It is very difficult to have a conversation with someone about how they might be unconsciously perpetuating certain norms without giving them the impression you are accusing them of something malicious.
A tangential example: When I was working on a Legend of Zelda homebrew a couple months back, and deciding what races to put in, one of my player suggested Twili and stated them up, submitting it to me for review. He gave female twili a bonus to Dex and Charisma while he gave male Twili a bonus to Dex and Con.
He's a very reasonable guy and does not hold any opinions (to my knowledge) that I would find offensive, but I had to explain that this sort of sexual dimorphism (regardless of the fact that the race in-game does not appear to have it) is, despite no malicious intent from him, putting a heterosexual male worldview over others (the only reason for a female of the species to have more Charisma in this case is because they're more attractive... to a man).
The fact that sexual dimorphism exists in the real world....is of course ignored and maybe what that person was going for...but you decided to take the route of being worst possible interpertation.
True I don't know what the race of Twili is never have played the game...put to me having sexual dimorphism in a species could be a interesting concept to work out in a fantasy setting or even a sci-fi setting. So if you are saying this case of sexual dimorphism in a race is wrong...you might be right...but certainly not all cases of sexual dimorphism in a race is wrong.
I had this discussion with another friend after the fact.
Sexual dimorphism exists in animals, yes, but there is no case of sexual dimorphism (that I am aware of) that does not place one sex in the dominant position in all ways (spiders and anglerfish), except in the superficial cases where the only thing dimorphic is color (such as ducks).
The concept of it is not outright wrong to include, but this particular case was not right to include.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
God there are so many things wrong with giving men a +2 to Str but all I'll say is this:
Do you really want to make the tabletop gaming scene even less appealing to women than it already is? Then go ahead, introduce sexual dimorphism where all men are stronger and all women are more charismatic (or as someone else put it, more 'manipulative'. Wonderful.)
And that's what this all comes down to: following "realism" or whatever the hell you want to call it (although I could argue for days about the validity of that)...crap like this just pushes whole sections of people away. Women, gays, trans* folk, PoC, whatever... It's not cool.
(And as an fyi, I think the 'men are stronger on average' thing is covered by making most average, commoner men have 11 Str and women have 10 Str. The difference is really that small and irrelevant.)
Racism and bigotry are very useful in a game setting; they're a convenient way for the GM to indicate that an NPC is stupid or evil.Which is fine. It doesn't work so well if you make the whole society institutionally racist, sexist and bigoted and don't set it up as evil/the enemy.
Being against slavery in Golarion is going to be long hard work...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Racism and bigotry are very useful in a game setting; they're a convenient way for the GM to indicate that an NPC is stupid or evil.Which is fine. It doesn't work so well if you make the whole society institutionally racist, sexist and bigoted and don't set it up as evil/the enemy.
Ever heard of these things called shades of grey?
There's a lot more than fifty of 'em.
Backwards doesn't necessarily mean evil.
Similarly, gynarchies are not inherently good, and queer dictatorships will likely be fabulous fascist fashionistas, yet anything but benevolent.
Regardless of good or evil, people wants newer, bigger, more impressive ways of being genitals to each other, regardless of which set they possess or enjoy.
If I put my tongue any further in cheek I'm gonna stab through the side of my damned face.
Men aremore often stronger than women because its more culturally valued for then to exercise for strength . A woman that puts as much time and effort into exercise can be just as fit. See women in the army.
Male bodybuilders who appear a lot stronger do exercises that specifically increase muscle size, not just for strength.
I feel this thread is about to get off topic again.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
God there are so many things wrong with giving men a +2 to Str but all I'll say is this:
Do you really want to make the tabletop gaming scene even less appealing to women than it already is? Then go ahead, introduce sexual dimorphism where all men are stronger and all women are more charismatic (or as someone else put it, more 'manipulative'. Wonderful.)
And that's what this all comes down to: following "realism" or whatever the hell you want to call it (although I could argue for days about the validity of that)...crap like this just pushes whole sections of people away. Women, gays, trans* folk, PoC, whatever... It's not cool.
(And as an fyi, I think the 'men are stronger on average' thing is covered by making most average, commoner men have 11 Str and women have 10 Str. The difference is really that small and irrelevant.)
Not to mention for character creation, you are creating heroes who are unusual and above or below average in various ways, so it doesn't often matter, on average what someone's physical strengths and weaknesses are.
