| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As many have said, "modern values" is very subjective to where you live (even within Western society.) Take the age of consent for example (best for example because it varies so much even today).
Shall we use the age of consent of some Asian countries? Okay, that's 13.
Shall we use the age of consent of various American states? Okay, 14-16 with (usually but not always) some extra stipulations about the the older party.
Shall we use Clinton's "Americans Abroad" age of consent and make it straight up 18 across the board?
Won't even mention names of countries that don't even have any age of consent at all, but they exist.
Medieval times a lot of girls got married around 12-14. Should we use that as the age of consent?
Then, look at Dungeons and Dragons itself... 16 is minimum age for an adult human (depending on class choice) able to leave home and go adventuring.
So, what I think it goes to with all values, do what is best for your view of how the medieval fantasy world you wish to portray is in regards to such things and what you and your players are comfortable with.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think we should avoid the age of consent issue.
I'm 50, and my wife won't let me out of the house unless I have a note pinned to my shirt that tells people who to call when I get lost.
They make GPS tag implants for people now >.>
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is a bit of a catch-22, but as long as courts and authorities are going to assume that in almost all male-vs-female physical altercation that the man was the responsible party, I would strongly recommend that men don't in fact strike women unless your life is in immediate danger. This includes grabbing hold. It ain't always right, but it is the way it is in the real world. Don't be a fool and believe that because she hit you first, you are protected by claims of self-defense. Typically as a man, you are the guilty party until proven beyond an unreasonable doubt that you are the victim.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I allways thought that men were afraid of losing face when they lost to women, so they segregated sports. I am a big guy, practiced martial arts for a big period of my life and had to fight women and i learned to fear them the same.That's definitely a cultural difference. I recently read about a scheduled MMA-style fight between a man and a woman. I believe I caught it on CNN. IIRC, both fighters were from south of the border.
In the comments section, many of the men were saying that the male fighter had nothing to win. If he wins, then big deal, he beat up a woman. If he loses, then OMG, he lost to a woman.
Personally, I was raised under "you never hit a woman, no matter what." As such, I wouldn't want to compete against women in physical contact sports.
There are very few fight gyms and so if you are practicing any type of martial arts you are training and sparing with women. It's just a reality. When sparing with a woman you really can't get into the "I would never hit a woman" mentality or she will use your face as a punching bag.
And about loosing face. Yes this is big part of it in particular for young kids. Having wrestled for many years you would on occasion see a female wrestler and 9 times out of 10 times her male opponent would forfit the match rather than face the prospect of loosing. I think the girl on our team only had 2 or three matches for the season. For young men (Jr. High, High school) it is viewed as a loose loose situation. They get made fun of either way but the fallout from loosing to a girl would be a never ending parade of locker room hazing that no one should endure.
That was 20 years ago....I'd like to think times have changed but I have a feeling it has not.
Lastly many martial arts technique is king. For instance with BJJ it takes very little strength to lock in a arm bar or triangle choke. It's about application of technique and technique goes beyond the sexes.
-MD
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Age of consent" seems to be one of those issues that just doesn't need to come up in games most of the time. I think a lot of gamers would feel a bit icky if you were regularly coming across NPCs with twelve year old wives. I know I would.
As many have said, "modern values" is very subjective to where you live (even within Western society.) Take the age of consent for example (best for example because it varies so much even today).
Shall we use the age of consent of some Asian countries? Okay, that's 13.
Shall we use the age of consent of various American states? Okay, 14-16 with (usually but not always) some extra stipulations about the the older party.
Shall we use Clinton's "Americans Abroad" age of consent and make it straight up 18 across the board?
Won't even mention names of countries that don't even have any age of consent at all, but they exist.
Medieval times a lot of girls got married around 12-14. Should we use that as the age of consent?
Then, look at Dungeons and Dragons itself... 16 is minimum age for an adult human (depending on class choice) able to leave home and go adventuring.
So, what I think it goes to with all values, do what is best for your view of how the medieval fantasy world you wish to portray is in regards to such things and what you and your players are comfortable with.
Changing subjects, children can be evil ? In anime there is no lack of child antagonists who dies in battle against the protagonist.
Wyrmling dragons still are babies ?
