|
The question I would have for DB is why? Why is it a necessity to have some kind of gender roles established in the game/culture/setting? Why is there a need to have some sort of clear difference - mechanical, cultural, or otherwise - between genders? What's the point? What's to gain from it?
I'm not Draco Bahamut, although i know him from other foruns, but i will answer this saying what i think.
Campaigns were men and woman are equal in all aspects (except some obvious physiological and psychological differences) are fine by me, but condemn all to be that way, it's "meh".
In Golarion's drow society, women are dominant, orc society in the same setting, men are dominant. That makes Golarion "meh"?
Legend of the Five Rings we have woman samurai, but they are distinguished as "samurai-ko" and must make sacrifices, that samurai men didn't need to, like love and marry. That makes L5R "meh"? I really don't think so.
I think whoever told you that was using more ergot than the druids...What I have learned of real world druids and shamans (the authentic ones, not neopagans), it is believed that they get their power by marrying a nature spirit and they have to dress like transvestites when they handle the forces.
Makes sense to think, why wizards too use long dresses.
You may be right, as modern shamans are different than celtic druid, but
From many anthropology reseachs from different sources, it's seems to be common thing on forgotten tribes which still follow their old believes in northern hemisphere. I dare you to go any village on Siberia, which still lives without electricity and ask from their elders, thought the supporting evidences are easily found from Baltia to Alaska and India.And using masks or decoration to mark the transcendenced status of druid/shaman isn't foreign to any culture.
In Golarion's drow society, women are dominant, orc society in the same setting, men are dominant. That makes Golarion "meh"?
I'm amused that you picked two of my least favorite parts of Golarion. Their orc culture is very meh and I don't like Drow (and have removed them from existence in my home setting). So... yes?
I don't play in Golarion. Those two specific reasons are very small parts of why, but I won't get into the other reasons here, as they're irrelevant to this thread.
Legend of the Five Rings we have woman samurai, but they are distinguished as "samurai-ko" and must make sacrifices, that samurai men didn't need to, like love and marry. That makes L5R "meh"? I really don't think so.
I wouldn't enjoy it. And the samurai culture/east Asian influenced part of my homebrewed setting doesn't have these sort of restrictions. So... yes again?
I also don't play L5R.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The question I would have for DB is why? Why is it a necessity to have some kind of gender roles established in the game/culture/setting? Why is there a need to have some sort of clear difference - mechanical, cultural, or otherwise - between genders? What's the point? What's to gain from it?I'm not Draco Bahamut, although i know him from other foruns, but i will answer this saying what i think.
Campaigns were men and woman are equal in all aspects (except some obvious physiological and psychological differences) are fine by me, but condemn all to be that way, it's "meh".
In Golarion's drow society, women are dominant, orc society in the same setting, men are dominant. That makes Golarion "meh"?
Legend of the Five Rings we have woman samurai, but they are distinguished as "samurai-ko" and must make sacrifices, that samurai men didn't need to, like love and marry. That makes L5R "meh"? I really don't think so.
Though you'll note that both Golarion societies you mention are evil. Nor are they core PC races. Even PCs from those cultures are usually assumed to be rebels/outcasts - adventuring in the rest of the setting where discrimination isn't so prevalent.
Big difference between that and making defined gender roles the default for the setting so that all PCs have to deal with them, either by living within them or by facing all that comes with being the exception bucking society's rules.
Precisely, Why someone would be interested in some gender differences? One of the whys is antagonism. Cultures to fight against. There are plenty of another whys, many already posted on this thread, if you ask me examples i'll provide (just not now, i'm at work).
Oh, and one correction, there is no "necessity" to make gender differences, but, also, there is no necessity to prohibit groups that want to play with gender differences (provided they are mature, willing and informed) to play the way they want, isn't that true?
Personally? I'm done with non immersive games, they bore me easily and don't have enough life to draw my attention for long. But i'm ok with people who play non immersive games, you guys who chose that can keep playing it, you have my blessing!