And more to the point as you say, trying to translate the differences in physical difference between the average male and female (and where there are a VASTLY broad set of outliers for both) into D&D style stats comes to a negligible difference. You can say, on the average, men have more upper body strength than women, but when it comes to the abstractification in this particular game system, the differences are largely irrelevant and all the more so when you are creating characters who are meant to be extraordinary, outlier types anyway.
Why there are people who thinks it's so IMPORTANT to put in a difference mechanically, especially when ultimately what they are urging is EXAGGERATING the differences between the average male and the average female, I really do not understand, and I am not sure I ever will. I mean, I have seen people argue about this matter with life-or-death vehemence, which I'm sorry, is just really messed up. It's a game, one where people's health is listed as points and that a person is perfectly well until suddenly all those points are lost, one where our ability to defend ourselves lumps both damage absorption and ability to dodge into one score, one where statistically a fight between a housecat and a peasant will result in the housecat winning... you want to complain about how the abstract numbers in the game fail to simulate "real life," there are better and more valid targets.
Men aremore often stronger than women because its more culturally valued for then to exercise for strength . A woman that puts as much time and effort into exercise can be just as fit. See women in the army.
Male bodybuilders who appear a lot stronger do exercises that specifically increase muscle size, not just for strength.
I feel this thread is about to get off topic again.
And female bodybuilders don't do exercises?
Look at the top end competitive males and females in almost any sport. Weight lifting. Running. Pretty much anything. There are physical reasons women don't compete directly with men in most sports.
Men average larger. That's important. Men build muscle more easily and at least some of it is stronger per pound.
The physical differences are real. Not simply cultural. The averages show it and the very top end shows it.
None of this means it's a good idea to represent in the game, for a large number of reasons.
Also this will lead to way unevely distributed pcs by optimizers that will choose gender based on what stats help their build and no other reason. Like all sorcerors being female or not optimal. Do you really want optimization on basis of gender for PCS?
The only realistic way I can see handling such a thing would be to limit how male and female character can add their ability score bonuses as they level, which is just... ick.
I will agree that in the upper echelons of athletic training there can be differences, but no so much for the average person, especially compared to the difference training makes.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is something that's been on my mind for awhile... ...I just want to know how you tackle the situation in your campaigns in a mature manner.
I'm late to the party, per usual, but to approximately echo what others have said:
I handle homosexuality* the same way I handle heterosexuality. That is, like a mature adult. It can be part of the story, as much as the players choose for it to be.
Now my players... some of them handle it very differently. When it came out, I wanted to run Blue Rose , a romantic fantasy RPG that was the precursor to True20. I figured this particular group, 3 guys, loved L5R. Blue Rose his would be, basically, an Occidental version involving similar themes: nobility, courtship, intrigue, etc. Plus I liked the look of what would become True20.
However, they all read the section on homosexuality and bisexuality in Aldea (the campaign world) and said "no thanks" in the most homophobic way possible. They basically interpreted Blue Rose to be an erotic homosexual RPG, which it is not. They took one small facet of the world and blew it way out of proportion. It told me a lot about these players. Very sad.
I guess the above tale can be a lesson: know how comfortable your players are before introducing mature topics like sex.
*or bisexuality, transgender, etc.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Too lazy, only read the first page and so will post according to original topic.
On the two regular groups I DM, relationships are an important part of the game. The RotRL group has one recently-married PC and two PCs in a relationship, while in the KM group everybody is married or in a stable relationship.
That said, I don't roleplay sex, but I do feel the need to say, in vague terms, how it was, since I believe that is another way to develop or expose an NPC's personality. Things like "he knows what he's doing and is dedicated to getting you there" or "the sex with her is a tantric marathon of pushing your limits that leaves you utterly exhausted but with a big smile on your face" (the latter involving a "friendly" succubus).
I have a gay player, and noticed he didn't involve himself romantically in any of the games I play or GM with him. It occurred to me that might be because I hadn't offered any homosexual options that he could pursue (and maybe he couldn't relate to a heterosexual relationship enough to devote so much attention towards it). The next bad-ass NPC the party encountered ended up developing a relationship to that PC and now the kingdom's High Priest is involved in a high-stakes closeted gay romance, facing the choice of revealing himself and accepting the consequences or living in secret. Much drama was added, and issues the player could relate to were brought up, and the game has been all the better for it.
I honestly think a bonus to Charisma or Wisdom makes a bit of sense, if only due to the reduced levels of testosterone clouding the character's judgment. I don't think it's intended to be sexist.
That being said, I would never include ability bonuses for gender. This is Pathfinder, where an orc barbarian can cut a boulder in half with a greataxe. I'm not gonna worry too much about "technically women are weaker". If I did, it'd probably be a "+1 Str/+1 Dex", representing that female adventurers must compensate for their reduced strength with a bit of agility. Sexism aside, balancing Strength with Charisma just ain't balanced.
