Is there some only-male stuff?

[Cavall]

DM Beckett wrote:

One of the factors I think, especially in a historical sense is that, outside of how it is perceived out of game, (male only is bad, female only is good/empowering), something that tends to happen most of the time when these groups are included in some fashion is that the male-only ones tend to not really be "only", just mostly, which leaves an avenue for members of the opposite group, (females in this case) to still potentially get in if they want, without the need to actually switch or hide their gender.

On the other hand, female-only groups tend to be outright exclusive, 100% female only, or very, very close too it, and even tend to include things like sex change or hiding gender to not be possible, (the goddess knows or the like).

This is not universal, just something fairly common, I think as far as to how these two groups are presented. Many times, the Male-only ones are not even particularly intended to be exclusively male on their own as much as it's a characteristic of that group in general, (tends to be more appealing to males or whatever, or just hasn't really ever had a female want in, but doesn't outright exclude them), while in my opinion this tends to be the opposite for Female-only groups, where a large point of the group is that it's exclusive and then sort of builds up the characterization from there.

A few examples I can think off, historically are the Daughters of Cacophony and the Black Furies from World of Darkness. The Daughters of Cacophony where originally presented as a mainly female group of "sirens". They where a group of Vampires, so had no biological need for male or female members and had the option to choose who they turned into a Vampire, and the original idea was that it tended to appeal to females moreso than males, and so had disproportionate membership. However, the fans tended to see this as more of a challenge, and (they where an uncommon group, so I don't mean to make it sound like it happened all the time), tended to make more male members for play than...

Let's not forget the blood brothers bloodline. Which was very male dominated, as a flip side to the daughters of the cacophony.

[Daniel Yeatman]

On the one hand I would like to see a at least a few more gender specific options available, however now that I've seen what already exists I'm afraid they'll just make more evil options, like what we have for Kostchchie and Gyronna.

[DM Beckett]

FormerFiend wrote:

DM Beckett wrote:

Chromantic Durgon <3 wrote:

I have a vague recollection of something to do with the god of farming, the one with the bow for a symbol? I'm blanking on his name. I think he had a sexism thing at some point

EDIT: Erastil

It wasn't that. The original write up presented Erastil as (being a deity of farming, community, and rural civilizations), as having strong family bonds and wanting his followers to stay home, work hard, and have babies. It wasn't mysogonist at all really, it just sort of blew up on the internet. Like Set said, Erastil wanted both males and females to stay home, raise children, and build strong communities, and that going out to adventure, male or female endangered the community.

I could be wrong, but I'm pretty certain Erastil does allow female Clerics/Paladins.

Asmodeus allows female divine casters, he's still a misogynist in Pathfinder. Not a move I'm particularly happy with but it's there.

I was simply meaning that Erastil is/was not Male only.

[Alzrius]

DM Beckett wrote:

I could be wrong, but I believe that Otiluke, Tenser, and the like where all Player Character in Gygax's original and early games, and the reason those spells where named for them is because it was those PCs are the ones that actually created them.

Fun fact, we know that's not the case for at least one of those spells:

E. Gary Gygax Jr. wrote:

I was always the mapper and would jump into hand to hand if I had no useful spell to throw (Tensers Transformation was created not by me but because of my actions).

[Alzrius]

Cruel Illusion wrote:

Quandary wrote:

Gulthor wrote:

Male Lashunta are the only +Str/+Int race in the game.

That was semi ret-conned away with Starfinder's move to saying either sex CHOOSES their sub-racial evolution during puberty or something, overt representation of biological sexual-dimorphism not desired apparently. Original Lashunta dimorphism re-cast as cultural norm which later faded away.

Where was this said?

Crystal Frasier went into some detail about it over here. The long and short of it is, in her words from another thread, "We've taken some steps to correct problematic elements of the lashunta for Starfinder."

[Cruel Illusion]

Alzrius wrote:

Cruel Illusion wrote:

Quandary wrote:

Gulthor wrote:

Male Lashunta are the only +Str/+Int race in the game.

That was semi ret-conned away with Starfinder's move to saying either sex CHOOSES their sub-racial evolution during puberty or something, overt representation of biological sexual-dimorphism not desired apparently. Original Lashunta dimorphism re-cast as cultural norm which later faded away.

