remotely valid. Our historical and modern societies are all developed in response to many environmental factors and events. Most of these environmental factors and events will be COMPLETELY different in a fantasy world. We choose to make the society familiar and like what we are used to because of convenience - we don't want to spend vast time explaining societal difference because its not a focal point of the game. (Obviously, there are exceptions, and games in which the unique society is a focus of the game.) So to me, the choice to include sexism or exclude is based only on your personal preference; any degree of sexism from extreme to totally unheard of is just as "realistic" as anything else, as long as it is consistent with the world. So, to me Doc has made a very deliberate choice to be sexist. Further, he has then apparently decided that the focus of such sexism will be on keeping women out of "interesting" things - the focus of the game. Now, I am not saying that parenting or cooking or whatnot is not interesting in real life. I certainly find it a great experience when I experiment with cooking something new and come up with something great tasting that I get compliments on. But this is about D&D. The focus of D&D, the reason for playing it, is on adventures and action - traditionally "male" domains. Being left out of such in things in real life isn't neccessarilly bad - the average medieval soldier was probably a peasant conscript with no desire at all to go fight and would be happy to be left out of it. But in action/adventure genre, these are the bread and butter of the game (or movie, book, whatever). Now, since Doc has infinite options, even if he wants to include sexism in his games he doesn't have to pummel women with things they can't do in the game that take the whole point of the game away from him. He could, in fact, perfectly reasonably come up with a society - perhaps a barbarian/norse style tribe - that places high value in combat prowess, and believes that a mother's victories in battle will pass on power to her children. Women might be required to train in and prove themselves in battle, and not permitted the luxury of such things as domestic chores. This is certainly sexist - and women in such a society might be quite frustated with having to maintain the battle tradition, but its sufficiently different from our own society that it won't register quite so personally with players, and it will put the players IN the action and focus of the game, rather than out. If he finds this too "unrealistic" (translated to 'not familiar'), perhaps he should consider having laws that prevent women from owning or overseeing land. This has historical precedent. Its certainly extremley sexist. Its a logical thing to do when you consider that a main driving force of sexism seems to be ensuring that a woman has "YOUR" children and not someone elses (women in power would not be under your control, and thus free to reproduce with someone else) - a woman can't really raise children properly without land. But it doesn't interfere with the focus of the game - a character forced to be a mercenary because her father passed away and she can't find someone to marry her may be miserable, but its a perfectly playable and interesting background for a character. I'm not saying that either of these will not create hard feelings or problems, but they are both less offensive approaches that are totally reasonable if what you really want is to explore issues as a sideline to a game. Of course, perhaps you really WANT to focus on this as an issue; then by all means go for it. Make the world as sexist as you want, make all your PCs female. Could be interesting if you have a group of male players who want to try to find out what its like to be on the discrimated against side. But I know many women who would consider it an excersise in frustration with far too much reality, and would find it as unappealing as a serious roleplaying game of being a retail store clerk. And keep in mind that no matter what solution you use or how you justify it, you are going through the trouble and effort to define your world just to figure out how to oppress people based on their gender. I would give a lot of thought to why you really want to do that. Ok, I'll try to be done with this thread. Not because I won't have more to say or because I am worried about offending anyone here - I'm just killing too much time on it that could be spent on better things. Good day all.
Kellendros 03-23-05, 02:05 AM	moustache guy: >>>Also, to address a comment about female gods made earlier, the Greeks had female gods, and heros, yet women in their society were kept from voting. It all depends on what roles the female gods fill.<<< Errm… yeah, not to bring RW religion into this but, when exactly is the last time a God came down and blew the crap out of a city because he was angered by it in this world? The Greeks had a predominantly male dominated society… Gods seem to be a little less, shall we say… hands on? in this world than in D&D… is it any big surprise that despite having female Gods in the Pantheon their women had less rights? Essentially, the Greek gods weren’t “real”, so how could they have any effect on the male dominated society that created them? Yeah, as an ancient Greek I might believe in the female Gods, but coincidentally, it seems that wonder of wonders, they don’t really care much about the equality of mortal women, and that, gasp, it seems that the male Gods are superior to the females anyway. Hummm… I wonder why? Might it just happen to be, oh, I don’t know… because I come from a male dominated society? Nahhhh… that couldn’t be it. Real-world examples like that really don’t hold up… However, I must admit you have a point with the other half of your post; there are a lot of folks out there who like to be “protected” et all and appreciate it, and enjoy following the “roles” defined for them by society. In this situation you’re completely right that women could predominantly fulfill the “softer” roles. However, your theory breaks down when one or more women refuse to play by the “mutually agreed rules” and the society actively fights against them doing it, like the OP suggests. In your “mutual agreement” “enjoyment of roles” based world, the society might question a woman going against the grain, might even make it exceedingly difficult for her because of the eccentricity of it, but they would eventually accept it (or at least, put up with it) if not agree with it. This is because, as you will notice, your society isn’t oppressive per say; it’s mutually agreed upon, and balanced in that the men are expected to behave in certain manners as well, not just the women. Essentially, you are suggesting the Good version of the OP’s LE/LN cultural bias. If the women really wanted to become warriors and such, your chivalry-based society would slowly, and with much protestation, let them do it. They might not like the new change, but as the core of their seemingly sexist views is actually the respect/cherishing of what they saw as worthy of protection, that same respect would inevitably cause them to bow to the women’s new wishes, despite personal distaste. In short, there’s a big difference between “*gasp* A woman using a sword? That’s not right! She might get hurt… and it’s certainly not ladylike at all!” and “What! Some [expletive] dared to pick up a sword and fight a man? We’ve gotta hunt this [expletive] down & deal with her! A woman can’t be allowed to get away with that sort of thing!” See the difference?
DoctorRomulus 03-23-05, 07:11 AM	1. The gods per se in this campaign world don't care. 2. Society is such that men and women both have their roles and when those roles are violated the violators are punished to the degree of each particular kingdom or country's laws. 3. These things only apply to humans or humaniods who live within human society. 4. There is racism too, to the point where the Hynardian is not allowed through front of the inn in Damira because well, He's Hynardian. And Dwarves and Elves are not even allowed in some places. 5. Wizards are all male and Sorcerers tend to be female but live on the edge of society. 6. The Clerics of the various "gods" are all male with some exceptions like a group that's completely female like the Vestal Virgins. 7. PC's are the exception. As I said earlier I'll be using a "Joan of Arc" story arc in the campaign world. And lastly the word offend has been used alot here on this thread. Well what you say offends one person, might NOT offend another and vice versa. Lately certain people of the PC (not the game term)/"progressive" persuasion have decided they know what is best for all of us and what offends and what doesn't. Well you know what???? You don't know! I'm a latino by birth and in my culture there's there are things like machismo where certain things are expected of a man and others things are expected of a woman. By the standards of some PC/"progressive" types my people are "unenlightend" and "offensive". You know what?? That's bigotry!! And racism!! Which I find offensive. So maybe I should by that rationale consider someone here to be a racist jerk?
DoctorRomulus 03-23-05, 07:12 AM	OH and I forgot, we're "uneducated" too. 1. The gods per se in this campaign world don't care. 2. Society is such that men and women both have their roles and when those roles are violated the violators are punished to the degree of each particular kingdom or country's laws. 3. These things only apply to humans or humaniods who live within human society. 4. There is racism too, to the point where the Hynardian is not allowed through front of the inn in Damira because well, He's Hynardian. And Dwarves and Elves are not even allowed in some places. 5. Wizards are all male and Sorcerers tend to be female but live on the edge of society. 6. The Clerics of the various "gods" are all male with some exceptions like a group that's completely female like the Vestal Virgins. 7. PC's are the exception. As I said earlier I'll be using a "Joan of Arc" story arc in the campaign world. And lastly the word offend has been used alot here on this thread. Well what you say offends one person, might NOT offend another and vice versa. Lately certain people of the PC (not the game term)/"progressive" persuasion have decided they know what is best for all of us and what offends and what doesn't. Well you know what???? You don't know! I'm a latino by birth and in my culture there's there are things like machismo where certain things are expected of a man and others things are expected of a woman. By the standards of some PC/"progressive" types my people are "unenlightend" and "offensive". You know what?? That's bigotry!! And racism!! Which I find offensive. So maybe I should by that rationale consider someone here to be a racist jerk?
Kellendros 03-23-05, 07:29 AM	DoctorRomulus: >>>1. The gods per se in this campaign world don't care. [snip] 6. The Clerics of the various "gods" are all male with some exceptions like a group that's completely female like the Vestal Virgins.<<< These two statements contradict one another. If they don’t care then they would grant their power to the most pious irrespective of gender. If instead, you meant that they don’t care about female equality, and the fact that they only grant their power to males, indicates that they do care; they care to maintain male superiority in human cultures, an active stance.
DoctorRomulus 03-23-05, 08:12 AM	No they don't. This is why linear thinking is a very bad thing. Think about it a little harder. There may be deeper reasons. Maybe society dictates who gets be what and the "gods" may not be granting anything at all. Maybe clerical power comes from ambient mana and is only percieved to come from the "gods". Or maybe no one knows why things are as they are because the "gods" never explained anything. DoctorRomulus: >>>1. The gods per se in this campaign world don't care. [snip] 6. The Clerics of the various "gods" are all male with some exceptions like a group that's completely female like the Vestal Virgins.<<< These two statements contradict one another. If they don’t care then they would grant their power to the most pious irrespective of gender. If instead, you meant that they don’t care about female equality, and the fact that they only grant their power to males, indicates that they do care; they care to maintain male superiority in human cultures, an active stance.
FriendoftheDork 03-23-05, 08:13 AM	DoctorRomulus: >>>1. The gods per se in this campaign world don't care. [snip] 6. The Clerics of the various "gods" are all male with some exceptions like a group that's completely female like the Vestal Virgins.<<< These two statements contradict one another. If they don’t care then they would grant their power to the most pious irrespective of gender. If instead, you meant that they don’t care about female equality, and the fact that they only grant their power to males, indicates that they do care; they care to maintain male superiority in human cultures, an active stance. Sorry to budge in in your debate, but it may be that in this game world you don't become a cleric unless a church/temple ordains you. In that case it would be humans, and not gods, that determines who will get the chance to become a cleric. Paladins would be another matter because they recieve a call and are not chosen from a group of novices. Well, just my thoughts anyway.
robertliguori 03-23-05, 08:37 AM	Sorry to budge in in your debate, but it may be that in this game world you don't become a cleric unless a church/temple ordains you. In that case it would be humans, and not gods, that determines who will get the chance to become a cleric. Paladins would be another matter because they recieve a call and are not chosen from a group of novices. Well, just my thoughts anyway. Do temples of evil gods exist? "Hi, cleric of Hexor! Ordain me. Now." "Your pitiful whining is as-" *Slice* "Hi, other cleric of Hexor! Ordain me. Now." Ergo, you have female clerics. And Good clerics engaging in a widespread conspiracy to prevent eligable novices from becoming clerics soley on basis of their gender will probably not remain good clerics for long. You could run a drow campaign if you really want sexism. However, at least have the guts to call such policies what they really are.
