Random thought.


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 61 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Anyone else notice how paizo and pathfinder says 'she' a lot?


It's probably about 50/50.

Silver Crusade

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

Fun fact: women make up roughly 50% of humanity.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think Paizo uses a Generic She in defiance of my high school English Tearchers' Generic He.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Yeah...not touching this one.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Eh? That was actually pretty common in D&D 3.0e and 3.5e. You get used to it and its not really a big deal.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

The pronoun they used is based on the gender of the iconic character corresponding to the class in question. The iconic Barbarian is a women therefor when discussing Barbarian content the pronoun used is "she" while the iconic Fighter is a man therefor when discussing Fighter content the pronoun used is "he". Feats and spells, on the other hand, typically use the pronoun "you" instead.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I will whistle past this graveyard.


I believe they always refer to the GM as "she."


I have been digging through wizard, rogue, magus, some sorcerer, a little druid, and most feats.... including combat, teamwork, non combat (skill feats), and just so much more and ive had a strong tendency to edit out the gendering because near all of it (id say all but maybe im being jaded) is female inclined and id rather it gender neutral.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Paizo Charter Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

You do not want gender neutral, you want male inclined, right?

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I figure there has to be something else worth complaining about.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The opened can of worms wriggles in all directions; RPG publishers pondering multi-language imprints scurry to record the latest changes, fretting that product-releases might be too quickly obsolesced and someone become offended in a game which lovingly details every possible way to bury an axe in your face.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.

On the subject of pronouns, I have for the past several months, been porting large chunks of PF1 over to my 3.Aotrs rules[1] as well as updating all existant (in-use) 3.5 classes to the same standard (and tweaking PF classes as well).

It has required... QUITE some effort, considering early 3.5 uses he/she and PF uses he/she, but changed iconic gender and later 3.5 uses "you" - notably for all ACF - trying to get at least SOME vague level of consistency so your eyeballs don't bleed out in the switches between third and second person in particular.

I have at least got some kind of vague coherency now, in that MOST of the classes (stares hard at Tob) have consistent he/she and the ACFs have "you", except for archtypes.

As even I balked at changing EVERY set of pronouns, even though really,unilateral second person would likely be the best solution; but there are, like, y'know limits to even my obsessiveness...

[1]At this point, as the page count exceeds that of either one of 3.5's pr PF's core rulebooks, 3.aotrs has is less like "houserules" and more like "actual edition..."


Aotrscommander wrote:
At this point, as the page count exceeds that of either one of 3.5's pr PF's core rulebooks, 3.aotrs has is less like "houserules" and more like "actual edition..."

Do you have that on-line anywhere? TIA....

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Slim Jim wrote:
Aotrscommander wrote:
At this point, as the page count exceeds that of either one of 3.5's pr PF's core rulebooks, 3.aotrs has is less like "houserules" and more like "actual edition..."
Do you have that on-line anywhere? TIA....

Not yet, I'm STILL in the process of working on it (though I'm mostly down to making a pass through the spells).

Though you're not the first person to ask about. I would, I think, shy away a bit from posting it up anywhere, just because there IS a lot of copy-paste from 3.5/PF1 in there[1] among all the 3.Aotrs changes, but I wouldn't be adverse to emailing it if asked, I think.

[1]Part of the reason 3.A exists was a consolidation so I didn't have to trek so much paper to and from the wargames club and thus have the bits we use most to hand, plus stuff for my homebrew (3.A serves both) plus revisions and stuff to spells (notably Cure spells (and inlfict) DRASTICALLY have improved, making in-combat healing for one not be a total waste).

(By latest revision design, it's intended to be pretty much compatible with PF1 such that you could use that without doing much, on the basis that when I come to convert the later APs I won't have to, like, rebuiild everything to the extent I would have had to to sticking with closer to 3.5.)


