Bit of Mysogyny?

[Alias]

Ran into this in another thread..


It's been alluded to already, but I'll cal out 1e's restrictions on what classes (or highest level in a class) you are allowed to have by race. And, for misogyny's sake, the rule limiting females to a higher max STR score than males. (IIRC, aren't there also racial minimums/maximums for ability scores, too?)

Never followed those rules myself, because they aren't really that fun and besides, what's the point other than (usually) punishing female players and characters.

Still, my setting does have one moment of gender split in a race - among halflings. Taking a note from The Dark Crystal, the female halflings of my world, Oyasini, have wings. Males do not. As I'm currently adjusting the race to Pathfinder norms I've decided to let the two diverge a little further.



Oyasoi (Males)
+2 DEX, +2 CHA, -2 STR
Fearless: Oyasoi receive a +2 racial bonus on all saving throws against fear. This bonus stacks with the bonus granted by halfling luck.

Halfling Luck: Halflings receive a +1 racial bonus on all saving throws.


Oyasi (Females)
+2 DEX, +2 WIS, -2 STR
Flight: Oyasi are winged and Fly is always a class skill for them. While unable to take off from a stand, they can safe fall any distance on a DC 15 check. In high favorable winds they can glide long distances.


Both Sexes:
Size: Oyasini are Small creatures and gain a +1 size bonus to their AC, a +1 size bonus on attack rolls, a –1 penalty to their CMB and CMD, and a +4 size bonus on Stealth checks.

Sure-Footed: Oyasini receive a +2 racial bonus on Acrobatics and Climb checks.

Keen Senses: Oyasini receive a +2 racial bonus on Perception checks.

Weapon Familiarity: Oyasini are proficient with spears and treat any weapon with the word “oyasin” in its name as a martial weapon.

Base Speed (Slow Speed): Oyasini have a base speed of 20 feet.

Languages: Oyasini begin play speaking Common and Oyari. Oyasini with high Intelligence scores can choose from the following: Dwarven, Elven, Gnome, and Goblin. See the Linguistics skill page for more information about these languages.


The main change from 3.5 is that the PF decided to give the all the base races +2 in something, and in the case of halflings it was charisma. I chose to let this be the split point, the males get that +2 charisma boost, but the females get a +2 wisdom boost instead.

What girls I've had in the group have never complained about the split, but none have wanted to play a halfling in the first place so I haven't been able to see one of these in the hands of a PC yet. Even when one of the guys has played a halfling no one has wanted to play across gender to pick up the glide ability. Then again, I've only got one power gamer and halflings aren't that great for hack and slash with their smaller weapons and strength penalty.

[Spuddles]

It's not sexism if they're not human.

[molten_dragon]

Personally, I just don't think making differences between sexes in any race is worth it. You always run the risk that someone will be offended.

However, as long as your party is okay with it, I don't see a big deal with it. The females' wings seem a little more powerful than the males' saving throw bonuses. But not enough so that it's going to break the game or anything.

[Duke of URL]

Even core 3.5 has a gender split -- favored classes for Drow vary by male/female.


Favored Class: Wizard (male) or cleric (female). This trait replaces the high elf’s favored class.

Gender splits are not misogynistic in and of themselves, as long as both genders gain/lose things roughly equally; it's only when one gender is specifically denied something the other can have that you get into sexism -- in 3.5, there are still some examples of this (e.g., Swanmay [BoED] is restricted to females, despite having no actual mechanics that depend on gender).

[KillianHawkeye]

It's not sexism if they're not human.

Say what?? :smallconfused::smallconfused:

That makes no sense. Most non-human creatures are bi-gendered just like we are. Being human has nothing to do with it (provided the species is intelligent enough to be capable of choosing between discriminatory and non-discriminatory behavior).

[Alias]

Well, there are people with such paper thin skin everything offends them - they aren't the ones I'm concerned with. This race is the only one I do this with because, well, the line from the movie sold it..


Jen - "Wings!? Where.. uh... I don't have wings!!"
Kira - "Of course not silly - you're a boy."

Society-wise I did get the pleasure of creating a culture. For all of the Dark Crystal, we see two individuals, not a culture. And oyasini culture itself is decidedly reverse sexist.

Part of this stems from birthrates - only 1/3rd of oyasini are female to begin with. Being in the minority, they nevertheless control much of the political system. Their society practices polyandry (one wife will usually have multiple husbands).

