So there are Matriarch races. Any Patriarchs?

[Cipher Stars]

The men are the total slaves of the women in the Drow race.

Is there a race thats the total opposite in that regard?
I would never ever ever play such a race :smallannoyed: But I was just wondering, it'd be good to know and perhaps use as a resource in campaigns when I need a race to serve as cannon fodder...

[Kelb_Panthera]

Given d&d's pseudo medieval setting, it's generally asumed that many of the civilizations of humanity are patriarchal. Though perhaps not to the extent that drow society is matriarchal.

[AlanBruce]

As far as I have read the various monster manuals, Drow are the exception, not the norm. Most monstrous races have males as the leaders of their tribes. Then again, most of the more uncivilized races value strength as the true defining factor for leadership. So a male or female could rule as long as they can break necks when their authority is questioned.

And then you have the aberrant races, which are either asexual or entirely alien in their sexuality (beffitting their nature). I believe Illithids reproduce by a budding process referred to a ceremorphosis. Their leader can't even be classified as male or female - it's a giant brain!

[navar100]

orcs, goblins, hobgoblins, gnolls, dwarves (just not evil about it), bugbears, humans (otherwise the trope amazonian version of Drow that always exist in every campaign somewhere wouldn't stand out.)

[Serpentine]

It's pretty much considered standard, albeit not usually to the same extreme. Good luck finding many non-Evil matriarchal races, though.

[navar100]

It's pretty much considered standard, albeit not usually to the same extreme. Good luck finding many non-Evil matriarchal races, though.

Yep, it's never a benign matriarchy. (Rashemen the exception?) Whether it be a game, a novel, a tv show, a movie, fantasy or science fiction, matriarchies are always some feminist revenge fantasy.

[Spuddles]

Yep, it's never a benign matriarchy. (Rashemen the exception?) Whether it be a game, a novel, a tv show, a movie, fantasy or science fiction, matriarchies are always some feminist revenge fantasy.

Feminist revenge fantasy? More like a patriarchal caricature.

D&D, with an arcane, rigid ruleset, and a single arbiter who is ultimately responsible for all rules, could be described itself as a patriarchal system.

[Eonir]

I do believe in MM it says that orcs are extremely patriarchal. Female orcs are kept like cattle by orc Warlords and possess no rights whatsoever.

[Worira]

Feminist revenge fantasy? More like a patriarchal caricature.

D&D, with an arcane, rigid ruleset, and a single arbiter who is ultimately responsible for all rules, could be described itself as a patriarchal system.

Well, it could, you'd just be wrong.

[Cipher Stars]

It's pretty much considered standard, albeit not usually to the same extreme. Good luck finding many non-Evil matriarchal races, though.

I just made one actually.
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=13356025#post13356025




Orcs are like that? Makes sense, and I guess I see it often enough. Usually in fanart though.
But Orcs are ugly, so I discount them as a race.
Thats on the right track though.

[Serpentine]

Glad to hear it, although I'm not sure about your justification for it.
Yep, it's never a benign matriarchy. (Rashemen the exception?) Whether it be a game, a novel, a tv show, a movie, fantasy or science fiction, matriarchies are always some feminist revenge fantasy.

Feminist revenge fantasy? More like a patriarchal caricature.DEFINITELY what Spuddles says. It goes right back to the Amazons killing (or ditching) all men - it isn't the least bit about "what women would like to do if they were in charge", and far more about "what men are afraid women would do if they were in charge" - not least because pretty much every one of these evil (or at least severely misandrist) matriarchal societies are invented by men, not women. To use the classic example of the drow, just how many women were involved in the creation of D&D?

[Hand_of_Vecna]

The bee people at the beginning of MM2 are non-evil matriarchs.

I can't think of any races that are patriarchal in the retardedly extreme way that drow are matriarchal except for savage races, but if we assume that in those races females have a small penalty to strength and therefore make inferior Warriors and Barbarians that's excusable.

In my games drow get a by due to longevity and having a retarded matron god, but otherwise I prefer sexism to be well below historical levels. It's hard to look too far down on the "weaker" sex when they have 18 Int Wizard and 18 Wis Cleric members.