Being a druid is considered feminine. When you mention a druid, people assume they're female unless you say otherwise (not unlike a nurse or a dancer these days). A male druid may get teased a little by his friends, or get a little ribbing from new NPCs he encounters, but when the chips are down, no one doubts that he can do what he does well.
As an Asterix reader, i STRONGLY disagree here. Bards, on ohter hand... :)
The rest i agree with you :)
In Golarion's drow society, women are dominant, orc society in the same setting, men are dominant. That makes Golarion "meh"?I'm amused that you picked two of my least favorite parts of Golarion. Their orc culture is very meh and I don't like Drow (and have removed them from existence in my home setting). So... yes?
I don't play in Golarion. Those two specific reasons are very small parts of why, but I won't get into the other reasons here, as they're irrelevant to this thread.
Legend of the Five Rings we have woman samurai, but they are distinguished as "samurai-ko" and must make sacrifices, that samurai men didn't need to, like love and marry. That makes L5R "meh"? I really don't think so.I wouldn't enjoy it. And the samurai culture/east Asian influenced part of my homebrewed setting doesn't have these sort of restrictions. So... yes again?
I also don't play L5R.
Edit for answering Orthos.
I'm cool with your personal interests, but this doesn't mean that people who find those settings (or settings elements) interesting, appealing or cool are wrong, agree?
Those settings may be meh for you, but not for everyone, we agree with this?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm probably on that the involuntarily committed list.Sarcasmanser, did you just mention Skyrealms of Jorune? You're on the the list! (No, it's cool, it's a list you want to be on.Thanks I'm just glad to be on a list that isn't "people who need to be involuntarily committed"
I know I am! Ha-hah, still can't catch me, suckers!
|
Re: Druids
Sadly, I think an entire generation of gamers thinks of this before anything else when they hear "Druid".
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
In the end, the attitude I do not like is those people saying "your setting MUST follow modern western values".
With the additional views that if you do not follow this, then you are actually condoning things such as racism, misogyny, homophobia and/or slavery IN THE REAL WORLD.
Which is quite insulting, really.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm cool with your personal interests, but this doesn't mean that people who find those settings (or settings elements) interesting, appealing or cool are wrong, agree?
Those settings may be meh for you, but not for everyone, we agree with this?
Oh yeah, I'm not saying they're wrong at all. All my responses are personal opinion only.
Personally? I'm done with non immersive games, they bore me easily and don't have enough life to draw my attention for long. But i'm ok with people who play non immersive games, you guys who chose that can keep playing it, you have my blessing!
However, I am a little irked - if not outright insulted, yet - by the idea that not having these restrictions and cultural obstacles results in a 'non immersive game'. I personally find them QUITE immersive, perhaps even more so because I don't get jolted out of the game world mindset by something that offends me or one of my players.
That aside, I feel I should probably explain backstory on a little on WHY I feel this way about gender restrictions in game.
The amusing thing is, it all began with a joke.
I don't recall the situation, but somewhere in the conversation came up the phrase "You (referring to one of the brothers, coming from the other) hit like a girl". It was, of course, intended as a light-hearted bickering as is common among young (sub-ten years old) brothers.
My player immediately interrupts me.
Her: "Wait. Would that phrase even exist on Finiens (our homebrew world)?"
Me: "Why not?"
Her: "Well because how much difference is there between how hard a guy hits and a girl hits, provided they have the same stats?"
It was mind-blowing. It's always been my mindset that the rules of the game are the rules of reality for any world played in that game. We sat down and extrapolated the logic from there.
A female monk will hit just as hard as a male monk of the same level with the same STR score.
So will a female barbarian to a male barbarian, with the same STR score and using the same weapon.
A female sorcerer's fireball hits with the same force as a male sorcerer's, and they're even equally hard to resist if they have the same CHA score and focus feats.
We immediately scoured over the entire (somewhat skeletal) information for the various cultures and concepts in our homebrew world and removed any (if there were any, I don't recall) references to gender-based restrictions from the entire setting. Because there's no logical reason, in a reality where the capabilities of a person are not limited or restricted by gender, that society would develop in such a way.