[Spuddles]

Why the skewed birth rate? Typically gender ratios move to 50:50 due to the advantage conveyed to minority genders. A gene that increased the chance of female offspring in your halfling population would rapidly spread. Eventually, the gender ratio would equilibrize close to half & half.

In humans, there tend to be slightly more males born than females (107 to 100, respectively), as males tend to suffer slightly higher rates of mortality than females.

Assuming natural selection acts on the halfling population, males must be dying at a rate of 3:1 compared to females.

[Andorax]

I don't have all the details in front of me, but FWIW I did a d20 conversion of my own of WoW's Naga...the females are four-armed and favor casting classes, the males are Large and favor melee builds.


I think the key point is finding out the comfort level of your gaming group. If nobody is bothered by it, then by all means diversify away, but be willing to let go of that if it's causing someone an issue (and be willing to talk privately one on one with each player to find out if that's the case).

[prufock]

Sexual dimorphism is a real thing; it isn't misogynist or sexism to point out that, for instance, human women have a higher average body fat percentage than men. If one member of a species has wings, or red stripes, or is much larger, this isn't sexism. Speculating on unproven differences is a different matter.

But since we're dealing with fantasy races, there's nothing particularly sexist about having them be sexually dimorphic. There is no speculation, because you define how your races work. One sex has wings and the other doesn't? There are moths like that.

The differences should be balanced, of course. If one sex is significantly more or less powerful, a level adjustment should reflect that.

None of this is to suggest that it is a good idea, though. There are reasons not to do this:
- Player wants to play x race with y gender, but that gender doesn't get the mechanical benefits desired. Of course, you could say that racial differences pose the same issue anyway, which is true, but now you're adding an additional restriction.
- Increased complexity in the system.
- Doing this with humans might make others suspect you believe these differences apply to real humans, not just the fantasy ones, which is probably what would get you "sexism" complaints.

[Yuukale]

Even core 3.5 has a gender split -- favored classes for Drow vary by male/female.

This isn't bad mechanics considering drow cities that worship Lolth, where gender roles are seriously enforced and respected.

That said, designers should bear in mind that any other kind of drow society this isn't true (surface drows, vhaeraunite drows, etc...). I believe this shows lack of designer attention instead of purposeful gender-bias. Of course, only in this case.

[Kaeso]

If anything those stats are more misandrist than misogynic. The females get a bonus to a better stat (wis as opposed to cha) and flight. Even if it's only gliding, it allows them (sometimes literally) to give the finger to anything that's limited to melee combat.

[Akisa]

Why the skewed birth rate? Typically gender ratios move to 50:50 due to the advantage conveyed to minority genders. A gene that increased the chance of female offspring in your halfling population would rapidly spread. Eventually, the gender ratio would equilibrize close to half & half.

In humans, there tend to be slightly more males born than females (107 to 100, respectively), as males tend to suffer slightly higher rates of mortality than females.

Assuming natural selection acts on the halfling population, males must be dying at a rate of 3:1 compared to females.

Not always the case, it is possible that for females to grossly out populate males. For example in Short Finned pilot whales (http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/mammals/cetaceans/pilotwhale_shortfinned.htm) the ratio is 8 females to 1 male.

[shimmercat]

I think this is a really fun idea. Yeah, it doesn't make 100% sense from a biological perspective for a 3:1 gender split, but this is a fantasy world so 100% sense isn't always necessary. As long as your players think it's a neat idea, go for it.

The female IS quiet a bit more powerful than the male as written, so I can see possible conflict there... But I don't play PF so I'm not sure how to balance it.

[NerfTW]

Say what?? :smallconfused::smallconfused:

That makes no sense. Most non-human creatures are bi-gendered just like we are. Being human has nothing to do with it (provided the species is intelligent enough to be capable of choosing between discriminatory and non-discriminatory behavior).

It makes perfect sense. Why would a non human race follow human evolution norms? Just look around you and you'll see plenty of species on our own planet in reality where the male and females are distinctly different, even in size and natural abilities.

For humans, you'd want to be equal, because we basically are. There's no massive difference between genders other than sexual organs/characteristics and a few minor psychological differences. If you make a major difference, you shouldn't call them human anymore.

But once you start making imaginary fantasy species, why do they have to be entirely based off humans?

[Spuddles]

Not always the case, it is possible that for females to grossly out populate males. For example in Short Finned pilot whales (http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/mammals/cetaceans/pilotwhale_shortfinned.htm) the ratio is 8 females to 1 male.