Dragons are more similar in some ways to crocodiles than to humans as far as how capable they are upon hatching. A wyrmling dragon is still a predator capable of holding a territory and bringing down it's own prey. Not to mention dragons seem to lay large number of eggs and have a strategy not that dissimilar to that of sea turtles. (All off the top of my head, so might be mistaken with Pathfinder/DnD dragons).
Evil children are of course a trope in and of themselves. I am personally fine with it if used on occasion, but from what I understand it can be a button pusher if you have kids of your own.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Changing subjects, children can be evil ? In anime there is no lack of child antagonists who dies in battle against the protagonist.
Wyrmling dragons still are babies ?Dragons are more similar in some ways to crocodiles than to humans as far as how capable they are upon hatching. A wyrmling dragon is still a predator capable of holding a territory and bringing down it's own prey. Not to mention dragons seem to lay large number of eggs and have a strategy not that dissimilar to that of sea turtles. (All off the top of my head, so might be mistaken with Pathfinder/DnD dragons).
Evil children are of course a trope in and of themselves. I am personally fine with it if used on occasion, but from what I understand it can be a button pusher if you have kids of your own.
The Draconomicon for 3.5E had dragons as using differing parenting tactics... and, sometimes, the same dragon laying some eggs just off in the wild before returning home to lay more to raise. It also varied by kind of dragon. I would be very interested to see a Pathfinder write-up on this.
And the only time I've seen evil children as really accepted is when they're demons in disguise or undead... and in both cases, it's always been horrific anyway.
So, to summarize: I agree with you.
"Age of consent" seems to be one of those issues that just doesn't need to come up in games most of the time. I think a lot of gamers would feel a bit icky if you were regularly coming across NPCs with twelve year old wives. I know I would.
As many have said, "modern values" is very subjective to where you live (even within Western society.) Take the age of consent for example (best for example because it varies so much even today).
Shall we use the age of consent of some Asian countries? Okay, that's 13.
Shall we use the age of consent of various American states? Okay, 14-16 with (usually but not always) some extra stipulations about the the older party.
Shall we use Clinton's "Americans Abroad" age of consent and make it straight up 18 across the board?
Won't even mention names of countries that don't even have any age of consent at all, but they exist.
Medieval times a lot of girls got married around 12-14. Should we use that as the age of consent?
Then, look at Dungeons and Dragons itself... 16 is minimum age for an adult human (depending on class choice) able to leave home and go adventuring.
So, what I think it goes to with all values, do what is best for your view of how the medieval fantasy world you wish to portray is in regards to such things and what you and your players are comfortable with.
Is that your daughter?
Oh...
Shows we can't escape our social conditioning!
"Age of consent" seems to be one of those issues that just doesn't need to come up in games most of the time. I think a lot of gamers would feel a bit icky if you were regularly coming across NPCs with twelve year old wives. I know I would.
Oh I agree, and it was not my intent to bring up a debate about it or to weird anyone out, but just saying that everything is subjective to where one lives and the laws/morals of one's society can be very different much more when you compare to the medieval world most fantasy is based on.
I don't think there is any society left in the world where slavery is not seen as a bad thing.
|
For those raised that way, in what circumstances is it okay to hit a man, that it wouldn't be to hit a woman?Just off the top of my head, a guy grabs your wallet and starts to run. You're free to hit him or whatever necessary to stop him (short of killing/maiming him of course.) If a woman grabs your wallet and runs, you try to stop her, but you do not strike her.
When I was younger, we used to play stupid games where the result was the loser got punched in the arm. Not a forceful punch mind you (we were all friends,) but it could sting. I'd never play that game with a woman.
I'm sure there's many more.
That very simply makes you a sexist
|
|
It is a bit of a catch-22, but as long as courts and authorities are going to assume that in almost all male-vs-female physical altercation that the man was the responsible party, I would strongly recommend that men don't in fact strike women unless your life is in immediate danger. This includes grabbing hold. It ain't always right, but it is the way it is in the real world. Don't be a fool and believe that because she hit you first, you are protected by claims of self-defense. Typically as a man, you are the guilty party until proven beyond an unreasonable doubt that you are the victim.
even if proven, you should have ran or taken it. This is coming from someone that almost killed an abusive stepmother after the police told my disabled father to not dare fight back
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I can't be the only guy here who's had a female character with the backstory that she started adventuring after fleeing an arranged marriage, can I? (I'm not sure exactly how that relates to the suitability of modern values in fantasy games, except to say that playing with a group that wanted to concentrate on how according to the rules sixteen year olds are adults so the gloves are off would creep me out.)