We have a desert country that's basically Ancient Medo-Persia with a great reverence for Magic (especially Necromancy) and heavy use of Undead. No reason you can't have male or female sand dervishes or necromancers. We already had a good mix of genders for their rulership.
We had another that was casually referred to as Spider Camelot. Paladins and priests and knights of both genders are prevalent.
Ditto for the upcoming Clockworks and Magitek-based culture that's getting built in Kingmaker.
And for the Ancient Rome-based culture of the winged elves to the south.
And the Floating Kingdom of Zeal armed with Darwinist Fabricants sky-democracy of the Gnomes.
And so on and so on and so on.
So that's why I feel the way I do about genders in-game. Heck, 90% of the time my character's genders aren't even decided until I find a picture, and NPC genders are often picked with a coin flip.
|
No, I'm not. Equal != identical. There's a reason we have different words for those two concepts.Those are differences that have nothing to do with equality.You're using a specific definition of equality versus the more general "the same" meaning. I'll let Draco Bahamut speak for him/her self, but if you read the entire post in context, it seems pretty clear that you could replace "equal to" with "the same as" in the post and it would read the same.
Sorry, i am not used to hold a conversation in english, so i am not aware of some current connotations. But in any form or manners, i didn't mean that man and woman can't have equal oppotunities. I only mean that man and woman are different, have different issues. In the game there is no sex, no pregnancy, no period, no sickness that affect only woman, nothing that can relate to real life women unique experiences.
But this also apllies to man, there is no need for sex, no sickness that affect only man, you can't lose "organs" in combat, you dont become irrational agressive in youth and lose your will to live when you get old. Maybe it is a cultural thing, but having gender issues do not have to be about one gender getting dominant. At least don 't is in Brazil.
In the game there is no sex, no pregnancy, no period, no sickness that affect only woman, nothing that can relate to real life women unique experiences.
But this also apllies to man, there is no need for sex, no sickness that affect only man, you can't lose "organs" in combat, you dont become irrational agressive in youth and lose your will to live when you get old.
Speaking personally, these are not issues I want to pursue anyway, regardless of the gender of my character. (Also I'm amused at how many of those "applies to men" things don't apply to me.)
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
That aside, I feel I should probably explain backstory on a little on WHY I feel this way about gender restrictions in game.
The amusing thing is, it all began with a joke.
** spoiler omitted **...
Except that men and women are not exactly the same, even if these differences are not expressed by the game system.
Saying that ALL cultures will treat men and women exactly the same is too much standardization to me.
That said, I agree 100% that the GM should not use the value system of his setting to be deliberately offensive and a jerk to his players.
Hee hee!
In my new campaign,
Her player further informed me that she has thus far been able to resist it every time that time of the month rolls around, she drowns out the call with binge-drinking and orgiastic casual sex.
In case you're wondering, yes, her player is male. I've never had a female player tell me I had to pay attention to her menstruation before.
In other news, Tam Lin; or, More Peasant Songs
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Speaking personally, these are not issues I want to pursue anyway, regardless of the gender of my character. (Also I'm amused at how many of those "applies to men" things don't apply to me.)
Perhaps not your character, but think from a GM's stance. Story lines revolving around one NPC noble being infatuated with a peasant brings interesting elements to the game. The child of such a union brings even more interesting creative building blocks that a GM can work with.
I think the bottom line should be that all GMs can design their worlds however they want. If they want to make certain societies where men are slaves to women, they can. If they want to take a page from Wheel of Time and have all male spellcasters go insane, they can.
A GM should simply be aware that his players will have varied expectations, and should not pigeonhole, to the best of his/her ability, the player's options. If after learning about the setting a player is not interested, they should be able to pass on that campaign without upsetting a GM.
Usually I'll have at least one major pluralistic area for people to come from. Of course, sometimes they WANT to come from the less egalitarian areas and "fight the good fight" ...
Saying that ALL cultures will treat men and women exactly the same is too much standardization to me.
