Now while the chances of death are greater in battle, what if there is peace in the land? The warrior does not have to fight - but the women still have babies. So if there is a lot of strife, the men are taking the greater risks, and in peacetime, the women are. Take that over time, and I think the that the risks to both are comparable.
Just had to point one thing out.... in a D&D fantasy setting there's likely to be no true "peacetime" since there are monsters in the world that will always require soldiers to deal with in any given kingdom.
Put battle aside. Compare workplace injuries to childbirth. Men tend to work in much more hazardous workplaces than women do and can't plan ahead to ensure a cleric is available. The fact that men have shorter lifespans is data which supports the argument that men live more hazardous lives.
Well in an agrarian society the workplace is farming, and women would work in the farm and the fields almost as much as the men would, so I wouldn't think it made much difference. Reading this page, you can see that women effectively worked alongside the men, as did the children, regardless of the trade (unless they were very wealthy) so they would share any hazards; the workplace was usually the vicinity of the home anyway whatever your trade.
This authority lists the main causes of death in a medieval society as unclean water and poor hygiene, and childbirth has a section of it's own.
Put battle aside. Compare workplace injuries to childbirth. Men tend to work in much more hazardous workplaces than women do and can't plan ahead to ensure a cleric is available. The fact that men have shorter lifespans is data which supports the argument that men live more hazardous lives.
Or that the general trend that creatures that are larger on average within a species don't live as long as creatures that are smaller on average. The difference in lifespan doesn't have to depend on hazards if biology will explain it.
|
These links might be very worthwhile if we were talking about medieval society. Of course, we're not.
What years are we talking about, please? When I look things up, I want to make sure I'm looking up the right stuff.
But as for medieval society, working class women spent most of their time spinning. That's not exactly hazardous labor.
Please support the statement that working class women spent most of their time spinning. Everything I have read about medieval society says that clothing(made from fabric) was rather limited, valuable, and not something that was easy to come by If 50% of the working class was spinning, it would stand to reason that there would be a lot more clothing to go around.
|
These links might be very worthwhile if we were talking about medieval society. Of course, we're not.
What years are we talking about, please? When I look things up, I want to make sure I'm looking up the right stuff.
But as for medieval society, working class women spent most of their time spinning. That's not exactly hazardous labor.Please support the statement that working class women spent most of their time spinning. Everything I have read about medieval society says that clothing(made from fabric) was rather limited, valuable, and not something that was easy to come by If 50% of the working class was spinning, it would stand to reason that there would be a lot more clothing to go around.
You are perhaps forgetting that even with half the population spinning, it takes days for them to churn just a few articles of clothing.
|
|
I wasn't talking about how dangerous SHE is, I'm talking about how dangerous other people are dangerous to HER. She could be a bamf with that glock, baretta, colt, lightning bolt, whatever, but she only needs to be hit once to end all that. MOST of the males would have to go down first. Lot easier to kill one woman than thirty men.
But pregnant wizards are just as dangerous as wizards who aren't pregnant. The same is true of pregnant wielders of glock-17s.
The more dangerous the woman, the less dangerous others are to her. The best defense is a good offense. Take 30 3rd level warrios vs. 1 pregnant 9th level wizard, and I am betting on the wizard (fly + stone skin + a few fire balls). 300 teenage gamer geeks with daggers, vs. 1 pregnant woman who is a certified F.B.I. marksman and is sitting on a rocky hill top with a .50 caliber barret light anti-vehicular rifle, and I am betting on the pregnant chick.
Are you saying that because pregnant women might be protected in certain societies, there would be gender bias against females? I say it could go either way. It might be that people believe that pregnancy makes one sacred, and so they most be obeyed and esteemed, and so those are the people who should govern society. Just for example.
FBI Agents take maternity leave when they are pregnant, and are generally not allowed to do field work.
And putting her in ridiculous positions of power are not helping your position, either. Considering the vast majority of the world is COMMONERS, I'm going to guess women like that are few and far between.
|
|
You are perhaps forgetting that even with half the population spinning, it takes days for them to churn just a few articles of clothing.
That(meaning my comment) was a little flippant, but everything I come across mentions worked in the fields first, then the spinning. They weren't just sitting by the fire singing a lullaby as they kept their hands busy. Working class women did just that, worked. In the fields, beside their husbands. In a time with no mechanized tractors, it took the whole family, man woman and child to get things done. They watched the herd and milked the animals.
