"Sexism" in RPGs


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

201 to 248 of 248 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

Dabbler wrote:
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.


Dabbler wrote:
LilithsThrall wrote:
Dabbler wrote:
DeathQuaker wrote:
You would need Heal checks to know exactly what was wrong, but midwifery is a pretty ancient art, and likely the divine healer brought to assist the birth would likely also have ranks in the skill.

I agree with you there, your midwife is likely an adept who knows what she is doing at the least - if she is there. My point, though, is that the woman is taking as much a risk with her life giving birth as the man going into battle. He is also going to have healers on call, but that doesn't mean they will be there when the crunch comes, and things can always go wrong.

At the end of the day, the church of Erastil is a good example of how the best of intentions can lead to an (apparent) sexist attitude.

You are asserting that a woman going into childbirth with top notch medical care is taking as much of a risk with her life as a man who goes into battle. Is making an assertion without backing it up actually "a point"?

At the end of the day, even with women having medical care not as good as in this fantasy world, men still have statistically shorter lifespans. So, it would be nice if you had something which supports your assertion.

No, I'm not. I'm pointing out that in both cases you will have medical assistance of the same calibre and the same availability. In battles, things go wrong in spite of having the medical there you have to get it to injured men before the enemy finish them off, true. Then again, babies do not arrive according to a timetable (unless you are scheduling a c-section in a modern hospital and I don't think fantasy medical care is likely to be THAT advanced). In short, the care is "there" in both cases, when the woman enters labour, someone has to fetch the midwife, when the warrior is injured he has to retire or else be fetched back to the healers. In both cases, the person could be alone, things could go awry before they reach care or care reaches them.

Now while the chances of death are...

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.


LilithsThrall wrote:
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.


Dabbler wrote:


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 tradeThis 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.

These links might be very worthwhile if we were talking about medieval society. Of course, we're not.

But as for medieval society, working class women spent most of their time spinning. That's not exactly hazardous labor.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
LilithsThrall wrote:
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.


Bill Dunn wrote:
LilithsThrall wrote:
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.

Thatis certainly a valid point, but evidence is that men and women are moving towards having the same lifespans as the workplace becomes more homogenized.

Grand Lodge

LilithsThrall wrote:

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.

LilithsThrall wrote:
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.

Dark Archive

verdigris wrote:
LilithsThrall wrote:

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.

LilithsThrall wrote:
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.

RPG Superstar 2015 Top 8

Ironicdisaster wrote:
moon glum wrote:


But pregnant wizards are just as dangerous as wizards who aren't pregnant. The same is true of pregnant wielders of glock-17s.

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.

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 women must be obeyed and esteemed, and so women are the people who should govern society. Just for example.


I have to leave this thread because it's stupid, and it just occured to me that it's a stupid arguement. But I would like to make a few points.
To the Sexists: your point of view is outdated and serves no purpose other than to make yourself feel important at the expense of others.
To the Feminists: Man up. Quit whining. If you want equality, take it. Make yourself valuable, don't just expect it. You're no better than the sexists. Think you're just as good as any man? Prove it. If you were as good as you say you are, no one would question your abilities.
To the Extremists: it's not cute. You're only confusing people and misrepresenting topics. It isn't helping.
To those who don't think sexism should be in RPGs: don't have it. No one is forcing you to have it.
To those of you who LIKE playing up the sexism: I don't get it, but that's your thing, so hey.
To everyone else: don't let a bunch of whiners make you feel bad about anything. If you don't like something and your DM insists on it, find another group. And don't blame game makers for content you don't like or approve of.
Thank you, that is all.

Dark Archive

moon glum wrote:
Ironicdisaster wrote:
moon glum wrote:


But pregnant wizards are just as dangerous as wizards who aren't pregnant. The same is true of pregnant wielders of glock-17s.

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.

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.


I'd find it more sexist to candy coat it...

BUT this thread has derailed off its razor edge it had and has plunged deep into a debate on sexism and the nature of sexist women and men( hahaha ladies first).
I think this thread needs to be moved or locked.

thats just me though, and I don't have any say in the matter.

a mind is a truly disturbing thing, no matter who you look at, it is only a truly dirty individual....

RPG Superstar 2015 Top 8

Jared Ouimette wrote:


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.

An F.B.I. agent on maternity leave with a sniper rifle could still take out 300 teen age gamer geeks. And my wife has just informed me that you don't actually go on maternity leave until you give birth. She knows women that work while pregnant until a few days before they are due to give birth. I did not ask her whether these women were active duty, F.B.I. officers who are certified marksmen.