Where was this said?

Crystal Frasier went into some detail about it over here. The long and short of it is, in her words from another thread, "We've taken some steps to correct problematic elements of the lashunta for Starfinder."

Thank you. It's an odd change, but I like that Lashunta move away from the problematic tropes they embodied

[Coquelicot Dragon]

Triune wrote:

Coquelicot Dragon wrote:

The entire history of gaming.

Some people post to contribute to a topic.

Some post to try to prove how clever they are.

Some post to bait total strangers because...

Huh. You know, I don't really know why some people do that.

[Chromantic Durgon <3]

Kjeldorn wrote:

I completely understand and tend to agree Durgon.

My point, though, was more to the fact that when you start using exclusiveness (ie male/female/race/other) as a gating mechanism, you tend to get more of the same. Players may even start to think in those lines, when they build upon the world-lore.

To put it another way. If you say that "X is females only", you will almost certainly get "How does that work?", "if X is females only, can Y be males only?" and "Why can't males be X?", you have, to a certain extend, legitimized the usage of exclusiveness as a gating tool for further game-design.
Now if this is good or bad thing is also complicated, as you yourself pointed out, that it can be used to great effect to add flavour to a setting.

I see what you're saying now and agree. Isn't it lovely agreeing with people on these boards.

[Kalindlara]

DM Beckett wrote:

It wasn't that. The original write up presented Erastil as (being a deity of farming, community, and rural civilizations), as having strong family bonds and wanting his followers to stay home, work hard, and have babies. It wasn't mysogonist at all really, it just sort of blew up on the internet. Like Set said, Erastil wanted both males and females to stay home, raise children, and build strong communities, and that going out to adventure, male or female endangered the community.

...

Rivers Run Red, page 67 wrote:

He believes the strength of a man’s will makes him the center of a household, and while women can be strong, they should defer to and support their husbands, as their role is to look after the house and raise strong children (consequently, there are few female priests in his church). Independent-minded women, he believes, can be disruptive to communities, and it is best to marry them off quickly so their duties as wife and mother command their attention.

[John Mechalas]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

The entire history of gaming, which is what Coquelicot Dragon was referring to I believe, has been male dominated in terms of "who is conspicuously present in gaming spaces" (e.g. cons, games at shops, etc.) I'm sure we've all heard horror stories of these spaces being actively or passively hostile to women, so I don't need to repeat them here.

Stepping out of my alias to answer this.

Yes. That's the sort of thing I was referring to. The roots of the game are very male-oriented and male-dominated, with women being heavily objectified. And though much has changed, a look at fantasy artwork over the years has shown very little progress on the latter given that it's been 40 years: it's still largely generous boobs and scant clothes. If you want a game to be inclusive, women have to feel welcome to the table as equal participants and not set decoration or a potential dating pool.

Male-exclusive elements in a historically male-dominated game played in a male-dominated society are the opposite of that. You can have them, but they are amplified many times over because of that history, and each one makes it significantly more difficult to have an overall inclusive game experience.

[Triune]

Coquelicot Dragon wrote:

Triune wrote:

Coquelicot Dragon wrote:

The entire history of gaming.

Some people post to contribute to a topic.

Some post to try to prove how clever they are.

Some post to bait total strangers because...

Huh. You know, I don't really know why some people do that.

The thread had been (quite remarkably, actually) and is still pretty well reasoned and civil aside from you. You then come in with a sound bite sized comment obviously meant to be inflammatory.

I posted to try and get you to stop being that person, by pointing out how transparent it was. Obviously my effort was doomed to fail, but what can I say, hope springs eternal.

But whatever, believe what you'd like to believe.

[bugleyman]

Triune wrote:

Some people post to contribute to a topic.

Some post to try to prove how clever they are.

Triune wrote:

I posted to try and get you to stop being that person, by pointing out how transparent it was.

Yeah, that's B.S. You got annoyed and immediately resorted to a personal attack. If you really want someone to change their behavior, that is the absolute worst way to go about convincing them.

[Icyshadow]

I recall there being some real world mystery cults that were male-only in ancient times. There were also some female-only ones. Wouldn't know how many of those have been adapted to a setting like Golarion...