DoctorRomulus 03-23-05, 09:24 AM	You're trying to shove 21st century ideas into a society ideas into a pseudo-medieval mind on another world. Why do you and others on this board persist in this? Good? Maybe the clerics in this conspiracy are thinking of the common good?? So why would they stop being good? Because you say so?? I have to really question your logic. There are places in the world that if you go spouting this "you are oppressing the women, you are evil" crap you're likely to find yourself on the business end of a vicious lumping. Have you stopped to consider that maybe, just maybe, most of the society, this includes women, might be in on this "conspiracy" to keep the roles of men and women distinct from each other?? Do temples of evil gods exist? "Hi, cleric of Hexor! Ordain me. Now." "Your pitiful whining is as-" *Slice* "Hi, other cleric of Hexor! Ordain me. Now." Ergo, you have female clerics. And Good clerics engaging in a widespread conspiracy to prevent eligable novices from becoming clerics soley on basis of their gender will probably not remain good clerics for long. You could run a drow campaign if you really want sexism. However, at least have the guts to call such policies what they really are.
moustache guy 03-23-05, 09:40 AM	Errm… yeah, not to bring RW religion into this but, when exactly is the last time a God came down and blew the crap out of a city because he was angered by it in this world? Well, most of America, self-proclaimed evangelical Christians, believe that God came down and smote Sodom and Gomorah. Catholics believe the same as well. The Greeks had a predominantly male dominated society… Gods seem to be a little less, shall we say… hands on? in this world than in D&D… is it any big surprise that despite having female Gods in the Pantheon their women had less rights? Are you at all familiar with Greek mythology? Gods were very hands on. They personally saved people, turned the tides of battle, empowered heros, etc. If anything, Greek belief indicated that the Gods were more involved than D&D. Essentially, the Greek gods weren’t “real”, so how could they have any effect on the male dominated society that created them? Yeah, as an ancient Greek I might believe in the female Gods, but coincidentally, it seems that wonder of wonders, they don’t really care much about the equality of mortal women, and that, gasp, it seems that the male Gods are superior to the females anyway. Hummm… I wonder why? Might it just happen to be, oh, I don’t know… because I come from a male dominated society? Nahhhh… that couldn’t be it. The "realness" of their gods is not the issue here, but we both agree that the Greeks believed that they were real. It was actually the Greek religious system where women enjoyed a level of equality. Here, women could become preistesses and be on par with a male priest. In some cases, women outranked men in the clergy hierarchy. It was such religious thought that is believed to be the beginning of equality for women in Western civilization. The implied insult is not appreciated. However, your theory breaks down when one or more women refuse to play by the “mutually agreed rules” and the society actively fights against them doing it, like the OP suggests. In your “mutual agreement” “enjoyment of roles” based world, the society might question a woman going against the grain, might even make it exceedingly difficult for her because of the eccentricity of it, but they would eventually accept it (or at least, put up with it) if not agree with it. Not at all. Remember, there was also a clear definition of what a lady was. Women who did not fit that definition were not expected to obey such rules. Yes, I agree this still puts a certain, passive opposition from society on the woman, but in the end she can still make up her own mind.
WizO_TheCheat 03-23-05, 10:00 AM	Okay, I've read through this entire thing and edited a few posts. As far as I'm concerned there has been blatant over-reaction on both sides of the debate and far too many implications about the beliefs of people that nobody knows beyond the boards. That will stop now! If you are offended by the subject matter to the point that you can't argue against the problems a world like DoctorRomulus would pose in game terms then feel free to leave the thread or use the ignore function. If there has to be a next trip in here then I'm closing the thread.
DoctorRomulus 03-23-05, 10:12 AM	Thank you. :) Okay, I've read through this entire thing and edited a few posts. As far as I'm concerned there has been blatant over-reaction on both sides of the debate and far too many implications about the beliefs of people that nobody knows beyond the boards. That will stop now! If you are offended by the subject matter to the point that you can't argue against the problems a world like DoctorRomulus would pose in game terms then feel free to leave the thread or use the ignore function. If there has to be a next trip in here then I'm closing the thread.
Captain Casualty 03-23-05, 10:34 AM	The moderator has left a very narked off post and I apologize if this just pours petrol on the fire. The original poster asked (quite some postings ago) if there was an objective reason why women tended to end up in male dominated societies. Sociology is not always politically correct. Sorry. 1) Women and children first. We live in an abnormally safe and secure world. Our products are designed with safety in mind and in certain parts of the world we have so much food we are becoming allergic to it (Richard Pryor once wondered how many starving africans had a gluten allergy). What that means is that we underestimate just how much time and effort it took to keep everyone fed, healthy and alive to adulthood. Parenthood was a full time occupation. Because men can be irresponsible S*** of B****** this meant women got unfairly lumbered with it. Regardless of this a society needs to care for the vulnerable and that is why it's women and children first. In a world without magical healing this could be removed. So you may be saying something about the availability of magical healing there 2) Length of the consequences. People in a war situation lose the civil side of themselves. Non consentual carnal knowledge for a man is terrible. In a world without abortions it's worse for the woman. (BTW read 1632 - if anything he toned down the frequency of those problems) Because of this Women were generally prevented from placing themselves in situations where this was likely to happen. The mechanisms for this were both social (humiliation, degredation, isolation Etc) and legal (banishment, stripped of property) quite rigorously enforced. It sometimes happened of course - joan of arc is a good example - but these are the odd examples There are rules for dealing with this sort of thing that i have seen but frankly this is a game. I just DO NOT want to think about things that sordid in my down time. As the SRD makes no reference to these matters maybe we should follow there example 3) Status and power games. As a bloke I hate to be reminded about just how much instinct drives us but then I go to the gym and stick an extra few kilos on when i think of ....... sorry where was I. Hopefully that was funny but it illustrates that men compete for status and it could be reasonably argued that this is for breeding status (think trophy wives) . Women obviously compete but this does not tend to be in the same way. What this means is that with a greater incentive to compete for status more men tend to end up at the top and as someone posted earlier the winner writes the rules as well as the history. Somehow we got onto women as clerics and would they be allowed? in most ancient cultures there was a matriarch role that was either eldest women or somehow religously inspired. Behind the scenes. Safe and using manipulation to move the meathead warriors round. That is where a womens different competivness is illustrated Now it has been a long time since my sociology studies and I want to stress that none of this is meant to be morally right. This is not the world I would make, it just described the problem. I do not want to get flamed ok? If these annoy you, good. Injustice should be annoying. There are other comments concerning the role of religion in this but that will get me banned. Oh and if anyone who actually took sociology beyond A level 20 years ago wants to add more recent/informed comment please feel free to lampoon me in the process.
DoctorRomulus 03-23-05, 10:52 AM	Thank you, Captain Casualty for your rational input. Love the name by the way!! :D The moderator has left a very narked off post and I apologize if this just pours petrol on the fire. The original poster asked (quite some postings ago) if there was an objective reason why women tended to end up in male dominated societies. Sociology is not always politically correct. Sorry. 1) Women and children first. We live in an abnormally safe and secure world. Our products are designed with safety in mind and in certain parts of the world we have so much food we are becoming allergic to it (Richard Pryor once wondered how many starving africans had a gluten allergy). What that means is that we underestimate just how much time and effort it took to keep everyone fed, healthy and alive to adulthood. Parenthood was a full time occupation. Because men can be irresponsible S*** of B****** this meant women got unfairly lumbered with it. Regardless of this a society needs to care for the vulnerable and that is why it's women and children first. In a world without magical healing this could be removed. So you may be saying something about the availability of magical healing there 2) Length of the consequences. People in a war situation lose the civil side of themselves. Non consentual carnal knowledge for a man is terrible. In a world without abortions it's worse for the woman. (BTW read 1632 - if anything he toned down the frequency of those problems) Because of this Women were generally prevented from placing themselves in situations where this was likely to happen. The mechanisms for this were both social (humiliation, degredation, isolation Etc) and legal (banishment, stripped of property) quite rigorously enforced. It sometimes happened of course - joan of arc is a good example - but these are the odd examples There are rules for dealing with this sort of thing that i have seen but frankly this is a game. I just DO NOT want to think about things that sordid in my down time. As the SRD makes no reference to these matters maybe we should follow there example 3) Status and power games. As a bloke I hate to be reminded about just how much instinct drives us but then I go to the gym and stick an extra few kilos on when i think of ....... sorry where was I. Hopefully that was funny but it illustrates that men compete for status and it could be reasonably argued that this is for breeding status (think trophy wives) . Women obviously compete but this does not tend to be in the same way. What this means is that with a greater incentive to compete for status more men tend to end up at the top and as someone posted earlier the winner writes the rules as well as the history. Somehow we got onto women as clerics and would they be allowed? in most ancient cultures there was a matriarch role that was either eldest women or somehow religously inspired. Behind the scenes. Safe and using manipulation to move the meathead warriors round. That is where a womens different competivness is illustrated Now it has been a long time since my sociology studies and I want to stress that none of this is meant to be morally right. This is not the world I would make, it just described the problem. I do not want to get flamed ok? If these annoy you, good. Injustice should be annoying. There are other comments concerning the role of religion in this but that will get me banned. Oh and if anyone who actually took sociology beyond A level 20 years ago wants to add more recent/informed comment please feel free to lampoon me in the process.
psionichamster 03-23-05, 12:56 PM	i highly recommend you read the following books: L.E. Modessit's Fall of Angels and The Chaos Balance they directlt deal with the very ideas/situations you are describing in your question...namely, "Why would women be oppressed in a fantasy world?" as far as game mechanics goes: any religion you have in your game, which actively engages in sexual determinisn is acting out the [evil] alignment, by the RAW... so, you're probably gonna want to remove or amend alignment...refer to here: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm#goodVsEvil for more clarification on this point also: Gender roles will be clearly defined and enforced...women out on the street after a certain time would be "fair game" for any wandering man, for example (not that i advocate this kind of edict, but it would be believable with the context you have brought in) Training/Education/Etc. will be highly restricted and verboten to any of the "wrong" gender...ie, no clerics, since no clerical training, no female wizards, since they aren't gonna be trained in spellcraft and the like Other discrimination: be aware, a society that has open repression of 1 part of it's populous, probably has other open restrictions (no elves, no dark-skinned people, the like) and any number of less overt prejudices as far as WHY do these people accept their "place in the world", there are number of reasons, but it usually comes down to a couple of important issues: 1, security is good, insecurity is bad. cut and dried, this is how the vsat majority of people feel, and act on this... 2, isolation...if they think they are the only person upset about their situation, ie, Suzie, May-Lei, Helga and Chin all think living inside all the time is great, and being pregnant is the most fun thing of all, our potential "Joan of Arc" will likely never act on her feelings, since they seem so "wrong" 3, reprisals. yes, almost every oppressive culture in the past has used violence (either on the one acting out, or his family/friends/etc...) either overtly or covertly. covert violence, meaning the dissidents are "vanished", means a more stagnant, but superficially stable culture. overt violence usually leads to revolts in kind (whether successful or no...) so, your plot lines will likely hinge on a couple of important things: 1, your PC's are likely breaking any number of societal norms, solely by adventuring...they are probably 1 step up from common criminals in a lot of people's eyes, perhaps worse 2, chaotic good, chaotic neutral, and true LG people will likely work to change this setting...i say "true" LG, since, as you have it, that would actually involve the furtheration of this society, which is NOT LG by core DnD rules 3, do the male adventurers share the same societal feelings towards the female adventurers...if not, what are they working towards, with them. If so, why are they adventuring with women in the first place? lastly, you have to decide the "level" of sexism in each of your city-state-nation thingamabobs... not every government is gonna have the same set of laws/social mores regarding women and their treatment...in fact, many of them will disagree (perhaps vilolently) on certain aspects of "proper behavior" what kind of punishment is there for things like "using men's tools" (ie, armor and weapons, presumably), "deflowering" a man's daughter, "crossdressing", "witchcraft" (unlawful female clerics/wizards, or are these classes purely off-limits), "demagoguery" or "incitement to riot" (your Joan of Arc is gonna be societally accepted?) and other role-rejecting "crimes" it's your game, your world... i am not so sure this is a good idea, but to each his own, i suppose namaste, the hamster
DoctorRomulus 03-23-05, 01:53 PM	Thank you PsionicHamster; I am considering alot of these things you've mentioned. However I must disagree on some points such as the idea that because a gender does things within their given role that they are somehow "oppressed". As I mentioned to someone here earlier, in my own culture machismo is one of the things a man must live up to and if he doesn't he is not respected as a man. While it may be a bit toned down here in America it still exists. Does this mean men in my culture are oppressed?? Of course not! But again thanks for your reasoned input.