Sounds like a good start to me hitdice (are you d8 or d10 hit dice?).
I also have a ageing family man backstory in the works for the next melee char. "Just one more dungeon, and I can retire. The wife will finally be happy with our wealth level". For the mortgage!
|
I allways thought that men were afraid of losing face when they lost to women, so they segregated sports. I am a big guy, practiced martial arts for a big period of my life and had to fight women and i learned to fear them the same.
Of course it does. That's why the combat sports stay segregated, just like other sports. It's also why most of the unarmed combat sports have weight classes as well.
I play Tennis. Now, I am in no way a pro, nor a large guy, but when i really try, i can serve a ball at around 190 kilometers per hour. I've been playing with a female friend who is trying to go pro (she might succeed). She can't return that serve. And some of my stronger backhands or forehands are also too strong for her. Let's not even talk smatches.
Now, I am certain that Serena Williams could beat me like a kitten, but she is an exception, a large and strong woman.
I should add that one of the soundest beatings I ever received was from a girl inches shorter then me. Her fists felt like hammers.
But like I said, exceptions.
Maoris, pacific islanders, some ethnic groups of Aboriginals or Africans, there are plenty of ethnic groups that have a lot of large and strong women.
Dainty white folk ain't all dere is!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can't be the only guy here who's had a female character with the backstory that she started adventuring after fleeing an arranged marriage, can I?
I didn't do that as a player, but I did have an NPC before who had a similar situation. She came from a split marriage of two cultures. Her father's culture was one of might makes right. Her mother's was more "traditional" in that women were expected to marry for the good of the extended family.
The NPC defeated the guy that was requesting her hand in marriage, and according to her father's beliefs (which she more adhered to), that meant he wasn't a suitable husband.
It's never "appropriate" to strike anyone violently. It's never "okay", whether it's men or women, it's just an unfortunate necessity in some cases.
Coming to blows when it isn't absolutely necessary is a sign of poor character, coming to blows when it isn't absolutely necessary only with men [/i]because they are men, and not women[/i]... in my opinion, that might be a sign of even poorer character. It's good that you aren't punching someone that makes you angry, but one should be showing restraint because one isn't rash, not because one thinks women are dainty flowers that need to be treated differently.
Let's just not get violent unless our lives are threatened?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sometimes when I'm bored, I abuse members of the lower classes to entertain myself, but never their women--I'm not uncivilized!
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Quite so good sir! We gentlemen have standards to maintain.
Sometimes when I'm bored, I abuse members of the lower classes to entertain myself, but never their women--I'm not uncivilized!
You know, this is a really funny, but this post reminded me of some insight of where such things came from.
Women had, historically (though not always), been targets for many crimes, focused upon by oppression and repression. This is true in many cases today as well, and not just in Western Society.
In some regard, the concept of Unequaled Gender, that is the "Civilized" treatment of women, probably came about as a method of curbing injustice.
Never hit a woman? Method of stopping the otherwise expected spousal abuse.
Never harm a woman? Method of stopping the rather oft-used time "honored" Privileged class utilization of women as a political tool via rape or enslavement.
And so on.
Effectively such a (comprehensibly) frustrating view was the "early" (by which I mean resurgent and occasionally recurrent) method by which various human cultures first get the idea, "You know, treating people this way is bad... and especially when they lack the right to defend themselves or otherwise keep themselves safe."
The reason is tends to get stuck in the craw of many modern and independent feminists (using the term in the good way) is, frankly, they're strong - they have political, social, and so on rights, privileges, and responsibilities that were previously lacking. Treating them as weaker grates because they are not.
However, the problem of gender inequality still exists. Because of that inequality, it is the natural tendency for those of good will and heart to seek to protect, through whatever means available, those who have less of something - less Privilege is the way it's termed here, so often, though it can be applied to less Wealth, less Opportunities, and so on as well.
The methods of these protections and provisions vary, but ultimately it's a method by which social inequality is addressed, ensuring certain "rights" and "privileges" that those with more power (or privilege) in general do not possess.
