PDA

View Full Version : Discussion: How to Make an RPG/Game/Setting/Whatever which is Non-Sexist.



Pages : [1] 2 3

Mr. Mask
2013-10-19, 04:49 AM
Rather than fight over the issue of sexism in RPGs (with such gems as, "whether it exists"), how about we take a step further in the line of progress and try and work out how RPGs should be designed, to eliminate sexism?

I think this discussion will be useful to anyone thinking of making an RPG, or an RPG supplement--or any kind of media really (I don't see why what's discussed here couldn't apply to film or the like). Still, I guess we should keep the focus on RPGs?


Let's start off easy: Female clothing/armour

I think female characters should have armour/clothing that is sensible.

...Anyone have a second topic?

EDIT: To clarify, I mean a second topic within the topic of making an RPG that avoids sexism, not that the topic of sexism is closed so easily as that.

TheCountAlucard
2013-10-19, 05:27 AM
The easiest way for a game to be completely not-sexist? Don't put people in it. None at all. Not one. Or animals, for that matter; animals can be pretty darn sexist. Just to be safe, let's do away with plants, too, they're real creepers.

This also eliminates racism and classism from a game, incidentally.

(A little more seriously, sexism in gaming extends far beyond skimpy clothing, and simply changing "offending" clothing doesn't help. It's all about the attitudes.)

EDIT: Seriously? Then go with my topic: the attitudes that cause these sexist features to happen in the first place.

Mr. Mask
2013-10-19, 05:32 AM
Edited my post. I didn't mean to say that the topic of sexism was done simply by adding in sensible clothing. I was saying that the topic of ludicrous clothing was solved by replacing it with sensible clothing in such a way as to attempt to draw humour.

TheCountAlucard
2013-10-19, 05:37 AM
And I'm saying that if the people behind the game/film/book still hold sexist attitudes, it doesn't make a lick of difference how a character is clothed; they're still practically certain to be awful.

What's "humorous" about it? :smallconfused:

AuraTwilight
2013-10-19, 05:39 AM
Treat men and women as functionally identical in game mechanics, for starters.

Mr. Mask
2013-10-19, 05:44 AM
Count: How would you suggest handling this?


AuraTwilight: Simple to do, and something most RPGs have kept to in recent years (from what I know).

TheCountAlucard
2013-10-19, 05:50 AM
Don't have sexist designers, for one. Or developers, or writers, or artists, or editors. Preferably get ones who are educated about these issues specifically so they don't make it appear that way accidentally, either. Ideally, the game itself would cause GMs and players alike to shake up their paradigms, question their assumptions. Design the game with that intent, keep in mind the problems of erasure and heteronormative thinking and all the other little things that lead to this garbage in the first place.

Gettles
2013-10-19, 05:56 AM
What do you define as "sensible" because that can mean a lot of things.

Does it mean "realistic" as in what an actual person would plausibly wear in medieval combat? Full suit of armor? Do you mean to give a bit of leeway but still some acknowledgement of realism? Do you mean, "Just no chain mail bikinis?"

Because this is a line that would greatly differ by group.

Which of these crosses the line?


1.http://quecosplayhago.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/hilde.jpg


2. http://images.g4tv.com/rimg_606x0/ImageDb3/1266_l/cassandra-i-soul-calibur-iii.jpg

3. http://www.fightersgeneration.com/np6/char/taki-sc3blue.jpg

4. http://fenixware.net/fab/images/chars/game/xianghua-5.jpg

Mr. Mask
2013-10-19, 06:12 AM
Get: You know, I'd like some opinions on just that.



What kind of Armour do you want on Female Characters in RPGs/Games?

Personally, I love historically accurate armour, which I think looks better than most of the fake stuff which gets designed. Whether unrealistic armour crossed the line would depend on how tasteful the individual case is.

Themrys
2013-10-19, 06:12 AM
Don't have sexist designers, for one. Or developers, or writers, or artists, or editors. Preferably get ones who are educated about these issues specifically so they don't make it appear that way accidentally, either. Ideally, the game itself would cause GMs and players alike to shake up their minds, question their assumptions. Design the game with that intent, avoid erasure and heteronormative thinking and all the other little things that lead to this garbage in the first place.


That's the easiest way for sure.

If you do it in any other way, there is risk of ridiculous failure. For example, if you have only male kings in your setting, and notice that this looks sexist ... the solution is NOT to invent a queen who was evil and caused your non-sexist people to decide that women should never rule the country. (Non-sexist people would not ever, in thousands of years, think that all women are the same, and a non-sexist writer team would have known this)
The -obvious to non-sexists - solution is to retcon your male kings into female queens.

Grinner
2013-10-19, 06:36 AM
The -obvious to non-sexists - solution is to retcon your male kings into female queens.

Universal matriarchal autocracy? That's your solution?

TheCountAlucard
2013-10-19, 06:51 AM
My point is, the easiest way to get a non-sexist game is to not put any sexism into it.

Omegonthesane
2013-10-19, 07:00 AM
Universal matriarchal autocracy? That's your solution?

Presumably it was meant to be that "enough to make the ratio make statistical sense" rulers be made female, but even making them all female is less problematic if they then don't actively enforce an all-female line.

Backstory can mitigate this, as well - it will still look bad if all the current kings are men, but if there's been a more statistically likely ratio of female kings to male kings in living memory then that helps too.

Yes, I said female kings - I have an irrational aversion to segregation of titles based on sex, and a perfectly rational belief that it helps to enforce certain stereotypes if only men can be, say, Derpingtons and only women Derpingtesses.

Themrys
2013-10-19, 07:18 AM
Yes, I said female kings - I have an irrational aversion to segregation of titles based on sex, and a perfectly rational belief that it helps to enforce certain stereotypes if only men can be, say, Derpingtons and only women Derpingtesses.

Depends on whether you consider "queen" and "king" the same, only different by gender, or whether you see "queen" as meaning "spouse of the one who is in power"

It is, of course, somewhat problematic to imply that the female title is inferior to the male title, but it depends on context. In some societies, you don't have to imply that anymore since it is considered a fact. In which case it is more sensible to use the traditionally male title for everyone.

Regarding the enforcement of stereotypes, you are right, and the English language has a lot of nice possibilities there. (I don't think we'll be able to get rid of title-segregation in Germany. We still have job-title-segregation.)

Edit: Needless to say, your assumption on what I wrote is correct. Obviously, I did not suggest to make all kings female.

Tengu_temp
2013-10-19, 07:21 AM
What kind of Armour do you want on Female Characters in RPGs/Games?


Honestly, I find historically accurate armor to be kinda bland, and there are very few illustrations that manage to make it look cool for me. I like armor that looks a bit elaborate and impractical, and don't really mind if from a realistic point of view it doesn't provide enough protection. I like female armor that looks kinda like this:
http://fuc.wdfiles.com/local--files/saber/saber530.png

(Speaking of replacing male rulers with female ones.)

The issue is presentation. Show that the female characters are real adventurers engaged in adventurer situations, not just models posing for the camera.

Czin
2013-10-19, 07:35 AM
Men and women are treated largely the same. The dominant societies are gender neutral and really don't care if you have testicles or ovaries outside of the bedroom or courtship. Aesthetics are primarily unisex, so a woman in full body armor would be nearly impossible to tell from a similarly armored man.

In any case, armor that does try to emphasize sexuality tends to be impractical. Even breast cups are actually a danger to wear. (http://www.tor.com/blogs/2013/05/boob-plate-armor-would-kill-you) And even sculpted male armor would presumably also carry an increased risk of killing you.

Besides, if you want to personalize your armor there's no need to sexualize it, ostentatious bling can be done without being potentially lethal to the wearer.

Mr. Mask
2013-10-19, 07:39 AM
Tengu: Here are some examples I found of armours: http://goo.gl/PaXCuj http://goo.gl/ujNaQC http://goo.gl/GQrbqg

As Czin points out, you can't distinguish the gender of a person when they're covered in such armours. Some might take that as a negative thing. I don't mind.

Frozen_Feet
2013-10-19, 07:45 AM
In my opinion, it requires multiple different viewpoints to be present within the setting, with none of them presented as the obviously "right" choice.

For clothing in particular, this'd mean that the artwork would have to display various different attires, for various different situations... and they'd have to make contextual sense.

For example, there could be the sexy lingerie... to be used in the bedroom with your spouse. There would be the heavy ceremonial garb... to be used in religious ceremonies. There would be covering, metal armor... to be used in hazardous or combat situations.

It would also have to serve a wider demographic. This'd actually mean that instead of doing away with all the sexism, you'd just have to add the right kind. Skimpy clothes on men that appeal to women, skimpy clothes on women that appeal to men... and if you have enough LGBT folks in service, skimpy clothes on men that appeal to men, skimpy clothes on women that appeal to women, and then those boring practical costumes that hide everything for the asexuals and puritans. :smalltongue:

The big crime of RPG artwork is not sexy costumes, it's sexy costumes in situations where it makes no goddamn sense. If I need to be in a dress when fighting a bear, at least give me Aikidogi and kimono, rather than miniskirt and higheels. And if I'm the local ruler and are forced to sit on my throne for hours in a day, for the love of God let me wear pants or a kilt instead of full plate mail!

Also, to harp on a particularly stupid example from a Might & Magic game, if it's my wedding and my spouse is wearing a simple dress, don't make me wear the spiked platemail of spiky spikiness. Please, it makes hugging a really awkward experience. :smalltongue:

Black Jester
2013-10-19, 07:49 AM
I don't think that a non-sexist game and a setting without sexism are actually compatible. If you want to create a game that deals maturely and appropriately with the issue of gender roles in general and more specifically with sexism, you need to take the issue seriously and thus requires to pick it out as a relevant theme. Pretending that it doesn't exist is both too passive and doesn't pay the issue the necessary justice.
So, a relevant, non-sexist game doesn't shun away from the controversy, it embraces it and treats it with respect and differentiation and thus instrumentalizes a vast number of different gender roles as a part of the setting to create variety, multi-layered societal models and various roles and uses this diversity and multitude of layers to its advantage.

Just replacing cliché men with women within the same clichés does nothing to the cliché´s, after all. Turning all female characters badass is the same machismo, just with slightly changed connotations. In a truly non-sexist setting, there is as much place for weak vulnerable characters of any gender as there is for strong and domineering ones. The point lies not in strength or weakness in male or female characters, but in creating vivid, complex and
interesting characters of any gender, both for player characters and NPC alike.

Boci
2013-10-19, 08:00 AM
My point is, the easiest way to get a non-sexist game is to not put any sexism into it.

What about the were-hyenas in World of Darkness?


Basically, female were-hyenas have a higher rage (their connection to the moon spirit, they spend it to overcome massive trauma and take extra action) whilst male were-hyenas have a higher gnosis (their connection to the earth spirit, used for certain magical gifts).

There are two main ways a werecreature can be born: as an animal or as a human. In both cases they grow up as such a creature, until they reach maturity and become a proper were-hyena. The above aspect however led to an internal war, as male human born expected themselves to be the warriors and pack leaders, whilst the animal born expected the females to be the warriors and pack leaders.


Is including such an aspect in the game a problem?

Tengu_temp
2013-10-19, 08:21 AM
Tengu: Here are some examples I found of armours: http://goo.gl/PaXCuj http://goo.gl/ujNaQC http://goo.gl/GQrbqg


Do note that a lot of this is tournament/jousting armor. Such armor was very elaborate for obvious reasons, and it was also much more fragile and heavier than normal armor used for real combat.

Czin
2013-10-19, 08:30 AM
Do note that a lot of this is tournament/jousting armor. Such armor was very elaborate for obvious reasons, and it was also much more fragile and heavier than normal armor used for real combat.

http://images.uesp.net/f/f8/SR-item-Ebony_Armor_Male.jpg http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20121011223315/elderscrolls/images/5/5c/Atar.png http://livedoor.blogimg.jp/skydb-mod/imgs/6/9/6913f0f2.png

These armors, despite being labled as male, would, when properly fitted, be suitable for female usage without the need of breast cups that would act as a permanent spear pointed over your chest.

Themrys
2013-10-19, 08:50 AM
http://images.uesp.net/f/f8/SR-item-Ebony_Armor_Male.jpg http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20121011223315/elderscrolls/images/5/5c/Atar.png http://livedoor.blogimg.jp/skydb-mod/imgs/6/9/6913f0f2.png

These armors, despite being labled as male, would, when properly fitted, be suitable for female usage without the need of breast cups that would act as a permanent spear pointed over your chest.

Doesn't Morrowind (the one Elderscrolls game I played) have all characters wear the same armor, anyway?

It's a long time ago, so I'm not quite sure, but I cannot remember any chainmail bikinis.

TheCountAlucard
2013-10-19, 08:55 AM
Bleh; I shouldn't post so early in the morning. Argh, blargh. Sexism can be present as an in-game thing without the game itself being sexist, yes. Especially if, as I said earlier, the creative team is itself not sexist, is educated, and is using said in-game sexism to represent something, make a point, et cetera.

I should probably sleep before contributing further. :smalltongue:

Frozen_Feet
2013-10-19, 08:56 AM
My point is, the easiest way to get a non-sexist game is to not put any sexism into it.

So a setting of sexually unimorphic creatures doing... something? Maybe a game about amoeba or microbes that reproduce through multiplication?

Because "not putting any sexism in" is pretty damn hard if the focus of the game is a sexually dimorphic species, like humans. I think, going this route, the game would have to detach itself pretty far from assumptions of common human interaction and culture.

TheCountAlucard
2013-10-19, 08:59 AM
I already said my sleep-lacking brain needs a better post-filter. But yes, a game about amoebas would indeed meet my criteria. Refer to my first post in the thread, where I pretty much said that already. :smalltongue:

Making a game about amoebas fun would be one of the harder parts, yeah.

Mr. Mask
2013-10-19, 09:00 AM
Tengu: Why would you think such armours are fragile?

Those tournament armours could be adjusted for battlefield use, but wouldn't be considering how much they're worth and how the other knights and soldiery may see them.

Battlefield harness was pretty similar (tournament pieces were often mixed into a knight's battlefield harness), despite the major gap in price. They still involved colouring (blued armour was pretty popular), acid-etching, and engraving (the latter two to lesser extents, due to costs and not wanting to peacock so much).

Themrys
2013-10-19, 09:06 AM
Because "not putting any sexism in" is pretty damn hard if the focus of the game is a sexually dimorphic species, like humans. I think, going this route, the game would have to detach itself pretty far from assumptions of common human interaction and culture.

Of course, it would be a fantasy game.
Since many rpgs are fantasy games, I don't see the problem there. The fact that women can get pregnant is not commonly perceived as sexist. This is the only fact that is difficult to change.

You can do away with the fact that men can grow (long) beards and women can't, for example, pretty easily; hello elves and dwarves.
(Edit: Not that this is a fact, as such, for all human beings ...)

Boci
2013-10-19, 09:13 AM
Of course, it would be a fantasy game.

And what if it isn't a fantasy game, like WoD with the were-hyena example.