"They are polygynous (males have more than one mate) and are often found in groups with a ratio of one mature male to about every eight mature females. Males generally leave their birth school, while females may remain in theirs for their entire lifetime."

That merely describes polygonous behavior. It doesn't actually say anything about sex ratios at birth. The association of animals in space (demographics) is a very different thing than the relationship between the sexes at birth.

[Eldan]

It makes perfect sense. Why would a non human race follow human evolution norms? Just look around you and you'll see plenty of species on our own planet in reality where the male and females are distinctly different, even in size and natural abilities.

For humans, you'd want to be equal, because we basically are. There's no massive difference between genders other than sexual organs/characteristics and a few minor psychological differences. If you make a major difference, you shouldn't call them human anymore.

But once you start making imaginary fantasy species, why do they have to be entirely based off humans?

You can, however, still be sexist about non-humans. Both male and female elves have the same intelligence score on average. If I claim that female elves are less intelligent than male elves, that is still sexist.

[Synovia]

Never followed those rules myself, because they aren't really that fun and besides, what's the point other than (usually) punishing female players and characters.

If you're trying to play a simulationist game, then these sorts of restrictions make sense. There are things that men do better than women, and things women do better than men. In real life, the human limits of strength and speed are higher for men than women.

(for instance, men had run a 4 minute mile before women ran a 5 minute one. Right now the record is 3:43 for men and 4:12 for women. Similar differences exist in most race lengths)

Now, in the case of superheros, which higher level D&D characters basically are, it probably doesn't have meaning. Is Wonder woman less strong than some arbitrary male superstrength human because shes a woman? Who knows.

[Boci]

In another thread someone came up with an optimal trait something like this::

Male Physic:
You take a -2 penalty to all dex based skills, but gain a +2 bonus to all strength based skills.

Female Physic:
You take a -2 penalty all strength based skills, but gan a +2 to bonus to concentration checks and saves against pain.

[lunar2]

well, women's greater pain tolerance is a matter of debate, so i don't think that's such a great measure. also, you shouldn't take penalties due to gender. saying that men have a +1 bonus to strength based checks, while women have a +1 bonus to dexterity based checks would be more fair. you have a clear, minor difference between genders that carries the flavor of the gender difference, but doesn't have a major gameplay effect. also, you don't penalize certain genders taking cetain career choices. why should a male have a penalty to open lock checks, for example? or why should a female be a bad climber?

[Boci]

well, women's greater pain tolerance is a matter of debate, so i don't think that's such a great measure. also, you shouldn't take penalties due to gender. saying that men have a +1 bonus to strength based checks, while women have a +1 bonus to dexterity based checks would be more fair. you have a clear, minor difference between genders that carries the flavor of the gender difference, but doesn't have a major gameplay effect. also, you don't penalize certain genders taking cetain career choices. why should a male have a penalty to open lock checks, for example? or why should a female be a bad climber?

If they are optional traits, then why not?

[Andorax]

well, women's greater pain tolerance is a matter of debate, so i don't think that's such a great measure. also, you shouldn't take penalties due to gender. saying that men have a +1 bonus to strength based checks, while women have a +1 bonus to dexterity based checks would be more fair. you have a clear, minor difference between genders that carries the flavor of the gender difference, but doesn't have a major gameplay effect. also, you don't penalize certain genders taking cetain career choices. why should a male have a penalty to open lock checks, for example? or why should a female be a bad climber?

Without commenting on the gender issue, I can clarify part of this. Traits, as introduced in Unearthed Arcana, are a paired minor bonus and penalty. These are correctly formatted as traits.

Presumably, you wouldn't be REQUIRED to take your gender trait, you'd just have gender-exclusive access to it as an additional available choice.

[HunterOfJello]

First of all, I'm kind of glad that I'm not an Oyasi. A society of highly wise women who are all uglier than the men doesn't sound like much fun. (Not to mention the women have max charisma of 16. :smallfrown: )

Okay, joking aside, I think the original versions of D&D have to be viewed through the lens of a group of gentlemen who were trying to create a fantasy game that had a foundation rule set that was as realistic as possible. If you want to be as realistic as possible, then humans do have a trend of women who are less strong than men. The average human male has stronger arm muscles than the average female human.