In effect, it was the first step of Equal Rights, the only problem (and I understand why it is a problem) is that it's fundamentally a "Separate, but Equal Rights" which can feel really denigrating when, in fact, it's meant to do the opposite.
In much the same way some people insist that a given term may be offensive when applied to them, others insist that this "coddling" is equally (or more-so) offensive, as it feels that it undercuts and devalues their actual strengths in a manner that they have no recourse to appeal to - because appealing to it either makes them weak ("see? they appeal, thus they are unable to cope") or barbaric ("they refuse? how violent!") when neither are actually supposed to be true... but, of course, for a certain segment of the population are true, because of their racist or sexist (even more-or-less benign racist or sexist*) tendencies.
In any event, it's an interesting thing with humans. We see a problem and we attempt to address it. We don't always succeed at doing it the best way, but the fact that such a system of thought exists is actually a rather inspiring thing - not because it actually grants equality (it clearly doesn't), but rather because it's a sign that people, even if mistaken, are trying to be good and have effectively equal (if, unfortunately**, separate) rights for all.
Despite it being a failure for equality, the existence of such a code (after reflecting on its origins and probably causes) does rekindle some faith in humanity.
* "Benign" in the sense that they want nothing but the best for <insert group here>, even though, on some level, they do not register them as equals for <reason>. Not "Benign" in the sense that it causes no harm, only in the sense that the person in question doesn't wish to cause harm.
** To our egalitarian sensibilities. There are many who feel differently.
EDITED: to mention
It's never "appropriate" to strike anyone violently. It's never "okay", whether it's men or women, it's just an unfortunate necessity in some cases.
Coming to blows when it isn't absolutely necessary is a sign of poor character, coming to blows when it isn't absolutely necessary only with men because they are men, and not women... in my opinion, that might be a sign of even poorer character. It's good that you aren't punching someone that makes you angry, but one should be showing restraint because one isn't rash, not because one thinks women are dainty flowers that need to be treated differently.
Let's just not get violent unless our lives are threatened?
^ While the "never 'appropriate'" or "okay" I disagree with, I suspect this is just a matter of semantics on our part.
The last paragraph is agreed in its entirety.
Effectively: violence is the appropriate response to violence, and don't do it otherwise.
The only thing I don't necessarily agree with is the sign of "poorer" character, because I don't necessarily agree with the reasoning behind the "why". I suspect that many people would agree with the words used, but there is a reason why "female" would mark the target as "unacceptable" - a great many social, political, and ethical reasons, mostly relating to the whole concept of Privilege from the other thread.
But, you know, I understand why it would be grating. Good people don't have to like each other or even agree with each other. And most people don't have the vocabulary (myself included all too often) or self-possession or self-insight (both still often include me) to be able to fully verbalize they why behind the rules they're following. (Truth be told, I can only partially grasp at its origins based off of reasoning and consideration of why it would ever come about - it certainly serves no purpose for males to institute such rules, unless you're exceedingly and depressingly cynical of humanity, which I'm not, yet.)
That said, I do suspect that some look down on women in general and thus follow this code because they are somehow "inferior". And that can be encouraged (and even mixed up with) the real reason that such a code was created and the lessening of its purpose across the board that comes along with the increasing freedom and responsibility - increasing equity between sexes.
I don't think it will ever fully go away, though, as the biological differences (including the ability to reproduce, which, in the end, is kind of super-important for the success of a species) are pretty solid right now. If we eventually can make more humans without the whole unpleasant birthing process we've got now? Then it probably will go away. But for the foreseeable future, at least some elements of it will remain, no matter what, I suspect, as a method of protecting those who have a tendency (though not necessarily at any given moment) to undergo larger periods of vulnerability.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think there is any society left in the world where slavery is not seen as a bad thing.
Of course, having an illegal immigrant living in a closet and working for food as I have hidden her pass is nothing like slavering. After all, it was her own choice to leave her country and take the job.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Nooo, absolutely not. If the main adventuring area is egalitarian, good bye Robin Hood game, or the fight the established forces of evil quests. Egalitarian sameness can kill a setting. For example, Golarion is kept spicy by having truly different governments and some very strange places rather than egalitarian sameness. Not everything has to be close to us now, we are talking about fantasy after all.You can have conflict, oppression, evil, etc. without falling back on tired, old racism and sexism. Not forcing players to put up with fantasy sexism and racism isn't the same as making the entire setting a samey and conflict-free utopia.