[Set]

Icyshadow wrote:

I recall there being some real world mystery cults that were male-only in ancient times. There were also some female-only ones. Wouldn't know how many of those have been adapted to a setting like Golarion...

The Eleusinian Mysteries, IIRC, was a prominent one, with a nature-goddess theme.

With the Golarion equivalent to Demeter being the ambisexual Gozreh, a female only mystery cult on that specific subject seems less on-theme.

Indeed, Golarion's kind of nipped some baked-in sexism right in the bud by having a few of the more 'macho' divine archetypes, such as gods of chivalry and piracy, be female, so that anyone inclined to point at real world boy's only clubs like various orders of knighthood, or that old 'it's bad luck to have a woman on board a ship' nonsense will get shut down fast by someone pointing to Iomedae or Besmara. Ditto with having a female sun god, which, Amaterasu Omikami aside, is more commonly associated with male gods like Ra and Apollo.

That's kind of cool.

If they'd gone farther down that road and made some traditionally female roles (like the gods of art, beauty or lust) male, that might have made things even more gender-role-convention-defying.

[John Mechalas]

Triune wrote:

The thread had been (quite remarkably, actually) and is still pretty well reasoned and civil aside from you. You then come in with a sound bite sized comment obviously meant to be inflammatory.

I posted to try and get you to stop being that person, by pointing out how transparent it was. Obviously my effort was doomed to fail, but what can I say, hope springs eternal.

Stepping out of my alias to respond to this.

I use Coquelicot Dragon for silliness and irreverence. You don't have to like the irreverence, of course, and it doesn't bother me if you don't. The CD post, while certainly irreverent, was also grounded in truth. What it wasn't, however, was a personal attack on the author.

Assigning motives to a person based on what they write is the least productive, most inflammatory and least civil way to make a point. Which is quite ironic given what is quoted above.

I am not interested in derailing this thread any further. If you wish to continue this discussion, send me a PM.

[Irontruth]

Triune wrote:

Coquelicot Dragon wrote:

Bearserk wrote:

We have an all female ...

Did i miss something?

The entire history of gaming.

Some people post to contribute to a topic.

Some post to try to prove how clever they are.

Next time RTFP.

This post is neither well-reasoned or civil.

I'm sure the author displays those traits in other situations regularly. This post is not one of those times though.

[PossibleCabbage]

I think a thing worth considering is that "men only" and "women only" groups will mean very different things to a modern audience.

Specifically, you would make a group exclusive to men/women when you want that group to represent some aspect of masculinity/femininity. While in modern western society, there are relatively few aspects of masculinity unavailable to women the reverse is not true.

Since we now rarely bat an eye at women athletes, soldiers, firefighters, police officers, loggers, hunters, industrial workers, etc. there is relatively little in the sphere of masculinity that you could have your "men only" fantasy group revolve around that's not either essentialism or misogyny (and neither of those things are fun.)

You can, however, do the reverse and have it make sense to a modern audience.

[Ring_of_Gyges]

Gender locked mechanics seem to require belief in gender difference in ability that are unpalatable to modern audiences.

If Taldor has a legal system that only allows men to inherit because reasons, that's Taldans being sexist.

By contrast if Pathfinder has a rules system that says only men can be sorcerers because only men have some innate spark of whatever then that's *Paizo* being sexist.

Prestige classes seem like they straddle the line between being mechanics and setting, but really they're mechanics. If the "manly lasso fighters of manly town" get a bunch of unique lasso abilities and (in universe) are a sexist organization which excludes women, you don't need to add a mechanical gender restriction to the rules.

If the rules are gender neutral, you can still have sexist NPCs who aren't willing to teach their special lasso techniques to women. If the rules say, as a mechanical matter, "male only" then you have rules that say women can't learn the techniques even if some rogue heretic lasso master wants to teach them.

The mechanical decision that women literally can't learn the techniques requires the assumption that there is some capability or innate talent men have and women don't. If the rules start saying men are capable of things women aren't you're getting into real world sexism, not the fictional sexism of sexist NPCs.

[thejeff]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I think a thing worth considering is that "men only" and "women only" groups will mean very different things to a modern audience.

Specifically, you would make a group exclusive to men/women when you want that group to represent some aspect of masculinity/femininity. While in modern western society, there are relatively few aspects of masculinity unavailable to women the reverse is not true.