Shinoskay wrote:
I have been digging through wizard, rogue, magus, some sorcerer, a little druid, and most feats.... including combat, teamwork, non combat (skill feats), and just so much more and ive had a strong tendency to edit out the gendering because near all of it (id say all but maybe im being jaded) is female inclined and id rather it gender neutral.

Why would you rather it be gender neutral, and could you provide an example of how would you change the text to be gender neutral?


So?


Ah, because I am tired of seeing excessive female gendering... I must hate females. love that logic.

Blahpers, I will endeavor to post where i gender neutraled, as well as original text, in a few days. I am socially recharging (introvert, not sorry) from some drama elsewhere and when I have the spoons, and if I remember, I will come back to this.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Shinoskay wrote:

Ah, because I am tired of seeing excessive female gendering... I must hate females. love that logic.

Well, your bias is strong enough to have you see "excessive female gendering" where there is none. You're welcome to use that introvert recovery time to try and prove me wrong with some actual proof.


Shinoskay wrote:
I have been digging through wizard, rogue, magus, some sorcerer, a little druid, and most feats....

The Wizard and Magus Iconics (Ezren and Seltyiel) are male, and thus their class write-ups use male language.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Shinoskay wrote:
Ah, because I am tired of seeing excessive female gendering... I must hate females. love that logic.
Shinoskay wrote:
I have been digging through wizard, rogue, magus, some sorcerer, a little druid, and most feats.... including combat, teamwork, non combat (skill feats), and just so much more and ive had a strong tendency to edit out the gendering because near all of it (id say all but maybe im being jaded) is female inclined and id rather it gender neutral.

Let's See: Rogue, Sorcerer, and Druid use female pronouns, Wizard and Magus use male ones. Counting "little" druid as half, that's a good 55%. I have no idea how "near all ['gendering'] is female inclined".

Feats are written in second person, meaning there is no discernable gender. I have really no idea where you see "excessive female gendering" there; or any 'gendering' for that matter.

For the record, there are 21 "male" classes and 19 "female" classes in the game (counting alternative classes but not unchained ones).

­
Fun facts: Going by classes with a clear primary mental ability score, "according to Paizo", males are more intelligent (5 to 3), and more charismatic (7 to 4), while females are wiser (8 to 3). Males have an average maximum spell level of 3.76, females of 4.95; per spell level male:female ratios are: 1:8 (9/9), 9:3 (6/9), 4:1 (4/9), 7:8 (martial). Males have on average 1.71 good saves, females 1.47. Males have an average HD of 8.67 and an average BAB of 0.65, females of 8.21 and 0.62, respectively. Both have an average of 4 skill ranks/level. 10 male and 11 female clases can use a healing wand (CLW and/or Infernal Healing). Going by a quick-and-dirty tier list, average tier is 3.62 for males and 3.18 for females.


There's such a thing as overanalysis, Derklord. -_-


blahpers wrote:
There's such a thing as overanalysis, Derklord. -_-

Especially since the Iconics represent one specific person each, not an average of the demographics of characters with that class. For example, I doubt the majority of Barbarians are female, but Amiri is, and she's the Iconic. In fact, her backstory is all about how the fighting men in her barbarian tribe didn't think she, a girl, should fight, but she proved herself as an individual and kicked some ass because that's what she wanted to do with her life.


Derklord, this analysis is fantastic, utterly meaningless, we all know so but oh so fantastic! ^^
- I don't think class tiers can averaged this way, they are categories. Even if they could and all stood in the middle of their categories, I do not think the distance between categories is constant -


As far as I know, all gender pronouns in Pathfinder material match the associated iconic artwork, and this extends across every archetype in a class as well (e.g., all barbarian pronouns are female, all fighter pronouns are male, etc), since archetypes do not have unique iconics.)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Warped Savant wrote:
I believe they always refer to the GM as "she."

This is because Lisa Stevens is allowed to GM absolutely any game of Pathfinder she wants. The rest of us only get to GM when she doesn't want to.