On that, we differ, then - it's exactly what I want out of the game. There's plenty of other things for cultures and peoples and characters to bicker over, in addition to just having sexist individuals within those cultures, even if the cultures themselves don't back up those individual opinions.
And I still don't see why it's too much standardization. Why does there need to be gender-based divides? I guess I just haven't seen a convincing argument for that yet.
I don't think going back and forth about it is going to convince either of us though.
Speaking personally, these are not issues I want to pursue anyway, regardless of the gender of my character. (Also I'm amused at how many of those "applies to men" things don't apply to me.)Perhaps not your character, but think from a GM's stance. Story lines revolving around one NPC noble being infatuated with a peasant brings interesting elements to the game. The child of such a union brings even more interesting creative building blocks that a GM can work with.
Let me rephrase more bluntly. I'm a prude and asexual and am not interested in any sort of sex-based plotline.
That particular plot would have none of my interest as a player, and would not be something I would want to run as a GM. I prefer that sort of thing to be left off-screen where it can be ignored at leisure.
|
|
Saying that ALL cultures will treat men and women exactly the same is too much standardization to me.On that, we differ, then - it's exactly what I want out of the game. There's plenty of other things for cultures and peoples and characters to bicker over, in addition to just having sexist individuals within those cultures, even if the cultures themselves don't back up those individual opinions.
And I still don't see why it's too much standardization. Why does there need to be gender-based divides? I guess I just haven't seen a convincing argument for that yet.
I don't think going back and forth about it is going to convince either of us though.
Well, we could consider why ALL cultures I know of in our world (whether modern or ancient, western, asian, african, amazonian or otherwise) treat men and women differently, one way or another.
And that the roots for this widespread differentiation (mainly the differences in the reproductive systems IMO) are likely present in fantasy worlds too ;-)
|
|
Oh yeah, I'm not saying they're wrong at all. All my responses are personal opinion only.
So we are cool, then :)
However, I am a little irked - if not outright insulted, yet - by the idea that not having these restrictions and cultural obstacles results in a 'non immersive game'. I personally find them QUITE immersive, perhaps even more so because I don't get jolted out of the game world mindset by something that offends me or one of my players.
Oh please, don't be. I was thinking in gaming groups that plays basically wargaming with some role playing excuses, when players refers to theirs characters as "my doll", or "my dud". That does not seem to be your case, but even it was, i have no problem with it. So apologize, if i was vague of what i consider "non immersive". But, if your playing style makes you forget real world just for a bit, even if you play wargaming style with roleplay puns, so that can be immersive too, i guess.
Ah okay, the placement in the conversation seemed to make that comment be focused on the difference in the cultural stigmas and practices rather than roleplay in general, so I thought it was a response to that.
|
|
However, I am a little irked - if not outright insulted, yet - by the idea that not having these restrictions and cultural obstacles results in a 'non immersive game'. I personally find them QUITE immersive, perhaps even more so because I don't get jolted out of the game world mindset by something that offends me or one of my players.
I guess i am beginning to understand the issue. Let me put this in another way (and please, have a open mind about different cultural norms here). In the place where i was raised, men are not allowed to cook, we cant even get in the kitchen when women are working. And this is not because we think that only women should cook, it is because women think that men only cause trouble in kitchen, they ruin everything they touch. The case is, i like to cook, i like to invent new receipts, experiment with spices and etc... No one allowed me that. My entire life i was forbidden to touch the stove. I can't cook very well today, and i am sad because i dont want anyone cooking for me. Not cooking your food in Bahia is very different from not cooking in USA, we don't like to eat not-homemade food.
I can't play a character hurt by his expected gender role beucase there aren't expected gender roles. I never planned to have the issue in game, only a motivation that i can relate. To us, taking out expected gender roles diminish all the fight the gender had to make them equal. Woman had to fight so much to be equal, so let's forget them pretending that never were any issue with gender. Maybe this is a cultural thing, and we only having a misunderstanding.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
video game arcadesCripes, now there is a fantastic unbelievable element.
Especially for the modern real world. :(
Whattaya trying to do, make me feel old?!?
Now, get off my lawn!