Since we now rarely bat an eye at women athletes, soldiers, firefighters, police officers, loggers, hunters, industrial workers, etc. there is relatively little in the sphere of masculinity that you could have your "men only" fantasy group revolve around that's not either essentialism or misogyny (and neither of those things are fun.)

You can, however, do the reverse and have it make sense to a modern audience.

I'd say "rarely bat an eye" is stretching it. For example, though women in the military are increasingly common, it was only a couple years ago that "combat roles" were opened to them - a decision that's still controversial to many.

While strictly men-only roles are rarer now, they've been common throughout history up until the last few generations at best (and still true in parts of the world), particularly in the time periods the game draws on for inspiration.

Beyond that, even in the absence of men-only groups, groups where the default assumption is male are very common. Establishing specific women only (or even overwhelming majority women) groups help counter that.

Though the women-dominant groups can fall prey to the Daughters of Cacophony problem discussed earlier - where "overwhelmingly women" became an informed characteristic that didn't match what was actually seen in play.

[thejeff]

Ring_of_Gyges wrote:

Gender locked mechanics seem to require belief in gender difference in ability that are unpalatable to modern audiences.

If Taldor has a legal system that only allows men to inherit because reasons, that's Taldans being sexist.

By contrast if Pathfinder has a rules system that says only men can be sorcerers because only men have some innate spark of whatever then that's *Paizo* being sexist.

Prestige classes seem like they straddle the line between being mechanics and setting, but really they're mechanics. If the "manly lasso fighters of manly town" get a bunch of unique lasso abilities and (in universe) are a sexist organization which excludes women, you don't need to add a mechanical gender restriction to the rules.

If the rules are gender neutral, you can still have sexist NPCs who aren't willing to teach their special lasso techniques to women. If the rules say, as a mechanical matter, "male only" then you have rules that say women can't learn the techniques even if some rogue heretic lasso master wants to teach them.

The mechanical decision that women literally can't learn the techniques requires the assumption that there is some capability or innate talent men have and women don't. If the rules start saying men are capable of things women aren't you're getting into real world sexism, not the fictional sexism of sexist NPCs.

This is a larger problem with mechanics bound to setting groups and doesn't really have the sexist implications you suggest. There are plenty of examples of mechanical advantages tied to various setting aspects like race, ethnicity, particular deities, etc.

Those may bother some based on arguments about "rogue heretic masters" who should be able to teach them to anyone, but the intent behind them is that they're cultural skills, not that anyone outside the group is inferior.

[FormerFiend]

In regards to the concept of an all male race, any single gendered race has too options; either they reproduce by asexual means such as parthenogenesis - which biologically speaking would preclude them from being 'male', strictly speaking, even if their physical form was one that we'd consider masculine.

Other alternative would be doing what hags do to produce changelings; using members of the opposite gender of other races to reproduce. This has... well, a lot of unfortunate connotations to it. Changelings as it is are almost always the result of rape - either by force or deception.

We actually already have at least one race that's always the result of males of a monster race impregnating human women - dhampirs. And while I don't think it's explicitly said in their bestiary but if I recall correctly from Lovecraft, deep one hybrids are always the result of a male deep one impregnating a female human.

So that's two races we have that are the result of the same basic method as changelings; a supernatural race that can only sexually reproduce by impregnating mortal women. And neither of them are restricted to male only.

I don't know that we need another race that reproduces by that same method just so we could have a male-only race. Not that anyone's suggesting that.

[Gulthor]

Ring_of_Gyges wrote:

Gender locked mechanics seem to require belief in gender difference in ability that are unpalatable to modern audiences.

(...)By contrast if Pathfinder has a rules system that says only men can be sorcerers because only men have some innate spark of whatever then that's *Paizo* being sexist.

(...)The mechanical decision that women literally can't learn the techniques requires the assumption that there is some capability or innate talent men have and women don't. If the rules start saying men are capable of things women aren't you're getting into real world sexism, not the fictional sexism of sexist NPCs.

I want to open by saying that I am very much in favor of there *not* being mechanics locked out to different genders. I also think that for Paizo to make an official stance that locks out entire genders from certain classes, then that's problematic.

However, I *am* going to suggest that these kinds of restrictions *can* make sense in a world-building sense, as long as there's some sort of equivalence.