However, I've clearly come to the party late, and my points don't address the original poster at all.
|
|
They weren't just sitting by the fire singing a lullaby as they kept their hands busy. Working class women did just that, worked.No one has said that women didn't work.
It never ceases to amaze me how strongly people cling to arguments on the Internet even if they deliberately have to construct straw men to do so.
I know, right? The whole point of the thread was whether sexism should be in RPGs. The point of Golarion is to be darker, grittier, possibly more intelligent than the average game setting. Racism, sexism, murder, rape, homosexuality, torture, all of these things happen in the setting. Slavery is acceptable in many of the established societies.
But you play the heroes. Does your character agree with these things? That's up to you, and you should roleplay it out in game if your character would disagree with it. Erastil, while being LG and slightly sexist, can probably be persuaded to change his mind fairly easily if a female worshipper accomplishes an amazing feat (i.e. save the world).
And you've changed the gameworld. Your character broke the glass ceiling-you've broken it, actually, and you worked hard to do it. Should you have HAD to work hard in order for it to change? Maybe, anything worth doing in life (real or imaginary)usually takes effort.
If you don't like that kind of thing in your game, you can houserule it.
As for snipers it is actually untrue and no one knows why, for sure though there is theories.
1) 800 meters or less women on average do better than men.
2) 800-1200 meters men or women are roughly equal.
3) Beyond 1200 meters women dramatically drop in accuracy.While men gradually get worse with range. They as far as I know never figured out what that was true. The theories I remember floated about at the time.
Might be that men on average tend to be better on average at analyzing spacial relations between things than women, and long distance shooting tends to involve more of that than most people like to think about? Just a thought.
|
|
I agree with your point. I just don't like the fact that you threw homosexaulity in with racism, sexism, murder, rape, and torture to do it. I'll just assume you meant homophobia.
I know, right? The whole point of the thread was whether sexism should be in RPGs. The point of Golarion is to be darker, grittier, possibly more intelligent than the average game setting. Racism, sexism, murder, rape, homosexuality, torture, all of these things happen in the setting. Slavery is acceptable in many of the established societies.But you play the heroes. Does your character agree with these things? That's up to you, and you should roleplay it out in game if your character would disagree with it. Erastil, while being LG and slightly sexist, can probably be persuaded to change his mind fairly easily if a female worshipper accomplishes an amazing feat (i.e. save the world).
And you've changed the gameworld. Your character broke the glass ceiling-you've broken it, actually, and you worked hard to do it. Should you have HAD to work hard in order for it to change? Maybe, anything worth doing in life (real or imaginary)usually takes effort.
If you don't like that kind of thing in your game, you can houserule it.
Some people don't particularly care for homosexuals in their game, so having to deal with a person in game (I think he was a Paladin, at that), might rub them the wrong way. I'm not one of those people, I believe it adds a bit of realism, but some may object to it.
As far as homophobia-I don't think many people in Golarion are actually against it. Maybe it's unspoken, but a gay paladin and his lover living happily in a backwater village where discrimination would normally be found goes mostly uncommented upon sort of speaks volumes.
As far as homophobia-I don't think many people in Golarion are actually against it. Maybe it's unspoken, but a gay paladin and his lover living happily in a backwater village where discrimination would normally be found goes mostly uncommented upon sort of speaks volumes.
Aye aye, unwanted attention is unwanted attention, regardless of the form it takes..
''For the last time, we're from two totally different systems! We'd never be compatible!
|
|
Might be that men on average tend to be better on average at analyzing spacial relations between things than women, and long distance shooting tends to involve more of that than most people like to think about? Just a thought.
As for snipers it is actually untrue and no one knows why, for sure though there is theories.
1) 800 meters or less women on average do better than men.
2) 800-1200 meters men or women are roughly equal.
3) Beyond 1200 meters women dramatically drop in accuracy.While men gradually get worse with range. They as far as I know never figured out what that was true. The theories I remember floated about at the time.
Except that those type of things depend on the type of rifle at what range they are done. A weapon with a max range of 1200 meters which is what the light sniper rifles have a ranger of, would need to do that before then. While the heavy ones like the light .50 have a range of 2000 meters. Yet in the study the rifle type didn't really change thing. It was more the range despite the rifles max range.
In other words with the light sniper rifle at max range women did just as good as the men. Yet with larger sniper rifles did worse at longer ranges, yet did fine with them at shorter ranges.