[Libertad]

Well, there's the nation of Calimsham in Forgotten Realms. Women are viewed as being "lesser" than men, and the closest aspect of social equality is the criminal underworld where female thieves/assassins/etc. are judged entirely by merit and skill.

[Urpriest]

There are two PrCs that have Gender:Male as a prereq. One is the Eunuch Warlock, which is probably not an example of what you're looking for. The other is Thrall of Kostichie, which sort of works, as Kostichie is basically the demon lord of rapists, misogynists, and faux frost giants. So any frost giant society loyal to Kostichie will be patriarchal to the same extent that Drow are matriarchal.

[White_Drake]

But Orcs are ugly, so I discount them as a race.

Dwarves are ugly too, but we still love them (sorta)!

[Kerilstrasz]

Only because no1 said it..
another matriarch (not race but a group of races like 90% human)...
AMAZONS!

well... maybe those are the extreme end of matriarchy..
they only use men to reproduce and then kill em... they also kill or in extreme rare cases they leave their baby boys at a nearby village out of mercy..

hmm... an Amazon village of drows.... wear your "caps" boys :smalltongue:

[Rainbownaga]

Most PHB races are patriarchal. The men spend all their time at home or at the tavern growing fat while the womenfolk do all the real work (domestic and otherwise).

How else could you explain the weight disparity in races where the women are just as physically strong and tough as the men.

[some guy]

orcs, goblins, hobgoblins, gnolls, dwarves (just not evil about it), bugbears, humans (otherwise the trope amazonian version of Drow that always exist in every campaign somewhere wouldn't stand out.)

Wait, gnolls are patriarchal? I've always used them as matriarchs, what with the hyena connection and all.
*Checks MM*
Nothing in there about gender status of gnolls. Oh well.

[Cicciograna]

The Fomorians (MM2) are statedly a strictly patriarchal rule: in their description the manual says that the males consider women and children as property and treat them as slaves.

[sol_kanar]

By the way, I've always wondered why some D&D societies are patriarchal or matriarchal, if there is no statistical difference between males and females members. Potentially, a member of a sex could be just as strong, dexterous, resistant, intelligent, wise or charismatic as member of the opposite sex.

And since most of the world is low-level, it's actually quite hard to inflict violence on other people. Good luck grappling with someone who has more or less your Strength modifier, shares your same size and has no BAB disadvantage.

I think it just does not make sense: maybe a tradition or a god/goddess could enforce such rules (see the Drow example), but otherwise there is no reason for such a form of government to emerge.

[Bharg]

By the way, I've always wondered why some D&D societies are patriarchal or matriarchal, if there is no statistical difference between males and females members. Potentially, a member of a sex could be just as strong, dexterous, resistant, intelligent, wise or charismatic as member of the opposite sex.

And since most of the world is low-level, it's actually quite hard to inflict violence on other people. Good luck grappling with someone who has more or less your Strength modifier, shares your same size and has no BAB disadvantage.

I think it just does not make sense: maybe a tradition or a god/goddess could enforce such rules (see the Drow example), but otherwise there is no reason for such a form of government to emerge.

Introducing the... Sexual Attribute Modifier!
Yeah, I don't see how that one is going to bite us in the a-- /irony off

There is still stuff like money, weapons and personalities. It's actually pretty easy to explain and justify.

[Spiryt]

By the way, I've always wondered why some D&D societies are patriarchal or matriarchal, if there is no statistical difference between males and females members. Potentially, a member of a sex could be just as strong, dexterous, resistant, intelligent, wise or charismatic as member of the opposite sex.

And since most of the world is low-level, it's actually quite hard to inflict violence on other people. Good luck grappling with someone who has more or less your Strength modifier, shares your same size and has no BAB disadvantage.

I think it just does not make sense: maybe a tradition or a god/goddess could enforce such rules (see the Drow example), but otherwise there is no reason for such a form of government to emerge.

Well, the simplest answer is that D&D is simple system that can roughly model some adventures of few guys, and modeling whole setting societies and stuff by BAB and stuff is pointless. :smallwink:

[Salanmander]

By the way, I've always wondered why some D&D societies are patriarchal or matriarchal, if there is no statistical difference between males and females members. Potentially, a member of a sex could be just as strong, dexterous, resistant, intelligent, wise or charismatic as member of the opposite sex.