Frozen_Feet
2013-10-19, 09:24 AM
The fact that women can get pregnant is not commonly perceived as sexist.

Not commonly so, but there is a rather vocal minority of women who see the concept of child-bearing revolting. Plus, while pregnancy itself might not be sexist... pretty much every societal structure that has been built on it and every cultural conclusion that can be drawn from it have been branded as such by some wing of feminist off-shoots. Whether those people should be target audience for (y)our hypothetical dream game is another question entirely.

Themrys
2013-10-19, 09:26 AM
And what if it isn't a fantasy game, like WoD with the were-hyena example.

If it has were-hyenas in it, then it is a fantasy game. For all I know, were-hyenas do not exist in real life.

Or do you mean that it takes place in a world like our own, only plus were-hyenas? Well, in that case, a stark sexual dimorphism in hyenas can be used to justify and reinforce gender-essentialism for humans. And that is problematic.

Of course, a society where the men are the oppressed ones can be used to point a finger at sexism in general and laugh at it.
It can, on the other hand, just as easily be used to justify sexism against women.

Which is one of the reasons why advice doesn't help much and you need non-sexist people to create non-sexist games.

Mr. Mask
2013-10-19, 09:33 AM
I've often heard it said that everyone is sexist. That the society we've grown up in makes it impossible to not have our own bias effect our judgement. I've heard this also from some feminists who seemed to have a pretty good idea of things.

Amphetryon
2013-10-19, 09:38 AM
The big crime of RPG artwork is not sexy costumes, it's sexy costumes in situations where it makes no goddamn sense. If I need to be in a dress when fighting a bear, at least give me Aikidogi and kimono, rather than miniskirt and higheels. And if I'm the local ruler and are forced to sit on my throne for hours in a day, for the love of God let me wear pants or a kilt instead of full plate mail!I've no doubt this is both your belief, and one held by others you know. That said, I've had many discussions with folks who firmly believed that outfits designed to accent sensuality in any way were sexist, regardless of context.

My point is that removing sexism from a game is going to be extremely difficult, because different people will have different thresholds for what qualifies as sexist.

Frozen_Feet
2013-10-19, 09:42 AM
Amph, well, like I asked, are those the people we want to make this game for? If yes, well, sexually unimorphic amoeba creatures are still an option... or maybe platonic ideals of people that have no need to reproduce in icky, sexual bodypart-to-bodypart sort of way?

Themrys
2013-10-19, 09:45 AM
I've often heard it said that everyone is sexist. That the society we've grown up in makes it impossible to not have our own bias effect our judgement. I've heard this also from some feminists who seemed to have a pretty good idea of things.

While this is true in theory, is does not change the fact that there are people who are less sexist and people who are more sexist, and that, if you hired the least sexist people you can get for creating a game, almost no one would be able to see what sexism is left in that game.

Also, you have decent chances that your team works together to eradicate each other's residue sexism.

Amphetryon
2013-10-19, 09:46 AM
Amph, well, like I asked, are those the people we want to make this game for? If yes, well, sexually unimorphic amoeba creatures are still an option... or maybe platonic ideals of people that have no need to reproduce in icky, sexual bodypart-to-bodypart sort of way?

Perhaps I'm reading too much into this, but it seems from this response that you would simply dismiss those folks whose definition of 'sexist' differs from yours.

Is dismissing the opinions of people who don't agree with your root assumptions the way you think a game should be designed and marketed?

Mr. Mask
2013-10-19, 09:52 AM
Themrys: Fair point. That makes me wonder how easily that can be arranged.

You could try and get support from feminist communities... but I think that presents a problem? If you are trying to make a game without sexism, you won't include many of the real issues feminists face. Feminist communities are interested in these topics, and seeing them defeated in society. If you include these topics, you're putting sexism into the game.


Amphitryon: I think you misunderstand Feet. I believe his point is that you can't please everyone... and thus, you have to choose who you are going to please and who you are going to offend. His sardonic/sarcastic example with the amoeba is meant to illustrate the point that offending no one is like the story of the man, the boy and the donkey.

Jay R
2013-10-19, 10:01 AM
That depends on what kind of "sexism" you're trying to eliminate.

To eliminate unfair rules, it's simple: the same rules apply to all PCs.

To create a society in which social roles are not affected by gender? I have no interest in eliminating sources of problems and conflict in a game I'm playing in large part to resolve problems and engage on combat.

In the game I'm currently playing, April's paladin has been looked down on for being female, Wil's Ranger and my mage/thief have been looked down on for being non-human, the entire party have been looked down on for being non-noble, and for being young. The priests of Lolth have tried to kill us, the pope wants to excommunicate us, the Earl of Stanley wanted to defeat us, and the city guard were trying to arrest us.

Strife and conflict are essential to the game we're playing. Why eliminate a source of injustice in a game in which we are playing heroes out to fight injustice?

Amphetryon
2013-10-19, 10:02 AM
Amphitryon: I think you misunderstand Feet. I believe his point is that you can't please everyone... and thus, you have to choose who you are going to please and who you are going to offend. His sardonic/sarcastic example with the amoeba is meant to illustrate the point that offending no one is like the story of the man, the boy and the donkey.
I didn't misunderstand, thanks. I also noted that the level of hyperbole used in Feet's response is typical (though not necessarily used for the same reason) to those responses that are dismissive of another's opinion, as if anyone who differs from said opinion must de facto be some fringe outlier unworthy of respect.

Themrys
2013-10-19, 10:05 AM
I've no doubt this is both your belief, and one held by others you know. That said, I've had many discussions with folks who firmly believed that outfits designed to accent sensuality in any way were sexist, regardless of context.

My point is that removing sexism from a game is going to be extremely difficult, because different people will have different thresholds for what qualifies as sexist.

This is not a problem in and of itself. You can just get rid of that kind of outfit for a start.

Also, just admitting that it is meant to be sexy, not practical, will make a lot of people more tolerant.

Me, I absolutely hate female fighters in chainmail bikinis, but if you tell me "There is that deity who has sensuality as one important aspect, the priests should wear sexy clothes", I tolerate that, on the grounds that for such a character, it actually makes sense.

Of course, many women are so fed up with the pictures of women in skimpy clothes that they have zero tolerance left for such things. Things that aren't sexist in and of them themselves may look sexist if viewed by a person who was hurt by sexism, just like any shoes at all will hurt your feet if you wore uncomfortable shoes for too long.

Since sexy clothes are not a necessity in a rpg, I do not see a problem here, though.



@Mr. Mask: I identify as feminist, and would like to help create a non-sexist rpg. Actually, there are lots of feminists who don't really like to talk about sexism and would rather talk about cute kittens, or whatever, if only there was no sexism that needs talking about.

Scow2
2013-10-19, 10:08 AM
I've often heard it said that everyone is sexist. That the society we've grown up in makes it impossible to not have our own bias effect our judgement. I've heard this also from some feminists who seemed to have a pretty good idea of things.The only way to remove Sexism is to remove Sexual Dimorphism, honestly.

Frozen_Feet
2013-10-19, 10:09 AM
While my tongue is firmly in my cheek regarding this, I'm actually serious about the amoebas, weird as this may sound. If you want to avoid sexism, going into far realms of fantasy or science fiction is an option.

But Amph, if we're going to consider this setting from the angle of marketability, it will quickly become apparent that trying to please those with opinions really far from the mainstream will usually alienate the mainstream. Progressive, high-concept works have had the tendency to flop economically. Cynically speaking, high-minded idealism and money are not in speaking terms. :smalltongue:

Mr. Mask
2013-10-19, 10:13 AM
Themrys: In that case, it could probably work fine. If you can get a feminist community interested enough, some artists or designers among them would likely pitch in.


Jay R: The idea isn't to eliminate conflict. The idea is to eliminate sexist/sexual/whatever type of conflict from the base setting (if a group likes it, they are fully welcome to pursue it). It may seem odd to reduce your avenues of adventure, but this issues can be stressful, irritating, and non-fun to people who are too familiar with them as it is.

Scow2
2013-10-19, 10:28 AM
This is not a problem in and of itself. You can just get rid of that kind of outfit for a start.

Also, just admitting that it is meant to be sexy, not practical, will make a lot of people more tolerant.

Me, I absolutely hate female fighters in chainmail bikinis, but if you tell me "There is that deity who has sensuality as one important aspect, the priests should wear sexy clothes", I tolerate that, on the grounds that for such a character, it actually makes sense.

Of course, many women are so fed up with the pictures of women in skimpy clothes that they have zero tolerance left for such things. Things that aren't sexist in and of them themselves may look sexist if viewed by a person who was hurt by sexism, just like any shoes at all will hurt your feet if you wore uncomfortable shoes for too long.

Since sexy clothes are not a necessity in a rpg, I do not see a problem here, though.Speak for yourself. I, and many women I game with, do have a problem with being told "Wanting to look sexy or wear impractical armor is wrong and bad" and that our preferences are a mandatory causualty for the sake of "Social Justice" - which, in their own media, proclaim bullying, oppression, and ostracization as the best tools to promote Social Justice, and use a scorched-earth policy in dealing with opinions counter to the agenda.

Kicking ass while wearing the most impractical and revealing outfits ever is fun and awesome. Why does someone need to be told from an outside/higher power that they should dress sexily instead of being able to choose to do so on their own? It's fantasy. I should be allowed to wear what I want, practicality be damned.

Amphetryon
2013-10-19, 10:42 AM
But Amph, if we're going to consider this setting from the angle of marketability, it will quickly become apparent that trying to please those with opinions really far from the mainstream will usually alienate the mainstream. Progressive, high-concept works have had the tendency to flop economically. Cynically speaking, high-minded idealism and money are not in speaking terms. :smalltongue:
I see this as agreeing with my earlier comment: "My point is that removing sexism from a game is going to be extremely difficult, because different people will have different thresholds for what qualifies as sexist."

Did you not intend it as agreement?

Frozen_Feet
2013-10-19, 10:47 AM
We are in agreement. My comment is more about a subset of things that are extremely difficult to achieve with a project like this. Namely, a ton of dough.

Themrys
2013-10-19, 10:50 AM
Speak for yourself. I, and many women I game with, do have a problem with being told "Wanting to look sexy or wear impractical armor is wrong and bad" and that our preferences are a mandatory causualty for the sake of "Social Justice" - which, in their own media, proclaim bullying, oppression, and ostracization as the best tools to promote Social Justice, and use a scorched-earth policy in dealing with opinions counter to the agenda.

Just letting impractical armor out of a game is not the same thing as telling you that you are wrong for liking it.

Now, if there were chainmail bikinis, and you would be penalized for using those, that would be a statement on your preferences. (With more or less unfortunate implications, depending on whether your character is more likely to be stabbed in the stomach or more likely to be raped, or something entirely else)

Likewise, a game where armor is sensible on male characters but turns into chainmail bikini on female characters, tells the player two things: "If you want your female character to wear sensible armor, you are wrong and bad. If you want your male character to wear a sexy chainmal bikini, you are wrong and bad."

I have never heard a man complain about being discriminated against by a lack of chainmail bikini for male characters, but it may happen - it would be justified.

Scow2
2013-10-19, 11:14 AM
Just letting impractical armor out of a game is not the same thing as telling you that you are wrong for liking it.Purging it from the scene entirely is, though.


Likewise, a game where armor is sensible on male characters but turns into chainmail bikini on female characters, tells the player two things: "If you want your female character to wear sensible armor, you are wrong and bad. If you want your male character to wear a sexy chainmal bikini, you are wrong and bad."

I have never heard a man complain about being discriminated against by a lack of chainmail bikini for male characters, but it may happen - it would be justified.I have complained about the lack of skimpy male armors in RPGs. Especially any with fur-covered races.

I do have an issue with World of Warcraft's lack of a "Pants" slot to match the "Shirt" slot... I actually like the skimpy armors when they show up (And get annoyed when they replace the female-gaps with preset cloth on the male model). The exposed skin in the torso is essentially a canvas for the assortment of shirts that can be worn, turning "Battle Lingerie" into "Customizable/Colorable appearance". However, I'm annoyed when I can get the top to look cool, but the bottom clashes from pre-colored pants on males, or clashes and is offensively bare on smooth-skinned females.

I also don't like the inability for my Barbarian/Weretiger (I'm not sure what the race is called) character in Perfect World to have a vanity outfit of "none", and ditch the shorts to reveal 100% Tiger Fur Pattern appearance, or even just use a nice set of low-level armor that amounted to a red-and-gold scale-armor short-kilt, chest-harness, gauntlets (That lacked fingers and plating on the inside of the forearm, and boot-sandals as my "Vanity appearance" that looked really awesome and revealed most of the body (That I had to set his "head size' slider to maximum and "Body size" slider to minimum to get him down to a heroic 8 heads tall was a different problem entirely). Of course, that game also has hard-coded sexism by making each sex be a different class - Human warriors are Knights, and females are Clerics. Winged Elf males are archers, and females are Mages. (I might have gotten Human and elf females mixed) Barbarian males are Big Oversized Tigers, Wolves, Pandas, or Green-furred lions that turn into big white tigers, while the females are small fox-, cat-, bunny-, or batgirl (meaning human body, animal ears/tail) Venomancers (Essentially magical rogues) that turn into foxes.

Mr. Mask
2013-10-19, 11:17 AM
Purging it from the scene entirely is, though. Not sure if I'd go as far as that. If it's something that would make a lot of sense within the setting, then that could be argued (if it's a world where you can wear whatever you want into combat).

Morithias
2013-10-19, 11:26 AM
The same group that wrote Zeth once tried to write a 'matriarchy' that wasn't sexist. It was harder than it seemed.

Mainly because most matriarchies fall into two worlds, men are second class citizens, or paradises implying men are the root of all evil.

Our work came out as this.

A terrible war went between the forces of good and evil, the population of the world was sent from 700 million to 7 million. Being that the society was a stereotypical medieval society prior they naturally lost more men than women. To the point where the gender ratio in terms of young adults was 9-1 girl to boy.

this would seem like the time when a lesser moral group would turn the males into breeding pets, but there was one minor problem.

The good side won, and society had to adjust to this. They figured out quickly that if they kept the single boy-single girl marriage they would lose a fair amount of the family bloodlines.

So they invented the clan mentally. One male, multiple girls, but here's a question for you.

Have you ever actually ever tried to be in a harem? It's a lot of hard work! The male's role quickly became to keep the inter-house politics from getting out of hand, while the women took over the international politics and economical work.

The other reason we argued for why a matriarchy never works, is that often the matriarchy is ALL the story has going for it. The matriarchy is almost never used as just another part of the setting, it's always front and center.

In this campaign? Heh. The matriarchy is just another piece of fluff. The real campaign revolves around the PCs playing the 400 or so evil people left, and forming an x-com style organization to build up and strike back again.

By having the campaign NOT revolve around the matriarchy, we avoid having to put forth any kind of 'sexism' issues into the plot, and the matriarchy is justified not via "woman are better" or anything like that, but rather "the males are too busy trying to keep their clans in order to run the day-to-day life." Which is completely justified.