Alright, so that makes it a want. Which still begs the question of why, I suppose.
However, I am a little irked - if not outright insulted, yet - by the idea that not having these restrictions and cultural obstacles results in a 'non immersive game'. I personally find them QUITE immersive, perhaps even more so because I don't get jolted out of the game world mindset by something that offends me or one of my players.I guess i am beginning to understand the issue. Let me put this in another way (and please, have a open mind about different cultural norms here). In the place where i was raised, men are not allowed to cook, we cant even get in the kitchen when women are working. And this is not because we think that only women should cook, it is because women think that men only cause trouble in kitchen, they ruin everything they touch. The case is, i like to cook, i like to invent new receipts, experiment with spices and etc... No one allowed me that. My entire life i was forbidden to touch the stove. I can't cook very well today, and i am sad because i dont want anyone cooking for me. Not cooking your food in Bahia is very different from not cooking in USA, we don't like to eat not-homemade food.
I can't play a character hurt by his expected gender role beucase there aren't expected gender roles. I never planned to have the issue in game, only a motivation that i can relate. To us, taking out expected gender roles diminish all the fight the gender had to make them equal. Woman had to fight so much to be equal, so let's forget them pretending that never were any issue with gender. Maybe this is a cultural thing, and we only having a misunderstanding.
I follow, I think.
The difference is I don't have any interest in playing out those struggles. I don't want to deal with "character hurt by his/her expected gender role". I'm not interested in bringing that aspect of the real world into my games. Nor do I really want to GM for someone dealing with that.
I like my game world to be a bit more idealized than that. I'm a cynic and a pessimist enough in real life, I want my game world to be more optimistic. There's enough other depressing things in the setting, with evil necromancer armies and eldritch horrors and dragon overlords and countless other things.
Alright, so that makes it a want. Which still begs the question of why, I suppose.Then why we declare a character gender ? Lets take it away from the game.
It pretty much already is, from the core math of the game. It has no mechanical ramifications. It's cosmetic. It's a roleplay tool, in the same way as your characters hair, skin, eye color, height, weight, basic body shape, sound of your voice, favorite color, favorite flavor, etc. etc. etc.
It's description, and it might have an affect on roleplay (the same way it would if a character had the roleplay quirk of "I have a thing for redheads" or "I dislike the taste of pineapple"), but beyond that, it doesn't affect the game overly much. Like I said, I assign NPCs genders with coin flip most of the time, and rarely have to do any tweaking of their backstory beyond pronoun usage.
Heck, even the few traits or feats that specify a required gender (such as the Princess trait) have either been errata'd to be gender-neutral, or are regularly houseruled as to effectively be so.
Alright, so that makes it a want. Which still begs the question of why, I suppose.Very easy : why not ?
I prefer to have more possibilities rather than less ;-)
As do I. The difference is I find those add restrictions and remove possibilities, while you obviously feel the opposite. Or that the possibilities they add are, as I replied to DB, undesirable.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I guess i am beginning to understand the issue. Let me put this in another way (and please, have a open mind about different cultural norms here). In the place where i was raised, men are not allowed to cook, we cant even get in the kitchen when women are working. And this is not because we think that only women should cook, it is because women think that men only cause trouble in kitchen, they ruin everything they touch. The case is, i like to cook, i like to invent new receipts, experiment with spices and etc... No one allowed me that. My entire life i was forbidden to touch the stove. I can't cook very well today, and i am sad because i dont want anyone cooking for me. Not cooking your food in Bahia is very different from not cooking in USA, we don't like to eat not-homemade food.
I can't play a character hurt by his expected gender role beucase there aren't expected gender roles. I never planned to have the issue in game, only a motivation that i can relate. To us, taking out expected gender roles diminish all the fight the gender had to make them equal. Woman had to fight so much to be equal, so let's forget them pretending that never were any issue with gender. Maybe this is a cultural thing, and we only having a misunderstanding.
Draco, i follow you, i'm from Brazil too, i know the drama. Happily, i never had this kind of problem, my father loves to cook.