FWIW, when they're talking about an interaction between a GM and a player about whom no specifics are relevant, the default is the GM is "she" and the player is "he" (Horror Adventures is full of this). This reads much more naturally than having to say "GM" and "player" a lot or making up names for these people.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
FWIW, when they're talking about an interaction between a GM and a player about whom no specifics are relevant, the default is the GM is "she" and the player is "he" (Horror Adventures is full of this). This reads much more naturally than having to say "GM" and "player" a lot or making up names for these people.

Right! I knew there was a little more to it! But I couldn't remember what it was.

PossibleCabbage wrote:
Warped Savant wrote:
I believe they always refer to the GM as "she."
This is because Lisa Stevens is allowed to GM absolutely any game of Pathfinder she wants. The rest of us only get to GM when she doesn't want to.

I'm really glad that Lisa allows me to run a (mostly) weekly game.

Mind you, my players keep asking when Lisa's going to step in. I think they're starting to get tired of me being an interim GM.


Agénor wrote:
Derklord, this analysis is fantastic, utterly meaningless, we all know so but oh so fantastic! ^^

Thank you. I have a spreadsheet with most of the stuff already in it (casting/HD/BAB/primary mental ability score/good saves/skills/healing wand usability), and since I checked the genders to make a point, filtering my list be "class genders" was easy enough to do. I actually had a lot of fun doing it.

Agénor wrote:
I don't think class tiers can averaged this way, they are categories. Even if they could and all stood in the middle of their categories, I do not think the distance between categories is constant

I must admit, that is not the critique on my use of the tier list that I would have expected to see! I agree with your arguments, but the end result has no meaning anyway, so I don't think there's a problem. What might be slightly™ more useful/informative: If player A picks a male class at random and player B picks a female class at random, A has a 29.32% chance to have picked a higher tier class and 51.88% chance to have picked a lower tier class, and vice versa for player B, with 18.80% chance of equal tier.

Male:female ratios I didn't list yet:
Arcane casters: 6:3
Divine casters: 3:7
Psychic casters: 3:2
Alchemical 'casters': 2:0

@blahpers & Bloodrealm: I'd have thought it was obvious, but my "analysis" was as tongue-in-cheek as it can possibly get.


Shinoskay wrote:
Ah, because I am tired of seeing excessive female gendering... I must hate females. love that logic.

It's definitely an assumption, so there's plenty of room for error, but I don't think it's a particularly surprisingly assumption.

I think the question people will often have once you've voiced your concern about what you see as excessive female gendering is: why does it matter? And a follow up: would excessive male gendering--by and large a more common occurrence--bother you in the same way? It's not too hard to see how someone reading your post would answer these questions themselves, almost before they'd even realized they'd asked.

I think PossibleCabbage has the right of it: the GM is she and the player is he. That makes passages discussing both of them much easier to read.
Beyond that, I think Derklord has illustrated definitely that the classes are split fairly evenly, with a slight lean towards male.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If nothing else, having feminine pronouns be common in these books (not just 20%) signposts both:

-hey ladies, you are welcome.
-hey guys, women play these games too.

Both are lessons that some people could benefit to hear.


PossibleCabbage wrote:

If nothing else, having feminine pronouns be common in these books (not just 20%) signposts both:

-hey ladies, you are welcome.
-hey guys, women play these games too.

Both are lessons that some people could benefit to hear.

Everything in this quote except the 'hey ladies, you are welcome'.

that is why it matters.

even lgbt people are getting annoyed and frustrated with the agenda'ed productions in movies these days. Trying so hard at the expense of everything else, going from one extreme to the other. it doesnt fix the problem, two wrongs dont make a right. That, and it creates a similar issue to, ironically, the other 'good thing' possiblecaggabe presented.

PossibleCabbage wrote:
Warped Savant wrote:
I believe they always refer to the GM as "she."

This is because Lisa Stevens is allowed to GM absolutely any game of Pathfinder she wants. The rest of us only get to GM when she doesn't want to.