Seriously, go and try to date 9 people, where you're not cheating, and they all know of each other, and prevent them from fighting among themselves, it's not easy.

Mr. Mask
2013-10-19, 11:35 AM
There have been harem/polygamous societies where the males had time to rule. Some of them used systems such as putting one wife in charge of the others. Others kept them separate enough that it was difficult for them to fight. Others had more of a problem with wives assassinating each others children to assure their own son's ascent to the throne.

However, I do not mean that as an argument.

Daer
2013-10-19, 11:37 AM
remove genders.. only races in the world are once that don't have male and/or females. instead "he" or "she" use word "it". some kind a formless blobs.. i wonder if gelatine cubes have genders? something like that anyway.

ask players what kinda stuff they think is sexist and just remove it from game. and anything that is linked to one or other gender. And when all are removed go with what ever is left. if later complaints come the god of equality comes and zaps it away.

Themrys
2013-10-19, 11:44 AM
and the matriarchy is justified not via "woman are better" or anything like that,

Why justify it at all?

If you do not consider patriarchy more "natural", then you do not have to justify matriarchy any more than you would have to justify patriarchy.

Morithias
2013-10-19, 11:46 AM
Why justify it at all?

If you do not consider patriarchy more "natural", then you do not have to justify matriarchy any more than you would have to justify patriarchy.

The reason you have to justify it is because like it or not patriarchy is considered the default. The same way every expendable mook in a videogame is male by default, but I don't see you complaining and asking that we get to slaughter hordes of expendable women in videogames now do I?

Mr. Mask
2013-10-19, 11:48 AM
I think a better aim would be to have an egalitarian society which formed through fantasy-style social progress (AKA: The stuff of dreams).


The thing about slaughtering women in games is, no one really wants that. Just as we have high tolerances in terms of the social injustice women can receive, we have high tolerances about guys getting killed.

Morithias
2013-10-19, 11:52 AM
The thing about slaughtering women in games is, no one really wants that. Just as we have high tolerances in terms of the social injustice women can receive, we have high tolerances about guys getting killed.

Which one can argue is misandrist and therefore sexist. Sexism works both ways. You want a world without sexism? You have to get rid of the misandry too. You don't get to keep your reserve spot in the lifeboat while at the same time demanding "equality."

Themrys
2013-10-19, 11:53 AM
The reason you have to justify it is because like it or not patriarchy is considered the default. The same way every expendable mook in a videogame is male by default, but I don't see you complaining and asking that we get to slaughter hordes of expendable women in videogames now do I?

Is considered the default by whom? There are plenty of male fantasy authors who do not write their novels in order to appeal to me, so I do not see why I should cater to those who consider patriarchy the default that needs no explanation.


Regarding the expendable male mooks, I leave it to men to complain about that, seeing as they're the ones being slaughtered. It would be embarassing to complain about the poor men being discriminated against and then being told that men don't find that offensive at all, wouldn't it?

Morithias
2013-10-19, 11:54 AM
Is considered the default by whom? There are plenty of male fantasy authors who do not write their novels in order to appeal to me, so I do not see why I should cater to those who consider patriarchy the default that needs not explanation.

Regarding the expendable male mooks, I leave it to men to complain about that, seeing as they're the ones being slaughtered. It would be embarassing to complain about the poor men being discriminated against and then being told that men don't find that offensive at all, wouldn't it?

Well let's see, the fact that basically every single person in the modern day grew up in such a society. "write what you know" and all.

Okay, I'm going to stop arguing for woman's rights then. After all "It would be embarrassing to complain about the sexual exploitation of woman, and then being told they find being sexy empowering."

Themrys
2013-10-19, 11:59 AM
Well let's see, the fact that basically every single person in the modern day grew up in such a society. "write what you know" and all.

According to that logic, I would have to justify why my fantasy novel takes place in a medieval setting, despite the fact that the world I grew up in is very different from that.

I don't see people justifying that.


Also, people already do complain about the exploitation of women. You do not have to be the first one to do it.

Morithias
2013-10-19, 12:01 PM
According to that logic, I would have to justify why my fantasy novel takes place in a medieval setting, despite the fact that the world I grew up in is very different from that.

I don't see people justifying that.

Fair point. Hard to say then. I'll have to re-look over my logic. Then again having a matriarchy that is 'just is'. Might be hard. The instant you get a player asking a question about it it opens a whole can of worms.

I guess the answer might be "players are more likely to question it" but then that just pushes it back further....

Mr. Mask
2013-10-19, 12:01 PM
Which one can argue is misandrist and therefore sexist. Sexism works both ways. You want a world without sexism? You have to get rid of the misandry too. You don't get to keep your reserve spot in the lifeboat while at the same time demanding "equality." Mm. The idea of such an RPG is to not have misogyny or misandry.

Themrys
2013-10-19, 12:15 PM
Fair point. Hard to say then. I'll have to re-look over my logic. Then again having a matriarchy that is 'just is'. Might be hard. The instant you get a player asking a question about it it opens a whole can of worms.

Fantasy readers, even if they're male supremacists, should not ask "Why is this a matriarchy?" any more than they ask "Why are there dragons?"

In theory, at least.

If the matriarchy is oppressing men, it needs internal excuses for doing so, but you can get plenty of inspiration for that by looking at patriarchies. You can't get more ridiculous than "Thinking takes away the blood from the female reproductive organs, therefore, women should not be too educated or clever - it could harm fertility."
And still, that was actually believed by real people.


If it's a comfort to you, in the fantasy matriarchy I created, faceless mooks are always female. Men aren't taught how to fight, so male mooks would not make sense.

Mr. Mask
2013-10-19, 12:20 PM
If it's a comfort to you, in the fantasy matriarchy I created, faceless mooks are always female. Men aren't taught how to fight, so male mooks would not make sense. Mooks know how to fight?

Themrys
2013-10-19, 12:23 PM
Mooks know how to fight?

Those you have to fight in video games usually believe they know. :smallwink:

Mr. Mask
2013-10-19, 12:25 PM
Heheh, indeed.


While your main belief is that the way to make a non-sexist RPG is to have a non-sexist team, does that mean none of the elements involved can be discussed here?

Themrys
2013-10-19, 12:34 PM
Heheh, indeed.


While your main belief is that the way to make a non-sexist RPG is to have a non-sexist team, does that mean none of the elements involved can be discussed here?

We should move away from the obvious. Many games are so obviously sexist, that there is no need to discuss how they can be fixed - they would never be as sexist had the developers not wanted them to be sexist.

The chainmal bikini is a classic example of sexism.

A more interesting question would be "Is it sexist if all the important people in your setting behave like stereotypical males, regardless of gender?"

Wouldn't it be less sexist if the work of an apprentice baker, who provides a small wood elf village with bread and pastries, and raises two children, would be valued as much as the work of hir mate who saves the world with big magical explosions?


Or "Isn't it sexist in a way, if the beautiful, sensitive bard is considered useless, and the group of fantasy heroes is always led by the manly fighter?"

Scow2
2013-10-19, 12:38 PM
We should move away from the obvious. Many games are so obviously sexist, that there is no need to discuss how they can be fixed - they would never be as sexist had the developers not wanted them to be sexist.

The chainmal bikini is a classic example of sexism.

A more interesting question would be "Is it sexist if all the important people in your setting behave like stereotypical males, regardless of gender?"

Wouldn't it be less sexist if the work of an apprentice baker, who provides a small wood elf village with bread and pastries, and raises two children, would be valued as much as the work of hir mate who saves the world with big magical explosions?No, it would not. Sex wouldn't have anything to do with it at all, actually. In fact, the notion that behaviors are arbitrarily assigned to be "Male" or "Female" is what's sexist.

And I wouldn't play any game that does away with Chainmail Bikini-type armor being effective.

Czin
2013-10-19, 12:47 PM
No, it would not. Sex wouldn't have anything to do with it at all, actually. In fact, the notion that behaviors are arbitrarily assigned to be "Male" or "Female" is what's sexist.

And I wouldn't play any game that does away with Chainmail Bikini-type armor being effective.

Are you saying you'd refuse to play a game where chainmail bikinis are effective or refuse to play ones where they aren't?

Because honestly, this really should be the fate out of anyone who wears it without it being the glamour for actual, REAL armor or them not really needing armor due to personal power or the situation and just using it to make a fashion statement.

http://i.imgur.com/gpFAJN2.jpg

Not to mention that due to the lack of padding, a chainmail bikini as usually depicted should be hella uncomfortable and chafe in places you really don't want something made of metal to chafe in.

Men who go shirtless also deserve the same fate.

Frozen_Feet
2013-10-19, 12:49 PM
Actually, abritrarily deciding some things are masculine and some feminine is a perfectly valid choice to make when examining gender. It's called setting up a reference point. It's analogous to saying average humans have all 10s in six ability scores, and that said ability scores usually fall between 3 and 18 with 10 and 11 being most common.

If you take this to its logical conclusion, it leads to rather interesting places. For example, some women are overall more masculine than some men, and vice versa; gnoll males are more masculine than human men, but gnoll women are even more so; mermaids are more feminine than human women, but so are mermen; and my hypothetical amoeba people can be either very manly or very effeminate despite being biologically asexual.

Even more interestingly, when masculine and feminine qualities are not mutually exclusive to each other, you end up with androgynous characters that are both in high measures. An example would be Gerudo from Legend of Zelda, who are physically very feminine while behaviorally very power-oriented and masculine.

Boci
2013-10-19, 12:50 PM
If it has were-hyenas in it, then it is a fantasy game. For all I know, were-hyenas do not exist in real life.

Or do you mean that it takes place in a world like our own, only plus were-hyenas? Well, in that case, a stark sexual dimorphism in hyenas can be used to justify and reinforce gender-essentialism for humans. And that is problematic.

Of course, a society where the men are the oppressed ones can be used to point a finger at sexism in general and laugh at it.
It can, on the other hand, just as easily be used to justify sexism against women.

Which is one of the reasons why advice doesn't help much and you need non-sexist people to create non-sexist games.

Its the second one. World of Darkness is our world with supernatural creatures and some minor changes (that may or may not have major implications, but the actual changes are still minor in the grand scheme of things).

The were-hyena story is:

Basically, female were-hyenas have a higher rage (their connection to the moon spirit, they spend it to overcome massive trauma and take extra action) whilst male were-hyenas have a higher gnosis (their connection to the earth spirit, used for certain magical gifts).

There are two main ways a werecreature can be born: as an animal or as a human. In both cases they grow up as such a creature, until they reach maturity and become a proper were-hyena. The above aspect however led to an internal war, as male human born expected themselves to be the warriors and pack leaders, whilst the animal born expected the females to be the warriors and pack leaders.

Is including such a thing problematic in your opinion?

Spiryt
2013-10-19, 12:52 PM
Because honestly, this really should be the fate out of anyone who wears it without it being the glamour for actual, REAL armor or them not really needing armor due to personal power or the situation and just using it to make a fashion statement.

Not to mention that due to the lack of padding, a chainmail bikini as usually depicted should be hella uncomfortable and chafe in places you really don't want something made of metal to chafe in.

Eh, the problem here, at least if talking about most popular systems, like D&D, everything is so much removed from general reality or sense, that chainmail bikini isn't even very big offender.

Characters all around do stuff that doesn't make sense, weapons don't make sense, combat doesn't make sense, economy doesn't make sense.

Vast majority of clothes/armors don't make any more sense than chainmail bikini, if someone would want to whack them with 'realism' mace.

The difference everywhere is in fact, difference of cosmetics/fashion/personal tastes.

Mr. Mask
2013-10-19, 12:54 PM
That picture bothers me... arrow wounds are MUCH nastier than that, so I come to the conclusion that rather than arrowheads, they're just a blunted stick. That'd also explain why there's so little penetration against plain flesh.

Scow2
2013-10-19, 01:04 PM
Are you saying you'd refuse to play a game where chainmail bikinis are effective or refuse to play ones where they aren't?

Because honestly, this really should be the fate out of anyone who wears it without it being the glamour for actual, REAL armor or them not really needing armor due to personal power or the situation and just using it to make a fashion statement.

Not to mention that due to the lack of padding, a chainmail bikini as usually depicted should be hella uncomfortable and chafe in places you really don't want something made of metal to chafe in.

Men who go shirtless also deserve the same fate.
It should only be the fate of those who go into battle scantily clad to be perforated by arrows from impractical armor as the fate of anyone who takes any damage from a weapon at all is to slowly bleed out, get infected, require amputation, get infected again, then die a slow painful death.

Themrys
2013-10-19, 01:08 PM
Its the second one. World of Darkness is our world with supernatural creatures and some minor changes (that may or may not have major implications, but the actual changes are still minor in the grand scheme of things).

The were-hyena story is:

Basically, female were-hyenas have a higher rage (their connection to the moon spirit, they spend it to overcome massive trauma and take extra action) whilst male were-hyenas have a higher gnosis (their connection to the earth spirit, used for certain magical gifts).

There are two main ways a werecreature can be born: as an animal or as a human. In both cases they grow up as such a creature, until they reach maturity and become a proper were-hyena. The above aspect however led to an internal war, as male human born expected themselves to be the warriors and pack leaders, whilst the animal born expected the females to be the warriors and pack leaders.

Is including such a thing problematic in your opinion?

See, the problematic thing about that is that it reinforces as a standard the patriarchy in human society. Depending on how it is handled, it can be used to imply that both expectations, the hyena AND the human one are likewise random and unjustified, and that everyone should get to choose whether they are warriors, regardless of sex, and the one who is best suited to be pack leader should be pack leader.

But it can also come across as "Stupid female animals, male humans know it better".


The implied inherent difference between female and male werehyenas (that rage and gnosis thing), which has basically nothing to do with reproduction, is a whole other can of worms.


@MrMask: Why do you know how arrow wounds look? Oo

Mr. Mask
2013-10-19, 01:13 PM
My own experience is limited. Friends of mine have done a lot of hunting with bows. Moreover, I read plenty on the subject and discuss such subjects with a historian I know.

Themrys
2013-10-19, 01:19 PM
My own experience is limited. Friends of mine have done a lot of hunting with bows, however. Plus, I read plenty on the subject and discuss such subjects with a historian I know.

I always forget that people hunt with bows in other countries. I did archery as a sport, and the picture looks like I would have imagined it to look judging from how those artificial animals look with an arrow in them.

Either it was done that way because the artist has never seen a real arrow wound ... or they don't want to have a realistic picture. I don't think that would still be funny.

Boci
2013-10-19, 01:26 PM
But it can also come across as "Stupid female animals, male humans know it better".

It could, but to me that just sounds like someone is looking to be offended. Isn't it more likely the two sides were bringing with them their respective attitudes of their upbringing and neither one is inherently right?


The implied inherent difference between female and male werehyenas (that rage and gnosis thing), which has basically nothing to do with reproduction, is a whole other can of worms.

It was not perfectly handled (especially since gnosis is more valuable than rage in terms of buying more during character creation), and the whole war of cultures/breed/gender could have worked probably just as well without a mechanical difference, but genetically based gender roles and attributes are notables features for certain animals, so I don't mind that they tried to reference this.