And since most of the world is low-level, it's actually quite hard to inflict violence on other people. Good luck grappling with someone who has more or less your Strength modifier, shares your same size and has no BAB disadvantage.

I think it just does not make sense: maybe a tradition or a god/goddess could enforce such rules (see the Drow example), but otherwise there is no reason for such a form of government to emerge.

The patriarchal setup of our own world makes equally little sense. Even though it's easier for most men to build muscle than most women, that doesn't matter in the slightest for anything regarding the ruling of our modern world.

Frequently a gender bias can be set up in the murky depths of history, and just self-perpetuate. As for how it would be set up in the D&D world in the first place, there are a many ways: random chance (which leads to some matriarchies, some patriarchies, and some egalitarian societies), personality differences, and of course pregnancy is a thing that we don't really deal with in D&D (because being a pregnant adventurer is just irresponsible), but that you can't get away from in the sociopolitical structure of a group.

[truemane]

The patriarchal setup of our own world makes equally little sense. Even though it's easier for most men to build muscle than most women, that doesn't matter in the slightest for anything regarding the ruling of our modern world.

I think you got it. It's a self-perpetuating system based on a few real biological differences. Not just upper body strength, although I'm certain that was a real factor at one point, but the fact that, until very very very recently in the human experience, a woman only had two choices: children or no sex.

Given that there wasn't any way to consistently control fertility, women were kept from the workplace because it was assumed (not unreasonably) that at some point, they would become pregnant and leave. And then get pregnant again, and again, and again. Because there wasn't really any other choice.

Hence the stereotype of the old spinster teacher. Women who weren't spinsters had kids. Usually a few of them. And that makes it hard to work.

Add a few dozen generations of social pressure to that, and there you go.

The birth control pill irrevocably and permanently changed the human condition in the 1st world. And only a few decades ago. And we're still trying to find our feet, as a culture, after the change.

[truemane]

The patriarchal setup of our own world makes equally little sense. Even though it's easier for most men to build muscle than most women, that doesn't matter in the slightest for anything regarding the ruling of our modern world.

I think you got it. It's a self-perpetuating system based on a few real biological differences. Not just upper body strength, although I'm certain that was a real factor at one point, but the fact that, until very very very recently in the human experience, a woman only had two choices: children or no sex.

Given that there wasn't any way to consistently control fertility, women were kept from the workplace because it was assumed (not unreasonably) that at some point, they would become pregnant and leave. And then get pregnant again, and again, and again. Because there wasn't really any other choice.

Hence the stereotype of the old spinster teacher. Women who weren't spinsters had kids. Usually a few of them. And that makes it hard to work.

Add a few dozen generations of social pressure to that, and there you go.

The birth control pill irrevocably and permanently changed the human condition in the 1st world. And only a few decades ago. And we're still trying to find our feet, as a culture, after the change.

[sol_kanar]

All of the above are very interesting contributions! I think that someone interested in World Building could get a lot of good (and consistent) ideas from those.

[Psyren]

Dwarves are ugly too, but we still love them (sorta)!

Assuming you're referring to the Cha penalty, that has more to do with being generally surly/slow to trust newcomers than lack of physical attractiveness.


Given d&d's pseudo medieval setting, it's generally asumed that many of the civilizations of humanity are patriarchal. Though perhaps not to the extent that drow society is matriarchal.

Yep, this. In societies were hunting, adventuring and force-at-arms and other physical endeavors are prized, the biological differences between the genders tend to be more pronounced. Thus, light patriarchies are the norm.

[Morph Bark]

Yep, it's never a benign matriarchy. (Rashemen the exception?) Whether it be a game, a novel, a tv show, a movie, fantasy or science fiction, matriarchies are always some feminist revenge fantasy.

I've come across a benign matriarchy in a book I read in sixth grade. I never ended up finishing it, because the bad guys seemed like Nazis to me then.

[nedz]

Dwarves are ugly too, but we still love them (sorta)!

Now that's just Lankyist

[Andorax]

The reason patriarchical socieites are very hard to find in D&D is because the concept of a patriarchical society is not politically correct.

