I don't think so. That said, I've always imagined most druids would be female, since nature is usually seen as female.
Nope.
I have a tendency to make my Strength-based melee characters Male and my magic-based characters Female, but that's 100% my own bias (also it's a tendency not a rule, I do have characters who break the mold). I've never thought of any classes as having a gender bias though.
No.
We can have playable species with 0, 1, 3, or more genders. Making the class specific to one gender gets complicated when we're talking about plants, constructs, or beings from space.
There are some prestige classes associated with the Gray Maidens which require you to be female, but that's mostly because the group that the PrC represents only admits women as members.
A group being specific to one gender, or one ancestry, or people from one country, etc. makes more sense than a class being such.
|
Paizo always uses he/she pronouns throughout the class descriptions (usually based on the gender of their in-universe lore based Iconic character from that class), but outside of maybe 1-2 Prestige classes, no. All of the core, base, and hybrid classes are open to all, as are most of the prestige classes.
There's the masked maiden vigilante archetype. Oozemorph shifters are gender: not applicable. Aside from that I can't think of anything.
Some people will have a bias towards genders when it comes to some classes (see above comments from people) while others won't have any at all.
EG: For the last few years my group of players has been 3 guys and 1 woman. Looking at the classes they've played, I've had:
Male: Arcanist, Barbarian, Fighter, Monk, Oracle, Paladin, Ranger, 2 Rogues, Shaman, Swashbuckler, Witch, Wizard
Female: Barbarian, Bard, Cleric, Paladin, Rogue
But I think most people tend to play their own gender and play the class that they want to play, without paying any attention to which gender anyone might perceive a certain class is "supposed" to be.
Also haven't heard much about nature being female.
"Mother Nature" is a fairly common phrase. (But it might be completely unheard of where you live.)
|
Some people will have a bias towards genders when it comes to some classes (see above comments from people) while others won't have any at all.
EG: For the last few years my group of players has been 3 guys and 1 woman. Looking at the classes they've played, I've had:
Male: Arcanist, Barbarian, Fighter, Monk, Oracle, Paladin, Ranger, 2 Rogues, Shaman, Swashbuckler, Witch, Wizard
Female: Barbarian, Bard, Cleric, Paladin, Rogue
But I think most people tend to play their own gender and play the class that they want to play, without paying any attention to which gender anyone might perceive a certain class is "supposed" to be.Also haven't heard much about nature being female."Mother Nature" is a fairly common phrase. (But it might be completely unheard of where you live.)
Not to mention most players, believe the character is the same gender as the player in many cases anyway. It can make for some amusing scenes when other players forget what a player said, more so, when the player themselves forgets there own characters gender choice.
But it does also make for a good role playing experience to watch a player pull off the choices that they make that take them out of the 'tried and true' past character paths they get pigeonholed into (like certain types of actors)
I myself tend to get pigeonholed when playing as a Spellcaster, mostly Sorcerer's.
Most players hate when I play rogues... apparently I'm an A$$ when playing a rogue. So... >.> yeah, not to mention before unchained, my rogue build was too effective for the GM. But this isn't a character building talk.
But my performance really falls flat when I create a female character...except as a Sorcerer. >.> Didn't think I was doing anything too weird but it seemed to work fine when I play Cha-based spellcasters male or female.
But to sum up, as a game master and player now for 26+ years. It's acting is the best way to view it. Each character is a role created by the player. If they can pull it off, nice, if not... well they might need to keep trying till they can find a role to fill :-)
There's the masked maiden vigilante archetype. Oozemorph shifters are gender: not applicable. Aside from that I can't think of anything.
If we're going beyond core classes, then we can include the Sanguine Angel, which is just a Gray Maiden prestige class. Oddly enough the Sister in Arms Cavalier archetype does not specify a gender though it does mention the Gray Maidens.
I can't find it now, but I built up a cleric once and while researching it I found a particular set of builds that required the cleric to be female. I'm not sure what all was involved, if it was an archetype/god combo or a divine obedience or what. I just remember it only worked if the character was female.
|
While some archetypes are written for organizations in Golorion that are gender specific, such as the aforementioned grey maiden archetypes of masked maiden or sister in arms, the rules for these archetypes don't actually list gender as a requirement.
Such requirements are more the purview of prestige classes (though I think Sanguine Angel might be the only one). Base classes don't have such narrow restrictions. Also Paizo has made a lot of effort on being very friendly to gender bending, nonbianary, homosexual, and whatever all the modern gender identities are I can't keep track of. It's also a world where people can magically swap genders. Loosing all class features because you got polymorphed or something would be terrible.
|
=Hag of Gyronna] Only female witches dare dedicate themselves to the Angry Hag, and those who do so are feared for their ability to bend minds and sow discord. Some say these witches can watch their enemies from afar and can even corrupt the minds of the most innocent or loyal, including newborn babes and cherished pets.
Her Clergy is also female only, can’t recall the specific passage but I’m pretty she curses/kills any male that tries to worship her or otherwise gets power from her.