Mr. Mask
2013-10-19, 01:31 PM
Themrys: True, I understand that point. It just bothers me for some reason.

And yes, that looks very much in line for practice arrows on artificial targets. The amount of blood would be fairly far from feeling funny. The arrow-shafts would plug the bleeding partially, but you'd still get enough to stain her red from the top-most arrow down (a little blood gets a lot of everywhere).

Toy Killer
2013-10-19, 01:36 PM
How about, instead of amoebas, we go with robots. Much more interesting then single cell life forms, and without attire to match.

Seriously, making a game without sexism is like making a story without tropes, even in avoiding it, breaking conventions and doing things in new ways that have never been seen before (Usually because they are crappy, but whatever) you are still using tropes in new ways.

How to run a game without sexism is easy. You play your game. When someone says that 'X' seems a bit sexist, revise your primary stance and press forward.

Themrys
2013-10-19, 01:38 PM
It could, but to me that just sounds like someone is looking to be offended. Isn't it more likely the two sides were bringing with them their respective attitudes of their upbringing and neither one is inherently right?

Whether that is more likely depends entirely on the author. Entirely.

It is a sad fact that even authors who set out to write an anti racist book in which, for a change, white people are oppressed, come up with such absurdities as white people being called "pearls" as a racial slur. I kid you not, that does happen.

Therefore, my trust in an author writing about something as problematic as a stark sexual dimorphism is not great. They might legitimately try to make it not sexist, and still fail.

Scow2
2013-10-19, 01:58 PM
Therefore, my trust in an author writing about something as problematic as a stark sexual dimorphism is not great. They might legitimately try to make it not sexist, and still fail.The problem is seeing the "Sexism" as a bad thing when, in the context, one sex is categorically superior to the other.



The ironic thing here is that spotted hyenas have significantly less sexual dimorphism than humans do. The females are practically "Like males, but bigger and better in every way", as opposed to the whole mess of subtle and overt differences physically and neurologically in the sexes between humans.

Czin
2013-10-19, 02:11 PM
It should only be the fate of those who go into battle scantily clad to be perforated by arrows from impractical armor as the fate of anyone who takes any damage from a weapon at all is to slowly bleed out, get infected, require amputation, get infected again, then die a slow painful death.

If your armor doesn't cover anything, you don't get an armor save. It's just a dress at that point. I would, at most, give you a +1 for a chainmail bikini or loincloth. In a setting where armor is substantially better than it is in the player's handbook.

Anyone who believes that a Chainmail bikini should give the same bonus as this

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4a/Ancient_Sasanid_Cataphract_Uther_Oxford_2003_06_2( 1).jpg

Completely deserves to be laughed at.

Mr. Mask
2013-10-19, 02:20 PM
That's mean-spirited.

Now, if someone tries to argue that a chainmail bikini can/does make realistic, logical sense... then by all means laugh at them unless they are well-intentioned.

I remember a few years back there was occasionally an argument made that such armour distracted foes, and that you could angle your body to make sure your armour was wherever the swords were coming (rather than angling your body to be away from the swords). That was a depressing time.

Gettles
2013-10-19, 02:22 PM
If your armor doesn't cover anything, you don't get an armor save. It's just a dress at that point. I would, at most, give you a +1 for a chainmail bikini or loincloth. In a setting where armor is substantially better than it is in the player's handbook.

Anyone who believes that a Chainmail bikini should give the same bonus as this

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4a/Ancient_Sasanid_Cataphract_Uther_Oxford_2003_06_2( 1).jpg

Completely deserves to be laughed at.


Only if you consider realism to be a virtue in fantasy.

Libertad
2013-10-19, 02:27 PM
Suggestions:

1.) Mention in a blurb that the most common and prevalent nations and PC races have an egalitarian society: women have just as easy access to education as their male counterparts, just as much freedom in who they marry, can train to be a warrior and join the military, and have significant representation in seats of government and other positions of power.

Now this doesn't mean that society is completely egalitarian. There can still be a feudal system where a commoner's standard of living is less than that of the nobility, but a farmer's daughters can inherit property and run the village shop.

2.) Reasonable armor for men and women as the default in artwork. There can still be revealing clothing, but it shouldn't be one-sided or appear as the "only" option.

3.) Keep a running tally of major NPCs and iconic PC examples. It doesn't have to be completely 50/50, but note how many of them are men and how many are women. In many forms of media women comprise 5-20% of show casts. Try to not relegate all the women characters to minor roles.

4.) When describing hypothetical PCs and rules scenarios, alternate between the male and female pronouns like in D&D 3rd Edition. One example might have a woman paladin. The next a male ranger.

Themrys
2013-10-19, 02:43 PM
Suggestions:

1.) Mention in a blurb that the most common and prevalent nations and PC races have an egalitarian society: women can just as easily be access to education as male counterparts, have just as much freedom in who they marry, can train to be a warrior and join the military, and have significant representation in seats of government and other positions of power.

Now this doesn't mean that society is completely egalitarian. There can still be a feudal system where a commoner's standard of living is less than that of the nobility, but a farmer's daughters can inherit property run the village shop as well.

2.) Reasonable armor for men and women as the default in artwork. There can still be revealing clothing, but it shouldn't be one-sided or appear as the "only" option.

3.) Keep a running tally of major NPCs and iconic PC examples. It doesn't have to be completely 50/50, but note how many of them are men and how many are women. In many forms of media women comprise 5-20% of show casts. Try to not relegate all the women characters to minor roles.

4.) When describing hypothetical PCs and rules scenarios, alternate between the male and female pronouns like in D&D 3rd Edition. One example might have a woman paladin. The next a male ranger.

Well, that's nice, but not really revolutionary. I know a RPG that features all those things in the recent edition. It's the one I play. (Someone has argued that this is not the case and that there is a significant amount of sexist societies, but still, you can play standard medieval fantasy without sexism.)

If you want to make an even less sexist rpg, one that has no equal today, you'd have to remove sexism not just from the prevalent nations, but from all nations and all PC and NPC races. And from the pantheon.

Froggie
2013-10-19, 03:20 PM
If it's a comfort to you, in the fantasy matriarchy I created, faceless mooks are always female. Men aren't taught how to fight, so male mooks would not make sense.


Out of curiosity, how does this society keep its birthrate up? Or the more core question would be, what causes the use of females as mooks to be more efficient than using male counterpart?

I can think of a few scenarios:

1.Male and female birth ratio is heavily skewed towards female, so that every male is extremely important to keep alive to father a new generation, and to keep risk of inbreeding low.
2.Female reproduction is cheap. It could be that females lay a thousand eggs at a time or that the gestation period is super short, or that babies can be put on hold or be swappable between bodies.
3.Males are the ones capable of carrying babies to term. Think seahorse reproduction. This would off course raise further questions as to what comparability exists. Is only the biological father compatible with the babies, or does any male do? So many questions....
4.The biology works like it does in humans, and the society is simply ignorant to the long term effects of such a system. The war of attrition option.


The point is that if such a society exists in a game world it would be disappointing, at least to me, if the reasons and reasoning behind it was never explored.

Dimers
2013-10-19, 03:24 PM
you'd have to remove sexism not just from the prevalent nations, but from all nations and all PC and NPC races. And from the pantheon.

The pantheon ... Geez. I don't understand why people even think of gods as having sexual traits in any way our minds can comprehend. In lots of myths they create themselves, or rise from the primal chaos, or have always existed, or otherwise come into being asexually (like springing fully-formed from somebody's split forehead).

A deity should be far beyond human concepts of sexuality -- otherwise they really don't seem deific. It lowers them to the level of a really powerful human.

I made an early choice to leave sex out of my homebrew pantheon. There's no 'god of love', there are no gods making babies with mortals, and the only example of two gods creating another god sexually is just a myth/lie to explain something more conceptual in a way that humans can understand. It's like telling young kids "The stork brought you" -- simplistic and untrue.

Czin
2013-10-19, 03:25 PM
Only if you consider realism to be a virtue in fantasy.

A chainmail bikini costs far less resources to make than a Cataphract's chainmail suit, so the Cataphract better damn be better protected than the Bikini/Loin cloth wearer barring magic. And should the magic be equal, the Cataphract is still better defended. By a lot.

Scow2
2013-10-19, 03:30 PM
A chainmail bikini costs far less resources to make than a Cataphract's chainmail suit, so the Cataphract better damn be better protected than the Bikini/Loin cloth wearer barring magic. And should the magic be equal, the Cataphract is still better defended. By a lot.
Unless, of course, the Chainmail Bikini is made on the plane of Ysgard, (Hence having the Gloryborn template applied) - in which case, even discounting the resources required to plane-hop and find a suitable smith - the chainmail bikini costs more resources to make than the Cataphract's chainmail suit... and by your logic, should protect just as much, then!

But my point against banning Chainmail Bikinis is more standing against women being arbitrarily restricted in how much/little they can wear than males because it's apparently somehow less sexist than giving them that freedom. If it's on a realism ground, I don't have as much problem (Unless it's the kind of "realism" born of poor research and media hype that says a Japanese Katana is the Bestest Sword Ever and is strictly superior to European Longswords in every way)

Worira
2013-10-19, 03:54 PM
Obviously the solution isn't to get rid of chainmail bikinis, it's to add chainmail Speedos.

AcerbicOrb
2013-10-19, 04:03 PM
Unless, of course, the Chainmail Bikini is made on the plane of Ysgard, (Hence having the Gloryborn template applied) - in which case, even discounting the resources required to plane-hop and find a suitable smith - the chainmail bikini costs more resources to make than the Cataphract's chainmail suit... and by your logic, should protect just as much, then!

But my point against banning Chainmail Bikinis is more standing against women being arbitrarily restricted in how much/little they can wear than males because it's apparently somehow less sexist than giving them that freedom. If it's on a realism ground, I don't have as much problem (Unless it's the kind of "realism" born of poor research and media hype that says a Japanese Katana is the Bestest Sword Ever and is strictly superior to European Longswords in every way)

It's not in any way sexist, because if a male wore a chainmail bikini, he'd be just as unprotected. But having a chainmail bikini be equal to full cataphract armour is ridiculous, unless you want all armour and weapons to be equal. How is it wrong for a chainmail bikini to be worse than full armour, but not for leather armour to pale in comparison to full steel?

Themrys
2013-10-19, 04:05 PM
Out of curiosity, how does this society keep its birthrate up? Or the more core question would be, what causes the use of females as mooks to be more efficient than using male counterpart?

I can think of a few scenarios:

1.Male and female birth ratio is heavily skewed towards female, so that every male is extremely important to keep alive to father a new generation, and to keep risk of inbreeding low.
2.Female reproduction is cheap. It could be that females lay a thousand eggs at a time or that the gestation period is super short, or that babies can be put on hold or be swappable between bodies.
3.Males are the ones capable of carrying babies to term. Think seahorse reproduction. This would off course raise further questions as to what comparability exists. Is only the biological father compatible with the babies, or does any male do? So many questions....
4.The biology works like it does in humans, and the society is simply ignorant to the long term effects of such a system. The war of attrition option.


The point is that if such a society exists in a game world it would be disappointing, at least to me, if the reasons and reasoning behind it was never explored.


Well, to say the truth, they don't really have mooks. Their proud warriors ride into battle to protect the farmers, they don't send the farmers to die first. I know that isn't realistic, and no upper class would risk their own lives first, but it's a fantasy world and I don't write grimdark. If Tolkien could have noble kings, so can I.

(The main enemy consists of little tribes where every woman is a warrior. Much like the Swiss. Those don't even have a lower class they could send to die first)

That fantasy world contains no monsters, humans fight better than lions and other animals, and the other societies are matriarchies, too, so any disadvantage in breeding mooks is evened out by the enemy having the exact same disadvantage.

If you'd suggest to them that sending their men into combat would be more efficient, they would call you a heartless monster.

They also don't breed like rabbits, as women are in charge and pregnancies aren't fun, so they don't need more land, which removes an important reason to send superfluous men to be killed off.

If they do start wars, it's for moral principles and such, and, of course, they can't just send their sons and husbands to die on the battlefield in order to prove that they're morally superior - that would prove that they're horrible monsters, and would defeat the purpose for which the war was started in the first place.


I guess a RPG set in that setting would involve a lot less mook-slaying than D&D, but I don't think that'd be a bad thing.

Frozen_Feet
2013-10-19, 04:15 PM
Obviously the solution isn't to get rid of chainmail bikinis, it's to add chainmail Speedos.

Those already exists in some settings & frankly, they chafe. No thanks. :smalltongue:

Worira
2013-10-19, 04:19 PM
Chainmail swim trunks?

Themrys
2013-10-19, 04:20 PM
Those already exists in some settings & frankly, they chafe. No thanks. :smalltongue:

Discworld dwarves have now invented chainmail that doesn't chafe. You won't call Sir Terry (Pratchett) a liar?

:smallcool:

It's said to offer protection from being kicked in the groin, too. Really, I don't understand why you men don't just run into the shops and ask for it.:smallbiggrin:

Frozen_Feet
2013-10-19, 04:22 PM
Oh, didn't know/remember they'd done. I can believe they did, after all, they designed Carrot's "protector". Given how useful the latter has been, I can put faith in their craftmanship. :smallcool:

Jay R
2013-10-19, 04:24 PM
Obviously the solution isn't to get rid of chainmail bikinis, it's to add chainmail Speedos.

"Add"?

Conan's and Tarzan's loincloths predate Red Sonja, who popularized the chainmail bikini.

Black Jester
2013-10-19, 04:24 PM
Again, Gender and its understanding of it matters. If it wouldn't this discussion would be pretty pointless. No matter how much you consider gender to be the sole construct of societal conventions and superimposed clishés, it is still a rather relevant Roleplaying games do not take place in a vaccuum without connections to the real world, and willful ignorance of any relevant issue like this will not magically make it go away. A critical, balanced and differentiate perspective on it, however is not only a lot less contrived, but also more meaningful. The key to avoid discrimination of any form lies in embracing diversity, and the depiction of said diversity to establish a multitude of different options and societal models with a vast number of possible outcomes and roles within the setting and create an environment within the player community that embraces heterogeneity and encourages critical thinking. Ideally, such a setting would have patriarchal and matriarchal societies, societies where gender plays no significant role at all (albeit that would be a bit alien, but hey, it is fantasy so if you can explain it within the contents of your game, you are good), societies with strict gender roles and those without them and so on. Likewise, there should be enough space for characters of any gender to be strong or weak, as long as they are interesting and meaningful to the involved players.

So basically you need three things:


A game world that offers a fair number of different cultures, societies and the like to allow for all kinds of characters.
A roundabout equal number of interesting characters of any gender - it doesn't matter as much if they are strong or weak as it matters that they are multidimensional and interesting
A differentiated and sometimes critical onlook on the various social models you use.


To remove gender roles and concepts from the game is the exactly wrong way to handle the matter. That's an ostrich's head in the sand.