MasterRookie 03-23-05, 03:02 PM	DoctorRomulus: >>>1. The gods per se in this campaign world don't care. [snip] 6. The Clerics of the various "gods" are all male with some exceptions like a group that's completely female like the Vestal Virgins.<<< These two statements contradict one another. If they don’t care then they would grant their power to the most pious irrespective of gender. If instead, you meant that they don’t care about female equality, and the fact that they only grant their power to males, indicates that they do care; they care to maintain male superiority in human cultures, an active stance. Cleric hood isn't like paladinhood. Clerics are trained Paladins are not. If males will not allow any women to be trained as clerics the clerics will be all male.
MasterRookie 03-23-05, 03:15 PM	Thank you PsionicHamster; I am considering alot of these things you've mentioned. However I must disagree on some points such as the idea that because a gender does things within their given role that they are somehow "oppressed". As I mentioned to someone here earlier, in my own culture machismo is one of the things a man must live up to and if he doesn't he is not respected as a man. While it may be a bit toned down here in America it still exists. Does this mean men in my culture are oppressed?? Of course not! But again thanks for your reasoned input. hey I've got some basic character consepts. Femal mercenary: I've mentioned my Idea that women are forbidden to join the main army but in times of war some femal mercenarys may be hired to fill in troop shortages. A femal mercenary may be hired by the party because of her exeptional skill. This is a possibility for a fighter class. Femal Wizard: taught Illegally. Could be aristocratic and paid the teacher off. This would mean she would have to hide her abilitys making interesting plot possibilitys. Sorceress: Since sorceory is natural anyone can become one. Perhaps she flead an even more patriarcal country that executess sorceresses, this could be a low magic country that doesn't understand it. Femal Paladin: Everyone's said it so I'll say it again. It is likely that a Paladin would be allowed to continue their training regardless of gender. After all Paladins are chosen by the gods. Making a very Joan of Arc type character. These are just some Ideas in case your players want some things to think about when chosing characters. These aren't overly restrictive so they could be incorperated into any character consept.
MasterRookie 03-23-05, 03:24 PM	Despite StormKnight’s violently PC stance, he’s got a point (which you’ve already refuted but just to lay it out clearly I’ll recap). Facts by Core D&D rules: Men are not inherently stronger than women; everyone uses the same Stat Array/Point Buy/Dice Rolls to get their stats, and there are no gender modifiers to those stats, thus, any given woman has exactly the same chance of having as much strength as any given man. Sorcerers, Paladins, and Clerics (since you don’t need to worship a God in 3.X to be a Divine Caster; you can serve an Ideal instead) have no controllable source for their power; it’s inborn/self-discovered, not taught, and thus it is impossible for either gender to prevent the other from being these things. Bards* as a Class have crazy manipulative abilities and thus are the “media outlets” of D&D, and the media is a very powerful tool for influencing cultural views. (*- Bards are pretty much a give-in for an “allowed” female class choice in a sexist society; “entertainment” was one of the few things that women were allowed to do.) Common assumptions/expectations by Core D&D rules: Female gods exist, and have (at least the chance to have) just as much power as male gods, thus it’s a fair assumption that they’d have an interest in promoting that equality. Non-human Races; if you’ve got them, there’s bound to be at least one or two races that have full equality (no matter what the reasons), traditionally this is Elves & Dwarves. If the example exists, it’s pretty hard not to expect other races to be totally resistant to its influence on their own cultures. Given the above Facts & Assumptions, you can see that it’s pretty much impossible for a world as a whole to have predominantly sexist cultures as the norm. The only way it works is if the sexist cultures actively and aggressively enforce that view; they have to hunt down & punish to whatever degree is necessary any violators of what they decree as the “norm” for either gender. In short, you literally need house rules that actively make women weaker, because you need to restrict female Gods, restrict female stats to make them weaker, and have setting based repercussions to smack-down any woman that gets “out of line”. It also means that all your cultures will be Lawful Evil by the Core definitions of standard Alignments—possibly, just possibly Lawful Neutral in the more “lenient” of the sexist cultures. And do not try and argue against this; by definition an actively sexist society is “hurting, oppressing, and killing others”; to be precise, 50% of it’s population. Citing that “that’s just the way it is” does not make it Good or even Neutral by Core D&D Alignment standards. I’m not saying you can’t do it, I’m saying that your argument that sexists societies are “realistic” is inherently flawed by Core D&D rules; it’s actually not realistic given the above factors. The only way it can be implemented “realistically” is with the above changes. If you want play in such a world setting, that’s fine, just so long as you do make it realistic by the above needed changes, because any other way does not work. Without some sort of “over oppression” (like a supreme sexist god or something) or many smaller societal oppressions to keep women in line, women can and will become equals by Core D&D rules; it’s inevitable. So if you do do it, it boils down to “we want the setting to be this way” and nothing else. And barring crippling Stat reductions, I would so be running a female warrior, Sorceress/Bard, or Rogue + Shadowdancer + Assassin intent on raising an army/enough political & magical power/network of followers to bring down your setting. But that’s just me. well the rules aren't entirely realistic anyway. Women on average have less physical strength then men and more fine motor. A -1 strength +1 dexterity would be logical. Women are better at other things to. Perhaps a +1 charisma -1 constitution to reprisent lower resilliance and higher manipulative abilitys (don't tell me girls aren't good at manipulating men). Or instead of adding to charisma perhaps it could go to intelegence or wisdom. I think these rules make sense but the game wanted to be politically correct.
Nedlum 03-23-05, 05:18 PM	2. Society is such that men and women both have their roles and when those roles are violated the violators are punished to the degree of each particular kingdom or country's laws. Elaborate, please. At the moment, it feels as though all the onus is on the female, leaving the male to do what he pleases. While I do think it is overly simplistic to simply move Middle Age gender roles as written to a world which came to its current state in a very different way, I don't have any real qualms. I think that women and men, while not exactly Tabula Rusa's, are equivilant enough in most non-reproductive ways that it seems silly to put them in boxes and say "societies should naturally be like this." But it is another thing to say "My society is like this", which seems to be what you're doing. I may be wrong, but you're not saying that this is the place women should be, just that its the place they are. Just a few more thoughts, however: Favored Souls are essentially Cleric via Sorcerer. You don't learn to be one; you are one. Do your gods call female Favored Souls as often as men, in the same way that they would call Paladins or as the blood would allow sorcery? Even if you don't allow or know the class, would you if you did? If you're going to have the sexism of Holy Roman Empire Europe (and yes, there is no way of denying that in our eyes, the 1300s were sexist), are you taking other injustices and applying them? Specfically, the power of nobility to do basically whatever they want to serfs without fear of retribution. I'm not saying that this is at all nessessary, but if you're going to have one aspect of feudalism, why not others? Are you applying lots of things from the time, or just a few? It seems to me, and I could be wrong, that you have a system where it is very difficult, rather than impossible, for a woman to learn wizardry or to assume the holy texts. A cleric who is cast out of the hierarchy could presumably train whoever he wanted, hoping perhaps to use followers to his advantage; so too could a poor hedge-wizard, if paid well enough. Are such people as these accepted by society, or are there laws, or is it simply impossible for a wizard to be trained outside of Wiz-U? I hope I don't come across as mean. I just think that its the kind of thing that you should think through. And you have, but I'm curious still.
Lord Ian Stark 03-23-05, 05:20 PM	In D&D 3.X abilities for races & templates go up or down by multiples of 2. Also if you are going to start changing the base stats according to gender, you will have to do this for all the races, as females of other races are not the same in differance as a female humans are. You can't paint with a big brush saying all females of all races are weaker. Look at Dwarves or Drow. Changing the stats to fit a female character is IMO rediculous. An 18 STR is an 18 STR whether it is on a male or female.
LadyCreator 03-23-05, 05:48 PM	Good heavens, I'm a woman and so are five of my six players - we attend a woman's college. My campaign world has slavery, racism, sexism (though I haven't developed that fully yet), and any other social issue you care to mention. It adds a certain depth and yes, realism to the world; it provides versimilitude and roleplaying options. Honestly, they are just other evils to fight against. Several of my PCs are escaped slaves, one of my NPCs is an abused woman (whom the PCs rescued from her situation)...One thing that a campaign setting needs is institutionalized evils. It seems odd to me that demons and liches are fine and dandy, but sexism is just too horrible? Characters need things to struggle against. Moral issues will figure prominently in my campaign. Obviously hack and slash campaigns will only be hampered by complex political/social situations, but they are an enhancement to campaigns that are based heavily on roleplay and stories that are affected by those conditions. And I wouldn't inflict my setting on anyone who wanted a campaign of escapism from those things. But consider, placing social issues in other settings helps to isolate their causes and possibly solutions. In real life, we have only the way things developed in our own history; in thought experiments/campaign settings, we can develop a larger data set in which to study correlations and causes/effects. Almost everybody can find something to complain about regarding D&D - everything from promoting devil-worship to reinforcing stereotypes to promoting violence...but really, it's important to remember that this is all imaginative, and that nobody's being brainwashed or tortured through it. I want my nations to have twists to them, not to be two-dimensional clones of one another. Like individuals, they have their flaws, and those flaws are part of what gives rise to unique stories and adventures. For a game book discussion of social issues, check out the Book of Exalted Deeds; there's a section called "Being ahead of your time," which considers racial and gender inequality, and the obligation of an exalted character to oppose them. A final point - if we are interested in reducing sexism in D&D and encouraging more female gamers, eliminating social complexity in campaign worlds is probably counterproductive. Rather, look at those Dragon magazine covers and object first to the bikini-style armor the women are wearing. D&D would do well to make more of an effort to appeal to potential female gamers and to try to get rid of the lonely male gamer stereotype. Edit to add: the stats don't have to change to reflect the gender thing. A male with a high strength probably has it in his upper body with big muscles, while a female with the same score is probably liquid steel with very powerful legs and abdomen. He'd win at arm wrestling, she'd win at leg wrestling.
Osiris Memnoch 03-23-05, 06:23 PM	Political correctness offends me.
JadeFox 03-23-05, 09:27 PM	Allright, so for one reason or another, there are no female Wizards, Cerics(with exception), Fighters, Monks, or Barbarians. That leaves Bards, Paladins, Sorerers and Rouges. Assuming that Bards are around 50/50, paladins and rogues are slightly tileted in males favor, and you've allready told us that Sorcerers are mostly female. So.....what this basicly means is that, thanks to the female clerical orders, sorcererus magic, and Bardic manipulation, you've put a huge amount of magical power and sway over society into people who have the will to use it. Even if, as you say (personally I think it's absurd), that the females would almost uniformly go along with this, it only takes ONE epic level mage to bring an entire kingdom crashing to it's kness. Or, at a lower power level, one low-teen's level sorcerer/cleric to comit enough acts of terrorism to distroy a kingdoms economy. For the bards it's more subtle. Tilt plays in favor of promoting an idea, perhaps apply a little subliminal magic, you'll have rioting in the street before you know it. ----- You've mentioned the idea that some roles are male, and some roles are female even though the two sexes are equal (you called it machismo). I'm not going to debate if that's right, or if it's sexist, or whatever. But the point is that if everybody dosn't feel that way, strife will begin to appear. It's not that the world as you describe it can't exist, it's that it can't exist for more then a decade or so, it's inherently unstable.