HOWEVER, I think it is worth examining the world at large and noting that the Player Characters in D&D are not normal adventures in the slightest. (At least not normally.) When a female human Strongwoman adventurer with levels in Barbarian joins a party, she isn't likely to resemble anything like a normal female human. She's more likely to look like a linebacker herself than a dainty princess. That single reason is why I disagree with adding in female versus male ability differences for races.

If the game allowed for giving +1 bonuses and -1 minuses, then I might have a different idea for how things should be arranged, but how things are right now discourages that (because of point buy abuse, etc.).

~

It's also worth noting that D&D is by far not the only game to set up differences between males and females. I remember playing many many RPGs on the playstation that gave men and women different stats. Men would get boosts to physical things like strength and women would get boosts to magic or mental type stats.

~

As a side note, I'm surprised that male and female drow don't have different stat bonuses since women are supposed to be stronger than almost all males.

~

*edit*

Another thought occurs to me. Stat differences should only exist if it's impossible for one gender to be as strong or dexterous or wise as the other. I don't think any sort of stat difference should be implemented otherwise. Also, if the possible end difference leans far one way or the other because of training, then classes or PrCs would be in effect. A STRONGMAN PrC could take a human male into a strength zone that isn't attainable by women, but that zone is nowhere near what is normal for a human who doesn't go through years of training for it.

[Reluctance]

It's sexist if you imply that the difference is due to inherent masculinity/femininity. (Which, while they do exist in the real world, should matter in D&D about as much as real weapon trauma and real inability to cast fireballs do.) You're saying that this is a quirk of one race, not a statement on men/women in general.

[Boci]

It's sexist if you imply that the difference is due to inherent masculinity/femininity. (Which, while they do exist in the real world, should matter in D&D about as much as real weapon trauma and real inability to cast fireballs do.) You're saying that this is a quirk of one race, not a statement on men/women in general.

But then you have to come up male and females traits for every race. Its easily to just make 1 and try and make the differences equal.

[lunar2]

If they are optional traits, then why not?

whoops, sorry. you didn't say optional, you said optimal (as in, this is how it should be). i wasn't thinking about UA traits, i was thinking about racial traits.

[KillianHawkeye]

It makes perfect sense. Why would a non human race follow human evolution norms? Just look around you and you'll see plenty of species on our own planet in reality where the male and females are distinctly different, even in size and natural abilities.

For humans, you'd want to be equal, because we basically are. There's no massive difference between genders other than sexual organs/characteristics and a few minor psychological differences. If you make a major difference, you shouldn't call them human anymore.

But once you start making imaginary fantasy species, why do they have to be entirely based off humans?

You entirely missed my point, which was that Spuddles' comment about sexism being limited to humans was absurd. My post also had nothing to do with evolution or about difference or equality of the genders in humans or other fantasy races.

[Wyntonian]

But then you have to come up male and females traits for every race. Its easily to just make 1 and try and make the differences equal.

Female dwarves should have a bonus to disguise checks to appear as a male dwarf.

Because, y'know, beards.

[King Atticus]

I'm not sure if Charisma has the same physical connotations in PF that 3.5 applies, but shouldn't the gender with the pretty Faery-esque wings get the higher Charisma bonus? They are bound to make them more appealing especially when compared to their wingless male counterparts.

[Zale]

I'm not sure if Charisma has the same physical connotations in PF that 3.5 applies, but shouldn't the gender with the pretty Faery-esque wings get the higher Charisma bonus? They are bound to make them more appealing especially when compared to their wingless male counterparts.

Like reverse Peacocks?

[King Atticus]

Like reverse Peacocks?

EXACTLY! :smallbiggrin:

[jackattack]

These rules aren't necessarily an attempt to simulate reality. Many of the racial, class, and gender restrictions/bonuses were based on fantasy fiction. Fantasy fiction that was written, for the most part, before the 1970s.

Don't kid yourselves, there was a huge gender bias.

That said, the various bonuses and penalties do encourage some differences between characters of various races and genders,. I think the intent also included a desire to allow players to compensate for poor stat-generation rolls by picking a race other than human. If your STR wasn't high enough, you could play a dwarf; if your INT wasn't high enough, you could play an elf.

And it does make sense that the strongest dwarf in the world is actually stronger than the strongest halfling in the world. And yes, males are (on average} stronger than females in most mammalian species.