I'm a huge fan of the Wheel of Time series, and a very deep, central theme of the entire series is that the magic of the world is segregated by gender - saidin can only be wielded by men and saidar can only be wielded by women. It works, it's interesting, and it certainly doesn't interfere with Robert Jordan writing awesome characters of either gender. But I'm glad that this sort of theme isn't a central feature of Paizo's official works.

[Ambrosia Slaad]

{shrug} It seems weird to call a single-gender race "male" (or "female" for that matter), but why couldn't the race just incorporate DNA from an other-race (humanoid) donor? It doesn't have to be sexual in our sense of it, just collect samples from the usual shed epidermal cells, then store it until ready for conception. Heck, have a biological layer in the race's skin that combines and randomizes the collected DNA from multiple samples, then transports the synthesized genetic material into a pouch.

As for the child, they can still gestate it in a pouch, either as live birth or ovoviviparous, or lay eggs like monotremes do. The pouch/womb doesn't even need to be a full-time thing, shrinking up and remaining dormant until fertility is induced.

Disclaimer: This doesn't seem weird to me, but then I suggested fey reproducing via stories and conversation, so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.

[Set]

Ambrosia Slaad wrote:

{SNIP} Disclaimer: This doesn't seem weird to me, but then I suggested fey reproducing via stories and conversation, so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.

[tangent] That sounds kind of cool. Every member of race X is born pregnant, but it's not until they hear something really cool or interesting that the tiny life within them wakes up and decides to be born, so it can explore this fascinating concept personally.

I love me some weird 'alien' reproductive techniques.

Imagine a race like Paizo's skinshifters, only they are all one race, and all one gender. They reproduce by consuming an animal during a specific time of the year (if they don't want a baby, they eat vegetarian during that 'time of the year'), and the baby has traits of that animal type (so if a shifter mommy-to-be wants a bear-shifter baby, she eats bear meat, and the baby is born a bear-kin, even if 'mom' is a wolf-kin or a bat-kin or something).

A variant tiefling race could function the same way. Planar adapted humanoids that have two genders, but can't get pregnant unless the mother consumes some outsider flesh to prime the pump. The child, regardless of the tiefling sub-type of it's parents, will have the outsider heritage of the outsider meat used. So two demonspawn tieflings could catch an imp, cut off it's arm, and have a devilspawn child. The outsider 'donor' (victim) is jokingly called 'the midwife,' and despite many outsiders being able to regenerate flesh lost to this tactic, it's not a popular role. [/tangent]

[NoTongue]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I think a thing worth considering is that "men only" and "women only" groups will mean very different things to a modern audience.

Specifically, you would make a group exclusive to men/women when you want that group to represent some aspect of masculinity/femininity. While in modern western society, there are relatively few aspects of masculinity unavailable to women the reverse is not true.

Since we now rarely bat an eye at women athletes, soldiers, firefighters, police officers, loggers, hunters, industrial workers, etc. there is relatively little in the sphere of masculinity that you could have your "men only" fantasy group revolve around that's not either essentialism or misogyny (and neither of those things are fun.)

You can, however, do the reverse and have it make sense to a modern audience.

On the other hand you could look at it as modern men are taught to accept women into the groups but the reverse is not always true and there is some truth in that. Past is past and you find that some people still seem to view men as some sort of collective conscious rather than the individuals and different generations that they are.

I think there where some gender specific classes in 3.5 for Drows. A wizard prestige for male Drows and a female prestige for

I would only care if the options where good or interesting and the only femaleoptions seem to be generic knight prestige classes.

[mardaddy]

A few in the first page of replies were pondering if older versions of D&D had anything gender-specific re:rules.

The only one that came to my mind is the Strength characteristic in AD&D2ed; the max a female could "roll" was 18/99, only men could have an 18/00 Strength.

The rules (recall the era, now) even stated women were by nature weaker than men and could not have an 18/00 Strength.

[captain yesterday]

How great is it we don't have to deal with that b#!*+%#+ these days. :-)

[PossibleCabbage]

I'm going to put the 18/00 anecdote into "the perils of selective realism" file. Since, nobody would bat an eye back in the 2e days if my Lady Wizard could hurl orbs of flame, fly, conjure monsters, or call down bolts of lightning from the sky sure, but you can't have a woman character with an 18/00 strength... that'd be *unrealistic*.