So why do those particular categories of things that might offend someone get special privilege as untouchable whereas the other things that might offend someone else equally shouldn't? Plenty of people are 'offended' by war, so we shouldn't represent any of that. Theft? Can't have that around. Let's see. Can't have any kings or nobility. Almost certainly are people offended by that concept ...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Every time this argument appear in our table, we remember that Michelle Rodriguez is a woman and if she was playing said female NPC in a movie, everyone would believe she could win a fight against any man.There is ONE sport in real world that i know that women are equal, and many times even bested men competitors: Historical Fencing, yeah, with armor, shield, swords and hammers. (Google for Battle of Nations or Historical Fencing to know what i mean).In real life, an average woman fighting hand-to-hand against an average man is going to lose 95% of the time.
The existence of exceptions does not eliminate the existence of tendencies.
However, pcs break the mold anyway.
Slavery still exists in Africa, the middle east and wherever there is child prostitution. Stay informed people.
I can't be the only guy here who's had a female character with the backstory that she started adventuring after fleeing an arranged marriage, can I? (I'm not sure exactly how that relates to the suitability of modern values in fantasy games, except to say that playing with a group that wanted to concentrate on how according to the rules sixteen year olds are adults so the gloves are off would creep me out.)
One of my current characters fled an arranged marriage, then some things happened(it's a long back story), she ended up running into the guy along with some of his guards, killed them all and fled the country.
I made the guy she was arranged to be married to over 60(describing him as four times her age - 16 at the time she fled) because adherence to duty is one of her defining traits and I wanted it to be so onerous that even she had to opt out.
Really, though, "Ran away from X" is a nice easy shortcut for a character back story, I'd have to imagine "Arranged Marriage" comes up from time to time at many tables.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've played a male character (noble) that made arranging a marriage for him very difficult. He either rejected his parents' choices for him outright, or went to great lengths to ruin any plans they made for him to marry said women. Eventually, he was forced to flee when they would no longer put up with his antics.
My girlfriend has similarly played a character (commoner) fleeing an arranged marriage, though her's was a female character. The husband-to-be was a vampire, too, so she had an added incentive to run away from that one. Her character's parents didn't really have a choice, though, in arranging that marriage. The vampire could pretty much choose any woman he pleased, since nobody would oppose him; it was also his "right" as a noble to elevate any woman of his choice to highborn status. Her character wasn't really interested...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Slavery still exists in Africa, the middle east and wherever there is child prostitution. Stay informed people.
Relink from the Halfling Paladin thread:
Coalition of Immokalee Workers Anti-Slavery Campaign
For those who like comic books, I recommend Chris Hedges and Joe Sacco's Days of Destruction, Days of Revolt.
Burn it down!
Vive le Galt!
|
The existence of exceptions does not eliminate the existence of tendencies.However, pcs break the mold anyway.
Everyone is an exception somewhere, someway. Our society isn't about rewarding people who are better than others ? Why being an exceptional male a vantage and an exceptional female a demerit ?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think most males and females in medieval times wanted to become a young wealthy widows, like most teenagers wants to be celebrities today. Though runaways do make better stories and game characters.
But there is also other great background options. Have anyone ever played any of these?
- Widowed woman driven away by first son of her dead husband?
- Orphaned boy or girl driven away by stepmother, that her son would inherit everything.
- Youngest child of flock of childrens. While his/her brothers and sisters got land, wealth and titles, she/he got full set of adventuring gears or perhaps only one pair of shoes.
- Woman given as wife/reward for older adventurer for saving her village, who continue adventuring dressed as man and in his name after his death.
- Deserted man or woman, whose love selected older one for money. Can show his/her love only from far and wait for the day when his/her love is widowed and could remarry.
Do modern values have place in fantasy game?
Depends. Is it a modern fantasy game?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thanks, Doodlebug, for the link!
Slavery is a thing, and it's pretty awful. That slavery which remains is even worse than earlier slavery because not only is the act taboo, but it's illegal, and thus the only remaining enslavement is more or less of the worst kind possible.