Themrys
2013-10-19, 04:26 PM
Oh, didn't know/remember they'd done. I can believe they did, after all, they designed Carrot's "protector". Given how useful the latter has been, I can put faith in their craftmanship. :smallcool:

It plays a vital role in "Unseen Academicals".

(For Discworld men, that kind of armor actually makes sense ... it IS the most frequently targeted area.)


@Jay R.: Loincloth is not the same. For some reason, Pratchett's Cohen the Barbarian does not wear a "protector" but a normal loincloth, although it may function as armor ... it's mentioned it is stiff from dirt.

Czin
2013-10-19, 04:32 PM
Unless, of course, the Chainmail Bikini is made on the plane of Ysgard, (Hence having the Gloryborn template applied) - in which case, even discounting the resources required to plane-hop and find a suitable smith - the chainmail bikini costs more resources to make than the Cataphract's chainmail suit... and by your logic, should protect just as much, then!

But my point against banning Chainmail Bikinis is more standing against women being arbitrarily restricted in how much/little they can wear than males because it's apparently somehow less sexist than giving them that freedom. If it's on a realism ground, I don't have as much problem (Unless it's the kind of "realism" born of poor research and media hype that says a Japanese Katana is the Bestest Sword Ever and is strictly superior to European Longswords in every way)
I allow them, but I only let them give you poor bonuses at most. Proper armor is better in nearly every way (of course armor in our homebrew is rather more complex, very well made Plate armor is tantamount to god mode against mundane medieval level civs though) but obviously there are times and places for sultry outfits where armor that hides every inch would be unsuited.

Froggie
2013-10-19, 05:15 PM
Well, to say the truth, they don't really have mooks. Their proud warriors ride into battle to protect the farmers, they don't send the farmers to die first. I know that isn't realistic, and no upper class would risk their own lives first, but it's a fantasy world and I don't write grimdark. If Tolkien could have noble kings, so can I.

Then why did you call them that? "Mook" is a term used for expendable, faceless enemies that in a meta sense only exists to be killed by the pc's. As male life is cheap in real life and in games, mooks are always or very nearly always male.

If the nobles sacrifice themselves for the peasant class, who takes over when the nobles are dead and gone?
You can only throw so many nobles at the problem before the lack of nobles to throw become a problem 'yaknow :smallsmile:


(The main enemy consists of little tribes where every woman is a warrior. Much like the Swiss. Those don't even have a lower class they could send to die first)
That fantasy world contains no monsters, humans fight better than lions and other animals, and the other societies are matriarchies, too, so any disadvantage in breeding mooks is evened out by the enemy having the exact same disadvantage.


What does the Swiss have to do with this? Is this a reference to a game world? Because I don't have any other reference here than Switzerland, and they have women in the military on a voluntary basis as far as I understand. A far cry from compulsory warriorhood.

So how do these tribes survive against the bigger force? If they're small tribes they will be wiped out if their women die in combat, won't they?
If all things are equal the bigger force will prevail in the long run, so why does this society not run out of tribes to fight?



If you'd suggest to them that sending their men into combat would be more efficient, they would call you a heartless monster.
They also don't breed like rabbits, as women are in charge and pregnancies aren't fun, so they don't need more land, which removes an important reason to send superfluous men to be killed off.

If they do start wars, it's for moral principles and such, and, of course, they can't just send their sons and husbands to die on the battlefield in order to prove that they're morally superior - that would prove that they're horrible monsters, and would defeat the purpose for which the war was started in the first place.

Only if the dispute was about the morality of having men fight. If it was anything but that, morality pretty much goes out the window, does it not? Horrible things have been done and are done in the name of great morals, so that's not really a safeguard against this paradox.

So how do they have war at all? They seem to live in an idyllic world where they don't need to fight for resources. Their ethical codes seem to match up, so why would one side attack the other?



I guess a RPG set in that setting would involve a lot less mook-slaying than D&D, but I don't think that'd be a bad thing.


I don't think so either, but recognize that it is not the gender inverse of the standard setting where male mooks are killed in the thousands without any qualms.

How do these societies survive sending the women of its ruling class as warriors? Do they replace the ruling class? Is there a system of sister inheriting sisters to accommodate for the widowers that are inescapably left behind?
Are the wars not that bloody because the nobles demand ransom every time?


This insistent questioning of mine is a thing that goes back a long way. I like to see how systems work, and theoretical societies are no different.

Now, sooner or later everything fantasy related becomes "because I say so" but the willing suspension of disbelief is difficult to uphold when it concerns things that are so integral to real society.

A dragon can just as easily be replaced by a tiger after all. In most stories it's a monster to be conquered.

Societies that are different but work under the same base principles are tougher, as most societies in real life don't exist or work in a certain manner because someone wanted them to do so. They developed and grew out of human need, and as social imprinting is a pretty strong factor it can be more difficult for your players to accept social norms when they know the real world equivalent all too well, than if you told them there are giant rainbow bees* that talk and lets you ride them because; hey! I'd like to ride a giant rainbow bee*! GIMME!


*The Giant Rainbow Bee is a trademark of FutureSkittles, the Skittles of the Future. Taste the Rainbow, Ride the Rainbow

Agrippa
2013-10-19, 05:22 PM
Well, to say the truth, they don't really have mooks. Their proud warriors ride into battle to protect the farmers, they don't send the farmers to die first. I know that isn't realistic, and no upper class would risk their own lives first, but it's a fantasy world and I don't write grimdark. If Tolkien could have noble kings, so can I.

(The main enemy consists of little tribes where every woman is a warrior. Much like the Swiss. Those don't even have a lower class they could send to die first)

That fantasy world contains no monsters, humans fight better than lions and other animals, and the other societies are matriarchies, too, so any disadvantage in breeding mooks is evened out by the enemy having the exact same disadvantage.

If you'd suggest to them that sending their men into combat would be more efficient, they would call you a heartless monster.

They also don't breed like rabbits, as women are in charge and pregnancies aren't fun, so they don't need more land, which removes an important reason to send superfluous men to be killed off.

If they do start wars, it's for moral principles and such, and, of course, they can't just send their sons and husbands to die on the battlefield in order to prove that they're morally superior - that would prove that they're horrible monsters, and would defeat the purpose for which the war was started in the first place.


I guess a RPG set in that setting would involve a lot less mook-slaying than D&D, but I don't think that'd be a bad thing.

So what have you done about infant mortality in this setting?

JusticeZero
2013-10-19, 05:46 PM
Girdwood has a gender distinction that I wouldn't mind tossing into the discussion.

Specifically, by custom, when it comes to warfare, male soldiers tended in the past to play "Offense" and sexist-ly leave the women home - women in turn learned how to play "Defense" and build militia forces trained in defense and counter-siege, then to reinforce it as being a "Pink-armored" status. Early on in history, the "Manly men" would raise an army and go out pillaging; the ladies stayed home and got really good at not being pillaged, then made that role into a "Girl thing".

This has resulted in multiple cases where the women left "at home" gained lots of fame and status through military prowess, and consequently leveraged that glory into political power. Thus, at the moment, fully half of the cities on the map are headed by women, and whenever the city guard show up to deal with crimes and disturbances, the assumed and typical pronoun is "She".

The question as to whether that counts as "Sexist", "Non-sexist", or what has never been adequately broken down for me. It seems to be a cleaner and more coherent structure than *completely ignoring* the question and assuming perfect egalitarianism, and I haven't seen any major problems with it so far. I'm curious about how that type of arrangement strikes people and theorists.

Amphetryon
2013-10-19, 06:39 PM
If it's a comfort to you, in the fantasy matriarchy I created, faceless mooks are always female. Men aren't taught how to fight, so male mooks would not make sense.
Why would that be a comfort? Favoring one gender over the other, on the basis of said gender, is the very basis of sexism, which this thread is attempting to find a way to be rid of in gaming. Merely turning it from misogyny to misandry doesn't solve the root issue in any way.

Themrys
2013-10-19, 06:52 PM
Why would that be a comfort? Favoring one gender over the other, on the basis of said gender, is the very basis of sexism, which this thread is attempting to find a way to be rid of in gaming. Merely turning it from misogyny to misandry doesn't solve the root issue in any way.

Well, I designed that fantasy matriarchy specifically to show to men that not being the expendable gender comes at a high price, and that you won't really profit from being "valued" and "loved" by the gender who is in power, if you're not considered a real person yourself. (Okay, no, I didn't, I just created it for fun. But it can serve that purpose)

In the end, there is just one sexism, and feminism is fighting it, and men will no longer be the expendable gender when sexism is defeated.

Which is why I suspect all men who whine about "all expendable mooks are male and no one ever complains" and similar issues, that they are secretly sexist and just want to derail the discussion.

It can't be so hard to just write "Thank you for fighting sexism, I just realized that I, too, will profit from your work!". :smallconfused:

Worira
2013-10-19, 07:03 PM
What a charitable assumption. Especially when combined with:



Regarding the expendable male mooks, I leave it to men to complain about that, seeing as they're the ones being slaughtered. It would be embarassing to complain about the poor men being discriminated against and then being told that men don't find that offensive at all, wouldn't it?

"Men need to be the ones who complain about the treatment of men in media. But if they do, they're probably just sexist."

Themrys
2013-10-19, 07:19 PM
"Men need to be the ones who complain about the treatment of men in media. But if they do, they're probably just sexist."

Yep. I am tired of doing all the complaining, all the work on top of that and then be accused of NOT doing all the work. So I decided to skip the complaining.

Amphetryon
2013-10-19, 07:22 PM
Well, I designed that fantasy matriarchy specifically to show to men that not being the expendable gender comes at a high price, and that you won't really profit from being "valued" and "loved" by the gender who is in power, if you're not considered a real person yourself. (Okay, no, I didn't, I just created it for fun. But it can serve that purpose)

In the end, there is just one sexism, and feminism is fighting it, and men will no longer be the expendable gender when sexism is defeated.

Which is why I suspect all men who whine about "all expendable mooks are male and no one ever complains" and similar issues, that they are secretly sexist and just want to derail the discussion.

It can't be so hard to just write "Thank you for fighting sexism, I just realized that I, too, will profit from your work!". :smallconfused:
No, I don't want to derail the discussion. I just don't want the discussion of sexism in gaming to be conflated with a discussion of misogyny in gaming; the terms are different, and have different meanings.

Thrudd
2013-10-19, 07:34 PM
Read "Left Hand of Darkness" by Ursula K Le Guinn, for a society without sexism or gender roles. It tells of a planet of androgynous humans (probably gentically engineered as such long ago), who experience a reproductive urge for a few days each month where they take on either male or female traits depending on their chemistry with a partner. The same person could both sire and bear children over the course of their life.

Sexism can only be completely removed from a game by removing gender identity altogether. Not impossible for a fantasy setting, you could create a world much like Le Guin's "Winter" planet from the Left Hand of Darkness, where all people are physically androgynous. It may be difficult for some people to relate to such characters, however, since our real life personalities and outlook are so often colored by gender identity.
In a fantasy world based on our own, or that mimics historical societies in any way, gender roles are inevitable. Gender roles lead to sexism, or are sexism by some definitions. Such a game can approach the inevitable inequality of gender roles in a way that is not sexist, by having built into the setting an examination and questioning of those roles, and encouraging players and GM's to create characters and scenarios which challenge convention.
You can, of course, create settings where the conventional historical gender roles are turned on their head, as was suggested earlier. That is not really removing sexism, but it is encouraging a reevaluation of gender identity.
Alteratively, a setting which is not fully realized or detailed beyond the scope of the game's mechanics (IE fighting monsters, solving puzzles, finding treasure, getting XP) need not address any gender/sex issues at all. As long as there are no rules which mechanically differentiate between male and female, any character can be either gender, and work exactly the same. Go into the dungeon, fight monsters and find treasure. No hard questions asked. (I'm not saying this is preferred, but it is what happens often enough, anyway.)

As far as the rulebook is concerned, alternate between both pronouns. Do not use art that objectifies women (or men, for that matter) as overtly sexualized. Do not use a built-in setting which overtly specifies gender roles. Problem solved.

Boci
2013-10-19, 08:04 PM
Whether that is more likely depends entirely on the author. Entirely.

It is a sad fact that even authors who set out to write an anti racist book in which, for a change, white people are oppressed, come up with such absurdities as white people being called "pearls" as a racial slur. I kid you not, that does happen.

Therefore, my trust in an author writing about something as problematic as a stark sexual dimorphism is not great. They might legitimately try to make it not sexist, and still fail.

This honestly sounds like someone trying to find a reason to dislike the "plot arc". I mean, let's look at what we have to work with:

World of Darkness is based off our world. Were creatures often gain attributes based on their animal half. In Africa, human society is typically male dominated. In Africa, hyena society is female dominated.

Based on this, I find it irrational to attribute male supremacist intentions to the author without further evidence than "its possibly and others have done it". Plus, by the mechanics of the game, the animal born females are right. They have higher rage, that makes them the better warriors (and thus most likely the better leaders, due to the culture of werecreatures).

Themrys
2013-10-19, 08:08 PM
This honestly sounds like someone trying to find a reason to dislike the "plot arc". I mean, let's look at what we have to work with:

World of Darkness is based off our world. Were creatures often gain attributes based on their animal half. In Africa, human society is typically male dominated. In Africa, hyena society is female dominated.

Based on this, I find it irrational to attribute male supremacist intentions to the author without further evidence than "its possibly and others have done it". Plus, by the mechanics of the game, the animal born females are right. They have higher rage, that makes them the better warriors (and thus most likely the better leaders, due to the culture of werecreatures).


I didn't attribute male supremacist intentions to the author, I just said it's likely that the topic is not handled well, as few authors can handle such topics well.

As I didn't read the whole thing, I can't really judge it.

Boci
2013-10-19, 08:10 PM
I didn't attribute male supremacist intentions to the author, I just said it's likely that the topic is not handled well, as few authors can handle such topics well.

As I didn't read the whole thing, I can't really judge it.

That's not how its coming off to me. I know you haven't read the thing, but I have summarized it for you. From where I'm standing, you seem to be judging, and pretty negatively at that.

erikun
2013-10-19, 08:31 PM
I have never played in a game that had mechanics for a chainmail bikini. Just making note of that.

For removing sexism from game mechanics, it seems like something as simple as removing sex as a factor in the game system, or making it easy to ignore. D&D, for the longest time, has only used a height/weight table as the distinguishing factor between sexes, and most people completely ignore that. I've heard of one game that did have average height and weight differences between males and females, but allowed the player to choose their own values with no restrictions. You could play an eight foot tall woman just as easily as an eight foot tall man. Other stats based off height and weight, such as strength or speed, meant that the average female would be weaker/faster than the average male, but that the PC would easily ignore these limitations.

For art, I prefer more realistic art and character models and so the question isn't "Is it sexist?" but "Is it completely silly?" That said, art is a bit trickier to deal with, and isn't limited to just bikini armor. The Hawkeye Initiative points out that even reasonably dressed women can still end up sexist, through ridiculous poses or actions.