JadeFox 03-23-05, 09:29 PM	No they don't. This is why linear thinking is a very bad thing. :looloo: Hmmmmm. Is opposed to otcoms razor, belives that "Machismo" isn't sexist, and says that things don't need a logical explanation. ........are you heavily religious?
pres_man 03-23-05, 10:18 PM	So just from a role-playing aspect in the world we’re working on the women don’t have the same rights as men. This could mean that women have different rights then men. Different need not equal inferior. They have their place and it is not on the battlefield This is still a fairly common belief in today's age. Where most people have difficulty is with use of machinary. A woman is just as good as a man when flying a plane and dropping bombs. Infantry still might be isolated to men only, I'm not sure about that. If you wanted to perhaps bend this a little you might say women could be in the archery corps but not in the infantry/calvary. or in the market. Now I find that strange for women have long participated in the marketplace. Usually though, they did not own the business, instead working for their parents or their husband. Occasionally they would work for others, though historically this is kind of rare. Another thing we considered was that the occupations (classes) that women would be allowed to pursue would either be they are Clerics or Sorcerers because of the perceived “softness” of those vocations. Well this is similiar to how I make NPCs in my campaigns. Druid NPCs are almost always female and tend to be "outsider" races (typically half-orc or half-elf). NPC clerics are usually equally as likely to be male or female in my campaigns, usually depending on the location and/or deity. Not that a woman couldn’t pursue any other class, just that it would be a hell of a lot harder. For NPC women, this is how I play as well. For PCs of course they should be allowed to play whatever they want. Just inform them if society is perhaps unsure of women (or men even) in certain roles. Case and point a woman who decides to be a Fighter would probably be challenged quite often and in some places not be allowed to enter at all. Interesting to me, I find that female NPC barbarians are common in my games. Female NPC fighters on the other hand are almost unheard of. Also fighters who are human female, male/female elf, male/female half-elf, male/female halfling, or male/female gnome tend to have hard times when it comes to most other fighters. Usually these folks have to "prove" that they are worth of being called a fighter. Human males, male/female dwarves, and male/female half-orcs don't have nearly as much trouble being accepted. Also I don't think I've ever had a female NPC wizard. Usually wizards in my games are more focused, I usually view the stereotypical mad scientist as the template for wizards in my games. And if she were single traveling with a whole male party it might be considered downright scandalous. Rarely is this a problem/issue since I have five women who play and only two guys. So the guys are usually the ones in the minority. Though I may bring this up in reverse, for the only totally non-combatant type in the party is a male half-elf sorcerer. Maybe I'll have somebody call him the parties "Girl Toy". :D
JKnight 03-23-05, 10:20 PM	Good heavens, I'm a woman and so are five of my six players - we attend a woman's college. My campaign world has slavery, racism, sexism (though I haven't developed that fully yet), and any other social issue you care to mention. It adds a certain depth and yes, realism to the world; it provides versimilitude and roleplaying options. Honestly, they are just other evils to fight against. Several of my PCs are escaped slaves, one of my NPCs is an abused woman (whom the PCs rescued from her situation)...One thing that a campaign setting needs is institutionalized evils. It seems odd to me that demons and liches are fine and dandy, but sexism is just too horrible? Characters need things to struggle against. Moral issues will figure prominently in my campaign. Obviously hack and slash campaigns will only be hampered by complex political/social situations, but they are an enhancement to campaigns that are based heavily on roleplay and stories that are affected by those conditions. And I wouldn't inflict my setting on anyone who wanted a campaign of escapism from those things. But consider, placing social issues in other settings helps to isolate their causes and possibly solutions. In real life, we have only the way things developed in our own history; in thought experiments/campaign settings, we can develop a larger data set in which to study correlations and causes/effects. Almost everybody can find something to complain about regarding D&D - everything from promoting devil-worship to reinforcing stereotypes to promoting violence...but really, it's important to remember that this is all imaginative, and that nobody's being brainwashed or tortured through it. I want my nations to have twists to them, not to be two-dimensional clones of one another. Like individuals, they have their flaws, and those flaws are part of what gives rise to unique stories and adventures. For a game book discussion of social issues, check out the Book of Exalted Deeds; there's a section called "Being ahead of your time," which considers racial and gender inequality, and the obligation of an exalted character to oppose them. A final point - if we are interested in reducing sexism in D&D and encouraging more female gamers, eliminating social complexity in campaign worlds is probably counterproductive. Rather, look at those Dragon magazine covers and object first to the bikini-style armor the women are wearing. D&D would do well to make more of an effort to appeal to potential female gamers and to try to get rid of the lonely male gamer stereotype. Edit to add: the stats don't have to change to reflect the gender thing. A male with a high strength probably has it in his upper body with big muscles, while a female with the same score is probably liquid steel with very powerful legs and abdomen. He'd win at arm wrestling, she'd win at leg wrestling. I just like this post, and tend to agree with a lot of the things in it, so I thought that I would quote it. That's about all. JK
Cantankerous 03-24-05, 02:16 AM	There is another idea that I haen't seen mentioned. MAgic, unless it is all but non-existant in your world, becomes a MASSIVE equalizer. Fact: A woman tends on the whole, especially in societies where there are fewer factors to grant equality, to be smaller and less agressive than a man. This is exacerbated in most male dominated societies by a developed "asthetic" where the woman is supposed to be either "well rounded" (and thus out of shape physicly) or exceedingly thin (with many of the same outcomes) when compared to the same physical esthetic for a man. But this is only possible to maintain if women have little power because there are few other factors that can equalize the female power deficiency. As soon as those factors (and magic doesn't care what sex you are) begin to crop up, the power deficiency decreases and woman begin to demand (and get) equality. Realisticly women hold the advantages in any society where they have a means of protecting themselves from the man's lone natural advantage: physical bulk, they have an easy means of getting what they want; sex. UNLESS... If you still want such a male dominated society in a situation where the equalizing factors are as great as they are in a standard D&D game world, you might want to fool around with the idea of institutionalizing homosexuality culturally. Now I've probably gone and scared all the children out of the thread, but really, I think that you have to keep in mind social balancing pressures; so, if you are going to ignore the balancing pressures of magic and still keep the women in metaphorical chains, then realize that there MUST be another outlet for the key that women hold to get what they want. Isshia
Blairconz 03-24-05, 03:35 AM	I think that given equal opportunity, men and women are equal. Nowadays you can have female police officers and male nurses. Is a female police officer any less efficient than a male one? No, otherwise we wouldn't have them. Same with a male nurse. If a woman is placed in a 'male' environ then she'll grow to fit the job, like during the world wars. Any human will, thats what we do. It might me more galvanised among the fantasy races, but not among humans Yes I like attractive chainmail bikini wearing warrioresses with impractically large weoponry. I'm not ashamed. Just don't expect to see them as anything more than a poor joke in my campaign. The female warriors in my campaigns wear appropriate clothing/armour (my players will back me up) and use appropriate weaponry. Don't be sexist, it's not nice. To the OP, sounds like a cool campaign, I hope things go well for you and your players. :) :) :)
DoctorRomulus 03-24-05, 07:07 AM	No I'm heavily REALISTIC!! When you grow up on the streets the way I did instead of in a cozy suburban home it kind of stays with you. Oh and yes people in latino culture tend to be very religious, Roman Catholic to be exact. I suppose your way doing things is better? BTW, So what if Machismo is "sexist". The point I was making was that it's accepted in my culture by both men and women. Are you a racist bigot?? Do me a favor, if you're not going to lend anything constructive to this discussion, just stay out of it. :looloo: Hmmmmm. Is opposed to otcoms razor, belives that "Machismo" isn't sexist, and says that things don't need a logical explanation. ........are you heavily religious?
DoctorRomulus 03-24-05, 07:18 AM	Also, it's Occam's Razor and I never even mentioned it. :looloo: Hmmmmm. Is opposed to otcoms razor, belives that "Machismo" isn't sexist, and says that things don't need a logical explanation. ........are you heavily religious?
Vatras 03-24-05, 08:01 AM	I am feeling like posting my 2cts: There is a reason why the sexes had their traditional roles. Women were the only ones who could bear children and were therefore forbidden to risk themselves or the offspring to give a tribe better chances of survival. It was simple logic to keep them at home in a guarded area, especially when pregnant. There were also enough jobs to be done there which didnt require dangerous exposure to predators and natural hazards (like raising the offspring, cooking or making clothing), so they ended up as the womens domain. Over the ages this situation did change, but only slowly and for several thousand years not at all. During the height of roman power in the 2nd century after Christ the barbarians north of the danube still lived in wooden stockades and hunted their dinner, as they despised (and knew next to nothing of) agriculture. Only in modern times, when population started to become a problem instead of a need, did the women themselves start to agitate for their acceptance into traditional male roles. If such historical/sociological roots are applicable for a fantasy world is up to the DM. If a tribe has a shaman who can heal, death in childbed will be no problem, and if he can heal diseases, the rate of death among children will also sink. When in outside work (guarding, hunting, lumberjacking, etc.) 1 in 10 dies over a year, you dont want women to do it, adding this 10% to their mortality rate in childbed. When there is no death in childbed and almost all the children survive to adulthood, it is not a problem exposing women to the dangers outside. The other reason for not allowing women into male profession (and vice versa) is the fact that if you put men and women close together there will be sex and offspring, no matter what. This is in many professions (like soldiering, working in mines, tilling the fields, lumberjacking, etc.) a problem, because you have lost a worker you counted on, when a woman becomes pregnant and cannot do the job anymore (you can hardly send a woman in her 7th month down a saltpeter mine). Since men cannot become pregnant they are the preferred sex for those jobs since ancient times. Nowadays with the various ways of preventing pregnancy, women are - often reluctantly - allowed into male professions. The whole thing comes down to economical and sociological reasons, which may or may not hold true in a fantasy society.
The Philosopher King 03-24-05, 08:08 AM	:looloo: Hmmmmm. Is opposed to otcoms razor, belives that "Machismo" isn't sexist, and says that things don't need a logical explanation. ........are you heavily religious? So... where did this cult of the all knowing Occham originate? I mean, it's good that it is preferable to accept theories with fewer postulates and all - otherwise we'd be stuck with that ridiculous and outmoded "physics" with its postulated particles and such, instead of knowing that according to Occham's Razor, and therefore science, everything is comprised of various states of the single Prime Element: Fire. One postulate instead of many is better, right? The doc didn't say Machismo isn't sexist, if he said logic is unnecessary, then I for one didn't read it, and asking if he's religious like it's a bad thing is... :looloo: and also implicitly against the CoC. On a thread with a Wizo warning too. Give the guy a break people, he has a good idea for a setting which isn't like yours ('you' as impersonal, here) - which steps on taboo subjects, makes others uncomfortable - though not his own group - and where the fictional societies are big jerks like real ones - and he gets yelled at and accused of war crimes. So much for trying to role play or try something different. :nonono: the barbarians north of the danube still lived in wooden stockades and hunted their dinner, as they despised (and knew next to nothing of) agriculture. umm... not really. The Germani had agriculture, but relied on a meat-milk-mead diet (like the Celts of pre-Roman Gaul) with minor agricultural additions, unlike the grain-based diet of the Mediterraneans. 'Civilised' people don't tend to portray 'barbarians' all that well when they write about them. Not that that detracts from what you're saying, it's just this came up in class today so I had to pounce :)
Cantankerous 03-24-05, 08:38 AM	So Doc, what of the magic as the great eqiualizer (as technology is in our modern world) in the campaign world? How do you rationalize a subjugation by sexual difference in a society where such an equalizer exists? Isshia
DoctorRomulus 03-24-05, 09:16 AM	Even in the D&D core worlds magic and magic users are not as common as technology in our world, at least not to the common man. So in effect it could not be the great "equalizer" everyone seems to think it would be. So Doc, what of the magic as the great eqiualizer (as technology is in our modern world) in the campaign world? How do you rationalize a subjugation by sexual difference in a society where such an equalizer exists? Isshia
robertliguori 03-24-05, 09:17 AM	You're trying to shove 21st century ideas into a society ideas into a pseudo-medieval mind on another world. Why do you and others on this board persist in this? Good? Maybe the clerics in this conspiracy are thinking of the common good?? So why would they stop being good? Because you say so?? “Evil” implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Because the SRD says so. Opression is evil. Also, there is nothing in the core D&D materials that implies or even hints at the level of worldwide misogyny. Indeed, there are a great, great many nastily powerful female NPCs present in most of the books. If you are disregarding the fact that in standard D&D, there simply aren't the level of gender differences you are claiming there are/should be, than that's fine. However, you're essentially moving past setting and into house-rules. I have to really question your logic. There are places in the world that if you go spouting this "you are oppressing the women, you are evil" crap you're likely to find yourself on the business end of a vicious lumping. Have you stopped to consider that maybe, just maybe, most of the society, this includes women, might be in on this "conspiracy" to keep the roles of men and women distinct from each other?? Of course, it is your perogative as DM to run your world and your NPCs as you see fit. However, since there is nothing stopping a woman from accumulating power and status in standard D&D, there's no reason to assume that there wouldn't be a fair number of high-level female adventurers, just as there are a fair number of high-level male adventurers. Incidentally, the concept of having to invoke the army-of-doing-things-the-DMs-way should be a warning sign. Look, if you're happy with most of your population taking measures to keep women subjugated and 'in their place', and as such mostly being lawful evil, then go ahead. Just don't think that it is anything other than what it is.