Still, wanting or not, there are differences for gender, a man that wants to remain a man, but he wants to become pregnant. He cannot achieve that as easily as woman can. (Worst example EVER, i know, but illustrates that of course differences betwen men and women exists, no matter what.
Orthos, your example is funny, the say "you hit like a girl" could exist simply because boys like to be boys, girls like to be girls, so the saying "you hit like a boy" could exist, but only used by women.
And the why to have differences between men and women (apart for the obvious physiological, psychological ones) are:
1) Antagonism: A evil society that sees men or women as weaker are good to have another baddie to kick ass.
2) Cultural differences: They are good to make some good roleplaying, may they be funny, tense, just curious.
3) Another way to enrich your campaign: Have a kingdom run only by undead is enriching, have a kingdom run only by women, is also enriching.
4) More adventures hooks: More differences, more trouble, more trouble, more the need of problem solvers.
There are only a few examples, and there is no particular weight on the order.
I guess the problem is none of those are particularly intriguing to me. Especially as a GM. And considering I'm blessed with a group of players who seem to share my opinion on the subject, it's never been an issue that's cropped up.
If I want to use that particular plot hook, I can always - as stated before - have an individual or small group or specific locale with that particular opinion, without having to stain the entire culture with it. I just don't see the appeal of it being a thing on such a large scale. Especially when the world and its history are full of PCs and NPCs who would defy the expectations and demands of such a culture.
The one hangup I could see this causing is if, as DB mentioned, I had a player who wanted to play through the whole "gender role struggle" scenario. At which point I'd either have to do one of two things - make the entire campaign take place within the character's hometown or wherever the group that had such a mindset had its influence (which itself is unlikely - especially if the campaign moves around a lot - and would probably not be fun at all for me as GM), or convince the player to drop the theme in favor of "I'm leaving home to go out where the world doesn't discriminate, and I'll prove my worth there before coming back" or some other such alternative. (There is of course the third, less pleasant option of "ask the player to come up with a completely different character idea", but I'd hope it wouldn't have to come to that.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For the Brazilians, whom I don't believe were represented on the list of Peasant Revolts:
[Don Juan de Doodlebug]For those looking for more hawt chicks kicking ass, skip to 5:45. Vive le Dandara![/DJdD]
I think that's the major hangup, now that I get down to it. I just don't find playing out those kinds of biases fun. It's not entertaining. The struggle isn't enjoyable or vindicating. It's a slog. It's been a slog doing it in Kingmaker, where it's a grand total of one NPC in the whole campaign with that sort of sexist, chauvinist mindset, and I'm immensely glad that his particular slice of the plot pie is about gone.
It's only slightly less painful doing it for racism/speciesism, which is one of the reasons I don't have a humanocentric world - another thing I don't like about Golarion, if you're still looking for more on that particular list - and why outside of a few insular locales or closed-minded people most places in my world don't have major hangups against other races (though unlike the gender thing it is most, not all). Heck, I've even tossed out the old standbys. Dwarves and Elves don't have any major conflicts at all in my setting, for example, nor do Kobolds and Gnomes.
It's just not fun and I don't enjoy it, regardless of which side of the GM screen I'm on.
Oh, we had many commoners revolts - enjoy!
"The Ragamuffin War"? More hours of reading!
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think that's the major hangup, now that I get down to it. I just don't find playing out those kinds of biases fun. It's not entertaining. The struggle isn't enjoyable or vindicating. It's a slog. It's been a slog doing it in Kingmaker, where it's a grand total of one NPC in the whole campaign with that sort of sexist, chauvinist mindset, and I'm immensely glad that his particular slice of the plot pie is about gone.
It's only slightly less painful doing it for racism/speciesism, which is one of the reasons I don't have a humanocentric world - another thing I don't like about Golarion, if you're still looking for more on that particular list - and why outside of a few insular locales or closed-minded people most places in my world don't have major hangups against other races (though unlike the gender thing it is most, not all). Heck, I've even tossed out the old standbys. Dwarves and Elves don't have any major conflicts at all in my setting, for example, nor do Kobolds and Gnomes.