As for the setting, it would probably be easier to make sure the focus of the game is on the hundreds of things characters can do that don't relate to the traditional gender roles. The next in line to rule the country is the first born, not the first born son. The one who takes over a business is the skilled craftsman, regardless of gender. It would probably be best to get rid of the "save the princess from the dragon" theme of campaigns, because even if you swap the genders, it still comes off as primarily the same story.

Although one big thing to note is that the setting depends as much on the game master as the published material. Some groups aren't comfortable with dealing with any sort of inequality, and so would much prefer to have campaigns about fighting dragons or saving the world from demons. Some groups like the gender interplay, and so would much prefer stories where Drow or Incubi or stark gender roles in society can come into play, so that they can explore those issues. (or just smash heads and change things as they like) And I think that's one of the biggest questions about the whole sexism-in-RPGs comes to light: at what point are you stifling the player's ability to just enjoy the game or explore these situations by removing things? I know that I'd dislike a RPG that somehow created some sort of enforced non-sexism in its system, not because I enjoy sexist topics, but because I want the ability to explore sexist topics if I choose. Out of all the mediums out there, roleplaying is perhaps the best one for this sort of activity.


Obviously the solution isn't to get rid of chainmail bikinis, it's to add chainmail Speedos.
Plate codpieces. :smallcool:

The Oni
2013-10-20, 03:45 AM
The pantheon ... Geez. I don't understand why people even think of gods as having sexual traits in any way our minds can comprehend. In lots of myths they create themselves, or rise from the primal chaos, or have always existed, or otherwise come into being asexually (like springing fully-formed from somebody's split forehead).

...But, in those same myths, they bang the hell out of anything that moves. And by they I mean Zeus. And Zeus had a LOT of kids.

You could easily eliminate sexism in the pantheon by taking a Hindu take on things, where all of the deities are either hermaphrodites or explicitly have a male and female aspect to them.

Frozen_Feet
2013-10-20, 06:34 AM
@Dinners: The answer to your question is simple: gods might not have sex, but that doesn't stop human from ascribing a gender to them based on their behaviour and whether they find it masculine, feminine, neiter or both. I already detailed this idea: if you detach masculinity and femininity from biological sex (like Strenght scores and Intelligence scores are detached from biological species in D&D), you can create a system of coordinates where you can assign a gender to anything, even unliving objects.

Case in point, many languages have masculine, feminine and neutral prewords (Like la, le and les in French).

erikun
2013-10-20, 08:50 AM
Case in point, many languages have masculine, feminine and neutral prewords (Like la, le and les in French).
Nitpick: In French, 'les' is the plural definite article. The singular of the word would either use 'le' or 'la', depending on its gender. Even if the word had no singular version, it would still have a gender, for when you apply adjectives (such as grand/grande) to it.

There are romance languages, and other languages, that have neutral nouns alongside male and female. I'm not sure which ones the are, though.

Themrys
2013-10-20, 09:13 AM
I think the idea of creating a fantasy setting which is unsexist is tough, because the sexism of an imaginary setting can be reckoned in at least two ways: In and of itself, and in relation to the actual setting we live in. While an oppressive matriarchal society in a fantasy setting might be called "sexist" or at least misandrist in itself, it might be antisexist in relation to our world because it holds up a mirror to the oppressive patriarchal society we are really living in. Unless of course it's an insulting depiction of existing female stereotypes, in which case it's doubly wrong.


That's very important. It's why I am not very fond of drow.

When I was a child I read a book about a matriarchy where women were in power because "men are too aggressive", which I back then thought as depicting existing stereotypes, but now think might have been poking fun at the stereotype - by showing sexists what the world would look like if some stereotypes were taken to their logical conclusion. (It was a very "mild" matriarchy, men were just not allowed to join the military and wear weapons, all other jobs being open to them, etc., which was what made me think the author actually believed the stereotypes back then.)

Another matriarchy fiction book I read just took real-life sexism and swapped the roles. Literally. I got a good idea of what feminism looked like back then just by reading the book. It was a decent commentary on real-life sexism, but not very fun to read as a fantasy story.

Scow2
2013-10-20, 10:46 AM
It can't be so hard to just write "Thank you for fighting sexism, I just realized that I, too, will profit from your work!". :smallconfused:Because we don't profit from the work, or even break even, or even have anything we have a problem with removed.

AgentofHellfire
2013-10-20, 10:52 AM
I said this about evil matriarchies on the other thread, but, because I'm seeing the point about to be made here...

If societies can be [patriarchal/egalitarian/matriarchal] and [good/evil], then all other things being equal you'd get evil matriarchal societies roughly 1/6th of the time. So one particular matriarchy being evil (in a way that isn't necessarily related to the matriarchy bit, I might add) isn't bad. And while there aren't yet the logically following 1/6th good matriarchies, that's a problem of a lack of a thing more than it is the problem of the presence of a thing.

Themrys
2013-10-20, 10:57 AM
Because we don't profit from the work, or even break even, or even have anything we have a problem with removed.

If you are not hurt by sexism, and have no problem with sexism, then why are you here?

No, don't answer, it was a rhetorical question, I'll just add you to my ignore list, it's easier that way.

Boci
2013-10-20, 10:58 AM
I said this about evil matriarchies on the other thread, but, because I'm seeing the point about to be made here...

If societies can be [patriarchal/egalitarian/matriarchal] and [good/evil], then all other things being equal you'd get evil matriarchal societies roughly 1/6th of the time. So one particular matriarchy being evil (in a way that isn't necessarily related to the matriarchy bit, I might add) isn't bad. And while there aren't yet the logically following 1/6th good matriarchies, that's a problem of a lack of a thing more than it is the problem of the presence of a thing.

The problem with the drow though is how sexualized they and their culture is, combined with it being an evil matriarchy). If the fetish fuel aesthetic was removed I'm sure less people would find them problematic.


If you are not hurt by sexism, and have no problem with sexism, then why are you here?

No, don't answer, it was a rhetorical question, I'll just add you to my ignore list, it's easier that way.

Presumably to argue against a need for change, which is a perfectly valid stance to hold on a subject in a vacuum.

AgentofHellfire
2013-10-20, 11:06 AM
The problem with the drow though is how sexualized they and their culture is, combined with it being an evil matriarchy). If the fetish fuel aesthetic was removed I'm sure less people would find them problematic.

I frankly don't understand what about the aesthetic makes them worse. It doesn't really make them more or less evil...




Presumably to argue against a need for change, which is a perfectly valid stance to hold on a subject in a vacuum.

In total fairness, asking people to change the way their imaginations work for a (really slight) difference in the way women are regarded is kind of presumptuous. Not to mention sometimes outright harmful to the creativity of people who might produce work that's pretty egalitarian.

Boci
2013-10-20, 11:09 AM
I frankly don't understand what about the aesthetic makes them worse. It doesn't really make them more or less evil...

Because if the drow weren't so sexualized as a race and culture, it would offer a chance to see how a society works run by females works and feels. As it is, its just another fantasy for men. That and maybe the straw feminism argument.

AgentofHellfire
2013-10-20, 11:12 AM
Because if the drow weren't so sexualized as a race and culture, it would offer a chance to see how a society works run by females works and feels.

Why is there a single way a society run by females would work? Historically, societies run by men have worked lots of different ways, even in terms of the extent to which men were sexualized (see: Greeks vs. Arabs).



As it is, its just another fantasy for men.

Might it have elements that are present in male fantasies? Yes. But does the presence of those elements overshadow everything else in the society?

Amphetryon
2013-10-20, 11:15 AM
Because if the drow weren't so sexualized as a race and culture, it would offer a chance to see how a society works run by females works and feels. As it is, its just another fantasy for men. That and maybe the straw feminism argument.

I'm willing to bet that some will find the portion of your comment I bolded to be sexist; females don't have a monopoly on the feels, and ascribing that particular quality to one gender more than the other is within the realm of "sexist" designation.

Boci
2013-10-20, 11:20 AM
Why is there a single way a society run by females would work? Historically, societies run by men have worked lots of different ways, even in terms of the extent to which men were sexualized (see: Greeks vs. Arabs).

There isn't. I'm just saying it would be nice to have one that doesn't sound like first and foremost like a sexual fantasy.


Might it have elements that are present in male fantasies? Yes. But does the presence of those elements overshadow everything else in the society?

No it doesn't. The problem is, firstly the fetish aethetic is by far the most visual aspect of drow culture, and secondly that when you focus on other parts of it, it just becomes ridiculous. The drow dictionary presumably lists "goodwill" as "a mental deficiency common in the lesser surface races".

Drow culture is either stupid lol evil or kinky. Is there anything about them that doesn't fit into one of those categories?


I'm willing to bet that some will find the portion of your comment I bolded to be sexist; females don't have a monopoly on the feels, and ascribing that particular quality to one gender more than the other is within the realm of "sexist" designation.

Sorry for being unclear, I meant how it feels to be a part of.

AgentofHellfire
2013-10-20, 11:21 AM
I'm willing to bet that some will find the portion of your comment I bolded to be sexist; females don't have a monopoly on the feels, and ascribing that particular quality to one gender more than the other is within the realm of "sexist" designation.


To be totally ffair to him, though, we kind of already understand/have some experience with patriarchies (I'm not talking about our current culture, although it admittedly is a tad on the patriarchal side, just given the makeup of who runs the businesses).

AgentofHellfire
2013-10-20, 11:27 AM
There isn't. I'm just saying it would be nice to have one that doesn't sound like first and foremost like a sexual fantasy.

The drow really never did register to me as a sexual fantasy.




No it doesn't. The problem is, firstly the fetish aethetic is by far the most visual aspect of drow culture, and secondly that when you focus on other parts of it, it just becomes ridiculous. The drow dictionary presumably lists "goodwill" as "a mental deficiency common in the lesser surface races".


Drow culture is either stupid lol evil or kinky. Is there anything about them that doesn't fit into one of those categories?

Even though we don't see it often, the drow work for the benefit of their Houses quite a lot. So that's already one thing. Also the hatred of surface dwellers, and the sort of clever deliberate ignorance of rules shown by, among other things, Drizz't Do'urden's origin story...

Astrella
2013-10-20, 11:28 AM
Because we don't profit from the work, or even break even, or even have anything we have a problem with removed.

Except men are affected by gender stereotypes and policing as well? Maybe you personally aren't, but tons of men are and do benefit from all that crap going away.

Boci
2013-10-20, 11:31 AM
The drow really never did register to me as a sexual fantasy.

They are. Regardless of whether you have fantasies of being dominated, or even knew they existed, a cruel dominant woman with a whip is a sexual fantasy of men.


Even though we don't see it often, the drow work for the benefit of their Houses quite a lot. So that's already one thing. Also the hatred of surface dwellers, and the sort of clever deliberate ignorance of rules shown by, among other things, Drizz't Do'urden's origin story...

The problem is, you had to tell me that. I'm not exactly inexperienced with D&D and drow, and those things never came up. So yeah, drow culture is badly handled and the sexualized aesthetics (scant leather, whips, bondage, slaves and cruelty) are the most visible and emphasized feature of them.

Froggie
2013-10-20, 11:34 AM
Does anyone have a good source for when and how the Drow were introduced? Has the visual fantasy stuff been there all along, has it come later, or did it escalate along the escalating sexualization and marketing of womens, and lately mens, bodies?

As I haven't played much D&D at all I don't really have good references, but at a glance it looks like the drow were a way to give players more female enemies to fight. Making the side always evil just makes it easier to explain why you should kill them. That part is the same as goblins or orcs or whatever other enemy that's humanoid and intelligent.

The sexualization could be removed without anything of the actual game being different. It's was added as eyecandy, and even though the message of "sexual female=evil" is deeply disturbing I don't think that it was what meant to come through. Just another idea that didn't differ from the standard chainmail bikini artwork that was also just eyecandy, but it backfired horrendously.

Or maybe I'm just talking out of a hat and the designers meant it as demonizing female sexuality all along.

Black Jester
2013-10-20, 11:46 AM
With that in mind, I think setting designers wishing to be antisexist need to be cautious about reinforcing the idea that men and women are naturally different from one another in any way besides anatomy (i.e., the idea that gender is the same as sex). Whether or not you think it's true in an objective sense that men and women are different, it must be recognized that the idea of difference has been used in large part to justify the oppression of women in both modern and historical reality. So simply reinforcing the idea that, for instance, women are nurturing and men are not is supportive of real sexism.

Even if you regard gender as an utterly artificial construct without significant overlap with actual biological sex and mostly based on societal conventions (and I am not saying that this is a wrong perspective or anything, I just use this as a premise), it is still a relevant part of personal identity. The historical background of what constructs masculinity or femininity or anything in between isn't as important on an individual level as the self-identification with it. This is neither particular good or bad, but it should be kept in mind that the self-understanding of what the own gender (role) includes is a part of personal identification. And therefore I personally consider complete gender neutrality not as that desirably when it comes to this individual level.
Of course, reinforcing stereotypes is not that great either, because even utterly positive stereotypes are limiting and shoehorning in a best case scenario. But if you begin to reverse this and start avoiding stereotypes for the specific sake of of avoiding them, and thus deny, for instance, the existence of a nurturing, motherly female character (because that would be stereotypic) you create a setting that is poor, contrived and most of all restrictive.
there is probably no ideal way to solve this, but I feel a lot more comfortable when I know that I can have interesting characters in as many different styles as possible, even when they concur with traditional gender roles. I am much more comfortable with any setting if there is as much place for weak vulnerable characters of any gender as there is for strong and domineering ones. The point lies not in strength or weakness in male or female characters, but in creating vivid, complex and interesting characters of any gender. Because diversity and a multitude of options will always be more interesting and closer to the heterogeneity that is real people than any contrived homogeneity.




There has been a question already raised on this thread of whether a nonsexist setting should depict sexism. It's a good question, and my best answer is: it doesn't need to. A setting without sexism doesn't deny the reality of sexism in our world. If anything, it highlights the sexism in our world by demonstrating what the absence of sexism might look like. So I say go ahead and make totally egalitarian societies in your fantasy setting, but make sure you actually make them egalitarian.

Again, I disagree. First of all, I think a setting bereft of any sexism will probably very contrived and therefore not very convincing. But that's my personal taste and perhaps even cynicism. It is also, and that actually matters, nothing but a mere avoidance tactic. Willful ignorance does not make problems go away. Again, I have not a perfect solution, but I think the combination of diversity and a vast number of various gender roles - both in accordance and defiance to traditional ones, or the ones established within the setting.

But the real bonus is of course the far jump of conclusions: If a setting must not include no sexism to be not sexist, any game that does is basically sexist (and that, of course, counts double for any involved players).