D&D is not immune to modern-day concepts of political correctness.

[Pyromancer999]

There's always humans, especially in medieval settings.




But Orcs are ugly, so I discount them as a race.


.....:smallconfused: Pretty harsh and shallow right there.

[Psyren]

The reason patriarchical socieites are very hard to find in D&D is because the concept of a patriarchical society is not politically correct.

D&D is not immune to modern-day concepts of political correctness.

Remember though that contrary examples can be just as educational or have as much literary value as playing modern sensibilities straight. There are many D&D societies that employ slavery for instance, despite such a concept being unacceptable to modern society today. Racism is also common, if more fantastic in nature ("knife-ears," attitude toward savage races and fey etc.)

[Novawurmson]

The reason patriarchical socieites are very hard to find in D&D is because the concept of a patriarchical society is not politically correct.

D&D is not immune to modern-day concepts of political correctness.

^ This is one important reason. If a company came out with a book that said "...and all the women are slaves with ranks in Profession (Sandwich Making)," people might get upset, and understandably so. Even just making a race that ends "...and the women have little to no recourse of law and no place in the public sphere" feels a little uncomfortably close to home for a fantasy game.

It's more fun (for me, at least) to play in a world with different social problems than the real world. For example, instead of living in a world where gender determines majors differences in pay, career advancement, and social pressures, I'd rather play in a world in which the ability to summon monsters from other planes of existence determines whether or not I get eviscerated by a claw from a horrible monster.

[Cipher Stars]

.....:smallconfused: Pretty harsh and shallow right there.

>.< Nonsense.
I meant in a way that I'd actually interact with. "ugly" races are fine in a city and as NPCs you don't see much of or cannon fodder.
But for interaction, my general rule is "Would I mind being nailed by that" or "Would I mind if I actually was that?"

That's what I meant >.>

I don't have an actual racial dislike of any sort. I may not hate something, but It doesn't mean I have to touch it.


Lot of helpful replies here.
Pretty much; Any race can have its own culture. And "Hellooo, it is medieval times your talking about".

[Morph Bark]

This makes me wonder... what was the first instance of a dwarf female in DnD? As in, a prominent enough portrayal that it warranted artwork being made of her, preferably also being given a name, and such.

[Urpriest]

This makes me wonder... what was the first instance of a dwarf female in DnD? As in, a prominent enough portrayal that it warranted artwork being made of her, preferably also being given a name, and such.

There must have been some near the beginning of Forgotten Realms, to start the whole "dwarf women in FR have beards" thing.

[maysarahs]

But for interaction, my general rule is "Would I mind being nailed by that" or "Would I mind if I actually was that?"

I hate to sound pedantic, but I'm pretty sure this still falls under the purview of "shallow"...

To OP:
With all due respect I am quite interested in the query and, further, the discussion on the reasons behind race design choices, it is an incredibly good read. However, as a feminist, I find your side comments a little detrimental to the conversation because I am a little insulted by your mild sexism.

To clarify, it rubs me the wrong way that the purpose of your query is to find a race whose purpose is to die in your campaign. How would you feel if I said I wanted to use the Nereen and the Drow as the major enemies simply because it's their women we'd be fighting. Ultimately your reasons are your reasons, maybe you are playing some kind of feminist revenge fantasy. I call no judgment upon your decisions. I simply believe they have no part in the conversation.

Further, I'm not the best looker, and it isn't friendly to hear that "anything not worth nailing is beneath interacting with". Again, your opinions are yours, I'd just much prefer that you kept your more demeaning ones to yourself please.

If anyone believes I am being ENTIRELY too sensitive about the matter, I apologize, it is something I am prone to.

Now to get back on track I am pretty sure that almost every Giant race has some writing somewhere or another that boils down to "women stay with the camp and tend to womanly stuff, Men hunt and lead". Is that patriarchal enough?

[Cipher Stars]

I hate to sound pedantic, but I'm pretty sure this still falls under the purview of "shallow"...

To OP:
With all due respect I am quite interested in the query and, further, the discussion on the reasons behind race design choices, it is an incredibly good read. However, as a feminist, I find your side comments a little detrimental to the conversation because I am a little insulted by your mild sexism.