I think as long as the gender bonuses/penalties/maxima are applied evenly to both sexes in-game, there isn't a problem. If there is a mechanical downside to being female in-game, there should be a mechanical upside to being female in-game. And they shouldn't prohibit excellence in a class -- a female fighter based on DEX should be more or less equivalent to a male fighter based on STR.

Once magic is involved, there should be no stat maxima based on anything. If a female character wishes to be the strongest human in the world, then she should become just that.

Additionally, eliminate gender differences (or even reverse them) in some of the fantasy races. (And not in an insulting way.) Elves in particular seem a perfect choice for stat parity. Gnome women might be physically larger than gnome men -- not more muscular or less feminine, just taller and commensurately bigger. For that matter, allow Amazon-equivalents to be just as statted as male humans, without forcing them to be misogynistic.

Yes, many of the fantasy races are based on ancient RW mythology, which in turn stamped them as human-equivalent replacements for narrative purposes. But given the huge liberties and inaccuracies that have been written into the source materials from day one, there is no reason to adhere to outmoded and game-inhibiting stereotypes.

[Synovia]

well, women's greater pain tolerance is a matter of debate, so i don't think that's such a great measure. also, you shouldn't take penalties due to gender. saying that men have a +1 bonus to strength based checks, while women have a +1 bonus to dexterity based checks would be more fair. you have a clear, minor difference between genders that carries the flavor of the gender difference, but doesn't have a major gameplay effect. also, you don't penalize certain genders taking cetain career choices. why should a male have a penalty to open lock checks, for example? or why should a female be a bad climber?

There's no real difference in giving one race/sex a penalty vs giving the other race/sex a bonus. You're just moving your endpoints.

[lunar2]

There's no real difference in giving one race/sex a penalty vs giving the other race/sex a bonus. You're just moving your endpoints.

the DCs for most things are set without taking into account house ruled bonuses and penalties. giving a penalty actively makes you worse, while giving the other guy a bonus just doesn't make you better. there is a difference. saying men are good at climbing doesn't penalize women climbers, but saying women are bad at climbing does.

[Honest Tiefling]

Society-wise I did get the pleasure of creating a culture. For all of the Dark Crystal, we see two individuals, not a culture. And oyasini culture itself is decidedly reverse sexist.

Part of this stems from birthrates - only 1/3rd of oyasini are female to begin with. Being in the minority, they nevertheless control much of the political system. Their society practices polyandry (one wife will usually have multiple husbands).

I think this might be more of a problem then the physical stats, since neither of the two sets can be overly powergamed as I can see. (Unlike 3.5 and the proposal of -2 STR, +2 CHA/WIS for women.) I think that if these guys show up as NPCs, the race will sound and play better if the reverse sexism is a flaw to the race. They should probably have some good points, IMHO, as cultures work better if all of them have good and bad aspects to them.

And please don't go overboard like drow. When the only female dominated society is full of bikini wearing evil domintrixes, it just gets really odd and difficult trying to explain it to women. Especially if they have good aim with books.

However, does your game use alternate racial features? If so, I wonder if females can trade out the wings for the same features you could trade out fearlessness for. Might be interesting to RP someone like that.

EDIT: Also, allow male PCs to totally show up those snooty faeries should the PCs have a good plan and the desire to do so.

[deuxhero]

Even core 3.5 has a gender split -- favored classes for Drow vary by male/female.



Gender splits are not misogynistic in and of themselves, as long as both genders gain/lose things roughly equally; it's only when one gender is specifically denied something the other can have that you get into sexism -- in 3.5, there are still some examples of this (e.g., Swanmay [BoED] is restricted to females, despite having no actual mechanics that depend on gender).

Also height/weight generation. That extra couple dozen pounds is very useful for a mounted character.

[Ashtagon]

HOWEVER, I think it is worth examining the world at large and noting that the Player Characters in D&D are not normal adventures in the slightest.

You're assuming PC exceptionalism, that the heroes are intrinsically exceptional. If the story being told is of ordinary people in exceptional circumstances. Such as, oh, Dragonlance (no really) and The Enemy Within, then your paradigm breaks.

[Ravens_cry]

Why is even uneven gender differences 'misogynistic'.
It's more likely to come up in a science fiction game, but some depictions of trolls could also be a case, but massive gender differences, while certainly a potential can of worms, is not necessarily misogynistic.
Imagine a species where one gender is quadrupedal and the other bipedal.
Strange biology certainly, but misogynistic?