Blackjackg
2013-10-20, 01:03 PM
Even if you regard gender as an utterly artificial construct without significant overlap with actual biological sex and mostly based on societal conventions (and I am not saying that this is a wrong perspective or anything, I just use this as a premise), it is still a relevant part of personal identity. The historical background of what constructs masculinity or femininity or anything in between isn't as important on an individual level as the self-identification with it. This is neither particular good or bad, but it should be kept in mind that the self-understanding of what the own gender (role) includes is a part of personal identification. And therefore I personally consider complete gender neutrality not as that desirably when it comes to this individual level.
Of course, reinforcing stereotypes is not that great either, because even utterly positive stereotypes are limiting and shoehorning in a best case scenario. But if you begin to reverse this and start avoiding stereotypes for the specific sake of of avoiding them, and thus deny, for instance, the existence of a nurturing, motherly female character (because that would be stereotypic) you create a setting that is poor, contrived and most of all restrictive.
there is probably no ideal way to solve this, but I feel a lot more comfortable when I know that I can have interesting characters in as many different styles as possible, even when they concur with traditional gender roles. I am much more comfortable with any setting if there is as much place for weak vulnerable characters of any gender as there is for strong and domineering ones. The point lies not in strength or weakness in male or female characters, but in creating vivid, complex and interesting characters of any gender. Because diversity and a multitude of options will always be more interesting and closer to the heterogeneity that is real people than any contrived homogeneity.

First of all, sorry I deleted the post you're quoting here-- I'm not trying to gaslight anyone; it was just pointed out to me that I was making use of cissexist ideologies, and I didn't want to leave that hanging there.

I agree totally that the culture we're in is a real thing-- gender has meaning, even if it's culturally-created meaning, and identities centered around that meaning are valid.

However, unless you're going for historical realism, you create the culture of a fantasy setting. Any elements of culture that you include are choices. So let's say that (as I believe is true), gender in our real-world culture is a social construct. It overlaps (albeit not entirely) with anatomical differences, but for social rather than biologically "true" reasons. Gender, then, is an element of culture and how it is used in the setting is a choice of the setting's creator. When one says "In this setting, there are two genders that roughly correspond with sexual anatomy," that is a choice about the culture. When one says "Women in this culture are nurturing," that is also a choice.

I'm going to jump back to the point about how sexism in a system is partly defined by its relation to real-world sexism. One element of real-world sexism is the belief that cultural ideas of gender have biological truth. One such idea is that women are "naturally" maternal. This ostensibly benign belief has justified a number of injustices against women throughout history, keeping them in the home and out of the public sphere. When you, as the creator of a fantastic setting in another world, choose to transpose this cultural element from our world, it reifies the idea that it is not a cultural element at all, but a fact of biology.

This is not to say that all stereotypes must be avoided without question. That only reinforces the ideas by converse. That's why I made my suggestion that characters should be defined and fully fleshed out before their anatomy is randomly determined. That way when you make a nurturing parent, it is not always going to correspond with having a womb. Remember, this is a world and culture that you're creating-- you can make a completely egalitarian society if you wish.


Again, I disagree. First of all, I think a setting bereft of any sexism will probably very contrived and therefore not very convincing. But that's my personal taste and perhaps even cynicism. It is also, and that actually matters, nothing but a mere avoidance tactic. Willful ignorance does not make problems go away. Again, I have not a perfect solution, but I think the combination of diversity and a vast number of various gender roles - both in accordance and defiance to traditional ones, or the ones established within the setting.

But the real bonus is of course the far jump of conclusions: If a setting must not include no sexism to be not sexist, any game that does is basically sexist (and that, of course, counts double for any involved players).

You may have misunderstood what I was saying here. I didn't say that for a game to be anti-sexist, all settings in the game must be anti-sexist. I said that a game doesn't need sexist settings in order to be nonsexist. To say that egalitarian societies would seem "contrived and not very convincing" also reifies a harmful and inaccurate idea about how sex and gender "naturally" work. It's your world, and you can easily make it egalitarian.

Unless you're going for historical realism, of course... but keep in mind that we actually have a pretty limited idea about what the "reality" of our own history is. Our view of the past is colored heavily by the beliefs and biases of the present. From the perspective of a certain culture in a certain time, egalitarian societies seem improbable... even though there have been many throughout history and some persisting even today.

Scow2
2013-10-20, 01:14 PM
First of all, sorry I deleted the post you're quoting here-- I'm not trying to gaslight anyone; it was just pointed out to me that I was making use of cissexist ideologies, and I didn't want to leave that hanging there.

I agree totally that the culture we're in is a real thing-- gender has meaning, even if it's culturally-created meaning, and identities centered around that meaning are valid.

However, unless you're going for historical realism, you create the culture of a fantasy setting. Any elements of culture that you include are choices. So let's say that (as I believe is true), gender in our real-world culture is a social construct. It overlaps (albeit not entirely) with anatomical differences, but for social rather than biologically "true" reasons. Gender, then, is an element of culture and how it is used in the setting is a choice of the setting's creator. When one says "In this setting, there are two genders that roughly correspond with sexual anatomy," that is a choice about the culture. When one says "Women in this culture are nurturing," that is also a choice.

I'm going to jump back to the point about how sexism in a system is partly defined by its relation to real-world sexism. One element of real-world sexism is the belief that cultural ideas of gender have biological truth. One such idea is that women are "naturally" maternal. This ostensibly benign belief has justified a number of injustices against women throughout history, keeping them in the home and out of the public sphere. When you, as the creator of a fantastic setting in another world, choose to transpose this cultural element from our world, it reifies the idea that it is not a cultural element at all, but a fact of biology.

This is not to say that all stereotypes must be avoided without question. That only reinforces the ideas by converse. That's why I made my suggestion that characters should be defined and fully fleshed out before their anatomy is randomly determined. That way when you make a nurturing parent, it is not always going to correspond with having a womb. Remember, this is a world and culture that you're creating-- you can make a completely egalitarian society if you wish.

Unfortunately for the matter of sexism, Biological Differences do lead to cultural differences - you can't ignore the fact that half the population ends up taken out of general productivity for a few months (Or permanently, depending on available medical tech) to reproduce (Or that the other half isn't taken out of productivity to reproduce), that only half the population is capable of repopulating in the event of calamity (Though at least a token presence of the other half is required), and, without drugs and mood stabilizers, that half of the population also tends to go bat**** insane on a cycle that seems to, on first glance, correspond to the cycles of the moon (Yes, the reason for said dramatic moodswings is understandable-yet-incomprehensible to the other half of the population).

Something that makes me wonder about the "Male is Default" issue is... do men actually have anything like the dramatic mood destabilizers that women are loaded with? From my biased experience, males act consistently, and aren't prone to predictable, systematic mood swings and irrational behaviors women undeniably demonstrate.


These are all issues a society needs to deal with, and ignoring them causes problems that other cultures can and will take advantage of.

Boci
2013-10-20, 01:22 PM
Something that makes me wonder about the "Male is Default" issue is... do men actually have anything like the dramatic mood destabilizers that women are loaded with? From my biased experience, males act consistently, and aren't prone to predictable, systematic mood swings and irrational behaviors women undeniably demonstrate.

I dunno about undeniably demonstrate. I can never tell when my female friends are having their periods, and males act stupidly when in groups and to impress women. And just in general.

Blackjackg
2013-10-20, 01:23 PM
Unfortunately for the matter of sexism, Biological Differences do lead to cultural differences - you can't ignore the fact that half the population ends up taken out of general productivity for a few months (Or permanently, depending on available medical tech) to reproduce (Or that the other half isn't taken out of productivity to reproduce), that only half the population is capable of repopulating in the event of calamity (Though at least a token presence of the other half is required), and, without drugs and mood stabilizers, that half of the population also tends to go bat**** insane on a cycle that seems to, on first glance, correspond to the cycles of the moon (Yes, the reason for said dramatic moodswings is understandable-yet-incomprehensible to the other half of the population).

Something that makes me wonder about the "Male is Default" issue is... do men actually have anything like the dramatic mood destabilizers that women are loaded with? From my biased experience, males act consistently, and aren't prone to predictable, systematic mood swings and irrational behaviors women undeniably demonstrate.

You can present these statements as fact, but you should be aware that the best of them are hotly-debated topics in the science of gender and psychology. Presenting them as unquestioned reality is not justified by the state of the scientific or social discourse.

The worst of them are offensive and inflammatory. People who menstruate are not automatically "bat-**** insane," or even irrational when they do so. This is another myth that is used to oppress, silence and abuse.

Frozen_Feet
2013-10-20, 01:33 PM
You can present these statements as fact, but you should be aware that the best of them are hotly-debated topics in the science of gender and psychology.

Pregnancy, periods and PMS are not "hotly debated". No sane person claims they don't exist or affect how society work.

MunkeeGamer
2013-10-20, 01:50 PM
I dug into this thread with the intent of reading it fully. After a couple pages, I realized I don't know who in this thread is being sarcastic or serious, ironic or intentional.

As far as sexism, in general, there are measurable objective differences between the sexes. Merely acknowledging that fact is sexism and I don't consider that a bad thing. It's a rational perspective.

Look at the Olympics, if there were no gender differences, both sexes would compete together and there would be a roughly equal number of male and female gold medals. This is objectively not the case.

Whether or not a person decides to be negatively prejudiced towards a person is a different word, a different definition. Negative prejudice is always bad, not just against women. Debating as if the only negative prejudice in the world is against women is insanely sexist. I don't think it's fruitful to debate with anyone who victimizes JUST women in such a way.

In contrast to the Olympics example, in RPG gaming, I've had female characters play STR based warriors who could lift large boulders over their heads and smash entire fleets of male orcs. Due to this and any other infinite number of limitless roleplay options, RPG are less sexist than reality.

But to get to thread's point, a game that is non-sexist can only be created by removing genders. What else can be said other than that?

Frozen_Feet
2013-10-20, 01:56 PM
I dug into this thread with the intent of reading it fully. After a couple pages, I realized I don't know who in this thread is being sarcastic or serious, ironic or intentional.


It's called "parody horizon". Because extreme proponents of all sides of the gender debate have been so mind-numbingly dumb, it is no longer possible to distinquish honest proponents of a position from those who are parodying or satirizing it.

Mind you, this doesn't necessarily refer to this thread, or even these boards. It refers to popular sociological topics in general. Discussion here has been relatively mild and civil.

Also, I alternate between sarcastic and serious, often between paragraphs, sometimes between sentences, sometimes within sentences. As such, feel free to take anything I in particular say with a monumental grain of salt. :smalltongue:

Prizefigter50
2013-10-20, 02:00 PM
Creating a non-sexist environment for players and PCs is actually extremely simple: you only have to allow each player character, regardless of gender and gender identity, all of the same capabilities and opportunities. Cultures in the world you create should have positions of power (as well as other opportunities) based entirely on merit as opposed to gender conventions. Matriarchal and patriarchal societies are not necessarily required to be totally outlawed, but should be the exception, rather than the rule, and this should be made apparent to players.

As to the matter of biological dimorphism, you can't ignore that it exists if you're using humans or any other gender-binary species (or species with three, four, or a dozen genders i suppose). The key is to not discriminate based on these qualities, but to see them as differences rather than weaknesses. For example, pregnancy should be seen not as a nine-month period of weakness, but as the unique ability to bring a new life into the world! That is some cool ****! And it's definitely worthy of respect more than discrimination.

And finally, there's the issue of sexualization. Players should be able to depict their characters however makes them happiest. For example, I have two males ant two females in my campaign. One female has chosen to be a courtesan, and rather enjoys being sexualized and wearing armor which both protects her and emphasizes her figure. No, it's not adamantium full plate, but she's more than alright with that trade-off. If she really wanted sexy plate armor, the key thing here is that I AM THE DM AND I CAN MAKE THAT HAPPEN! It's my (or rather, our) world, and we can adjust "realism" as need be. My other female player wears sensible, plain brigandine. She didn't want to be sexual, and that is a totally acceptable option! My male players are a more frail, bookish male whose knowledge has been a great party asset, and the other is basically a lizard bodybuilder whose strength has been a huge asset, in addition to the charisma, guile, wisdom, and skill from my female players. So, every character should have an option they want. Sexy, not sexy, masculine, feminine. realist or unrealistically protective chain-mail undergarments are entirely up to your discretion as a DM/GM Haha.

And as a side note, Drow may not be as sexist as you think. I know most people see it as a sexual fantasy for men, to be dominated, but i know a fair share of women who get off on dominating, and that's totally okay! Hell, one of my female friends absolutely loves them for that! If the entire culture worships a goddess whose aspects include domination, sexuality, and female superiority, it is logical to me for their behavior to reflect that. If i decide I don't like it, as the DM i can alter or remove drow society, or create a benevolent matriarchy worshipping ehlonna if i please, or an evil patriarchy worshipping hextor!

Amphetryon
2013-10-20, 02:05 PM
Creating a non-sexist environment for players and PCs is actually extremely simple: you only have to allow each player character, regardless of gender and gender identity, all of the same capabilities and opportunities. Cultures in the world you create should have positions of power (as well as other opportunities) based entirely on merit as opposed to gender conventions. Matriarchal and patriarchal societies are not necessarily required to be totally outlawed, but should be the exception, rather than the rule, and this should be made apparent to players.

As to the matter of biological dimorphism, you can't ignore that it exists if you're using humans or any other gender-binary species (or species with three, four, or a dozen genders i suppose). The key is to not discriminate based on these qualities, but to see them as differences rather than weaknesses. For example, pregnancy should be seen not as a nine-month period of weakness, but as the unique ability to bring a new life into the world! That is some cool ****! And it's definitely worthy of respect more than discrimination.

And finally, there's the issue of sexualization. Players should be able to depict their characters however makes them happiest. For example, I have two males ant two females in my campaign. One female has chosen to be a courtesan, and rather enjoys being sexualized and wearing armor which both protects her and emphasizes her figure. No, it's not adamantium full plate, but she's more than alright with that trade-off. If she really wanted sexy plate armor, the key thing here is that I AM THE DM AND I CAN MAKE THAT HAPPEN! It's my (or rather, our) world, and we can adjust "realism" as need be. My other female player wears sensible, plain brigandine. She didn't want to be sexual, and that is a totally acceptable option! My male players are a more frail, bookish male whose knowledge has been a great party asset, and the other is basically a lizard bodybuilder whose strength has been a huge asset, in addition to the charisma, guile, wisdom, and skill from my female players. So, every character should have an option they want. Sexy, not sexy, masculine, feminine. realist or unrealistically protective chain-mail undergarments are entirely up to your discretion as a DM/GM Haha.

And as a side note, Drow may not be as sexist as you think. I know most people see it as a sexual fantasy for men, to be dominated, but i know a fair share of women who get off on dominating, and that's totally okay! Hell, one of my female friends absolutely loves them for that! If the entire culture worships a goddess whose aspects include domination, sexuality, and female superiority, it is logical to me for their behavior to reflect that. If i decide I don't like it, as the DM i can alter or remove drow society, or create a benevolent matriarchy worshipping ehlonna if i please, or an evil patriarchy worshipping hextor!

The issue is that the instant someone ascribes a motivation to a given Character that is based on the gender of that Character or the Character/NPC/Monster to which they're reacting, you've reintroduced sexism (in perhaps its broadest form) to the game; the instant that happens - and the person ascribing the motivation need not be the person controlling the Characters involved - it would appear to be a problem, based on the discussion here and elsewhere regarding sexism in gaming.