[Wei Ji the Learner]

...the thing that always amused me about playing during that time was that female characters would invariably get into the 76-99 range during stat rolling, and male characters rarely if ever got past the 01-25 at tables I played at...

...think about that for just a second.

[Gulthor]

mardaddy wrote:

A few in the first page of replies were pondering if older versions of D&D had anything gender-specific re:rules.

The only one that came to my mind is the Strength characteristic in AD&D2ed; the max a female could "roll" was 18/99, only men could have an 18/00 Strength.

The rules (recall the era, now) even stated women were by nature weaker than men and could not have an 18/00 Strength.

Even worse was 1st edition D&D.

Character Race Table III: Ability Score Minimums & Maximums, p 15. wrote:

Strength:

Dwarven Male: 8 min/18 max
Dwarven Female: 8 min/17 max

Elven Male: 3 min/18 max
Elven Female: 3 min/16 max

Gnome Male: 6 min/18 max
Gnome Female: 6 min/15 max

Half-Elf Male: 3 min/18 max
Helf-Elf Female: 3 min/17 max

Halfling Male: 6 min/17 max
Halfling Female: 6 min/14 max

Half-Orc Male or Female: 6 min/18 max

[Melkiador]

The closest thing to a single gendered male race would use extreme sexual dimorphism. For example, the females could be non-sentient trees, that the males pollinate. But the males would be otherwise normal humanoids.

[PossibleCabbage]

Aren't Skum male-only?

I mean, they're a particularly horrific evil Aboleth engineered servant race pretty much exclusively suited to be adversaries, but the rules do allow you play as monsters sometimes.

[Ambrosia Slaad]

Set wrote:

With the Golarion equivalent to Demeter being the ambisexual Gozreh, a female only mystery cult on that specific subject seems less on-theme.

Maybe in an all same-sex mystery cult of Gozreh, all the members would switch physical sexes every month/28 days? And/or they switch racial traits (half the time as sylphs, the other half as undines)?

[Chakat Firepaw]

Gulthor wrote:

Even worse was 1st edition D&D.

(snip quote from Character Race Table III: Ability Score Minimums & Maximums, 1ed PH p 15).

To add the one that table is misleading for because it doesn't cover exceptional strength and the one it doesn't include:

Half-Orc Male: 18/99 max
Half-Orc Female: 18/75 max

Human Male: 18/00 max
Human Female 18/50 max

[David knott 242]

mardaddy wrote:

A few in the first page of replies were pondering if older versions of D&D had anything gender-specific re:rules.

The only one that came to my mind is the Strength characteristic in AD&D2ed; the max a female could "roll" was 18/99, only men could have an 18/00 Strength.

The rules (recall the era, now) even stated women were by nature weaker than men and could not have an 18/00 Strength.

2nd edition was the edition where all of the gender specific and most of the race specific limits on strength were eliminated. 1st edition was the last D&D edition that had different maximum strength scores for every race/gender combination.

[GeraintElberion]

Set wrote:

Icyshadow wrote:

I recall there being some real world mystery cults that were male-only in ancient times. There were also some female-only ones. Wouldn't know how many of those have been adapted to a setting like Golarion...

The Eleusinian Mysteries, IIRC, was a prominent one, with a nature-goddess theme.

With the Golarion equivalent to Demeter being the ambisexual Gozreh, a female only mystery cult on that specific subject seems less on-theme.

Indeed, Golarion's kind of nipped some baked-in sexism right in the bud by having a few of the more 'macho' divine archetypes, such as gods of chivalry and piracy, be female, so that anyone inclined to point at real world boy's only clubs like various orders of knighthood, or that old 'it's bad luck to have a woman on board a ship' nonsense will get shut down fast by someone pointing to Iomedae or Besmara. Ditto with having a female sun god, which, Amaterasu Omikami aside, is more commonly associated with male gods like Ra and Apollo.

That's kind of cool.

If they'd gone farther down that road and made some traditionally female roles (like the gods of art, beauty or lust) male, that might have made things even more gender-role-convention-defying.

Interestingly, the Greek mystery cults were the only spaces in a deeply misogynistic culture which was the only female-regulated space and created intense paranoia among some men (spoofed mercilessly in the theatre).