I honestly think a bonus to Charisma or Wisdom makes a bit of sense, if only due to the reduced levels of testosterone clouding the character's judgment. I don't think it's intended to be sexist.
Umm, how does charisma relate to judgment? I really can't see it as any more than the self-centered hetero-male idea that orientations are for women and a few weirdos, because *they* have the objective truth.
Charisma is about how one presents oneself. Goblins struggle with presenting themselves because they are socially clueless. Dwarves struggle because they are gruff and take for granted that others will put up with them thanks to hailing from a heavily lawful society. Those with less testosterone might do better. Nothing to do with...
...wait, why are you talking about orientations now? I'm aware that this is a thread about homosexuality, but orientation doesn't relate to the second-degree-threadjack we're on now about genders.
Because giving a charisma bonus to females has nothing to do with goblins and orcs, who as far as I know are both humanoids and therefore have two sexes. It also has nothing to do with "judgement". There's a reason why there are three mental stats, and CHA has the *least* to do with judgement. It has the *most* to do with physical attractiveness, and we have already had a thread of thousands of posts full of hetero guys saying women have an absolute monopoly on physical attractiveness.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
If Charisma is force of personality, that's something often discouraged in women, for stupid cultural reasons that we somehow haven't managed to dump yet. But I notice that women tend, on average, to be better shots than men. And the whole endurance thing was already mentioned. Etc. If you give males a +2 Str and maybe -2 Wis for thinking with their "little heads," do females get a +2 Dex, +2 Con, and maybe -2 Cha for cultural baggage? Where do you stop? Do males get +1 Int because of the predominance of males in top scientific posts? Or do you give females +2 Int to reflect their mean scores on standardized science exams? Do the two cancel out?
You can go on with this sort of stuff forever. It's far better, in my mind, not to start down that road at all.
Which is what I said.
Oh, and I was only referencing races because we were discussing Charisma. No, Charisma is not about physical attractiveness. That's just one generally small factor.
Which is what I said.
Oh, and I was only referencing races because we were discussing Charisma. No, Charisma is not about physical attractiveness. That's just one generally small factor.
I really don't see how testosterone is a negative to charisma then. If you want to be making announcements, issuing commands, generally getting big groups of people to listen to you, having the deeper voice that comes from testosterone is a tremendous advantage.
I had this discussion with another friend after the fact.
Sexual dimorphism exists in animals, yes, but there is no case of sexual dimorphism (that I am aware of) that does not place one sex in the dominant position in all ways (spiders and anglerfish), except in the superficial cases where the only thing dimorphic is color (such as ducks).
The concept of it is not outright wrong to include, but this...
Ok. First just let me state before I get lumped into the other arguement. I don't believe humans in the game should have diffrent stats adjustment based on gender. What I am saying is something very different.
I don't think it is a problem to have a race where the female (or male) is naturaly superior. It is interesting concept. Not that it is true with humans. But than again I am not playinmg elves to push a treehugging liberal agenda...or a dwarf to push a conservative agenda. I play those races because they are different than humens. Sometimes it is just a interesting concept to explore.
When I run games you can pick where your put your pluses and minuses regardless of what race you choose. Solves the problem of racial and sexual dimorphism and makes it more backstory oriented. Also allows any race to play anything rather than punishing someone for wanting a certain race/class combo.
I don't know what this has to do with sexuality however?
|
|
I think sexual dimorphism would be interesting in a race like... for example, a race based on spiders where the females are something like 10 times the size of the males, for example.
Obviously, scaled up and in a humanoid form, the difference would be much slighter, but having halfling-sized spider-men and human-sized spider-women would be interesting (if a little terrifying).
But bringing that into normal humans... nope.
Lashunta do, I know.
+2 Str/-2 Wis for males and +2 Cha/-2 Con for females.
Drow don't though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sexual dimorphism and the anglerfish: A comic
IIRC, there actually is a humanoid race based on these dudes written up by Comrade Mieville, but I don't recall any of the stats.
Drow only differed in Favored Class.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Huh - I just looked and drow don't have gender specifica adjustments after all. Were they different in prior editions? I could swear drow were one of the few races to retain their gender-specific racial adjustments. Looks like there are two flavors of drow, but they're divided between noble and non-noble drow.
I really don't see how testosterone is a negative to charisma then. If you want to be making announcements, issuing commands, generally getting big groups of people to listen to you, having the deeper voice that comes from testosterone is a tremendous advantage.Which is what I said.
