Hey peeps, have a scenario to lay out and wonder what everyone's thoughts are on it.
There are two players in my group who play unusual characters who are locked in a in game/out of game conflict that relates to how Perception works against Disguise if sexual orientation is involved (which it's not based on the rules as written).
One plays a female human rogue/bard who dresses and acts like a man (in our current setting its a male dominated society so women aren't treated equally), her backstory is extensive in that she's masqueraded as a man for years and in fact created/established this 'persona' so precisely that no one knows her real identity. (The character has exceptional Charisma, high Disguise, Bluff, Diplomacy, Sense Motive and Intimidate as well as Perform (Acting))
The other plays a male assimar ranger who's backstory is in summary that he's a homosexual, which makes for great role playing material in the group. An exceptional hunter of undead and rogue mages, his design is focused on taking down necromancers and their undead minions.
NOW THE QUESTION...
The party has just discovered that the Rogue/Bard is in fact a female (by virtue of the party cleric saving her from near death and by examining her) but the Ranger feels this shouldn't be a 'shock' to him as he didn't feel attracted to the handsome Rogue (so he says). Citing the 'lack of pheromones' as his defense, there are no rules of course for this. If 'Scent' (the ability) was something the Ranger had that might be possible (but certainly never mentioned in the rules as written) but he doesn't even have that.
He just feels incensed that his character couldn't have told the difference between a woman dressed/acting like a man and a real man when he feels he should because of his sexual orientation.
I am correct for thinking based on the RAW that anyone can Disguise themselves as the other gender and theoretically flirt with their own gender using Bluff if they're not genuine and leave the target none the wiser (assuming of course they fail their opposed Sense Motive test).
I appreciate any feedback or input on this touchy subject so I can stifle this quarrel between both players.
the Ranger feels this shouldn't be a 'shock' to him as he didn't feel attracted to the handsome Rogue (so he says). Citing the 'lack of pheromones' as his defense
He just feels incensed that his character couldn't have told the difference between a woman dressed/acting like a man and a real man when he feels he should because of his sexual orientation.
The ranger's response made me facepalm so hard I almost broke my glasses. I suggest you give the ranger a blank stare and then go on as if he didn't bring up something so stupid.
That aside, here's the disguise skill rules. Yes you can disguise as a different gender but with a -2 penalty and the check is opposed by perception though there needs to be suspicion to warrant such a check (no one is automatically entitled to one).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Slap the Ranger player and say "No."
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
As a gay man myself, I can say with surety that "not being attracted to a person because of gender" does not give you any sort of automatic gender detection ability. It doesn't even give you the ability to automatically know that someone else is gay (gaydar tropes notwithstanding).
I embarrassed myself fairly badly one time because I was out at a bar, and hit on a hot guy - that turned out to be a very masculine lesbian. And I hadn't even been drinking...
It's his right to say that he is not attracted to the character, it is not to say that he should see through the disguise just because he is attracted to men. I imagine a woman wouldn't say that she should be able to see through the disguise just because she is attracted to men. Either way it is hindsight bias and not a valid argument.
Just like in real life, people can be successful at disguising themselves as a specific gender. The ranger should be happy that not seeing through the disguise didn't end in unfortunate circumstances, as it occasionally does in real life.
Thanks for the input!, I thought as much too.
The players having a Hissy fit of sorts because he feels he should get at least a +5 bonus to see through a woman's disguise if she's portraying a man and that's on top of the Rogues -2 penalty as per the Disguise rules. He'll get over it in due course - he has a very "entitled" attitude to other elements in game too but no need to worry about those at this point, I handle those as they come up.
There are two players in my group who play unusual characters who are locked in a in game/out of game conflict that relates to how Perception works against Disguise if sexual orientation is involved (which it's not based on the rules as written).
These sound like great characters and mature, dynamic players. I can see the aasimar's argument, but RAW makes no exception for sexual orientation, so I'd say that you were correct- he wouldn't "automatically" know that Finkel was Einhorn.
Since the discovery of the rogue/bard's gender has already passed, and the aasimar's player feels so strongly, perhaps a moment of party RP could let the aasimar vent his unabashed surprise, and that maybe he could accept such subterfuge, and see how it helps the party. If it's a male-dominated society, then perhaps he might be able to use his "background" (as the r/b did) to his advantage.
Unless he specifically tried to discover the deceit, by RAW he would not gain any inference into the rogue/bard's gender. It's simple like that, to avoid too much real-life conflicts like the one you've presented.
B.A. Thank you for the flashback of one of my favorite movies :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
He should have checked, ala Crocodile Dundee.
|
Why do I get the feeling there was a movie about this topic made in the 1980's?
More to the topic at hand that's a pretty ridiculous argument. Both on what it's about and that it's happening at all. The ranger appears to be suggesting that every homosexual person is attracted to every single member of their gender and a heterosexual person is attracted to every single member of the opposite.
I'd admit that would make the dating scene a bit easier in the world...
Why do I get the feeling there was a movie about this topic made in the 1980's?
More to the topic at hand that's a pretty ridiculous argument. Both on what it's about and that it's happening at all. The ranger appears to be suggesting that every homosexual person is attracted to every single member of their gender and a heterosexual person is attracted to every single member of the opposite.
I'd admit that would make the dating scene a bit easier in the world...
The closest I can think of is Victor Victoria, where Julie Andrews plays a woman pretending to be a man that is a female impersonator.
|
A purely mechanical view : does the Ranger's passive (i.e. take 10) Perception beat the Bard's take 10 Disguise (and ditto Sense Motive vs Bluff)? If so, he may have noticed something odd at some point and not be overly surprised. If their passive score can't even beat the Bard rolling a 1, no chance.