But my point is that women, pregnant or not, who live in a society where women traditionally are protectors, warriors, leaders, wizards, etc. could well be esteemed as the dominant members of society.

And needing protection would not necessarily mean that a gender would be less esteemed, or would wield less political or economic power. In fact, being pregnant could mean that the gender would be more esteemed. If all pregnant women could call on a retinue of 30 warriors, women might well end up the leaders of society.

Grand Lodge

Jared Ouimette wrote:


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.

Dark Archive

You guys going around in a circle is starting to make me dizzy.


moon glum wrote:
Ironicdisaster wrote:
moon glum wrote:


But pregnant wizards are just as dangerous as wizards who aren't pregnant. The same is true of pregnant wielders of glock-17s.

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.

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 women must be obeyed and esteemed, and so women are the people who should govern society. Just for example.

I... Wow.


verdigris wrote:
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.

Dark Archive

LilithsThrall wrote:
verdigris wrote:
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.

RPG Superstar 2015 Top 8

Jared Ouimette wrote:


I know, right? The whole point of the thread was whether sexism should be in RPGs.

I whole heatedly believe that all sorts of biases should be prevalent in fictional societies, in RPGs and otherwise. The fictional societies that exist in the imaginary worlds that are portrayed in RPGs should be filled with biases against various genders, races, species, sexualities, hair colors, species of pets, etc.. However, we should recognize that we are free to be creative as to the form that these biases take. It should not be a given that the sexism is sexism against women. In fact, this thread as gotten me thinking about adding a society in my current campaign that is sexist against non-hermaphrodites.


Jared Ouimette wrote:
LilithsThrall wrote:
verdigris wrote:
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.

I like you. *gold star*


Jared Ouimette wrote:


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.

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.


Dark_Mistress wrote:


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.

Dark Archive

LilithsThrall wrote:
Jared Ouimette wrote:


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.

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.

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.


Jared Ouimette wrote:


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!

*shakes fist*

Dark Archive

Peter Stewart wrote:
Dark_Mistress wrote:


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.

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.


Jared Ouimette wrote:
LilithsThrall wrote:
Jared Ouimette wrote:


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.

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.

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.


LilithsThrall wrote:

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.

Stereofm wrote:

+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.

Cold Napalm wrote:
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.


pres man wrote:
Jared Ouimette wrote:
LilithsThrall wrote:
Jared Ouimette wrote:


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.

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.

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:...

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.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 16, 2012 Top 32

pres man wrote:
*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.


LilithsThrall wrote:

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 ...

Sovereign Court

Saern wrote:


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.

Liberty's Edge

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.


Epic Meepo wrote:
pres man wrote:
*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*

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 16, 2012 Top 32

pres man wrote:
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.


Epic Meepo wrote:
pres man wrote:
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.

You think the deity doesn't have the wisdom to appoint someone receiving his calls which can't properly represent him?


LilithsThrall wrote:
Epic Meepo wrote:
pres man wrote:
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.

You think the deity doesn't have the wisdom to appoint someone receiving his calls which can't properly represent him?

@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.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
pres man wrote:
@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.

Hey, whatever it takes to keep the Adventure Express on the rails and on schedule! ;)

RPG Superstar 2015 Top 8

pres man wrote:
1 supersniper with 100 bullets vs. 300 zombies. Good luck.

It depends on the caliber of the sniper rifle, the degree of rot of the zombies, and how closely packed they are. It can be done.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 16, 2012 Top 32

LilithsThrall wrote:
You think the deity doesn't have the wisdom to appoint someone receiving his calls which can't properly represent him?

Well, if clerics are using commune spells to ask morality questions, the deity didn't have the wisdom to grant spells only to individuals that already grasp the basic tenets of his faith.

The wiser deity chooses clerics he trusts to interpret his moral code on their own, and then appoints someone to answer his calls whom is able to best answer questions more relevant to the sorts of dangerous adventures on which those clerics find themselves from time to time.

Dark Archive

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>


Set wrote:

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.


Dork Lord wrote:

Commune could so be used to enchant a Magic Eight Ball...

"Answer Hazy... Ask Again Later".

*Chuckles*

Yoink! Relic idea!


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Must ... escape! Head ... Hurts!

Shadow Lodge

pres man wrote:


@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


Kerney wrote:
pres man wrote:


@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).


Most Esteemed Mr. James Jacobs sir, this thread can be locked now

201 to 248 of 248 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / "Sexism" in RPGs All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.