FWIW, when they're talking about an interaction between a GM and a player about whom no specifics are relevant, the default is the GM is "she" and the player is "he" (Horror Adventures is full of this). This reads much more naturally than having to say "GM" and "player" a lot or making up names for these people.

seeing an excess of she just doesnt read so well.

The writers would have done better with removing the gendering or using gender-neutral terms like 'they' or 'them' or such. even interchanging it to break it up would have been so much more appreciated and enjoyable.

Heres one example of how I gender neutraled something
{{{
Chemical Weapons (Ex)

At 2nd level, an underground chemist is able to retrieve an alchemical item as if drawing a weapon. She adds her Intelligence modifier to damage dealt with splash weapons, including any splash damage. She adds 1/2 her level to Craft (alchemy) checks.

This ability replaces evasion.

Chemical Weapons (Ex)

(At 2nd level, an underground chemist is able to retrieve an alchemical item as if drawing a weapon. adds Intelligence modifier to damage dealt with splash weapons, including any splash damage. adds 1/2 level to Craft (alchemy).)

This ability replaces evasion.

}}}

that last level can read rogue level, underground chemist, or even just not have anything and it still works.
theres so much 'she' and 'her' its just hard to read, excessive.
id probably feel ok with that last her being there as the only gendered term because it kinda feels like an ok spot to re indicate.
However, its still not really needed.

I could probably actually edit the whole of chemical weapons to a better read, putting 'this' before the first adds and 'also' before the second adds. No gendering needed there. its a little robotic, but its also an archetype so people wont be reading it as often.
though if im putting in words, there are a lot of other options I could use.

even considering consistency of identity, there are just so many more words available, yet its slathered up in she and her.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Shinoskay wrote:
...even lgbt people are getting annoyed and frustrated with the agenda'ed productions in movies these days. Trying so hard at the expense of everything else, going from one extreme to the other. it doesnt fix the problem, two wrongs dont make a right.

Maybe. The small handful of the people I've talked. with seem largely for it. I don't think either of us have a large enough sample group to make such a statement accurately.

Shinoskay wrote:

...seeing an excess of she just doesnt read so well.

The writers would have done better with removing the gendering or using gender-neutral terms like 'they' or 'them' or such. even interchanging it to break it up would have been so much more appreciated and enjoyable...

I'm not sure I understand. I'm all for the use of they and them as singular pronouns, but when you are referring to two separate entities and you replace all pronouns with they and them or use different pronouns for the same entities at different times, you end up with an extremely confusing passage. If you remove all of the pronouns and refer to the two parties by name or title every time, you an extremely confusing passage. If you remove all of the pronouns and refer to the two parties by name or title every time, you end up with something clunky and awkward.

Shinoskay wrote:
...even considering consistency of identity, there are just so many more words available, yet its slathered up in she and her.

Again, I'm not sure if I'm following you.

I think Derklord has offered proof that Pathfinder is not "slathered up" in she and her; overall, there's a slight leaning towards male pronouns.

There are still the two questions I have from your first statement: why does it matter (you said it doesn't read well. What do you mean)? Would an excessive use of male pronouns cause the same problem?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Shinoskay wrote:
even lgbt people are getting annoyed and frustrated with the agenda'ed productions in movies these days. Trying so hard at the expense of everything else, going from one extreme to the other. it doesnt fix the problem, two wrongs dont make a right. That, and it creates a similar issue to, ironically, the other 'good thing' possiblecaggabe presented.

It's plausible that there exist LGBT people who are annoyed by this. LGBT people are individuals, not some single POV hivemind. That's neither here nor there, though--we're talking about gendered pronouns.

How do you think your irritation at the use of "she" compares to the discomfort felt by women and girls who want to play a game but don't see a welcome seat at the table due to male-centric language?

Quote:

Chemical Weapons (Ex)

(At 2nd level, an underground chemist is able to retrieve an alchemical item as if drawing a weapon. adds Intelligence modifier to damage dealt with splash weapons, including any splash damage. adds 1/2 level to Craft (alchemy).)