It's just not fun and I don't enjoy it, regardless of which side of the GM screen I'm on.
That's exactly the problem. We, brazilians, love the one who breaks the mold, who depart society expectations and do his own thing, brazilians cheer for the losing horse. This how we see our country, we can be poor, others see us as inferior, but we are proud to be ourselves even like that. So we love to roleplay struggles, is not painful to us if we can win in the end (we used to the soap operas when the main hero suffer to whole serie to meet a happy ending. So, for me, the thinking that the world own me to be to have equal conditions is not fun. I think that you only deserve it if you fight for it from the beginning, the fight that make you worth, not the result. If you had to start worse then others, than you deserve more because you had to fight more. This is were i come from.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Too much political correctness is bland and boring. Differences, even the cosmetic ones, are flavour of the game.
I do have friend, who thrives not having any description of his character. No matter of his race or class, his character looks like "typical human", but without any features, which would make him recognizable. Not even by other characters. For game to continue, we have to allow that our party has one supposed human, who might be the same guy as seen yesterday.
Well, one of his characters did look like grin of Cheshire Cat on halfling. But other than that, he looked exactly same as all his other characters.
I agree with you on the fighting for things, but I think there's plenty out there to fight against to not have to fall back on the old standbys of racial and gender segregation.
I prefer the antagonism to come from individual actions over cultural standards. The evil empire has to be fought because the evil emperor set his troops to war. The mad scientist is creating abominations of nature and must be stopped. The mad cult is going to summon their elder god. I'm far more interested in the struggle being about overcoming a danger - for your own good, for your land or people, for a friend or love, for profit, for glory and fame, what have you - than beating against the wind of cultural stereotype.
It's hard to explain. I sympathize with your basic idea of "the fight is what makes it worth it". I just disagree that the particular fight of racial/gender-based limitations is a fight worth pursuing when there are more interesting challenges that can be presented.
|
|
Even if not for war over sex differences, it's still fun having those differences just for more role playing experiences. Of course i understand you and respect your choice, i could surely play in your table and have fun, provided you didn't also striped the basic differences that makes boys be boys and girls be girls (or boys that like boys be boys the like boys and girls that like girls be girls that like girls).
My typical answer to that is "Whatever floats your boat, but it probably won't come up too often in RP". Just not my sort of thing as a GM, I'm not a big fan of relationship drama. The one character in my Kingmaker campaign who's in any sort of romantic partnership, it was more like a formal contract than anything, due to the two being a wizard and a witch respectively and looking at the whole thing from a very practical standpoint given the circumstances.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think whoever told you that was using more ergot than the druids...Being a druid is considered feminine. When you mention a druid, people assume they're female unless you say otherwiseHuh. I can say I've never had that expectation of druids.What I have learned of real world druids and shamans (the authentic ones, not neopagans), it is believed that they get their power by marrying a nature spirit and they have to dress like transvestites when they handle the forces.
Makes sense to think, why wizards too use long dresses.
I really just pulled the "druids are effeminate" thing out of thin air because I needed an example, although, in the setting I play in, the dominate" druid-ish" worships a female goddess of water and air, so most would be, so for my games it actually would make sense. No one's played a druid at my table yet though so I've never had the need to flesh it out.
On the subject of wizards, there's on novel series I like that rationalized the wizard/robe association as originating from the fact that wizards typically lived and studied in stone towers that would get very cold, and so they wore thick robes most of the time, and eventually they became a symbol of the profession, not unlike how the shield of modern police badges harkens back to the day long gone where the town guard actually carried shields.
|
|
I guess that the trope of the wizard's robe comes from the actual robes of the clergy. The wizard, being a man of high learning, looked like a priest (also a man of high learning). Though with more fanciful colors and designs usually. Maybe as a way to show his arrogance (what caused the downfall of Simon Magus).
|
|
I agree with you on the fighting for things, but I think there's plenty out there to fight against to not have to fall back on the old standbys of racial and gender segregation.