Oh, and I was only referencing races because we were discussing Charisma. No, Charisma is not about physical attractiveness. That's just one generally small factor.
I didn't say it was the best choice for a bonus--like I said, Dexterity would be my pick for many reasons--I said it made some sense and wasn't awfulevil sexism.
Huh - I just looked and drow don't have gender specifica adjustments after all. Were they different in prior editions? I could swear drow were one of the few races to retain their gender-specific racial adjustments. Looks like there are two flavors of drow, but they're divided between noble and non-noble drow.
Pop open your 1st ed. Fiend Folio and look at Gygax's 4-page wall of text on "Elf, Drow." At one point he tells you how to roll their stats, and I don't remember the exact dice for each gender and attribute, but there's all kinds of random goofy stuff in there like, "Males: Str 2d6+3, Dex 2d6+6, Con 2d6, Int 5d4, Wis 3d6, Cha 3d4+2; Females: Str 3d6, Dex 2d6+8, Con 4d4+2, Int 2d6+6, Wis 1d6+12, Cha 1d6+12" or something equally nonsensical.
Anglerfish, baby. They're all the rage.
Clearly I need to reduce (or maybe increase) my daily intake of blow. I had a vivid memory of seeing gender-based stats for drow in the Paizo race book, but I must've mixed up the noble/non-noble with the gender-based favored classes.
Or something like that.
I am right there with you...though I am thinking it was back in 3rd ed Monster Mannuel(3.0) had it and was latter changed. Or maybe it was 3rd party material.
I do like the idea. I also see why Paizo, or any other gaming company, doesn't really want to go there. Drow being the major exception and they were created in a less sensitive time and not originally as a player race.
Except of course the Lashunta. There is no really difference between female drow and male drow in PF.
My favorite version of Catfolk plays on that concept. Taken from C.J. Cherryh's Chanur books, the Hani are based on lion pride social structures. The males fight other males for control of the clans and essentially a harem of wives. They rule, but are too violent to be trusted, essentially being biologically and culturally driven to force off any intruding males. So the women actually run things. Handle all the interaction between groups, all the trading, most of the tech.
I'm not sure how I'd stat them out, since even the females were pretty tough by human standards, but the males would definitely get Str and Con bonuses and Wis penalties.
See I would kinda see the above feline race stats being the female would either get the Cha bonus(because they deal with interaction) and/ or the male getting a cha minus because of the whole streak towards viloence. It is really hard to be outgoing when you are eating somebodys face.
I am bringing this up just to show a bonus to Cha is not neccesssary saying that race is sexy...or that race is ugly. For instance take a female lashunta...considering how the males look why would they consider a human male to be attractive? I know most people don't think about things like that at great depth...and you don't have too...but I do like thinking about how cretain things will effect culture and such.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Huh - I just looked and drow don't have gender specifica adjustments after all. Were they different in prior editions? I could swear drow were one of the few races to retain their gender-specific racial adjustments. Looks like there are two flavors of drow, but they're divided between noble and non-noble drow.Pop open your 1st ed. Fiend Folio and look at Gygax's 4-page wall of text on "Elf, Drow." At one point he tells you how to roll their stats, and I don't remember the exact dice for each gender and attribute, but there's all kinds of random goofy stuff in there like, "Males: Str 2d6+3, Dex 2d6+6, Con 2d6, Int 5d4, Wis 3d6, Cha 3d4+2; Females: Str 3d6, Dex 2d6+8, Con 4d4+2, Int 2d6+6, Wis 1d6+12, Cha 1d6+12" or something equally nonsensical.
But, at the risk of endangering my grognard cred, I never owned a copy of the original Fiend Folio. I'm a 2e brat, coming into the hobby around 89, give or take, so my impressions of the drow would've been formed by 2e (no idea where they were listed - that blue bound book with all the non-standard player character races?) or 3e.
Or damaged brain cells. I really can't discount those.
You know what this discussion really needs to move to the next level? Comeliness. I never got to experience that stat, and it sounds like a great big ball of fiery fun!
You could always give them Intimidating Prowess (I think that's the feat?) as a bonus feat. Honestly, though, I think the Wisdom penalty fits better. Most of the reason for the Charisma penalty is based around their senseless viciousness, so it would manifest as the GM saying, "Wow, did you really just say that? You take a -10 to the Diplomacy check."
^ About one race finding another attractive: It's not so much about realism. I just generally don't think humans should be every race's standard for beauty. But maybe that's my kobold bias--you mammals are disgusting.