That is not a call to re-legalize slavery. That would be awful. Instead, it's noting that, fortunately, slavery has mostly been eliminated - the problems that we run into in this part of the world is that the slavery that remains is of the worst sort: illegal, highest of the dehumanizing, and, worst of all, kept secret, through whatever means are necessary to do so (including terrible abuses on the slaves in question to make them keep that secret). This leaves it in a terrible position. Especially with the primary (Western) "market" for slaves: sex trafficking. The very idea makes me... ill. Doodlebug's linked organization is a very good thing.
To be clear, in my above post, I don't think I said, but I, too, would totally find such un-egalitarian treatment grating. I can entirely understand the frustration the inequitable treatment causes. It's patronizing. That's... frustrating.
But, at least in many cases, it's an attempt to be a good person by addressing perceived inequality as a result of social norms and customs instead of the idea that they are inherently inferior.
I, too, was raised with that cultural idea, and I have it strongly, deeply ingrained. To the point that when we took Karate together, I had to work much harder to actually get myself to spar with, say, my wife, and usually, especially if I slipped in concentration, I would (only semi-consciously) pull my punches, kicks, etc, striking more slowly and so on.
In my case, though, I was raised in a culture that was steeped in the sub-culture of inequality. My mother is, in some ways, quite progressive for our sub-culture. In other ways, we were not.
My own hesitancy comes not because, "It's a woman, and clearly inferior!" but rather, "It's a woman! I've been taught not to!" combined with, "Given the general tendencies of a) bell-curve distribution, b) normal culturally accepted aggressiveness v. passiveness (and the rolls such things play in development), c) lifestyle choices, and d) boons that I tend to gain by virtue of being me; this tends toward being an unfair fight!" combined with "I really don't want to hit people!" combined with other stuff maybe, that I haven't come up with. But most of the time I'm not thinking that, because, frankly, that's a lot of things to think at the same time. Instead I'll start with the easiest and act on it reflexively, while the rest comes out with careful thought and deliberation.
That said, after having practiced Karate** with both my wife and my 65+ year-old female coworker (and having literally been kicked from the bed by the former, in her sleep after our first few sessions*) I can attest that there are, in fact, women who are much stronger than I. And, frankly, that's no shame - that's awesome.
* Literally. I don't mean the figurative "literally" that many do. I mean I was awake, she rolled over, and reflexively-straight-kicked me, forcing me right off the side of our bed and onto the floor. It hurt. I... didn't get much sleep that night, as that wasn't the only time the attempt came - pretty much any time she rolled over she kicked, regardless of which direction. I realized later that she was rolling over in a similar way to turning with one of our katas we'd been practicing heavily. This moment still makes me laugh.
** This was the event that actually got me to begin really thinking hard about the origin of "gentle treatment". I mean, if they're so obviously skilled, why treat them differently? The conclusion I came to a few posts above was the source of it.
I can't be the only guy here who's had a female character with the backstory that she started adventuring after fleeing an arranged marriage, can I? (I'm not sure exactly how that relates to the suitability of modern values in fantasy games, except to say that playing with a group that wanted to concentrate on how according to the rules sixteen year olds are adults so the gloves are off would creep me out.)One of my current characters fled an arranged marriage, then some things happened(it's a long back story), she ended up running into the guy along with some of his guards, killed them all and fled the country.
I made the guy she was arranged to be married to over 60(describing him as four times her age - 16 at the time she fled) because adherence to duty is one of her defining traits and I wanted it to be so onerous that even she had to opt out.
Really, though, "Ran away from X" is a nice easy shortcut for a character back story, I'd have to imagine "Arranged Marriage" comes up from time to time at many tables.
Even obedient dutiful lawfuls sometimes say no.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Age of consent" seems to be one of those issues that just doesn't need to come up in games most of the time. I think a lot of gamers would feel a bit icky if you were regularly coming across NPCs with twelve year old wives. I know I would.
Heh, in my campaign, the emperor has 7 years old and he is scheduled to choose to marry between 2 women, one with 21 and another with 26, or choose one to be Shogun and marry with her daughter. And, hey, it's just news from the empire for the players!
And talking about Age of Consent, regarding Pathfinder (and Ultimate Campaign), rule for young character's age of consent can be really messed up.
What brings on Draco Bahamut's question: Yes, children can be villains - there are even rules for that in Ultimate Campaign.