[Alzrius]

David knott 242 wrote:

mardaddy wrote:

A few in the first page of replies were pondering if older versions of D&D had anything gender-specific re:rules.

The only one that came to my mind is the Strength characteristic in AD&D2ed; the max a female could "roll" was 18/99, only men could have an 18/00 Strength.

The rules (recall the era, now) even stated women were by nature weaker than men and could not have an 18/00 Strength.

2nd edition was the edition where all of the gender specific and most of the race specific limits on strength were eliminated. 1st edition was the last D&D edition that had different maximum strength scores for every race/gender combination.

Don't forget that if you were playing as (using Unearthed Arcana) a cavalier or paladin, those classes' increases to your ability scores surpassed race and sex limits, and so you could raise your Strength score to 18/00.

[mardaddy]

Sorry, David knott 242, I have a 2dEd Players Handbook right in front of me.

I will respectfully say at least when it was published (before follow-on books in the AD&D 2dEd version) it is NOT where those racial & gender penalties were eliminated. I never player beyond 2dEd until PF, so I do not know where it was eliminated beyond that version.

[Matthew Downie]

mardaddy wrote:

I will respectfully say at least when it was published (before follow-on books in the AD&D 2dEd version) it is NOT where those racial & gender penalties were eliminated.

Publication date? Page number?

[thejeff]

mardaddy wrote:

Sorry, David knott 242, I have a 2dEd Players Handbook right in front of me.

I will respectfully say at least when it was published (before follow-on books in the AD&D 2dEd version) it is NOT where those racial & gender penalties were eliminated. I never player beyond 2dEd until PF, so I do not know where it was eliminated beyond that version.

I have the 2E PHB in front of me and I can't find any such limit.

Near as I can tell female characters were never limited 18/99. The numbers Chakat Firepaw gave earlier match what I see in 1E, but I see no such gender limits in the 2E PHB.

Even the racial differences were lessened.

[zimmerwald1915]

Cavall wrote:

Well. Wizard beards. Those are pretty cool.

Any wizardess who wants a beard needs only to cast disguise self.

[PossibleCabbage]

I'm looking back at my 1st edition (6th printing, Jan 1980) PHB and apparently half-orc characters were limited to 18/99 strength (male ones, female half-orcs were capped a 18/75). How does that make sense? Isn't the old stereotype that half-orcs are big, tough, brutish, and strong (while also small minded and ugly)? Is this some "purity is strength" BS? I mean, 1st ed humans don't get a str bonus whereas 1st ed half orcs do.

Seems like if any first edition character was going to start "as strong as an ogre" it'd be a half orc.

[mardaddy]

And I stand corrected. It was the 1stEd.

It could be those rules just "stuck" in my mind as 2dEd because that was the rules I started with in the early 80's. Breaking out the book that was packed away 6yrs ago, I have a different printing now than I did way back when. The cover art I recalled was wizardly and bluish and this one is a charging knight, printed 1989. I started in 1984.

I was playing 1stEd (2nd release) without even realizing it... the years and mileage take their toll.

[thejeff]

mardaddy wrote:

And I stand corrected. It was the 1stEd.

It could be those rules just "stuck" in my mind as 2dEd because that was the rules I started with in the early 80's. Breaking out the book that was packed away 6yrs ago, I have a different printing now than I did way back when. The cover art I recalled was wizardly and bluish and this one is a charging knight, printed 1989. I started in 1984.

I was playing 1stEd (2nd release) without even realizing it... the years and mileage take their toll.

This version, I suspect.

[Mystic_Snowfang]

Styers are all male.

[doctor_wu]

Well an alchemist tumor familiar on a male reproductive organ. Snake makes most sense for this. Paizo can't publish art of this though.

[Gisher]

Mystic_Snowfang wrote:

Styers are all male.

I can’t find any references to Styers.

[Benjamin Medrano]

Gisher wrote:

Mystic_Snowfang wrote:

Styers are all male.

I can’t find any references to Styers.

I suspect a typo when saying satyrs.

[Gisher]

Benjamin Medrano wrote:

Gisher wrote:

Mystic_Snowfang wrote:

Styers are all male.

I can’t find any references to Styers.

I suspect a typo when saying satyrs.

That would make more sense.