Count Arioch the 28th 03-24-05, 10:01 AM	You actually can't use real life standards to determine good or evil. Want to know if opressing women is evil? Gate in a Solar and ask it. If it says that it's evil to force women to wear burkas and beat them with bicycle chains for walking too fast, then it's evil, end of the debate. There is no subjective morality in the world of D&D, because demons, angels, and whatnot actually exist, and can be communicated with. (And in some worlds, you can even chat with the deities themselves.) so in the world of D&D, you would eventually see such obvious dichotomies in religion. (If Pelor sends a hound archon to pound the head priest every time he tries to perform/refuses to perform a gay marriage, then it's obvious what Pelor thinks about said action, and there's no more debate.)
DoctorRomulus 03-24-05, 10:08 AM	This is a rather simplistic way of viewing the roles of men and women in a society. For centuries women did not have the same right as men and yet to hear the way you and some others here have phrased it one has to wonder if they were so "oppressed" why didn't they do something about it? Ever stop and think they didn't see any other way of doing things until someone at some point decided that they were “oppressed” and decided to make a claim on those rights? You use the idea of alignments to try and illustrate that a lawful good person wouldn’t allow “sexism” to exist. Got news for you. If the women although they don’t have the same rights as men they don’t see things as being any other way they make the best of it just like the women in our world did. And if said lawful good person sees no actual harm being done, why would they object? And how would that make them lawful evil when they also have not been privy to the idea that things should be different. Because the SRD says so. Opression is evil. Also, there is nothing in the core D&D materials that implies or even hints at the level of worldwide misogyny. Indeed, there are a great, great many nastily powerful female NPCs present in most of the books. If you are disregarding the fact that in standard D&D, there simply aren't the level of gender differences you are claiming there are/should be, than that's fine. However, you're essentially moving past setting and into house-rules. Of course, it is your perogative as DM to run your world and your NPCs as you see fit. However, since there is nothing stopping a woman from accumulating power and status in standard D&D, there's no reason to assume that there wouldn't be a fair number of high-level female adventurers, just as there are a fair number of high-level male adventurers. Incidentally, the concept of having to invoke the army-of-doing-things-the-DMs-way should be a warning sign. Look, if you're happy with most of your population taking measures to keep women subjugated and 'in their place', and as such mostly being lawful evil, then go ahead. Just don't think that it is anything other than what it is.
psionichamster 03-24-05, 10:25 AM	This is a rather simplistic way of viewing the roles of men and women in a society. For centuries women did not have the same right as men and yet to hear the way you and some others here have phrased it one has to wonder if they were so "oppressed" why didn't they do something about it? Ever stop and think they didn't see any other way of doing things until someone at some point decided that they were “oppressed” and decided to make a claim on those rights? You use the idea of alignments to try and illustrate that a lawful good person wouldn’t allow “sexism” to exist. Got news for you. If the women although they don’t have the same rights as men they don’t see things as being any other way they make the best of it just like the women in our world did. And if said lawful good person sees no actual harm being done, why would they object? And how would that make them lawful evil when they also have not been privy to the idea that things should be different. yes, this is a simplified version of historical events. i am not even going to touch the "well, if they were oppressed, why didn't they do something about it" comment, because, well, it's too complicated, too political, and WAY off topic regarding your op. i DO recommend you read a bit of the women's lib movement, circa 1970, 1980, and 1990...it'll give you a lot of insight into just the kind of motivations, "oppressive behavior" as seen by the less dominant gender, and probably give you a buncha really good ideas for your game world. beyond that, you are going to have to decide several things: 1. do women "stay in their place" across the bounds of nations? that is, are they comfortable where they are, and would they be likely to seek changes for whatever reasons 2. how will this society deal with demagoguery...that is, pulpit pounding, soapbox-standing, on-the-corner-proselytizing the "rights of women"... violent reprisals? "disappearing" the vocal dissident? acceptance of the different opinion 3. specific levels of rights/responsibilities/duties... like i said before, you are going to have to codify the "roles" of men and women (in both written laws and unwritten social mores) and make your players aware of them. that is, if they're coming from the culture in question 4. jurisdictional discretion. is the "gender police" (probably not an actual organization, but falling under the discretion of some group, whether by law or common agreement (think "women's circles" back in post-bellum Civil War US...that's a form of gender-role-policing)) entitled to physically accost/beat/kill those who violate gross social mores (like cross-dressing and getting caught in public) now, this is a very complex and stratified society, with many levels of interaction you are gonna have to accomondate (ie, what happens when the female Bard PC starts talking to the guards at the gate, well before any of the men have opened their mouths...) it sounds like you have quite a LOT of work ahead of you, to explain/rationalize/account for all these tight, complicated socio-political dealings...good luck, and check out the "Women's Interest" or "Women's Studies" section of your local library/bookstore...some of the stories just may change your mind about some things... (BTW, to the post regarding Occam's razor: the principle of simplicity is only invoked as a deciding matter, when all other variables are the same. that is, a theory of gravity that includes things like perpendicular momentum, non-constant G values, and other extraneous variables is LESS desirable than the current one. that's all...it doesn't mean that Phlogistion and the elemental theories of physical matter are better, since it's obvious to us now that those theories explain NOTHING...) the hamster
Lord Ian Stark 03-24-05, 10:28 AM	And if said lawful good person sees no actual harm being done, why would they object? And how would that make them lawful evil when they also have not been privy to the idea that things should be different. Good point Doc. In today's world you are absolutely correct. If someone views there action's as good and noone tells them different then they will always think there actions are appropriate and the "norm." However as Count Arioch the 28th states in the D&D world there is a direct line between Good, Evil and Neutral. If there are Gods, Devils and Angels running amock, whether behind the scenes or in your face, then every action has a judgement that can be acted upon if a God does not approve of. Will the God always act? No of course not. However in D&D every action falls under an alignment and is subject to an effect if the opposite side of the spectrum so deams. In the real world, Gods are not as blatantly obvious in day to day activities. Therefore it's up to man to pass judgement on each other which only creates the blind leading the blind. (If Pelor sends a hound archon to pound the head priest every time he tries to perform/refuses to perform a gay marriage, then it's obvious what Pelor thinks about said action, and there's no more debate.) ROFL
DoctorRomulus 03-24-05, 10:56 AM	SHEESH!! And I haven't touched the racial and ethnic relations yet!! Like the treatement of Vor tribesman by the Megalferans. Or how the Aienat ("Nazi" elves, yes "Nazi" elves) view all the other races as inferior and are working to subjugate them. We're talking real oppresion here. :eek:
psionichamster 03-24-05, 11:02 AM	i also recommend you read Harry Turledove's trilogy...forgot the exact titles...Dragons Flame or something like that basically, WW2, in a fantasy setting...nazi's, brits, the whole nine... give that a chance, it should help you as far as looking for help re: you "realistic" setting, i don't think you're likely to get much objective responses with such a topic 'fraid to say it, you're mostly on your own namaste, the hamster
FriendoftheDork 03-24-05, 01:48 PM	yes, this is a simplified version of historical events. i am not even going to touch the "well, if they were oppressed, why didn't they do something about it" comment, because, well, it's too complicated, too political, and WAY off topic regarding your op. i DO recommend you read a bit of the women's lib movement, circa 1970, 1980, and 1990...it'll give you a lot of insight into just the kind of motivations, "oppressive behavior" as seen by the less dominant gender, and probably give you a buncha really good ideas for your game world. beyond that, you are going to have to decide several things: 1. do women "stay in their place" across the bounds of nations? that is, are they comfortable where they are, and would they be likely to seek changes for whatever reasons 2. how will this society deal with demagoguery...that is, pulpit pounding, soapbox-standing, on-the-corner-proselytizing the "rights of women"... violent reprisals? "disappearing" the vocal dissident? acceptance of the different opinion 3. specific levels of rights/responsibilities/duties... like i said before, you are going to have to codify the "roles" of men and women (in both written laws and unwritten social mores) and make your players aware of them. that is, if they're coming from the culture in question 4. jurisdictional discretion. is the "gender police" (probably not an actual organization, but falling under the discretion of some group, whether by law or common agreement (think "women's circles" back in post-bellum Civil War US...that's a form of gender-role-policing)) entitled to physically accost/beat/kill those who violate gross social mores (like cross-dressing and getting caught in public) now, this is a very complex and stratified society, with many levels of interaction you are gonna have to accomondate (ie, what happens when the female Bard PC starts talking to the guards at the gate, well before any of the men have opened their mouths...) it sounds like you have quite a LOT of work ahead of you, to explain/rationalize/account for all these tight, complicated socio-political dealings...good luck, and check out the "Women's Interest" or "Women's Studies" section of your local library/bookstore...some of the stories just may change your mind about some things... (BTW, to the post regarding Occam's razor: the principle of simplicity is only invoked as a deciding matter, when all other variables are the same. that is, a theory of gravity that includes things like perpendicular momentum, non-constant G values, and other extraneous variables is LESS desirable than the current one. that's all...it doesn't mean that Phlogistion and the elemental theories of physical matter are better, since it's obvious to us now that those theories explain NOTHING...) the hamster Why should he look at 70s-90s women's lib movement when he's trying to have his world more similar to medieval or renaissance views? Is it impossible for you to imagine a world with different moral standards than our own? What you or we call oppression today may be the "natural order of things" in another world. And if you say that has no place in fantasy, just check out some of the fantasy and sci-fi works out there... You can have Solars coming down to tell people what it right or wrong in your world, but that doesen't have to be the case in all worlds. There would not be any reason to deal with Suffragettes, because such a thing would not exist. It wasn't until the 20s they appeared in europe in our own world. People do not always revolt against inequality, you need ideas as well as power to do so. Isshia, magic may not be such an equaliser after all. Even if women had the power to shoot men in the 19th century, that doesen't mean they did it to bring about equal rights. Even if you have a 20th level sorcerer, why should she try to change anything? As long as everyone respects HER, then there's no problem. And to bring up Drow society again, there you have an epic male archmage that doesen't even WANT men to be equals of women. He wants things to be the way they are. Humans are often insecure about change, that's why we have tradition.
DoctorRomulus 03-24-05, 02:15 PM	I think part of the problem is that too many gamers also try to play themselves or idealized versions of themselves with all the baggage and ideas of early 21st century people. I also think this is reinforced by the politicization or should I say political correctness that has tainted gaming. Nowadays people are afraid to propose ideas because it might offend some imaginary person somewhere. So when someone does come forward with an idea that's not PC some will attack and take it to the extreme like name calling telling people "Oooo, you're bad". I for one don't go around just trying to offend people, but I also don't hold my tongue or compromise what I want to say for anyone just because they don't like it. I came on here with the express purpose of trying to get some ideas for something and it turns into a witch hunt. When I started gaming 20+ years ago gamers were alot more open minded and more apt hear you out. Now it's like too many of them are just sitting around just waiting for someone to say something "offensive" or "oppressive" just so they can point and moralize. It makes me ill, really. Good thing no one in my group is like that. Or maybe they're just alot more mature and some are barely out into their 20's. It's sad, really. Why should he look at 70s-90s women's lib movement when he's trying to have his world more similar to medieval or renaissance views? Is it impossible for you to imagine a world with different moral standards than our own? What you or we call opression today may be the "natural order of things" in another world. And if you say that has no place in fantasy, just ceck out some of the fnatasy and sci-fi works out there... You can have Solars coming down to tell people what it right or wrong in your world, but that doesen't have to be the case in all worlds. There would not be any reason to deal with Suffragettes, because such a thing would not exist. It wasn't until the 20s they appeared in europe in our own world. People do not always revolt against inequality, you need ideas as well as power to do so. Isshia, magic may not be such an equaliser after all. Even if women had the power to shoot men in the 19th century, that doesen't mean they did it to bring about equal rights. Even if you have a 20th level sorcerer, why should she try to change anything? As long as everyone respects HER, then there's no problem. And to bring up Drow society again, there you have an epic male archmage that doesen't even WANT men to be equals of women. He wants things to be the way they are. Humans are often insecure about change, that's why we have tradition.
FriendoftheDork 03-24-05, 02:29 PM	DoctorRomulus, what that meant for me? Or did you quote the wrong guy?
DoctorRomulus 03-24-05, 02:35 PM	DoctorRomulus, what that meant for me? Or did you quote the wrong guy? Sorry it was a general reply post. I clicked "quote" by mistake.
hiryuu 03-24-05, 02:44 PM	:D :D :D :D :D You said, "Marital Arts" :D :D :D Sorry, couldn't resist! :P I did mean martial, sadly. Gotta love transposition errors, yeah?
Twisted Puppy 03-24-05, 03:47 PM	I don't think that societies that have certain "accepted" roles for women in your game is a problem, as long as everyone understands the premise going in. As long as your female players are okay with the concept, it should work fine. Some of your female gamers may actually enjoy the challenge - that's what a true roleplayer looks for. I'm currently in a game where the DM set up a society in which divine spellcasting is accepted, but arcane spellcasters are typically viewed with great distrust. She might as well have dangled an unemployed manager in front of George Steinbrenner. I couldn't resist the challenge, so I'm playing a wizard. I don't think that portraying a society with a different attitude toward women is the mark of sexism. Be careful to make sure that there are reasons behind the way the society functions. "We've always done it that way" doesn't hold water. There IS a reason; it may have been forgotten over time. (There, doesn't that sucker wiggle like a plot hook?) If you want a good example of what I'm talking about, I suggest you read David Weber's The Honor of the Queen. That is the second book in the Honor Harrington series, and depicts a planet - Grayson - that is very backward on women's roles in society from the point of view of one Captain Honor Harrington, Royal Manticoran Navy. While the situation seems beneath contempt, when the history of the planet is explained it makes more sense.
BloodAdvocateReincarnated 03-24-05, 04:19 PM	I havent read all od this post so dont get mad if i repeat something, but somthing you might find interesting is Robert Jordan's view in his series The Wheel Of Time. Althought women might be slightly undervalued they still have power to affect men. (just think about the comments made by each group, mem and women, about each other when no one of the opposing gender is around.... Just some insparatiom... maybe
robertliguori 03-24-05, 04:45 PM	Why should he look at 70s-90s women's lib movement when he's trying to have his world more similar to medieval or renaissance views? Becuase, and this bears repeating, D&D has only bits of flavor in common with with medieval Europe. The mechanics of D&D (as have been previously explained) simply do not permit much of what medieval europe was like. If you want to change the mechanics to permit this (more fatal contagious diseases, etc.), then you are welcome, but understand that many of these changes are more or less integral to what people mean when they say D&D. Is it impossible for you to imagine a world with different moral standards than our own? What you or we call oppression today may be the "natural order of things" in another world. And if you say that has no place in fantasy, just check out some of the fantasy and sci-fi works out there... But, I would still point out, is still oppression, and still LE. You can have Solars coming down to tell people what it right or wrong in your world, but that doesen't have to be the case in all worlds. Very true. However, this is one of the things that I was referring to when I mentioned changing the rules. There are many, many, many ways to determine if something is cosmically good or evil in D&D. As such, good people, especially ones such as clerics, should not be doing these acts. Frankly, a simple recognition of "The rules as have been described are LE, and C and G people will be opposing them" would end a lot of debate here.
JadeFox 03-24-05, 05:05 PM	No I'm heavily REALISTIC!! When you grow up on the streets the way I did instead of in a cozy suburban home it kind of stays with you. Oh and yes people in latino culture tend to be very religious, Roman Catholic to be exact. I suppose your way doing things is better? BTW, So what if Machismo is "sexist". The point I was making was that it's accepted in my culture by both men and women. Are you a racist bigot?? Do me a favor, if you're not going to lend anything constructive to this discussion, just stay out of it. You didn't reply to my origional post, you know, the one where I actually made my point. Are you saying that Machismo is 100% accepted by all women? That there is no discent? Because in the scenairo you've set up, even a small amount of discent will quickly spin out of control. Oh, also, you just assumed i grew up in the suburbs. Who's making steryotypes now?
JadeFox 03-24-05, 05:07 PM	So... where did this cult of the all knowing Occham originate? I mean, it's good that it is preferable to accept theories with fewer postulates and all - otherwise we'd be stuck with that ridiculous and outmoded "physics" with its postulated particles and such, instead of knowing that according to Occham's Razor, and therefore science, everything is comprised of various states of the single Prime Element: Fire. One postulate instead of many is better, right? The doc didn't say Machismo isn't sexist, if he said logic is unnecessary, then I for one didn't read it, and asking if he's religious like it's a bad thing is... and also implicitly against the CoC. On a thread with a Wizo warning too. Give the guy a break people, he has a good idea for a setting which isn't like yours ('you' as impersonal, here) - which steps on taboo subjects, makes others uncomfortable - though not his own group - and where the fictional societies are big jerks like real ones - and he gets yelled at and accused of war crimes. So much for trying to role play or try something different. I must admit, he's doing a SUPERB job of someone who gets angry and defensive at having their belifes questionted. And my point is that sure, it's possible there some kind of huge divine conspiricy to keep all clerics and paladins male while remaining netural, but don't you think "The gods took sides" is a lot more logical?
Vahenir 03-24-05, 05:35 PM	THE most pertinent thing anyone has said in this thread was: These exerts suggest that men often kept women from, say, war in an effort to protect them. The women, in turn, would respect the sacrafice that the men made for them. Perhaps you have a particularly chivalrous society. In any event, I'll speak because I have played in and run these kinds of games. I have not only played them, I've greatly enjoyed them. As did my female gamer companions. I tend to play in games with a lot of cultural discrimination, sexism, inequality, slavery.. and the like. It's dynamic and creates a more immersive, realistic world. The people of the world seem more alive when there are actual political and social ISSUES as a backdrop for the world. But they should, in most instances, NOT be the main focus of the campaign. Furthermore, don't restrict female gamers.. restrict female NPCs. Female PCs should be extremely special. A God-favored woman, or a mighty Female sorcerer will be oddities in your world.. and probably feared, reviled, and mistrusted. But they should not be openly penalized. Maybe somewhat persecuted in some lands, while revered in other lands. Remember that Joan of Arc lived in a time where women were to be protected and kept quiet. She managed to rally troops to war.. but was still whispered about behind closed doors. Female PCs should mimick this, to some extent. And also remember that different cultures will view things differently. Some cultures may be egalitarian. Other cultures will oppress women, while other cultures will just be very chivalric. And the reaction of women should reflect where they live. Women in an oppressive society will be generally distraught, basically cowed into submission and without a feeling they can do anything about it - but probably still secretly angry or depressed. Women in a chivalric culture will respect the sacrifice their men make to keep them safe from harm and MOST will be generally happy with their social position. Enjoy the game, and try to be liberal with how you apply this social stigma to women. If it EVER becomes a detriment to the game... you'll need to change it. But I don't think that will happen. As I said, I've played in and DMed many game settings with a more realistic bent toward the historical view of different races and women. Oh, and if women are not equal to men, you may want to consider cultural discrimination as well. Perhaps the Humans of a particular land view the more barbaric humans of another land as lesser and treat them as such.. maybe even consistently enslaving them. PS. Another fun theme is literacy. If your campaign world, you may want to make it that only some men, and no women, are able to read and write. This is certainly realistic for a more historical-themed setting.
Cantankerous 03-24-05, 07:28 PM	The thing is, magic doesn't need to be widespread. We aren't talking about the metaphorical subjugation of ALL women, just perspective adventurers. Your original thesis talked about limiting women to certain classes. The problem there is that the women in those classes do actually have as much access to the technology of magic as women today have to technology as a whole. Certainly you'd have to agree that the more technologicly sophisticated the nation, the more equality is had. This is the idea behind the inability of maintaing the social more of a subjugated female in a a hi technology (or magic rich in a fantasy context) enviroment. The female fighter has equal access to to magical technology; or near enough to equal not to matter. Maybe she has to buy from Black Market sources, but otherwise she obtains her things with equal ease to the male. THIS being the case, there will soon be a massive influx of EXTREMELY compotent female adventurers. Especially if the society challenges them more strenuosly to prove their place. Those very challenges are a great strengthening process. Your female adventurers may soon eclipse the male ones in most aspects and it's the greats that get remembered. If you want to rle by DM's fiat that "this is the way it is", sure. But the very processes you are outlining kill the reasonability of the entire backdrop. By the way; love the Nazi Elves. I've been doing something similiar (closer to Spartan, but with Nazi overtones too) with most of my elven societies for years. Isshia
ORC_Tuhteth 03-24-05, 11:07 PM	Guys, this thread is getting a little heated. I want you all to take a deep breath and allow a cooling off period -- say, a couple of hours -- before writing a reply to something that offends you. Otherwise, this can easily spiral out of control and people start getting in trouble for CoC violations. Keep in mind the following points: 1) Please make sure your comments are about the topic, not other patrons. Don't discuss or attack each others' motives, beliefs, or worldviews. Just stick to the topic. 2) Keep the real-world references to an absolute minimum. Real-world gender relations, sexism, and chauvanism are extremely senstive topics, so use such references sparingly and always with sensitivity. 3) And, finally, make sure you're always being constructive. Especially in a topic such as this, make sure you're contributing to the discussion and not simply criticizing or attacking others. To sum up: If you're polite, constructive, and respectful of others, this thread can stay open. If not, it will be closed. In the meantime, happy posting. :)
The Wasp 03-25-05, 03:31 AM	I've studied quite a bit of history, and there are some quite noticeable trends in gender relations. these ar not universally true, but there are some general trends. generally, the more urbane/mercantilistic a society, the more likely you are to find powerful women. societies that deal heavily in commerce are going to see accumulations of capital and goods, and some of that property is eventually going to be inherited by women, thereby granting them economic power. money can easily trump social mores. powerful aristocracies are similar - a lady who inherits great power can often flout social mores. a simple peasant isn't going to tell the great duchess that she can't study wizardry. wartime can also grant greater power to women. when the men are off on campaign, women would generally run the farm/estate/etc. crises in general can empower exceptional women - societes tend to become more pragamatic when their existence is at stake. this is probably where female PCs come in. exceptional women who society accepts as necessary in a time of crisis. powerful women have generall not been feminists. most people in a postion of power are there because they want to be powerful - not because they have some great ideological reform they want to pursue. A queen generally did the same things a king would do - rule a country. That 20th level female druid is probably far more interested in portecting nature than a global feminist crusade. traditionally there was no sisterhood between women. women (like men) looked out for themselves, their community, social class, neighbors, fa.mily, and country before they would advocate rights for their gender. taboos in any form are far more likely in lawful societies. a chaotic society is pragmatic, taking the best person for a given task. generally, the type of society that is most restrictive of the roles of women has a power center of relatively wealthy landowners - generally, none of them is powerful enough to flaunt the rules of society, but they are wealthy enough to have servants to do the manual labor for them. (see: ancient Greece, ancient Rome, Switzerland) as a disclaimer, I'm a history person, not an anthropologist - someone in that field could probably one up or correct me a bit.