My female character was proposed to marry against her will, she then challenged her "fiancee" to a duel, In the duel spot, he started to talk how he would treat her well and stuff. Before he ended his little speech she trowed a club on his face THEN run away!
Now, two years and 14 levels later, she wants to make amends to her family, because she thinks they overreacted, but didn't mean to make her unhappy, she will not marry with anyone against her will though, and now she has the brawl to enforce it.
About gender inequality in the real world. I think it will EVER exists but, i hope someday, it will ceases to be a problem.
Tacticslion, about slavery - Nowadays, we have illegal slavery in some few countries that it's just awful. But in many other places we have something that someone could say it is worst than slavery, that is forced labor. The employee is forced to work 20 hours a day to gain a meager wage that is paid only when their employers want. They are forced because the company he works pretty much owns the city, and will cause much grief on his life if he choose not to work on their factory or mine. I think this outrageous, and it's often used by the great companies to make production cheaper.
Tacticslion, about slavery - Nowadays, we have illegal slavery in some few countries that it's just awful. But in many other places we have something that someone could say it is worst than slavery, that is forced labor. The employee is forced to work 20 hours a day to gain a meager wage that is paid only when their employers want. They are forced because the company he works pretty much owns the city, and will cause much grief on his life if he choose not to work on their factory or mine. I think this outrageous, and it's often used by the great companies to make production cheaper.
I am aware, and I actually agree that it's just as horrible - I think by that point, though, we're just quibbling over "slavery".
Indentured Servitude, Forced Labor, Slavery, Serfdom, and so on are all, to me, just facets of the same enforcement of inequality by exploitation for personal gain.
It is, in fact, horrible, and the occasional use of "wages" to "prove" it's not slavery is... well, it's just poor justification, over-all, an attempt to cover themselves, at best.
This kind of thing is what I meant by, "highest of the dehumanizing, and, worst of all, kept secret, through whatever means are necessary to do so (including terrible abuses on the slaves in question to make them keep that secret)".
The illegal part was just confusing, I suppose. Sorry, I was trying to say, "supposed to be".
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
A man chooses, a slave obeys, but what is someone who choose to obey ?
A husband?
A man chooses, a slave obeys, but what is someone who choose to obey ?A husband?
I would have suggested a follower, but that was hilarious. :D
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I was told that in USA, couples have separate bank accounts and is not expected for the husband to give control of his money to his wife. Here in Brazil, the custom is that for a couple to have a joint account, so the woman control everything. So we are slaves. Please free us.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I was told that in USA, couples have separate bank accounts and is not expected for the husband to give control of his money to his wife. Here in Brazil, the custom is that for a couple to have a joint account, so the woman control everything. So we are slaves. Please free us.
Uh... really depends on the people you talk to. My wife and I only have one account.
Everyone is an exception somewhere, someway. Our society isn't about rewarding people who are better than others ? Why being an exceptional male a vantage and an exceptional female a demerit ?
The existence of exceptions does not eliminate the existence of tendencies.However, pcs break the mold anyway.
Perhaps I'm confused, but where did I say that being an exceptional female was a demerit? Or the converse?
This business about how you can hit a man but not a woman, etc., derives, in my opinion, not just from the idea that women are physically weaker, but also that they don't really have mental autonomy and so (like children, or animals) can't be held responsible for their actions.So are you suggesting that there are 0 times where it is appropriate for a man to strike another man, or are you saying that in appropriate situations, its okay for a man to strike a woman?
I wasn't suggesting either of those things. I was speculating as to the (oft-unexamined) assumption underlying a commonly-held meme.
I was raised to not hit a woman in anger in any situation.
It's the job of a gentleman to look out for the fairer sex.
Just my 2 cp.
I just generally consider it my job to help out those not as big or strong as me, whether thta is male female, because of age or being a child, whatever ...
|
|
Perhaps I'm confused, but where did I say that being an exceptional female was a demerit? Or the converse?Everyone is an exception somewhere, someway. Our society isn't about rewarding people who are better than others ? Why being an exceptional male a vantage and an exceptional female a demerit ?
The existence of exceptions does not eliminate the existence of tendencies.However, pcs break the mold anyway.
Bolded. Not for the individual, but for the reputation of the sex.