[Tvtyrant]

There is a fish where the male is 1/200th the size of the female, finds a female upon becoming sexually mature, and then attaches himself to her and melts his organs so that he is now an organ. Humans have relatively small dimorphic traits, but in even the none-magical and physics bound real world this is not the only way to do things. Why would a fantasy species have to be more like a human than, say, a fish?

On the other hand, you get animals like Hyenas. There is almost no way to tell the difference between sexes without dissection, due to them being the same size and the female having a pseudo-penis. And yet every humanoid has to follow the human binary system, with just enough traits to be able to tell them apart on sight, but not enough to give them different stats. Tis silly.

[Boci]

There is a fish where the male is 1/200th the size of the female, finds a female upon becoming sexually mature, and then attaches himself to her and melts his organs so that he is now an organ. Humans have relatively small dimorphic traits, but in even the none-magical and physics bound real world this is not the only way to do things. Why would a fantasy species have to be more like a human than, say, a fish?

I'm pretty sure that's the angler fish. Tis scary.


On the other hand, you get animals like Hyenas. There is almost no way to tell the difference between sexes without dissection, due to them being the same size and the female having a pseudo-penis. And yet every humanoid has to follow the human binary system, with just enough traits to be able to tell them apart on sight, but not enough to give them different stats. Tis silly.

Well, dissection or observing their behavior as a pack.

[Tvtyrant]

Well, sure. But who has that kind of time? :smalltongue:

[Palanan]

The fish are in the family Ceratiidae, and they are indeed deep-sea anglerfish. Encounters between males and females are so rare that the males have to make the most of it, so they fuse into the female and atrophy into, essentially, an external gonad.

Many other fish, especially tropical reef species, are also hermaphrodites. Some eels are obligate protandrous hermaphrodites, meaning they're hatched as males and later transform into females. In some other species, females are facultative hermaphrodites, meaning they may transform into males depending on social or environmental cues.
.
.

[Tvtyrant]

Not to mention some snails are true hermaphrodites, and one species shoots the other one with a calcium dart while mating.

[Shadow Lord]

The problem with any form of mechanical effects decided by your gender is that it will inherently make one sex superior to the other at something. Furthermore, it's unlikely that any realistic approximation of gender differences will result in an actual balanced decision; take the gender split presented in this thread by the OP; this is grossly imbalanced in the female's favor, as having wings is simply a better option than a plus one increase to every save. A plus one strength bonus for males would make them simply make them superior melee combatants that don't use weapon finesse or similar feats; it gives players an extra hurdle to jump over to make their character operate just as good as every other member of their group.

[eggs]

I would be shocked and offended if my choice to play a male anthro-mantis had any unfortunate consequences whatsoever.

[ericgrau]

It's not as offensive on non-humans because (a) it doesn't have as great of an effect on real life opinions and (b) it's more plausible for other creatures to have greater differences, since it happens with some animals. There is a weak connection to genders in general and therefore to human genders that makes it somewhat annoying, but not rage inducing. It's true that at least some inequality is likely no matter how careful you are... in some other completely different creature.

The thing that often happens when it's done on humans is that the differences given on paper are too great, even simply looking at the RAW effects of the mechanical stats vs. the real world. It's true that differences do exist, but:
(a) When they are statted as too great the anti-sexist anger against them is justified.
(b) Really the differences are so small in humans that it's not worth the trouble to differentiate. Even on the very low chance that you get it right you're pissing people off for a trivial increase in accuracy.

[Spuddles]

From a purely simulationist standpoint, I don't think ability score differences in humans are warranted, given that the system isn't granular enough to resolve minor differences in strength at the extemes. 18s are really common, about 1 in 400 people have one. If you took the strongest million people in America, as in, everyone with an 18 in strength, I can bet you we'll have women in that group.

[Ravens_cry]

If you are making some cultural divisions, that may or may not be warranted by physical differences, remember, even if woman are de jure powerless, de facto is likely another matter.

[Alias]

Now that I'm home and have access to my books I can post the whole entry for the race.


Halfings
“The world can be a big place for one as small as I, but being small gives you a proper prespective.” - Geldasin

The halflings of Carthasana call themselves the "oyasini." They lie between the world of elves and pixies, similar to each race but directly tied to neither.