Ow, my internal parser. Any editor worth the title would print this attempt out just so they could properly light it on fire.

Edit: Removed a question since Quixote already asked it better.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Since this discussion hasn't devolved into outrage, I'll state my preference.

There is in English a neutral singular pronoun, « it », it fulfills the job admirably. I use it, it earns me eyefuls and people end up rationalising my use by the fact that I am not a native speaker. They are wrong, I know precisely what it is I am doing. I am cautious however not to use « it » to refer to non-binary people, whose gender-identity isn't easy to live given how normative our societies are, the social meaning of « it » would make it offensive and this isn't the goal at all.

Now, when describing a short situation such as giving an example of how a rule works, a way to elegantly differentiate without complexity between two characters is to use a grammatical gender for one and the opposite one for the other.

This being said, I often use « he » as neutral as my native language is gendered with neutral and feminine rather than a real masculine so it falls on « he » when transposed to English.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Agénor wrote:

Since this discussion hasn't devolved into outrage, I'll state my preference.

There is in English a neutral singular pronoun, « it », it fulfills the job admirably.

"It" is not a neutral pronoun, though, it's a pronoun used specifically for inanimate objects (or animate objects...), animals, or, at best, entities of unknown gender or very young children (i.e. babies) of unknown gender. Using it in place of he/she (et al) carries dehumanising connotations, which is likely why you're getting eyerolls.

...

...

...

*fails Will save vrs linguistic pun of opportunity*

It does not mean what you think it means.

...

...

I'm not sorry..


Agénor

I agree with both of your sentiments. it is pleasing that this conversation has not devolved into an unmanageable level of uncivil conduct. I feel exasperated, yet I have tried to be mindful that things are maintaining a semblance of civil air.

I also agree that 'it' would be a great pronoun to use in many of the passages.

" it adds Intelligence modifier to damage dealt with splash weapons, including any splash damage. this adds 1/2 level to Craft (alchemy)"

would be an exceptionally agreeable and acceptable way to write the passage as well as gender neutral. As I said, there are many words that could be used in place of the gendered and excessive 4 female pronouns that are currently used.

Quixote, I answered your questions already.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quote:

" it adds Intelligence modifier to damage dealt with splash weapons, including any splash damage. this adds 1/2 level to Craft (alchemy)"

would be an exceptionally agreeable and acceptable way to write the passage as well as gender neutral. As I said, there are many words that could be used in place of the gendered and excessive 4 female pronouns that are currently used.

I have to assume that English is not your native language, because if it was you would understand why the sentence above is grammatically incorrect.

But, let’s face it, what you are really objecting to is the fact that Paizo dare to include the concept of (shock, horror) female players and characters in the game.


Paizo Charter Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

I guess it depends on the definition of "excessive". I assume, when referring to female pronouns used, "excessive" means "more than zero", while it probably cannot be applied to male pronouns, because those are "neutral".

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, but male pronouns aren’t neutral.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

Shinoskay wrote:

" it adds Intelligence modifier to damage dealt with splash weapons, including any splash damage. this adds 1/2 level to Craft (alchemy)"

would be an exceptionally agreeable and acceptable way to write the passage as well as gender neutral.

That's really bad English. Like, REALLY bad. That's not even correct using "it" as a pronoun. Or even by rules clarity standards. You could not (if you didn't want to be laughed out the room) publish a set of rules written to that standard.

Even if you were speaking about, like, a robot or something, it should read "it adds ITS Intelligence modifier to damage with splash weapons."

Additionally "this adds 1/2 level to craft (alchemy)" is also a massive grammatical mess, as by "this" what you have written means "it adds its intelligence modifier to splash weapon damage and adding its intelligence modifier to splash weapon damage damage adds 1/2 level to Craft alchemy)." (Also, what level? Character level? Class level?) Using "this" in that fashion means it does not refer to the unnamed ability (which I assume you intended it to), it means the article defined in the previous sentence, which in this case is the first effect of the ability (not the ability itself).