Also, *facepalm*
also that's like saying a straight woman should get a bonus to seeing through the disguise for the same reason
/thread
lol This discussion is absurd. The Aasimar should take the trait: "Gaydar: This ability is usable at will but requires a Movement Action to activate, and lasts for one round per point of Wisdom modifier. Gaydar allows the user to detect unerringly if a subject is homosexual."
Now, having said that the player is a damned fool. He decided to play a homosexual based on stereotypes not on real interactions. Homsexual men and women are *gasp* just like hetero men and women! No, there is no odor, it's not easily seen by the type of shoes, nor the haircut.
From a RP perspective *as of now* the Aasimar can be assumed to be arrogant and "Of course I knew!" lying through his teeth. Let it ride. If he asserts he knew all along, it changes nothing. If the player were mature he could have his character develop a platonic love with the Rogue, after all, love is not sex and vice versa. Or, he could develop an animosity, "How could you have lied to me! I loved you!" The key here is that the *player* has to be grown up enough to let his own perceptions go, and work on seeing the relationship through his character's persona.
*shrug*
GNOME
The ranger's assertion is absurd.
Let's talk trash t.v. for a second. Any of you every seen one of those day time tv shows like Maurry or whatever where they have an episiode of 'Spot the Tranny'! I have to admit, that as a straight guy some of the men are obvious, some are not. Some are so good I never would have known if the show didn't tell me. And then I think to myself...s@*+ that dude makes an attractive woman, and then I cut off my internal monologue because it all justs gets confusing at that point. Anyways...my point is simply you don't just know because you're attracted to one gender. It's a disguise. Everytime he looks at the disguise he should get a check, the best way to represent this is probaly just a take 10 on it, as the rogue probably takes 10 on her disguise. However, an argument could be made that at some point he rolls a 20 on perception against her disguise check (made with the take 10). If he can beat her disguise check with a 20 then I would say that yes, they notice at some point in their travels because there is a lot of oppurtunity to notice. Eventually you notice the lack of 5 o'clock shadow or neck stubble that men get, or notice that she never takes her shirt off with the rest of the guys, even when it's incredibly hot. I don't know a myriad of ways you could describe it, but that is how I would adjudicate it.
His perception bonus +20 versus her disguise bonus +10. This is the worst case scenario for her, and if he can't beat it then he will never have noticed.
The closest I can think of is Victor Victoria, where Julie Andrews plays a woman pretending to be a man that is a female impersonator.Why do I get the feeling there was a movie about this topic made in the 1980's?
More to the topic at hand that's a pretty ridiculous argument. Both on what it's about and that it's happening at all. The ranger appears to be suggesting that every homosexual person is attracted to every single member of their gender and a heterosexual person is attracted to every single member of the opposite.
I'd admit that would make the dating scene a bit easier in the world...
Probably referring to Tootsie? Dustin Hoffman in drag is terrifying.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don’t know if there’s any reason to join the dogpile; everyone seems to agree that the player of the ranger is very confused about gender and attraction. It’s terribly common for hetero men to be attracted to transvestites, unknowingly; not sure why he thinks it would be any different for gay men.
However, he and the other player might be interested to see this comic that addresses this very issue.
|
|
However, he and the other player might be interested to see this comic that addresses this very issue.
That's a fantastic depiction of just how messily analogue in response and structure peoples brains and bodies actually are in reality.
A lot of good information, thanks everyone!
We role play a lot of downtime in the group and even on a lot of adventures we role play the whole camping/break periods/etc that happen on their travels. The bard/rogue character has done plenty of things to raise suspicion but the players in the group are pretty unobservant, paying little notice to the small details. The worst part of this whole situation is that the Ranger has met the Rogue/Bard only TWICE (due to RL restrictions of the player not always being available to game)
The Rogue/Bard employs tactics such as Disguise Self, mundane Disguise (with costume changes, make up, etc) and even spells like Vocal Alteration to reinforce key moments they're speaking to someone with a good Perception when disguising her voice. Anything the player has done to attract attention has been with the rest of the group (a Dwarf Cleric of Torag, another Dwarf Stonelord, a Human Sorceress and a Human Magus) who haven't noticed anything they would consider alarming (based on the players reactions)
Now it makes sense to the party after they found out why the Bard/Rogue would never go to the bathroom in front of or near others when in camp, or why the Bard/Rogue takes a long time to get changed every day inside her private tent (they put it down to the Rogue/Bard being a rich city boy out of his comfort zone in the wilds) or that they never noticed the characters preference for baggy clothing when a monster breaks into the groups camp (an improvised disguise attempt)).
But yeah...he's accepted that he shouldn't "automatically" know anymore but seems insistent that he should at least get a +5 circumstance bonus (which I flatly refused as the rules do not support it and also because he barely knows the Rogue/Bard).
If you really want to drive the point home, do some searches for "convincing cross-dressers" and "masculine women" on Google and then ask him to tell you which is which. Then point out that those people don't have access to magic to enhance their disguises.
Just an aside, for 'scientific' purposes I had my roommate do just this. He got together a list of 20 pictures (half 'masculine' women and half cross-dressers), then he had me and another roommate who happens to be a drag queen secretly answer if the person was male in drag or female.
I got 4 of the cross-dressers and 6 of the masculine women; my (straight) drag roommate got 6 of the cross-dressers and 6 of the masculine women
This is quickly becoming the thread of TMI. Oh well. :)