Frida 03-25-05, 07:38 AM	PS. Another fun theme is literacy. If your campaign world, you may want to make it that only some men, and no women, are able to read and write. This is certainly realistic for a more historical-themed setting. According to the historian Michael Nordberg, alot more woman than men in the feodal class during 1100-1300 was able to read and write. The nunnerys tought both boys and girls mathematics and to read and write. The most important reason why most women during the middle ages was barred from higher edjucation was because it was meant for future priests. And as we all know women werent allowed to become priests. However there where plenty of very higly edjucated nuns. Until the 1300 century the nunnerys where as highly regarded centres of edjucations as the male monasterys. About the discussion on what classes woman in this campaign should be allowed to have, I think an important thing to have in mind is that the classes are not occupations. You can be a fighter and still not be a proffesional soldier. The class is just a set of skills and abilites and you can use them to fit in just about any clishe imaginable. Therefore I think it is very unessesary to not allow a female pc to not have any class she likes, as long as the player can come up with a suitable backstory on how she gained these skills. Not to mention that I as a woman who likes to play female characters would be very annoyed at feeling restricted and not having as many optons as the player who like to play male character Here are some examples for female characters that I think could fit in in a setting with a medieval flavour. The barbarian: Well these characters live outside the society anyway. The bard. A street entertainer doing what she can to get by. a noble woman or a rich burgher wife who tries to fill out her spare time to learn the finer arts. The cleric. One can be a cleric not nessecarily being a priest. How about a nun gettin visions and learning extraordinary abilities. Think about all the nuns who became saints. There is also no reason that the abilites of a cleric couldnt come to a person just like they would for a paladin. A woman might also pretend to be a man with terrible consekvenses of course if it would to be found out. The druid. It is rumored that a strange woman is living in the wild. Or a strange woman is living in the outskirts of the village, the villagers fear and respect her coming to her for advice and help. The fighter Any woman who can pack a punch. There are several reasons to become a fighter. Historicly there where female mercenarys And I have seen documentation of a female city guard in the 1500 century in stockholm in Sweden. Imagine a woman following an army doing the lawndry or something. She realises that this fighting buissnes might be something for her, and she persuades someone to teach her a little about fighting. She turns out be realy good at it and since there is a shortage of soldiers for the time being she is reluctantly accepted as a soldier After proving herself time and time again she is accepted as one of their own. You could also be a woman growing up in the filthy back alleys using you fists to defend yourself since there is no one else to. The monk I dont think that monks fit in medieval setting but se above reason. She could also come from a place far away with different standars and now have a hard time fitting in. The paladin Well the virginal holy warrior is an old consept. Orders af chaste female paladins should fit snuggly in a medieval mindset. They are preferably raised as paladins from a very young age by nuns or something. You might also be a young widow without children who now seeks a new purpuose in life turning to the gods. The ranger A woman growing up in the forest learning all of its secrets. A noble woman with a passion for hunting. The rouge I dont think I even have to write anything on this one. With the diverse skills and possibilites of a rogue a female rogue can be just about anybody. The sorcerer. She might be hiding her powers or using them openly, If she does she better be prepared for trouble. One thing thing though if I had a high position in a wizards guild I wouldnt tolerate that a powerfull arcane caster was running around without me having some deegree of control over them whatever gender they may have. I would either allow them in the guild to be able to control them or find a way to eliminate the threat. The Wizard. You need someone to teach you if you want to be a wizard. And if you arnt allowed in the wizard gulild you will have to learn it illegaly,perhaps stealing the things you need to study. Or you might be a powerfull noble with enough money to pay someone to teach you.
Andrew_980 03-25-05, 07:53 AM	my question in this whole gender role discussion is this: why is it "oppresion" for a woman to be expected to be a house wife but just fine for men to have no choice but work themselve, sometimes to an early grave,at the expence of time with family, not to mention going to war and dying to protect those same "oppressed" women who don't have to worry about staring down the enemies weapon. hell, in modern life why are those "equallity" wanting women trying to make life even, why do they not demand to see front line combat where they can die as millions of men have for their country and beliefs?
Cantankerous 03-25-05, 08:31 AM	...why do they not demand to see front line combat where they can die as millions of men have for their country and beliefs? Andrew, many do. Many women have been fighting for that right, and in some limited fashion are now being allowed it. The problem is not being given the choice of whether or not you WANT to stare down the enemy OR be forced into a role which was, almost universally, one of subservience, even when it was a more gentile subservience. THAT is where the oppression lays; the inability to decide for yourself what YOU want to do. Isshia
Andrew_980 03-25-05, 08:59 AM	THAT is where the oppression lays; the inability to decide for yourself what YOU want to do. then men are equally opressed throughout history, with compulsitory military service. even in modern america WE have to sign up in case of a draft. And men have been forced to work or starve, just as women were forced to marry or starve. in the end neither had a choice really
FriendoftheDork 03-25-05, 09:30 AM	Becuase, and this bears repeating, D&D has only bits of flavor in common with with medieval Europe. The mechanics of D&D (as have been previously explained) simply do not permit much of what medieval europe was like. If you want to change the mechanics to permit this (more fatal contagious diseases, etc.), then you are welcome, but understand that many of these changes are more or less integral to what people mean when they say D&D. But, I would still point out, is still oppression, and still LE. Very true. However, this is one of the things that I was referring to when I mentioned changing the rules. There are many, many, many ways to determine if something is cosmically good or evil in D&D. As such, good people, especially ones such as clerics, should not be doing these acts. Frankly, a simple recognition of "The rules as have been described are LE, and C and G people will be opposing them" would end a lot of debate here. That's just it, this guy wants to make a new campaign that is DIFFERENT from the back and white 20th century moral D&D. The mechanics has little to do with it, except for the alignment rules. I think diseases in D&D are not fatal enough to begin with, but that's a mechanics flaw, not a setting flaw. People die of diseases in D&D just as they die of falling down or getting chopped at with longsword, even though the rules seem to indicate that heroes are almost immune to this. I don't think this moral aspect is integral to D&D, the only thing integral to D&D are monsters and heroes with magic items. D&D is bascially a mix of fantasy and mythology in a medievalish setting. About the oppression thingy, if you are more lax about alignment, then your "oppression" doesen't have to be LE. Oppression is unlawful, wrongful and unjust or excessive exercise of power. So who determines what is right and what is wrong if not society? What is excessive? Is it excessive to not allow children what they want, even if it isn't directly dangerous to allow it? Are we oppressing criminals in todays society by taking from them their free will to commit mayhem and break our laws? Ok, if this setting uses torture and death to prevent women from living the lifes they want, then I'll agree it is oppression and something good characters should have a major problem with. If however that society just have norms that tells what men and women should do and be, that in itself is not necessarily oppression. In the 30s of our own worlds it was common to save women and children first in deadly accidents - is that evil oppression? It is after all, discrimination and putting females in the category of the less able, namely children. Of course, children are discriminated against in our society still, thank God. But as long as you don't cause undue pain and suffering, it's not always oppression. Just in cause someone wants to flame me, I'd like to reassure you that in RL I support equality between the sexes. That doesen't limit me in RPGs.
jasper 03-25-05, 09:34 AM	do some research. Depending on time, social class, wealth class, location, women had a lot if not more rights than men.
Andrew_980 03-25-05, 10:28 AM	Just in cause someone wants to flame me, I'd like to reassure you that in RL I support equality between the sexes. That doesen't limit me in RPGs. don't worry man, thats where i catch hell every day. i beleive in EQUALLITY true equallity, not that "more for me" BS that is paraded around as equallity by many
Cantankerous 03-25-05, 01:30 PM	then men are equally opressed throughout history, with compulsitory military service. even in modern america WE have to sign up in case of a draft. And men have been forced to work or starve, just as women were forced to marry or starve. in the end neither had a choice really But there are, and always have been, a thousand and one ways to avoid that compulsary military service. The ONLY way to avoid being denied acess to large segments of society as a woman was be a man (as far as anyone knew). Even Noble Ladies noted for their freedoms were only really free compared to non-noble ladies. You could avoid, even as a peasant in many situations, cumpulsary military duty in various ways. Being the only male of suitable age in the family was one almost universally adhered to in most of Europe during the Middle Ages and Renaissance; being "crazed" was one that was actually abused at times; just up and running off was another. But the woman couldn't run away from her sex. Especially if she was well endowed, there was effectively no manner in which she could choose to live another life style without consequences far more grave then that the man had to face if he was caught dodging his "military obligations". This is historical fact, supportable by numerous sources, not simply my opinion. Isshia
Andrew_980 03-25-05, 02:43 PM	tell that to a dead man who was forced to fight and die for the poor woman. ask him how fair his lot in life was.
pres_man 03-25-05, 03:01 PM	For those DMs that believe that there should be some difference in stats between men and women to reflect the reality that men on average have more muscle mass then women. And that there are real difference as to how women and men process information, etc. Just remember that most average folk have all 10's and 11's in their stats. It is up to the DM to decide how these stats are distributed, they certainly could use sex as a deciding factor. So human females may look like: Str 10 Dex 11 Con 10 Int 10 Wis 11 Cha 11 And human males may look like: Str 11 Dex 10 Con 11 Int 11 Wis 10 Cha 10 Or whatever distribution you thought was meaningful. As for equality of the sexes as a social construct. We seem to be thinking that equality = good. And in most cases it does. Yet what if the "deities" told the people that allowing men and women to act the same and that getting rid of gender roles in a society would lead to: *increased promiscuity which would lead to increases in diseases and children out of wedlock *increased marriage breakups due to (percieved) lack of dependence *increased work load due to the ability of both parents in a family being able, and being expected to work *increased in criminal activity by both sexes *decreased ambition for males due to (percieved) lack of responsibility etc. etc. There may be a darkside to equality that people may not be aware of. Equality, by which I mean treating men and women identically, is not really the issue. The issue is whether people are acting as they "should" to make a healthy and supportive society. Societies that beat and kill people who step "out of line" are oppressive and evil. Societies that condition people to fulfill certain expected roles and are not 100% supportive, but are tolerant of individuals who step out of these expected roles are not evil, and probably just more lawful. Seems to me that lawful people are slightly more pessimistic then chaotic people. A lawful person believes that laws are needed to keep everyone acting "good". A chaotic person believes that a person will act "good" if they are "good" and will act "bad" if they are "bad" and laws will not change that. Edit: To Cantankerous: I believe Andrew_980 was using military service as just one example where men are "forced/oppressed" by society. Of course there are ways around things, for both genders. The simple fact is that men have been oppressed and continue to be based on society's expectations of them. I once heard a "joke" about the choices a man and a woman have when they marry that society will accept. If a woman gets married she has 3 choices: a)she can work full time, b) she can work part time, or c)she can take care of the home full time. A man also has 3 choices: a)he can work full time, b)he can work full time, or c)he can work full time.
SearcherOmega 03-25-05, 05:14 PM	Whew... what a mess this thread has become. Personally, I would just like to put in my two cents. Personally, I enjoy playing characters who have to fight an 'uphill battle' against society and naysayers, so I wouldn't mind playing in a campaign with social divides, assuming such divides were handled maturely. As a DM, sexism and racial prejudice are almost a staple of my Lawful Evil societies, and certainly play a large role in Lawful Neutral and Neutral Evil ones. If your group's mature enough, I say go for it. Since my campaigns have a strong vein of Chaotic Good versus Lawful Evil running through them, most of my campaigns include a degree of prejudice from the opposition, and it's worked fine for the players. And yet, I find it is escapism for me -- how often is it that you get to overthrow corrupt governments in reality? Eh? :D Fun to be had by all. If that's your cup of tea too, go for it.
Art_Tillary 03-25-05, 07:50 PM	Actually, I think this sounds just like Joan, she was at least tactical if the legends are to be believed, leading all those battles and stuff. I'd say the real differance probably lies in personal skill, a female paladin would probably be better in a fight than Joan, but that's a pretty weird kind of comparison, RPG class vs. historically grounded (after a fashion) saint. Do you have some evidence that Joan of Arc actually fought? As far as I knew, she didn't fight in actual combat. She was an inspiration, not shock infantry. AT
kaeso 03-25-05, 09:03 PM	ok im taking a college world history class, and we have been studying the roles of women in ancient societies and not-so-ancient socieities, and so far (we're on WWI now) women were treated differently in most societies, but in general they were all treated as lower than men. This was becuase of the roles of men in ancient socieites and the member of the family that got the food to sustain the rest of the family. In Africa women were allowed to talk to men they weren't married to, becuase of the climate they walked around with their breasts showing and no one questioned them, and there were even some women in the army (though that was generally rare). However, in the middle east, the dominant muslim religion said that women were much lower than men and could talk to men only in their family, and had to wear veils so that other men would not be attracted to them becuase of their beauty. i am NOT saying thats how muslims view women today, i dont wanna get into a debate with anyone because i dont know anything about islam today, but im saying thats how things were. in case you have some parts of ur world with women mistreated, some not, well when a muslim scholar named abu bakr (i think thats what his name was....) visited the swahili cities of the eastern coast of africa (he was visiting because islam had spread there, and he was traveling around teaching and learning) he encountered african woman being treated much better than women in the middle east, and he was appaulled at what he saw (women talking to men not in their fam and not covering their breasts and stuff) and the africans were just like 'ya... w/e' because it was part of their culture so they didn't care what he said. so ya that would be an example you could use when trying to think of what a reaction would be if the peoples of different cultures in your world came into contact (which they will). ok, hope this helps!
The Philosopher King 03-25-05, 11:12 PM	And my point is that sure, it's possible there some kind of huge divine conspiricy to keep all clerics and paladins male while remaining netural, but don't you think "The gods took sides" is a lot more logical? Yeah it is. I just had a weird desire to subvert Occham's Razor :) I guess it depends exactly how the doc's gods work. If they're really impersonal or something it may make a difference. Do you have some evidence that Joan of Arc actually fought? As far as I knew, she didn't fight in actual combat. She was an inspiration, not shock infantry. That's a tricky question. She seems to be accused of actually entering combat in (the absolute travesty of justice that served for) her trial. She herself maintains that she 'preferred her banner over her sword', although IIRC, there is one point in the transcripts where it sounds like she's talking about fighting (though not killing). She would've fought as a knight, though, not infantry.
Art_Tillary 03-26-05, 12:12 AM	That's a tricky question. She seems to be accused of actually entering combat in (the absolute travesty of justice that served for) her trial. She herself maintains that she 'preferred her banner over her sword', although IIRC, there is one point in the transcripts where it sounds like she's talking about fighting (though not killing). She would've fought as a knight, though, not infantry. A knight is shock infantry. As is an archer. It's a method of warfare. I'll see if I can dig up a decent definition. the opposite if I recall is tribal warfare. As for Joan, I recently attended a panel where two amauter military historians made the point that she hadn't actually fought. Neither are midieval experts, but generally do know their military history. AT
Cantankerous 03-26-05, 02:18 AM	tell that to a dead man who was forced to fight and die for the poor woman. ask him how fair his lot in life was. With the exception of the dead part, I was one of those men... For me it wasn't a philosophiocal what if question. One of the unoffical slogans of the US Marine Corp is "first to die". The idea that I chose my lot in life, made it emminently fair. I could have just gone off to college and avoided the whole thing, In the Marines I met a good number of WM's (Women Marines) who would have gladly served in combat billets in combat designated units if they had been allowed to. Keep in mind to, historically, especially in the periods protrayed here, that if the man died the "poor woman" often wasn't far behind. And she was often raped and watching her children slaughtered into the bargain. Part of it was the way I was raised, no doubt, I was out of my parents house when I was thirteen, but given a choice between a death on my feet and a life on my knees, I bloody well know which of the two I would have chosen. Isshia
Cantankerous 03-26-05, 02:22 AM	Edit: To Cantankerous: I believe Andrew_980 was using military service as just one example where men are "forced/oppressed" by society. Of course there are ways around things, for both genders. The simple fact is that men have been oppressed and continue to be based on society's expectations of them. I once heard a "joke" about the choices a man and a woman have when they marry that society will accept. If a woman gets married she has 3 choices: a)she can work full time, b) she can work part time, or c)she can take care of the home full time. A man also has 3 choices: a)he can work full time, b)he can work full time, or c)he can work full time. And unfortunately Pres, it's just a joke. The man has the same choices now as the woman does and demographicly, many of them are now choosing the second and third choices. ALL it is now is a tired, old out of date joke that has no other meaning.
FriendoftheDork 03-26-05, 03:09 PM	Hey guys, a friendly warning: Debating whether women have been more oppressed than men in RL history is off topic, so let's try to focus on the D&D campaign and how you like/don't like integrating it with opppression, inequality, racism subjective moral and all those bad things that vanilla D&D don't include. It doesen't really matter if Jeanne d'Arc actually fought or not, she was still doing something which was religious and politically incorrect at her time. I don't think anyone today really believes her to be an agent of evil, do you? In any case, the woman that has been portayed in various films has alot of similarity to our view of female paladins, don't she?
ewancummins 03-26-05, 07:26 PM	I have to comment on this. If you want a PC fantasy campaign where a setting that superficially resembles medieval Europe , yet has no sexism and hardly any slavery or racism[ except on the part of evil societies, like the Drow], go play Forgotten Realms. Personlly, I like a world with believable pre-modern cultures, nearly all of which have well defined gender roles. You are free to write the kind of world you like best. I hate plain vanilla WOTC fantasy, as exemplified by the Realms. Give me good old Greyhawk any day [ complete with crusades, prejudice, slavery, and good guys sometimes... GASP!!!.. on opposing sides] . A world where almost everyone believes in gender equality and only a few ''evil nations'' stoop to practicing slavery sounds like a boring place. Might as well chuck feudalism and religious fanaticism while you're at it.
The Philosopher King 03-27-05, 12:42 AM	A knight is shock infantry. As is an archer. It's a method of warfare. I'll see if I can dig up a decent definition. the opposite if I recall is tribal warfare. As for Joan, I recently attended a panel where two amauter military historians made the point that she hadn't actually fought. Neither are midieval experts, but generally do know their military history. Oh, ok. I thought you meant shock infantry as in unhorsed, armoured, and charging into the enemy's ranks. I also found the main bit I was referring to: "Asked if she liked her sword better than her standard, she answered that she liked her standard forty times better...She said she herself bore the standard when going among her enemies, to avoid killing any one; she said she had never killed a man" W.P. Barrett's 1932 translation of the trial transcripts, p.221, as seen on the 'net Medieval Sourcebook (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/sbook.html) So there we go. Now returning you to your regularly scheduled flamewa... I mean thread ;)
evilgenius 03-27-05, 01:35 AM	And unfortunately Pres, it's just a joke. The man has the same choices now as the woman does and demographicly, many of them are now choosing the second and third choices. ALL it is now is a tired, old out of date joke that has no other meaning. Personally, I dig campaigns with slavery, racism, sexism, religious zealotry, bigotry, espionage, treachery, lies, injustice, theft, rape, war, and genocide. It's realistic - the majority of our history is dark, and I like dark fantasy. BUT, that's me, and I can understand how most don't dig that sort of thing. HOWEVER, concerning the differential between men and women today, before you quote the politically correct answer that women have been the only opressed sex in history, please check out this quite illuminating book; http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0425181448/qid=1111905137/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_2/002-8195553-0391255?v=glance&s=books L8er evilgenius
Andrew_980 03-27-05, 03:57 AM	i think i have read that one
FriendoftheDork 03-27-05, 08:10 AM	I have to comment on this. If you want a PC fantasy campaign where a setting that superficially resembles medieval Europe , yet has no sexism and hardly any slavery or racism[ except on the part of evil societies, like the Drow], go play Forgotten Realms. Personlly, I like a world with believable pre-modern cultures, nearly all of which have well defined gender roles. You are free to write the kind of world you like best. I hate plain vanilla WOTC fantasy, as exemplified by the Realms. Give me good old Greyhawk any day [ complete with crusades, prejudice, slavery, and good guys sometimes... GASP!!!.. on opposing sides] . A world where almost everyone believes in gender equality and only a few ''evil nations'' stoop to practicing slavery sounds like a boring place. Might as well chuck feudalism and religious fanaticism while you're at it. I didn't know that about Greyhawk. I play FR, but my game is alot more like the way you described it. There is even a LG country in FR that practices enlightened slavery, Mulhorand. Still there all slaves are property of the temples, and leased out to people. Still, the consept of slavery as good in a nation where the Pharao is a paladin is probably too much for most D&Ders to handle. (But my PHB says that slavery is always evil, help!)
Art_Tillary 03-27-05, 12:14 PM	Oh, ok. I thought you meant shock infantry as in unhorsed, armoured, and charging into the enemy's ranks. I also found the main bit I was referring to: No problem. Thanks for the reference BTW. AT
Cantankerous 03-27-05, 03:16 PM	before you quote the politically correct answer that women have been the only opressed sex in history, please check out this quite illuminating book; First, I didn't so quote. I NEVER in any manner intimated that women were the only anything. I DO however, with plenty of historical documentation available to back up the ascertion, say that historicly women HAVE been the MORE oppressed sex. The historocity in this case is tangentally important because the OP was talking about historicly based situations. Secondly; "politicly correct" my hairy butt. This has about as much to do with political correctness as saying that a object in a normal gravity field will fall DOWNWARDS relative to the gravity well has to do with politcal correctness. Trying to use hyper-conservative/anti-establismentarian catch phrases as a syllogistic big gun won't play with anyone with an IQ over 80 if they've been around the block a few times. I am about as entirely NON-politicly correct as you're liable to find. I am however also a historian who has no personal axe to grind with how tough it is to be a guy. Sure it's tough. So what? Ask the average Muslim woman how much self determination she has, even today. That is if you can get past the cadre of male family members that will block off most possibilities to even ask the question and if she hasn't been raised to think that it's simply her lot in life to be allowed roughly one eighth as much personal freedom as her husband or brother or son have and that this is the only proper and correct way to live. It's tough to be just about anyone; especially from their POV. But remembering that the present Euro/American lifestyle is only a signifigant minority of the planetary manner of living even now can go a refreshingly long way towards really understanding the reality of the world outside of the ivory towers in the States. And even there it's hardly a woman's world either. There it is becoming much closer to equality in most respects though, that IS true. Isshia
JusticeZero 03-27-05, 06:19 PM	This debate seems like one of those things where it's not the idea, but that it hits too close to home. However, you do have the ability to change it up a bit. One of the points that sparked an immediate idea was this: Women can be sorcerors because they are all soft too eh? Yeah, fireballs and disintegration spells are all cuddly and nice, and totally non-threatening to people in power. Upper body strength will sure come in handy in enforcing your rules on someone that can incinerate you from a hundred yards away. What if that's actually a historic point? "Yarr, swinging a sword is hard work! :cool: Men's work! You girls can stay back and twiddle with these spells, we've never found a way to make them do anything useful anyways.. :D light campfires, purify water, nothing important :mad: " "Okay, honey, i'll see what I can do.. :rolleyes: hmm, carry the two, touch on this, hey, i'll bet he never noticed you could do that.. wonder what happens if I.. hey, that worked really, really well! hmm..." ... "Okay, wench, i'm home from my war, bring me dinner!" (men freeze in place at the sight of the women levitating and tossing high level spells around) "...woah. :eek: " "You were saying something, -dear-? :cool: "