Of course they have likely done more studies about this least i hope. The last one was pretty old I have been out of the military now for over a decade.
I agree with your point. I just don't like the fact that you threw homosexaulity in with racism, sexism, murder, rape, and torture to do it. I'll just assume you meant homophobia.
I know, right? The whole point of the thread was whether sexism should be in RPGs. The point of Golarion is to be darker, grittier, possibly more intelligent than the average game setting. Racism, sexism, murder, rape, homosexuality, torture, all of these things happen in the setting. Slavery is acceptable in many of the established societies.But you play the heroes. Does your character agree with these things? That's up to you, and you should roleplay it out in game if your character would disagree with it. Erastil, while being LG and slightly sexist, can probably be persuaded to change his mind fairly easily if a female worshipper accomplishes an amazing feat (i.e. save the world).
And you've changed the gameworld. Your character broke the glass ceiling-you've broken it, actually, and you worked hard to do it. Should you have HAD to work hard in order for it to change? Maybe, anything worth doing in life (real or imaginary)usually takes effort.
If you don't like that kind of thing in your game, you can houserule it.
Some people don't particularly care for homosexuals in their game, so having to deal with a person in game (I think he was a Paladin, at that), might rub them the wrong way. I'm not one of those people, I believe it adds a bit of realism, but some may object to it.
As far as homophobia-I don't think many people in Golarion are actually against it. Maybe it's unspoken, but a gay paladin and his lover living happily in a backwater village where discrimination would normally be found goes mostly uncommented upon sort of speaks volumes.
See, it is things like this that I think it is silly to look at the RW and say this must be how a fantasy game is. Let's look at homosexuality.
RW: How does Jesus feel homosexuality?
A1: He loves everyone, and this is just another form of love.
A2: He loves the person but not the deeds.
Issue: There is no absolutely clear authority and way to get a direct answer.
Fantasy World: How does Erastil feel about homosexuality?
A1: *cleric of Erastil casts Commune* Is homosexuality a bad thing? *cleric receives a direct yes or no answer*
I believe that a fantasy setting with spells like commune are going to be much more enlightened due to people being able to directly contact the outer planes. Hell (no pun intended), you can even take trips to them. A cleric starts spouting beliefs contrary to their deity and a gate suddenly appears pulling them to an outer plane where the deity informs their confused cleric to stop misinforming the followers... OR ELSE!
1 supersniper with 100 bullets vs. 300 zombies. Good luck.
Shared social rituals aren't a bad thing. Yes, shared social rituals often have embedded meaning (which varies based on each person since each person is positioned differently in society). All this is pretty basic and it's pretty much the only part of postmodern theory which has any real value.
The central question is about the merits of taking offense when somebody else doesn't share the meaning you attach to some ritual. Namely, when somebody does act 'X' for reason 'Y' and you attach meaning 'Z' to act 'X', is there any value in taking offense?
I just don't see how there can be. In fact, I think taking offense in such at such an event is pretty much the opposite of a postmodern view.
But some people disagree with me. Such is life.
Thank you! I looked for a way to say that in my post, but could not articulate it well and therefore chose to leave it an implication.
+1 Being French, I have read some Chretien de Troyes, and other classical from the time. I had that in mind in my earlier posts.
Not necessarily an easy read due to barrier language coming up over time, but pretty enlightening. Also Chretien de Troyes was mostly endorced by the church at the time as a means of "Civilizing" the warrior-testosterone-filled-knights into something else than bloodthirsty killing machine/berserker. It was a real issue at the time.
I read it in English translation. I feel better knowing that someone who is French had trouble with it, themselves. I'm familiar with Middle (and a smattering of Old) English myself, so I can relate to the struggle of reading even one's own language at such a temporal remove. I went through about a third of Chaucer's Canterbury Tales and all of Troilus and Criseyde in the original Middle English.
Which according to all the historical texts I have read utterly failed...and except as a religious text, mostly irrelivant.
I wouldn't be so quick to call the 300 years of a literary tradition that dominated France and Norman England in the High Middle Ages, and influenced most of the rest of Europe and continues to have an echoing presence in Western culture to this day, an utter failure and irrelevant simply because it eventually changed and faded from popularity as an artistic form.
That brings up one of the top ten dumbest ideas in the game - gods are real and their will is easily known.