Why it is "old" ? It was already resolved ? I foresee a deep revolution in the role of man in society in the near future. Women remade themselves, but men still is way in the past, we need to discuss it someday. RPG still has much to publish before racial issues deplete, i am still waiting for a cultural struggle were no one is wrong, just different. Like Lizard Folk non-evil but strange society.
I prefer the antagonism to come from individual actions over cultural standards. The evil empire has to be fought because the evil emperor set his troops to war. The mad scientist is creating abominations of nature and must be stopped. The mad cult is going to summon their elder god. I'm far more interested in the struggle being about overcoming a danger - for your own good, for your land or people, for a friend or love, for profit, for glory and fame, what have you - than beating against the wind of cultural stereotype.
It's hard to explain. I sympathize with your basic idea of "the fight is what makes it worth it". I just disagree that the particular fight of racial/gender-based limitations is a fight worth pursuing when there are more interesting challenges that can be presented.
Yeah, but it's not the main plotline of the campaing that i am talking about. It's the small things. How can i describe a girly character (even if he is a man) without using any gender-related description ? How can i make a man who wants to have feminine traits if even women don't have them ? Even if you don't like it, no one can like it ? What is an homossexual in a world without gender roles ? (Or homossexuality is only about sex ?)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think something to keep in mind is that there are modern people playing these games, so depending on the person, some liberties need to be taken. Which is fine, since a fantasy world doesn't model reality, merely reflects it.
I can tell you right now, in my Renaissance/Age of Exploration game set in the psuedo-Caribbean, there is slavery and the slave trade. But, there are also abolitionists and the laws for slaves aren't anywhere near as harsh as in real life because I personally don't want to delve into that when I play. Got enough of that from a GM from my childhood.
At the end of the day, my players want to play D&D, not Jim Crow: The RPG ;)
OH MY GOD. THIS. THANK YOU.
Because up until this I only saw people discussing gender issues. It made me start to feel like maybe, MAYBE as a black d00d whose been playing and running FRPGS for over 20 years that I'VE BEEN DOING IT WRONG.
Yeah, but it's not the main plotline of the campaing that i am talking about. It's the small things. How can i describe a girly character (even if he is a man) without using any gender-related description ? How can i make a man who wants to have feminine traits if even women don't have them ? Even if you don't like it, no one can like it ? What is an homossexual in a world without gender roles ? (Or homossexuality is only about sex ?)I prefer the antagonism to come from individual actions over cultural standards. The evil empire has to be fought because the evil emperor set his troops to war. The mad scientist is creating abominations of nature and must be stopped. The mad cult is going to summon their elder god. I'm far more interested in the struggle being about overcoming a danger - for your own good, for your land or people, for a friend or love, for profit, for glory and fame, what have you - than beating against the wind of cultural stereotype.
It's hard to explain. I sympathize with your basic idea of "the fight is what makes it worth it". I just disagree that the particular fight of racial/gender-based limitations is a fight worth pursuing when there are more interesting challenges that can be presented.
Most of those are issues I'm either not interested in or not comfortable with pursuing in the context of a game. So as I told Morius, if this came up at my table my response would be "Do whatever but it probably won't come up in the game as a thing to be investigated, I'm not interested in that kind of RP".
|
|
My typical answer to that is "Whatever floats your boat, but it probably won't come up too often in RP". Just not my sort of thing as a GM, I'm not a big fan of relationship drama. The one character in my Kingmaker campaign who's in any sort of romantic partnership, it was more like a formal contract than anything, due to the two being a wizard and a witch respectively and looking at the whole thing from a very practical standpoint given the circumstances.
This is a common brazilian trope, that we roleplay more deeply than USA players because we are more willing to roleplay characters relationships, entire conversations with multiple NPCs, character struggles and virtually pass entire sessions without playing any dice (i have deep problems with pathfinder society game, we really lose a lot of time in roleplaying encounters as we don't like to just roll any diplomacy tests, we make all talking in character.
I never played with anyone not brazilian, so i don't even know if this trope is true, but many people report that north american that come to brazil say that.