Physiology: Oyasini are the smallest of the kindred races, standing 3’ tall at the most with some as short as 2 ½’. Their skin ranges from chalk white to a light blush hue - their silk fine hair runs the gamut of red and blond shades, although on rare occasion light cyan and white are seen among their number. Oyasini eyes are blue, pink, violet or steel grey.
Like elves, Oyasini have somewhat exaggerated eyes, but they don’t share the larger race’s inability to move their eyeballs. They have much the same bone structure as elves, but since they are smaller they don’t suffer the slow growth effects of the larger race. In some sense they have the best of both worlds.

Oyasi (the females) have a pregnancy of 7 months and childhood for the oyasini is only 10 years, though many act socially childish well into their thirties. Player character Oyasi are assumed to be around 20 at which time they’ve developed a bit more common sense.

Oyasini differ from the halflings of other worlds because the females have wings that, while too small to allow true flight, can allow them to fall safely from any height. These wings grow out up to 6’ when extended, but they can retract down and be hidden under flowing robes and gowns.

Personality: Oyasini are infamous for their senses of curiousity. Some are all too willing to parrot an near endless series of “why’s” to anyone foolish enough to answer the question. A popular game among the oyasini is the question game – where every response is phrased as a question. This said, oyasini are only truly irritating when they want to be – most are wise enough to understand that the bigger races don’t appreciate the endless interrogation.

Still this irritation stems a bit from something deeper. Oyasini always question things. They are patient to a fault and want to make sure that they all their options are understood. So despite their nimble forms, oyasini society and individuals tend to be a bit plodding when plotting courses of action.

Description & Clothing: Oyasini prefer flowing gowns above all other types of dress, and both the males and females are unlikely to be found in any other type of garment while among their own kind. Their dress is not colorful - usually it is a single white or with a hint of color. When traveling among humans or elves they favor the use of cloaks and other garments that break up their outline.

Relations: Oyasini lack the size to easily defend themselves in a head to head conflict, so they prefer to act as peacemakers, particularly when travelling in foreign lands. Their easy-going nature makes them welcome among all of the kindred races, though their reputation for picking things up or outright stealing makes sure they are usually well watched.

Marriage & Family: Oyasini practice polyandry - which is to say that one wife will have multiple husbands. Three is the usual number, though rich matriarchs with as many as twenty husbands are not unknown. Part of the reason for this practice is that females only account for one-third the population of race. Males are expendable - females are not. While matriarchy may tinge some of the other cultures so far explored in this book, it is firmly entrenched in Oyasini society and the status quo. Females wield great political power within the numbers of oyasini. They hold all the priestly and administrative positions of the clan hold government and their rule is largely unquestioned.

Oyasini Lands: Oyasini prefer to live near to the sea or in commerce centers where news travels quickly. Their homelands are the Great Kristobal Forest in the south of Losineris. There giant trees hold whole cities miles off the ground. Oyasini, regardless of where they are, prefer to sleep as far off the ground as practical.

Religion: Oyasini religion is purely monotheistic. They believe that the goddess Ooyas-shandra created the world for them and then created spirits to administer her world. Oyasini tend to classify the gods of other religions as mere spirits that have gone renegade and forgot their true place in the world.

Language: The oyasini language is similar in most respects to elven (silvani) save that it contains plosive sounds. Oyasini use a modified version of the elven alphabet for their writings.

Names: An oyasi will have 3 main names – her own is first, then her mothers and then her clan’s. An oyasoi (male) will have 4 – as listed above and his “maiden” name since lineage in oyasini society is traced by matriarchy. Among humans oyasini tend to use whatever nicknames their friends have given them.

Adventurers: Most oyasini adventure to sate their endless curiosity.


A couple of things I've mentioned to players in addition to the main writeup above. First, the wings of an oyasi molt once a year, like the antlers of a deer. They will also regenerate in this manner if seriously damaged. They are wisp thin, and held stiff by lymph (blood plasma more or less, sans red blood cells). It takes a month for the wings to regrow and each time they do so they are ever so slightly larger.

The pattern of an oyasi's wings is as unique as a fingerprint. The change color ever so slightly with her mood, though only oyasini pick up on this easily (I've considered using this as an excuse to put them on a penalty on bluff checks). As she ages the coloration of the wings becomes more muted, and an old or venerable matriarch will have either white or translucent wings.

The wings of an oyasi are her main sexual advertisement. Unlike humans and most demihumans, oyasi do not have permanently enlarged breasts.

[Thurbane]

Males and Females of every species, both real and imaginary, are exactly the same in every detail, and to suggest otherwise is sexism of the highest order! :smallsigh: