Is there some only-male stuff?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 108 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
The Exchange

3 people marked this as a favorite.

We have an all female PC race with the Changelings.
We got a deity only for women with Gyronna.
We got a Prestige Class with the Sanguine Angel only for females...

Do exist some opposite stuff?

A playable all male race or class?

Did i miss something?

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.

It's interesting that most of those are evil.

Men get those couples who are linked by a chain, can't remember the name.


14 people marked this as a favorite.

Nothing that I am familiar with.

And please, please, pretty please be mindful of your posts on this topic, it will be very easy for this thread to spiral off into locklandia, with possible sidetrips to banville.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Also why is this in rules questions, and not GD?


9 people marked this as a favorite.

Kostchtchie only accepts male worshipers and won't grant spells to female divine casters.

That's all I've got off the top of my head.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm pretty hazy on where different threads go but "Which mechanical options are limited to one gender or the other?" sounds like a rules question to me.

"What feats need more than a +4 BaB?" is, for example, a clearly mechanical question.

Btw the "Iridian Fold" is the name of the philosophical group that seeks to blend the souls of male pairs of members. Do they have mechanics somewhere?

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game, Companion, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

The Iridian Fold is male-only. Though there is the sect of women who object to it being exclusive to men.

Edit: They have mechanics in Distant Shores.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Well. Wizard beards. Those are pretty cool.

However given the amount of people clamouring to play a changeling worshipper of a hag goddess of the gray maidens... It's not like there's a massive loss. Whatever.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

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

That's kind of an odd male exclusive.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Gulthor wrote:

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

That's kind of an odd male exclusive.

Well for a while scaleheart skinwalkers also had str/int but they errata'd that for whatever reason. Didn't errata giving all the magus stuff to the skinwalker that took an int penalty, though.

Edit: Also the Ru-shi dhampir has Str/Int bonuses. So it's not entirely exclusive.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
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.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Bachelor Snuff only works for men (well, male humanoids). Though I guess it might also turn ladies' teeth and nails golden.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
FormerFiend wrote:
Gulthor wrote:

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

That's kind of an odd male exclusive.

Well for a while scaleheart skinwalkers also had str/int but they errata'd that for whatever reason. Didn't errata giving all the magus stuff to the skinwalker that took an int penalty, though.

Edit: Also the Ru-shi dhampir has Str/Int bonuses. So it's not entirely exclusive.

Do they? Archives of Nethys has Ru-Shi listed as yet another +Dex/+Int.

I do vaguely remember that they changed one of the skinwalkers, though. That was a little before I started paying attention to it. I wonder if Ru-Shi got the same treatment?

EDIT: Ah! Found it! It actually got errata'd the other way. I'll have to shoot a message over to God King Nethys.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cavall wrote:

Well. Wizard beards. Those are pretty cool.

However given the amount of people clamouring to play a changeling worshipper of a hag goddess of the gray maidens... It's not like there's a massive loss. Whatever.

I'd argue that a female dwarf wizard will have a beard.


Eunuch Warlock from OA?


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.

Eh, SF is 1,000 years or so in the future. Lots happens in a millennium.

Also, demon-blooded tieflings are +Str/+Int.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Dark Midian 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.

Eh, SF is 1,000 years or so in the future. Lots happens in a millennium.

Also, demon-blooded tieflings are +Str/+Int.

10,000, I believe, and demon blooded Tieflings are +Str/+Cha


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

OP, what do you think you are missing???

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Incubi?


Rysky wrote:
Dark Midian 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.

Eh, SF is 1,000 years or so in the future. Lots happens in a millennium.

Also, demon-blooded tieflings are +Str/+Int.

10,000, I believe, and demon blooded Tieflings are +Str/+Cha

Yup. They actually take a penalty to Int.


FormerFiend wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Dark Midian 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.

Eh, SF is 1,000 years or so in the future. Lots happens in a millennium.

Also, demon-blooded tieflings are +Str/+Int.

10,000, I believe, and demon blooded Tieflings are +Str/+Cha
Yup. They actually take a penalty to Int.

Wow, yeah. Can't believe I missed that.

And I figured it was 1,000 because JJ mentioned if he could do PF all over again he'd divide most of the time gaps by 10.

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Thanks for all the replys.

willuwontu wrote:
Also why is this in rules questions, and not GD?
Ring_of_Gyges wrote:

I'm pretty hazy on where different threads go but "Which mechanical options are limited to one gender or the other?" sounds like a rules question to me.

.....

Sorry but i'm not native english speaking so this might be a better title for the thread. ^^

And i'm mostly interested in the rules part.

So the mechanics for the Iridian Fold are open to any gender thanks of the Iridian Choir.

The Purity of Violence wrote:
OP, what do you think you are missing???

Any other gender related rules.

I must confess that i don't like restrictions cause of this but if are some i prefer it on both or more sides.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Bearserk wrote:


A playable all male race or class?

Did i miss something?

I think there probably is, but in a genre and hobby that has been traditionally male-oriented it is more important for the setting to highlight the areas that empower, are exclusive to, or dominated by women. And I agree with that artistic choice.


12 people marked this as a favorite.
Bearserk wrote:

We have an all female ...

Did i miss something?

The entire history of gaming.


14 people marked this as a favorite.

Did older rules sets of DnD have gender exclusive options? I know there were things in the older rules to do with gender and starting stats.

I don't think the OP deserves some of the hostility they're receiving simply for asking if there are male specific options as well as female. From a lore point of view it isn't that hard to believe that there would be both male and female only sects. Not everyone is inclusive.

From an inclusivity point of view I don't think things like this should be raised as issues of sexism or equality in our world because the game is representing another world with different culture, rules and standards to our own. Equality absolutely should be something we strive for in our world.

But that doesn't mean we need to whitewash inequality out of fiction, overcoming oppression is an interesting plot hook which can lead to some amazing stories. Not to mention actually writing from the point of view of the oppressors, also a potentially interesting rabbit hole.

Gender exclusive sects can also have some very interesting psychology and pantheons going on too.

That's my opinion anywho.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

It's not whitewashing if you didn't include it to begin with.

Also there's a difference in including oppressiveness as an antagonistic option as opposed to a protagonistic one.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Actually, at least in the D&D line, the hard rules text historically didn't have a lot sexist .. Stuff. To be fair, the content was no where near as dense as is currently the fashion. There were a few alternate rulesets that were iffier, but they were often panned for it in the APA's and Prozines. Not to say that 'zines were always shining examples of enlightened thinking. If you wanted sexism, it could often be found in setting material, along with any number of unfortunate assumptions. If you wanted blatant sexism, well, look at the Artwork.

Now Culturally, sexism, at varying levels of aggression and noxiousness, was as prevalent here as it was in pretty much every male dominated field. Yes, at least on the West Coast, some "Special Guests and Authors" had to be monitored, to dissuade them from inappropriate behavior. Panel discussions were occasionally...Icky. Women honorees got uneven treatment, and I heard some pretty horrific stories from some of them.

Now, the Genre has become pretty enlightened, overall, especially considering the culture of the miniatures wargaming set that RPGs sprang from. Even the surviving miniatures crowds have gotten better.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Exclusivity is a bit of a touchy subject. So I'll try to keep to my opinions here so as to avoid sounding overtly pontificating.

Firstly, I think other have already pointed out the male-only stuff (ie. Kostchtchie and partially the Iridian Fold). And off the top of my head I can't really come up with anything else, so sorry for not being able to help there.

Secondly, If you are looking for male-only (or female-only for that matter) stuff to use in any game, I would test the waters of you group, to see where their comfort level with things like this is, before introducing any off it, just to be on the safe side.

Now on the question of the OP asking for exclusive male groups/sects or "brotherhoods", I think CD's observations are pretty close to my opinions on the matter.

Chromantic Durgon <3 wrote:

...

I don't think the OP deserves some of the hostility they're receiving simply for asking if there are male specific options as well as female. From a lore point of view it isn't that hard to believe that there would be both male and female only sects. Not everyone is inclusive.

From an inclusivity point of view I don't think things like this should be raised as issues of sexism or equality in our world because the game is representing another world with different culture, rules and standards to our own. Equality absolutely should be something we strive for in our world.

But that doesn't mean we need to whitewash inequality out of fiction, overcoming oppression is an interesting plot hook which can lead to some amazing stories. Not to mention actually writing from the point of view of the oppressors, also a potentially interesting rabbit hole.

Gender exclusive sects can also have some very interesting psychology and pantheons going on too.

I would add though, that I'm of the opinion that when the choice is made to include exclusive groups or sects, you are opening a inclusion/exclusion door that will need to be addressed.

When entrance is limited to a certain group, you will be baring other groups from entrance, which then pushes the "why do group X get sect/prestige class/country, and group Y doesn't" discussion. Thus a seemingly arbitrary limit will be reached, where the designers will have to but their foot down and declare that "only these gets *insert feat, prestige class, sect or whatever*".
This limit will almost certainly not please everyone. Therefore it will often fall to the player's themselves to fill, their perceived gaps in the "exclusion/inclusion circle".

I wouldn't demand anything from Paizo on this front, as they seem to have found their artistic/design/inclusion-exclusion vision. I wouldn't presume to question that vision one bit, although I do reserve the right to take any product they have made and either tweak, adjust or mangle it beyond recognition, if it make my players (and my) experience of the game more enjoyable.

So I guess my message to the OP is:
If you and your group feels that there are a lack of male-exclusive options, then simply tweak existing material.
Maybe in your Golarion, the Ulfen Guard are all male or in your version of Brevoy women are considered unfit for martial or manual professions, thus dominate the intellectual, spiritual and cultural life in the country.
As long as you and everyone in your group is onboard, I don't see why you shouldn't play the game as you would prefer.

But off cause all of this, is just my (and CD's ^^') opinion.

Shadow Lodge

5 people marked this as a favorite.

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 females, despite the lore. Fans even created an unofficial "Brothers of Discord" for the male members, and the author of that option got angry, and as the game progressed, actively had them group slaughter every single male member in canon as retaliation.

The thing to note here is that the original presentation didn't have them as exclusively female, but rather left the door open for males, which tends to amplify the desire to play that option, to be the one that is different and plays against type/the norm. I think, when it comes to especially groups that are exclusive in membership based off of things like gender, this is really the part that makes the group cool and interesting or socially awkward and undesirable to the fans.

On the other hand, there is another example that basically went the other direction. The Black Furies are a group of werewolves, and unlike the Daughters, are a main one presented in the core book. They are exclusively female, (with a few exceptions). The group, or Tribe, is based off of decent, so the child of a Black Fury would be a Black Fury, but there is some potential to be adopted into other Tribes. The Black Furies are so Female Only though, that they will as a tribal practice kill, abandon, or leave on the doorstep of other tribes any male offspring, with some sacrificing the infant as a religious practice and others hoping for the best, but not looking back. Granted, something to keep in mind is that many of the archetypes/groups in the World of Darkness are intended to represent monstrous perspectives of real world things. Werewolves themselves are at their heart religious/philosophical/political extremists, for instance.

They represent a case where it is not normally an option for Male members. Later editions did include some male extended family members partial membership as slaves and servants, sort of, but as a whole no male is allowed, period. Because it is part of their religious theme, they would know if a male was hiding their gender or had a sex change too. Now, this might appeal to some people, and that's fine, but I think it really presents two large issues as a concept. Firstly, it doesn't create options, it reduces them. Unlike with the Daughters, there really is no realistic methods within the context of the setting or presentation to have a male member, even if it's very uncommon, or even not particularly normally desirable in most cases. It's saying "Not only No, but HELL NO!!!", instead of "yes, but. . .". While this is not something universal to Female-Only groups, it does seem to be much more common, but it's also generally not based on something that is realistically only female, such as revering child-bearing.

The other is, it really showcases the issue of the double standard. For most folks, being female-only is ok. Might even be a good thing. However, if you literally leave every single aspect of this group the same and only swap the genders, I imagine most people would have a huge issue with it.

Similarly, the Witches of Rashemen are a semi Female-Only group, but they do have room for Males to be important and do things. I'm not a huge fan of FR or that familiar with the lore, but I didn't really see any intrinsic reason for it to be Female-only except for it's culture, (it's a gynarchy). So, while it is, as afar as I can tell exclusively female, it does at least offer options for males as well, so is sort of a grey area.

I think it very rare for absolutely exclusive male groups to exist mainly because there is very little that is really required to be male-only. Things like "fatherhood" (or motherhood) can be replaced by other people, (and by that I mean a woman can act as a child's father/mother in most/all meaningful ways, and vice versa). Maybe not biologically, but otherwise. One of the other sort of Male-Only things involve things like castration, which really have no place in the game, I think.

On the other hand, child bearing is something that is exclusively female, (even if there can be exceptions or "Magic" exists), it's still a pretty solidly female-trait.

So, largely, Male-Only groups fall into one of two large groups, those that are presented as bad or those that really have no intrinsic reason to be exclusive except for plot/story. On the other hand, Female-Only groups have a third option much more often than Male ones, in that it is something (outside of plot) that is only available to females, such as (and commonly is) because of the ability to birth a child.

My personal preference would be to remove any gender exclusive group from the game that isn't based off of an intrinsic Female-Only (or Male-Only) concept, or that disallows for rare exceptions. I don't believe that these groups really bring anything to the game, or if they could arguably (such as female empowerment), they do so at too much cost, and reinforce bad standards and misconceptions.

On the other hand, allowing for uncommon exceptions to a group that favors one gender (or whatever really), but is not 100% exclusive, opens the door for great RP potential, character building, and personalized lore, as players can make a character that is against type, and heroic while doing so, but without eye-rolling or modern-sensitivities come into it.

That's my opinion, and I'd argue that largely:

Coquelicot Dragon wrote:
Bearserk wrote:

We have an all female ...

Did i miss something?

The entire history of gaming.

are the exact opposite, and it's more that Female-Only groups are seen as more acceptable.

Shadow Lodge

7 people marked this as a favorite.

...


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I personally don't mind the inclusion of a certain degree of exclusivity in a fictional setting - be it on basis of gender, race, social class, sexual orientation/identity, religion, or what have you - both to add a bit of realism(people are/can be that awful) and to simply allow for more avenues of story telling - stories involve protagonist overcoming obstacles and adversary; it helps to have more of those to be overcome.

I don't even think that it's a bad thing from a meta perspective to put some of it in neutrally - "yeah, this is just a thing that happens, it's there". Most of the time I feel it needs to be condemned and shown to be wrong, and I don't think it should ever be glorified, but I'm okay with a level of "that's the way it is, it sucks, but what're you gonna do?" or at least, "that's a battle for another day".

That being said there's a danger there of becoming overly cynical to the point of making it seem as though exclusivity is the natural order of things. "That's the way it is, that's the way it's always been, that's the way it's always going to be."

In the pursuit of hyper-realism I think it's possible to run the risk of sending the message - intended or otherwise - that while exclusivity sucks and is wrong, ultimately there's no fighting it and anytime you do fight it it only ends badly for you in the best case and makes things worse for everyone in the worst case, so you should just accept it."

I personally think the solution to that is to avoid making it an omnipresent element. It exists and may exist in sizable pockets, but as much if not more of the world exists without it and for the most part, they're better for it.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
DM Beckett wrote:
are the exact opposite, and it's more that Female-Only groups are seen as more acceptable.

I think you're confusing a diagetic argument for a non-diagetic argument here. 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.

In the context of "five dudes playing a game" it may be the case that no women whatsoever will appear anywhere in the narrative (except possibly as a damsel to be rescued) so a women-only group in the game world that decidedly occupies a less traditional role serves the purpose of reminding male-only game groups that women exist and do not do so simply for your benefit.

By contrast, women-dominated groups tend to not ever forget that men exist. I've found personally that women are much more likely to roleplay as men than the reverse, for whatever reason.

So a diagetic "women-only" group has a benefit in terms of the people who are playing the game that a diagetic "male-only" group does not have; to wit it forces players to consider that women exist and can fill a variety of roles, which is not something anybody needs to be reminded of when it comes to men.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
FormerFiend wrote:

I personally don't mind the inclusion of a certain degree of exclusivity in a fictional setting - be it on basis of gender, race, social class, sexual orientation/identity, religion, or what have you - both to add a bit of realism(people are/can be that awful) and to simply allow for more avenues of story telling - stories involve protagonist overcoming obstacles and adversary; it helps to have more of those to be overcome.

I don't even think that it's a bad thing from a meta perspective to put some of it in neutrally - "yeah, this is just a thing that happens, it's there". Most of the time I feel it needs to be condemned and shown to be wrong, and I don't think it should ever be glorified, but I'm okay with a level of "that's the way it is, it sucks, but what're you gonna do?" or at least, "that's a battle for another day".

That being said there's a danger there of becoming overly cynical to the point of making it seem as though exclusivity is the natural order of things. "That's the way it is, that's the way it's always been, that's the way it's always going to be."

In the pursuit of hyper-realism I think it's possible to run the risk of sending the message - intended or otherwise - that while exclusivity sucks and is wrong, ultimately there's no fighting it and anytime you do fight it it only ends badly for you in the best case and makes things worse for everyone in the worst case, so you should just accept it."

I personally think the solution to that is to avoid making it an omnipresent element. It exists and may exist in sizable pockets, but as much if not more of the world exists without it and for the most part, they're better for it.

I would agree with that. I was largely arguing against from the perspective on not liking as a player being told we cant do something. Im not sure that I would agree 100% that gender exclusive is or should always be presented as bad, (sometimes a "girls night out", or "man cave" are needed for people to relax, talk about issues they can't in mixed company, or whatever), but those that are essentially a form of "old boys/girls clubs" there to elevate one at the expense of the other, or worse absolutely should be.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
FormerFiend wrote:

I personally don't mind the inclusion of a certain degree of exclusivity in a fictional setting - be it on basis of gender, race, social class, sexual orientation/identity, religion, or what have you - both to add a bit of realism(people are/can be that awful) and to simply allow for more avenues of story telling - stories involve protagonist overcoming obstacles and adversary; it helps to have more of those to be overcome.

I don't even think that it's a bad thing from a meta perspective to put some of it in neutrally - "yeah, this is just a thing that happens, it's there". Most of the time I feel it needs to be condemned and shown to be wrong, and I don't think it should ever be glorified, but I'm okay with a level of "that's the way it is, it sucks, but what're you gonna do?" or at least, "that's a battle for another day".

That being said there's a danger there of becoming overly cynical to the point of making it seem as though exclusivity is the natural order of things. "That's the way it is, that's the way it's always been, that's the way it's always going to be."

In the pursuit of hyper-realism I think it's possible to run the risk of sending the message - intended or otherwise - that while exclusivity sucks and is wrong, ultimately there's no fighting it and anytime you do fight it it only ends badly for you in the best case and makes things worse for everyone in the worst case, so you should just accept it."

I personally think the solution to that is to avoid making it an omnipresent element. It exists and may exist in sizable pockets, but as much if not more of the world exists without it and for the most part, they're better for it.

Yes, the risk with the "overcoming adversity" obstacles being too dominant in the setting is that you wind up with certain groups always having to play that storyline, like it or not. The male character can just go out and be a hero. The woman has to prove that a woman can be a hero.

It's a fine story and if it's one a player wants to explore, it's good to have that option, but it's not a good one to push players into. Especially players who might face similar struggles in real life.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
DM Beckett wrote:
are the exact opposite, and it's more that Female-Only groups are seen as more acceptable.

I think you're confusing a diagetic argument for a non-diagetic argument here. 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.

In the context of "five dudes playing a game" it may be the case that no women whatsoever will appear anywhere in the narrative (except possibly as a damsel to be rescued) so a women-only group in the game world that decidedly occupies a less traditional role serves the purpose of reminding male-only game groups that women exist and do not do so simply for your benefit.

By contrast, women-dominated groups tend to not ever forget that men exist. I've found personally that women are much more likely to roleplay as men than the reverse, for whatever reason.

So a diagetic "women-only" group has a benefit in terms of the people who are playing the game that a diagetic "male-only" group does not have; to wit it forces players to consider that women exist and can fill a variety of roles, which is not something anybody needs to be reminded of when it comes to men.

Im not sure that's true, though. I do understand that in real life, most of the population for gaming has been very much male, but I wouldn't call or equate that to "the entire history of gaming", as it is very misleading. I do disagree that woman held groups tend to include male NPCs more so than the opposite does, but I imagine its very difficult to truely jusge this simply for lack of significant numbers. Instead, I was talking about groups within the setting themselves, which was my understanding of the actual question.

I would argue that historically, there are many more female exclusive groups than male exclusive groups, and that as far as they are generally either presented or socially accepted, female only groups tend to be seen as good or ok additions, while male only groups tend to be bad/evil or antagonistic ones. Simply making an observation, not really arguing for or against it.

I was also making a distinction between only/exclusive and those that favor one gender mainly, but can and do, or would allow a member of the other gender. To me, I find that the later group is much more realistic, but also represents more potential for that group to not be seen, presented, and/or intended to be the villian or protagonist outright. Lastly, they allow for more options for players rather than removing options. In the sense that I don't think most people like ormfind it interesting to be told no you can't play _____, because of your <character's> gender.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Yes, the risk with the "overcoming adversity" obstacles being too dominant in the setting is that you wind up with certain groups always having to play that storyline, like it or not.

That is also a very valid point.

Dark Archive

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Not going to venture into the deeper waters, but there's also the Gray Maidens and Witches of Irrisen, for groups that tend to have only one gender in positions of power. Both trends towards evil, as well.

It was different in the Forgotten Realms. Gender exclusive groups like the Seven Sisters / Chosen of Mystra, or Witches of Rashemen tended to be neutral or good, and seen as protagonists, while, generally, evil organizations and countries were dominated by male rulers. At times, particularly after the one notable non-evil male ruler (King Azoun) was killed off and his Queen took over rule of Cormyr that I found it to be a bit ham-handed.

Greyhawk had few, if any, women of power, and it was decades (and required a bunch of deaths) for a woman to join the Circle of Eight (and even then, while the others had spells named after them, and rich histories, Jallarzi*, IIRC, seemed like somebody's apprentice, more than a world-shaping archmage in her own right). It felt pretty darn much like a boy's only club, and it's entirely possible that the Forgotten Realms were at least partially as powerful-woman-friendly as they were in reaction to what had come before, as setting in which powerful or prominent women were close to invisible. A natural swing of the pendulum, as it were. (And that's a whole 'nuther argument, I suppose, whether or not one can achieve 'balance' by sawing violently way off in the opposite direction, as if, in this specific case, two wrongs can indeed 'make it right.' Maybe so. Maybe not. It's a pretty subjective area, so I'm not sure there is a right answer.)

*I could be totally making that name up. Unlike Tenser, Otiluke, Mordenkainen, etc. I don't remember a bunch of spells named after her, so her name didn't stick in my head a decade or so later.

I wouldn't mind some non-evil gender-exclusive groups, on both sides (or some occupying less-common ground, such as being exclusive to asex folk or transgendered folk), but the uproar over Erastil's original write-up (in which both women *and men* being encouraged to stay home and raise families was deemed misogynistic) suggests we aren't quite there yet, and I'm fine with avoiding third rails.

At this point, introducing a non-evil 'Y chromosome only' group, when the most prominent 'X chromosome only' groups trend towards evil, would probably (and rightly) invite controversy, as if one of those things was 'natural and right' and the other 'unnatural and wrong.'


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
It's not whitewashing if you didn't include it to begin with.

and you'll note I said fiction, and the fiction from which DnD draws has had oppression, hatred and bigotry included in it. Pretty sure Golorain does too. So yeah, whitewashing. Honestly the ideas of worlds where no-one was ever hateful or bigoted and nothing was ever exclusive to anyone seems a bit unbelievable to me. Would you not say?

Quote:


Also there's a difference in including oppressiveness as an antagonistic option as opposed to a protagonistic one.

Several playable races have hatred x as a racial trait and players can play anti-paladins. Player characters have always been able to be oppressive or bigoted. Perfect protagonists without a single blind spot aren't really that interesting if you ask me. Not very relatable to have these a casts of flawless blindspot free perfect characters.

Kjeldorn wrote:

I would add though, that I'm of the opinion that when the choice is made to include exclusive groups or sects, you are opening a inclusion/exclusion door that will need to be addressed.

When entrance is limited to a certain group, you will be baring other groups from entrance, which then pushes the "why do group X get sect/prestige class/country, and group Y doesn't" discussion. Thus a seemingly arbitrary limit will be reached, where the designers will have to but their foot down and declare that "only these gets *insert feat, prestige class, sect or whatever*".

Well I would say that for setting specific ones, they're setting specific, remove the setting and you can have the same options open to everyone, however with prestige classes (often setting specific) they allow one to flavor their world and add culture. If you don't like Golorian culture its probs best not to play in Golorian. Or simply ignore the bits you don't like.

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Umm, I think you guys are getting derailed from what opening post was asking, if you want to debate about nature of discrimination in Golarion, you could do your own thread for that.

...Buuut I feel like babbling right now, so I guess I say something about that too: From what I remember, Golarion does have a lot of racism, for example varisians are target of discrimination pretty much everywhere and then there is whole Sargava and colonialism and horrible groups like Hellknight Order of the Coil. Sexism I don't remember ever being widespread thing outside of smaller groups, like Kostchtchie's cult since Kostchtchie IS a misogynist who has women as his favored enemy. Not even joking about that, that is really one of his abilities.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Sorry, I misinterpreted your post as saying it's whitewashing to not include more bigotry than what's there, Golarion does have bigotry in it, yes.

Yes a world without any bigotry is unbelievable to me. It's also wonderful. I'm fine with such wonderful things existing in a fantasy world.