Why is this a dumb idea? Look at real world history and you see many neat plot ideas which simply would never be possible in such a setting. Remember that France had it's own Pope? That England created it's own Church? That the Catholic Church was silent regarding the Nazis? That the Catholic Church has a long history of hiding and enabling pedophiles? That different sects within the Catholic church have had heated debates (ie. Franciscans vs. Jesuits)?
In a world where god's will is -known-, none of this becomes possible.
The three musketeers, the hunchback of Notre Dame, etc. all becomes impossible.
Thanks for reminding me of why I prefer Eberron ...
|
I read it in English translation. I feel better knowing that someone who is French had trouble with it, themselves. I'm familiar with Middle (and a smattering of Old) English myself, so I can relate to the struggle of reading even one's own language at such a temporal remove. I went through about a third of Chaucer's Canterbury Tales and all of Troilus and Criseyde in the original Middle English.I wouldn't be so quick to call the 300 years of a literary...
Aaah. it's always good to find people on these boards who appreciate the same things. I have tempted by The Canterbury Tales quite a few times. I guess it's high time I try it.
Thanks a lot.
|
In Galt, we have solved all problem of Sexism.
Sexism, Authoritharism, Racism... All bad and Tyranny. Galt people have solution to it all. sign here for your free citizenship.
Galt is equalitarian. All are happy citizens. Being happy is mandatory. Those not happy are traitors and must go to the guillotine.
Man, Woman, Goblin ... all the same.
Please go by our stand and buy a ticket to see who is traitor next.
*cleric of Erastil casts Commune* Is homosexuality a bad thing? *cleric receives a direct yes or no answer*An answer to a commune spell isn't guaranteed to come directly from your deity, so you gain no insight whatsoever by asking morality questions. All you learn is that so-and-so agent of your deity makes such-and-such interpretation of the divine truth.
True, but I seriously doubt that the deity is allowing an "agent" to "answer the phone" that has a conflicting view with the deity. And the spell does talk about answers are given with respect "to the deity's interests", notice not the "entity's interest". An entity might respond, "Unclear", just because they may not be sure of the deity's opinion, but they won't give an answer in conflict with the deity's opinion.
EDIT: Thought it does say the exact phrasing are influenced by the entity's interest.
Commune could so be used to enchant a Magic Eight Ball...
"Answer Hazy... Ask Again Later".
*Chuckles*
You think the deity doesn't have the wisdom to appoint someone receiving his calls which can't properly represent him?I seriously doubt that the deity is allowing an "agent" to "answer the phone" that has a conflicting view with the deity. And the spell does talk about answers are given with respect "to the deity's interests", notice not the "entity's interest".I'm sure every agent that answers a commune spell knows exactly what his deity has said about morality. And he'll faithfully report his exact and true interpretation of every divine instruction he's received.
That still tells you nothing about what the deity intended to convey, only what his faithful servants heard him say.
@EM: I love how the idea of a 5th level spell that costs 500 gp to cast, just gets you the dumbest angel in the service of your deity to answer. LOL, freaking awesome.
|
|
Yeah, I can see this;
Cleric casts Commune "Is it okay for dudes to sleep together?"
Lantern Archon "Please hold while I get a supervisor, I'm just tier 1 ethical support, and anything more morally complicated than 'is it okay to stab babies' is above my pay grade."
<celestial elevator music plays in the background>
Yeah, I can see this;
Cleric casts Commune "Is it okay for dudes to sleep together?"
Lantern Archon "Please hold while I get a supervisor, I'm just tier 1 ethical support, and anything more morally complicated than 'is it okay to stab babies' is above my pay grade."
<celestial elevator music plays in the background>
That is probably why the spell takes 10 minutes to cast, really it is instantaneous, but you are put on hold for 9 min. 54 sec.
Commune could so be used to enchant a Magic Eight Ball...
"Answer Hazy... Ask Again Later".
*Chuckles*
Yoink! Relic idea!
Must ... escape! Head ... Hurts!
|
@EM: I love how the idea of a 5th level spell that costs 500 gp to cast, just gets you the dumbest angel in the service of your deity to answer. LOL, freaking awesome.
Must be this guy.
All the Best,
Kerney
@EM: I love how the idea of a 5th level spell that costs 500 gp to cast, just gets you the dumbest angel in the service of your deity to answer. LOL, freaking awesome.Must be this guy.
All the Best,
Kerney
No, he's the one you get when you fumble it!
(Love that webcomic, BTW).