To clarify, it rubs me the wrong way that the purpose of your query is to find a race whose purpose is to die in your campaign. How would you feel if I said I wanted to use the Nereen and the Drow as the major enemies simply because it's their women we'd be fighting. Ultimately your reasons are your reasons, maybe you are playing some kind of feminist revenge fantasy. I call no judgment upon your decisions. I simply believe they have no part in the conversation.

Further, I'm not the best looker, and it isn't friendly to hear that "anything not worth nailing is beneath interacting with". Again, your opinions are yours, I'd just much prefer that you kept your more demeaning ones to yourself please.

If anyone believes I am being ENTIRELY too sensitive about the matter, I apologize, it is something I am prone to.

Now to get back on track I am pretty sure that almost every Giant race has some writing somewhere or another that boils down to "women stay with the camp and tend to womanly stuff, Men hunt and lead". Is that patriarchal enough?
http://images.wikia.com/polaqu/images/d/d8/Orc.jpg
http://www.funnyreign.com/beta/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/orc-captures-child.jpg
So... Can you tell me how you look like that in any way :smallconfused:
I never said I was looking for a race to do nothing but kill. I'm looking to expand my knowledge so I can use the information in future histories and/or world development.
So. Yes. You're being too sensitive. But I'm sorry I stabbed at your feelings anyway. :smallfrown:

[Sr.medusa]

I think you got it. It's a self-perpetuating system based on a few real biological differences. Not just upper body strength, although I'm certain that was a real factor at one point, but the fact that, until very very very recently in the human experience, a woman only had two choices: children or no sex.

Given that there wasn't any way to consistently control fertility, women were kept from the workplace because it was assumed (not unreasonably) that at some point, they would become pregnant and leave. And then get pregnant again, and again, and again. Because there wasn't really any other choice.

Hence the stereotype of the old spinster teacher. Women who weren't spinsters had kids. Usually a few of them. And that makes it hard to work.

Add a few dozen generations of social pressure to that, and there you go.

The birth control pill irrevocably and permanently changed the human condition in the 1st world. And only a few decades ago. And we're still trying to find our feet, as a culture, after the change.

That's interesting if we keep in mind that there are plenty ways in D&Dverses of control fertelity (Prestidigitation mostly) and some races have full acces to it (I think in gnommes). If gnommes can choise if they get pregnant or not, their culture will be, more o less, simliar to ours (or similar to ours in the future) in that particular aspect.

Leaving this aside, all of we know that the drow are matriarchal only for the pornwise art covers and for the atract teenagers factor? I always asume that there are builded for this target (If I mistaken, why the matriarch never is a really fat, old and ugly drow woman with preference for the handsome [probably including some PCs] males?).

PD: sorry for the engrish, at this hour I don't even see what I writting.

[Craft (Cheese)]

I think it just does not make sense: maybe a tradition or a god/goddess could enforce such rules (see the Drow example), but otherwise there is no reason for such a form of government to emerge.

You'd be surprised at just how easy it is to convince someone that they're inferior and thus worthy of sub-human treatment. But now this is getting dangerously close to an off-limits discussion, so I'll take this line of thought no further.


Anyway, I like matriarchial races because I enjoy experimenting with realistic differences that cause this to arise. Millennia of sexual selection causing females to become sedentary while males bicker and fight among themselves for their approval...

Or maybe I just like to spend way too much time imagining how fictional species' genitals work...


Remember though that contrary examples can be just as educational or have as much literary value as playing modern sensibilities straight. There are many D&D societies that employ slavery for instance, despite such a concept being unacceptable to modern society today. Racism is also common, if more fantastic in nature ("knife-ears," attitude toward savage races and fey etc.)

For what it's worth, I've not once ever seen a D&D society (in any official material anyway) portray slavery as anything other than something only the unrepentably Evil practice.

[Yahzi]

Given that there wasn't any way to consistently control fertility, women were kept from the workplace
In the medieval world, the mortality rate was so high, any society that didn't have all of its women pregnant all of the time would soon disappear.

In the D&D world, which is both medieval and full of monsters that exclusively eat people as their main diet, the mortality rate is off the charts.