The hatred ability are problematic but then they are usually aimed at overwhelmingly Evil races. And yes Antipaladins are a character option. They're also Evil only and mostly used by GMs as antagonists, which doesn't go against what I said.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Set wrote:

Not going to venture into the deeper waters, but there's also the Gray Maidens and Witches of Irrisen, for groups that tend to have only one gender in positions of power. Both trends towards evil, as well.

It was different in the Forgotten Realms. Gender exclusive groups like the Seven Sisters / Chosen of Mystra, or Witches of Rashemen tended to be neutral or good, and seen as protagonists, while, generally, evil organizations and countries were dominated by male rulers. At times, particularly after the one notable non-evil male ruler (King Azoun) was killed off and his Queen took over rule of Cormyr that I found it to be a bit ham-handed.

Greyhawk had few, if any, women of power, and it was decades (and required a bunch of deaths) for a woman to join the Circle of Eight (and even then, while the others had spells named after them, and rich histories, Jallarzi*, IIRC, seemed like somebody's apprentice, more than a world-shaping archmage in her own right). It felt pretty darn much like a boy's only club, and it's entirely possible that the Forgotten Realms were at least partially as powerful-woman-friendly as they were in reaction to what had come before, as setting in which powerful or prominent women were close to invisible. A natural swing of the pendulum, as it were. (And that's a whole 'nuther argument, I suppose, whether or not one can achieve 'balance' by sawing violently way off in the opposite direction, as if, in this specific case, two wrongs can indeed 'make it right.' Maybe so. Maybe not. It's a pretty subjective area, so I'm not sure there is a right answer.)

*I could be totally making that name up. Unlike Tenser, Otiluke, Mordenkainen, etc. I don't remember a bunch of spells named after her, so her name didn't stick in my head a decade or so later.

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. Tasha was a a female that did the same (Tasha's Hideous Laughter), and while she had a few, that's the only one that made it into 3e core book.

I seem to remember there be an article or campaign setting book from 3E Living Greyhawk that talked about her history and the other spells of her design.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
CorvusMask wrote:

Umm, I think you guys are getting derailed from what opening post was asking, if you want to debate about nature of discrimination in Golarion, you could do your own thread for that.

You're probably right :/

Quote:
Sexism I don't remember ever being widespread thing outside of smaller groups, like Kostchtchie's cult since Kostchtchie IS a misogynist who has women as his favored enemy. Not even joking about that, that is really one of his abilities.

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


1 person marked this as a favorite.

On topic I'd point out that the Iridian Fold is "male only" in the most technical terms in that the organization/philosophy is male only but the mechanics themselves(which boil down to "make two characters with teamwork feats") have no such restriction and the aforementioned splinter group that allows women and mixed-gender pairs actually named itself to mock the justification that the Fold uses to exclude women.

Meanwhile, Distant Shores actually has another example of "women only" in that Omwas, the leaders of Holomog's city states, are always women and often divinely mandated, though it notes that transgender women and intersex individuals can also be Omwas, cisgendered men(and I assume, ftm transgendered individuals) never are.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
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

Erastil's article in Kingmaker made him pretty misogynistic.

That is, however, explicitly not canon.

Asmodeus is a misogynist (an unreptant one!) but since he lords over everybody, it doesn't really play out that way.

As for all-male.... anythings:

None spring to mind in Pathfinder. In 2nd Edition AD&D, non-Dragonlance Minotaurs were supposed to be all-male. All I got.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

oh is it not?
the more you know.

Shadow Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
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?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
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.


Chromantic Durgon <3 wrote:


Kjeldorn wrote:

I would add though, that I'm of the opinion that when the choice is made to include exclusive groups or sects, you are opening a inclusion/exclusion door that will need to be addressed.

When entrance is limited to a certain group, you will be baring other groups from entrance, which then pushes the "why do group X get sect/prestige class/country, and group Y doesn't" discussion. Thus a seemingly arbitrary limit will be reached, where the designers will have to but their foot down and declare that "only these gets *insert feat, prestige class, sect or whatever*".

Well I would say that for setting specific ones, they're setting specific, remove the setting and you can have the same options open to everyone, however with prestige classes (often setting specific) they allow one to flavor their world and add culture. If you don't like Golorian culture its probs best not to play in Golorian. Or simply ignore the bits you don't like.

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.


9 people marked this as a favorite.
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.

1 to 50 of 108 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Is there some only-male stuff? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.