What I suspect you MEANT should have been phrased as follows:

"It adds its Intelligence modifier to damage with splash weapons. Additionally, it adds half its class level to Craft (alchemy) checks."

But that only works grammatically if you are talking about a gender-less or un-gendered creature. Which, as I said before, carries dehumanising connotations and is definitely not a gender-neutral term; absence of gender is not gender-neutral, that's not how English works, sorry. Other languages may work that way, but English (in this instance[1]), does not. You cannot use "it" as a pronoun in the instance of referring to the gender of an unspecified character, since the article being talked about is not an unknown, since said character (which is the only article being referrenced) is not unknown. Context is important.

It is perhaps worth mentioning at this point the entire reason why it has been practise to use the male pronoun as the "default" in, like, everything is because there IS no gender-neutral pronoun in English or it would not have been an issue that would have ever come up in the first place. The entire reason this sort of debate exists is because there are only a limited number of ways to to cover the gap; alterntating he/she, the use of "they" (which is technically also grammatically incorrect, but more acceptable that "it") or the second person "you." And that is, as they, say, basically it.

[1]Sack-full of exceptions that English is, I'm sure someone who is a better student of the English language than me (I stopped at A level, I'm sure there must be some degree-level ladies or gentlemen around) can find some exceptions. (And perhaps can also explain better and more technically than I have this whole thing.)

Silver Crusade

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

The proposed text pretty much reads like "it puts the lotion in the basket" line from Silence of the Lambs, which would result in creepy/hilarious reading for anyone whose interests in popculture ever went beyond emotional support forums for incels.

Which,I believe, is quite a lot of people.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I mean the big issue is that Pathfinder, like any publishing company, uses a style guide in house for how to write certain things (it's not a proprietary one, I just forget which one.) This precludes things like "awkward uses of 'it'" or "writing the whole thing in second person". Add to this certain editorial decisions like "the class write-up will use the gendered pronoun of the iconic whose image takes up like half a page there" and "when writing about a group dynamic the GM is 'she', a specified player is 'he' and the group is 'they'" you end up with what Paizo uses.

I personally think that "She"/"He" in lieu of "GM/Player" or just making up names for people reads far more naturally.

Like consider the following passage from the GMing section of "Horror Adventures" on "How to Scare Players".

Quote:
The Secret: The GM has one player step outside of the room with her or otherwise out of earshot of the other players. She then provides him with secret information he’s learned during the course of play or something only he’s noticed. She possibly gets a brief response, then as swiftly as possible, they return to the game table. How and whether that information is shared with the rest of the party is up to the player—but now everyone knows that something special happened to him.

That flows naturally, and is easy to parse. If you replace "she" with "THE GM" and "he" with "THE PLAYER" it's going to be a lot more awkward.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Looking at some of the supplements and AP chapters, there’s a slight but consistent majority of female pronouns and NPCs.

In the Adventurer’s Guide, there are 24 prestige classes presented. The pronouns used in the text for 15 of them are female, while the other 9 are male — thus 63% female, 37% male.

Each of the 18 organizations is given a sidebar with three named NPCs, together with a build stub. Out of 54 total, 25 are male, 27 are female, and two are outsiders (genie and jann), one of which is consistently referred to as “they.”

In Trail of the Hunted, the first chapter of Ironfang Invasion, there are 23 named NPCs, 13 of which are female and 9 of which are male. In the second chapter, Fangs of War, there are 14 female and 13 male NPCs; and in Longshadow there are 8 apiece. (I’m not including animals, like Patchy the mother bear or any of the named animal companions.)

So it depends on the book and the authors, but as far as supplements go the OP’s basic observation isn’t inaccurate.


I believe the OP has stumbled on Paizo's secret agenda to promote diversity and tolerance.

1 to 50 of 61 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Random thought. All Messageboards