Prizefigter50
2013-10-20, 02:14 PM
True, but if the person ascribing gender-based motivations is not you, then you have still created a sexism-free environment. The fault is that one cannot create sexism-free players, only hope to find them. In a game with near-absolute freedom, some people will unfortunately make that choice. The best we can do as world-builders is to lay out a discrimination-free canvas for our players, either devoid of gender-based anything at all, or one that depicts the genders as generally equal. It's true though, that unless everyone involved is co-operating to create the same environment, you can't eliminate those stereotypes without limiting a player's freedom.

Lamech
2013-10-20, 02:20 PM
I said this about evil matriarchies on the other thread, but, because I'm seeing the point about to be made here...

If societies can be [patriarchal/egalitarian/matriarchal] and [good/evil], then all other things being equal you'd get evil matriarchal societies roughly 1/6th of the time. So one particular matriarchy being evil (in a way that isn't necessarily related to the matriarchy bit, I might add) isn't bad. And while there aren't yet the logically following 1/6th good matriarchies, that's a problem of a lack of a thing more than it is the problem of the presence of a thing.
You won't get good matriarchies, (or patriarchies) in DnD. Or at least you shouldn't. A good society is egalitarian. Sexism is evil. DnD doesn't do great with morality plays when there is a class that can tell automatically who is evil. "I am put a poor unfairly judged man", "Nope you're evil. Time to smite."

Boci
2013-10-20, 02:26 PM
You won't get good matriarchies, (or patriarchies) in DnD. Or at least you shouldn't. A good society is egalitarian. Sexism is evil. DnD doesn't do great with morality plays when there is a class that can tell automatically who is evil. "I am put a poor unfairly judged man", "Nope you're evil. Time to smite."

Good doesn't mean perfect. Few people seems to have a problem with a good king/queen run nation after all (as long as they aren't an emperor/empress, they are usually more evil).

MunkeeGamer
2013-10-20, 02:29 PM
It's called "parody horizon". Because extreme proponents of all sides of the gender debate have been so mind-numbingly dumb, it is no longer possible to distinquish honest proponents of a position from those who are parodying or satirizing it.

Mind you, this doesn't necessarily refer to this thread, or even these boards. It refers to popular sociological topics in general. Discussion here has been relatively mild and civil.

Also, I alternate between sarcastic and serious, often between paragraphs, sometimes between sentences, sometimes within sentences. As such, feel free to take anything I in particular say with a monumental grain of salt. :smalltongue:

Froze, this hit the nail on the head. Parody horizon is a real issue I think highlighted by the syle of humor popularized by Colbert. Your comments didn't confuse me, though.

There are a few other posters in this thread, however, that I can't tell if they're trolling or if they actual hold the viewpoints they proport. Mysandry is still sexism. Matriarchies are still sexism. Every argument against male chauvinism works equally well against college-aged, women's-studies-fueled feminazism. I think that much should be obvious. But parody horizon makes it hard to know if I should even engage someone who holds that feminaziist view. :smallfrown:

The Oni
2013-10-20, 02:33 PM
I've got it! Take the Warhammer 40K route, and make every faction, nation race and culture so mind-bogglingly evil and horrible that no aspect of sexism can be "justified" by association with them!

Granted, you'll all need a copy of the BoVD on hand for things as simple as making breakfast, but that's a small price to pay for ending sexism.

Prizefigter50
2013-10-20, 02:33 PM
Well, D&D handles good and evil in different ways than that. It's not so black and white, because Good and Evil are black and white. There are neutral characters who can perform good or evil deeds, but when God and Evil are actual physical and spiritual forces, it's much easier to label the misjudged and misunderstood, as well as defend those that deserve it. I could create a Good (or good) matriarchy if i cared to, because I am the DM and my power is absolute. In fact, i think i will! They'll be a main feature in my next campaign. They will respect men, and see that they have their values in the world, and seek to defend the downtrodden of any race or gender, and even welcome men as honored guests for purposes of reproduction, but have chosen to create a female-only city-state specifically to eliminate the source of strife that is gender dichotomy.

A Good matriarchy, which acknowledges sexism is a thing, but does not participate in it.

Scow2
2013-10-20, 02:36 PM
Froze, this hit the nail on the head. Parody horizon is a real issue I think highlighted by the syle of humor popularized by Colbert. Your comments didn't confuse me, though.

There are a few other posters in this thread, however, that I can't tell if they're trolling or if they actual hold the viewpoints they proport. Mysandry is still sexism. Matriarchies are still sexism. Every argument against male chauvinism works equally well against college-aged, women's-studies-fueled feminazism. I think that much should be obvious. But parody horizon makes it hard to know if I should even engage someone who holds that feminaziist view. :smallfrown:Please use intensive care with the phrase "Feminaziism" - not even its coiner uses it in the manner its' been used. It doesn't mean "Feminist who ignores the Male side of the coin" - it is meant to mean the kind of way-out-there feminist that won't be happy until every man is dead, and every woman a lesbian. The kind of woman who probably thinks they can put "Chaotic Good" on a character who plans to murder 50% of the population and mutate a further unknown percentage to fit her view of the world (http://1d4chan.org/wiki/Feminist_diplomancer_gets_shut_the_****_down)(Caut ion, language and vulgarity)

It's NOT productive to use or level at anyone who merely disagrees with you on the subject of gender politics.


A Good matriarchy, which acknowledges sexism is a thing, but does not participate in it.
It would still participate in sexism but the sum of its good for the world would have to offset the evil of its confining of one sex. Being patronizing doesn't make one good.

Boci
2013-10-20, 02:36 PM
I've got it! Take the Warhammer 40K route, and make every faction, nation race and culture so mind-bogglingly evil and horrible that no aspect of sexism can be "justified" by association with them!

Granted, you'll all need a copy of the BoVD on hand for things as simple as making breakfast, but that's a small price to pay for ending sexism.

Warhammer 40k is still sexist. Space Marines are overwhelmingly male, Adeptas Sorroritas (spelling?).

RustyArmor
2013-10-20, 02:36 PM
Didn't read all post, but just a responds to the first.
How is clothing armor sexist?
Sure some pictures portray women in slutty armor because as a whole men tend to be playing these games/video games/etc. Not saying women don't or its like a 90%/10% margin or the like. Buuuuuut that aside back to my question.
I have played a fair amount of games and in just about NO game have I ever seen the mechanic of....

Platemail armor. Heavy type. 8 AC.
Males Plate is full covering head to toe
Females Plate is nothing more then a bra and panties on female chars. All female chars may only wear female type armor or get penalties.

Nor have I seen
Monk robes. Cloth type. - ac.
Males robes are full flowing robes that are light weight and relaxing to fit.
Female monks is a leather thong with breast strap.

So simply put. In most games its just a simple of art work making women look more sexy. There is no solid rule that men and women wear different looking outfits that is only in the players imagination.

Worira
2013-10-20, 02:38 PM
Well, D&D handles good and evil in different ways than that. It's not so black and white, because Good and Evil are black and white. There are neutral characters who can perform good or evil deeds, but when God and Evil are actual physical and spiritual forces, it's much easier to label the misjudged and misunderstood, as well as defend those that deserve it. I could create a Good (or good) matriarchy if i cared to, because I am the DM and my power is absolute. In fact, i think i will! They'll be a main feature in my next campaign. They will respect men, and see that they have their values in the world, and seek to defend the downtrodden of any race or gender, and even welcome men as honored guests for purposes of reproduction, but have chosen to create a female-only city-state specifically to eliminate the source of strife that is gender dichotomy.

A Good matriarchy, which acknowledges sexism is a thing, but does not participate in it.

So, wait, do they just boot out half the babies to be eaten by wolves or something? Because that seems pretty un-Good.

The Oni
2013-10-20, 02:41 PM
Warhammer 40k is still sexist. Space Marines are overwhelmingly male, Adeptas Sorroritas (spelling?).

The societies are sexist, but they're all so terrible they can't be considered an endorsement of sexism, in the same way that watching Cruella deVille smoke can't be considered an endorsement of smoking. They're not exactly role models.

Prizefigter50
2013-10-20, 02:43 PM
Nah, they raise the boy children until puberty, and then adopt them out to only the nearby families they know will raise the boys into good, honest men they could some day see as allies.

Themrys
2013-10-20, 02:43 PM
And as a side note, Drow may not be as sexist as you think. I know most people see it as a sexual fantasy for men, to be dominated, but i know a fair share of women who get off on dominating, and that's totally okay! Hell, one of my female friends absolutely loves them for that! If the entire culture worships a goddess whose aspects include domination, sexuality, and female superiority, it is logical to me for their behavior to reflect that. If i decide I don't like it, as the DM i can alter or remove drow society, or create a benevolent matriarchy worshipping ehlonna if i please, or an evil patriarchy worshipping hextor!

That women can derive pleasure from Drow society does not change the fact that it has unfortunate implications that can offend other women.
Drow are not real. Their goddess is not real. They both were invented by people.

Sure, a DM can alter that, but how likely is that?

Some time ago, I started a thread in this forum, about the problem I had with the fact that the DM of my group did not reflect the official! gender-equality of the setting we were playing in.
(The sexist hatespeeches that were made in that thread may well be the reason for the recent flood of threads on sexism)

I imagine it'll be quite hard for a female player to convince a male DM that, despite all the female dominance, she doesn't want Drow in her game, or wants them to be changed.
Even if he is willing to change it, how likely do you think it is that a DM who has read all about evil matriarchal Drow is able to change his portrayal of them and stick to it all the time?


The problem I have with Drow is that they imply that female dominance is a) evil, b) only possible if connected to sex and c) a stupid, unnatural thing that can only happen if a people worships an evil goddess.

If Drow were defined as neutral, matriarchal just because instead of having a goddess who enforces this, and the women not dressed in oversexualized outfits, I wouldn't say anything against them purely on the grounds that some men might enjoy sexual fantasies about being dominated by women.

Libertad
2013-10-20, 02:48 PM
The societies are sexist, but they're all so terrible they can't be considered an endorsement of sexism, in the same way that watching Cruella deVille smoke can't be considered an endorsement of smoking. They're not exactly role models.

But the Space Marines are a really popular faction to play for many players. To use a Star Wars analogy, it would be as though the Jedi Order only took male Padawans.

Also, I heard that the reason the Space Marines are all-male is because the God-Emperor of Mankind is sexist and does not view women as optimal warriors. So if that were the case, the Space Marine order is sexist in the in-game setting.

Black Jester
2013-10-20, 02:49 PM
However, unless you're going for historical realism, you create the culture of a fantasy setting. Any elements of culture that you include are choices.

You might call it historical realism, I call it a necessary framework of references to establish a vibrant and consistent setting. The idea that a fantastic setting has no constraints of verisimilitude is just plain wrong - in may ways, these constraints are even stricter, as you have no convenient historical facts to rely as a backup; everything you put in it must be consistent and plausible within the parameters of the setting or it ends up horribly contrived and just plain badly written. Besides, fictional world-building doesn't take place in a vacuum - any fictional world is a product created by people, interpreted by people and in the case of RPGs implemented by people - these are a lot of social and cultural hoops to jump through and a lot of expectations to create and hopefully to fulfill - expectations which are themselves coined by the very cultural norms and conventions that also form gender concepts.
That doesn't mean that you cannot or should not include a society in your game or setting that has no concept of gender roles, to the contrary. But I strongly think that it is a lot more meaningful (and fun) to explore that one in all its alien glory from the perspective of an outsider the players inevitably have to assume than to put it on a pedestal.
Again, I think that the creative or even playful variation of many different gender roles and concepts in a diverse multitude of as many options as sensibly fit into your setting is a better way, because the attention to details and various roles including the exploration and perhaps a bit of critical analysis of the presented matter.

Boci
2013-10-20, 02:55 PM
But the Space Marines are a really popular faction to play for many players. To use a Star Wars analogy, it would be as though the Jedi Order only took male Padawans.

Also, I heard that the reason the Space Marines are all-male is because the God-Emperor of Mankind is sexist and does not view women as optimal warriors. So if that were the case, the Space Marine order is sexist in the in-game setting.

On an out of character note, 40k has always had a heavy theme of mixing sci-fi tech and scale with dark ages ideology and superstition. So you can argue that Space Marines are basically knight.

Prizefigter50
2013-10-20, 02:58 PM
@scow in what way does that society confine one gender, or participate in sexism? I fear you've caught something i've missed.

@themrys if one of my players was upset with anything in my campaign, I would go to whatever effort necessary to change it. In fact, my drow in my current campaign usually have female warlords and such, but they wear real, full plate armor, and males are more typically placed in the roles of spell-casters, or grunts. Yeah, they're still sexist, but i haven't built their entire culture on over-sexualization, and this is depicted in a manner which is outside the norm, and it is the discrimination, not the fact of females consistently in positions of power and strategy, that is depicted as evil. Because that's just not cool.

Blackjackg
2013-10-20, 03:00 PM
Pregnancy, periods and PMS are not "hotly debated". No sane person claims they don't exist or affect how society work.

No one suggested that there is no such thing as pregnancy or menstruation. What is uncertain is the question of whether pregnancy means an individual is "taken out of general productivity for several months" when pregnant (which is not universal even in our own culture), or that menstruation comes with wild mood swings (which you would know if you bothered to so much as look at the wikipedia article on PMS, let alone any scholarly work).

Broken Twin
2013-10-20, 03:01 PM
Didn't read all post, but just a responds to the first.
How is clothing armor sexist?
Sure some pictures portray women in slutty armor because as a whole men tend to be playing these games/video games/etc. Not saying women don't or its like a 90%/10% margin or the like. Buuuuuut that aside back to my question.
I have played a fair amount of games and in just about NO game have I ever seen the mechanic of....

Platemail armor. Heavy type. 8 AC.
Males Plate is full covering head to toe
Females Plate is nothing more then a bra and panties on female chars. All female chars may only wear female type armor or get penalties.

Nor have I seen
Monk robes. Cloth type. - ac.
Males robes are full flowing robes that are light weight and relaxing to fit.
Female monks is a leather thong with breast strap.

So simply put. In most games its just a simple of art work making women look more sexy. There is no solid rule that men and women wear different looking outfits that is only in the players imagination.

Yeah, I don't really get why chainmail bikinis is still such a hot topic in p&p RPGs. Videogames? Yeah, there's a lot of that going on over there, but that's a completely different topic. There is nothing in any rulebook I've read that prevents women from wearing sensible armor. Granted, there are still games that have sexist depictions of women in their art (Exalted comes to mind...), but by and large the market is extraordinarily egalitarian. There's rarely any negatives to playing one gender over another outside of specific settings (playing a male in a drow campaign, for instance).

There are settings with parts that are sexist, but honestly, I can't say that's a bad thing. There should be no reason to not include negative things in a setting, as long as those negative things aren't glorified by the writers.

And most of the culture issues are the exact same issues that crop up in any subculture. The worst among us are the most memorable, because they're frequently loud and rigid in their opinions. I've played with exactly one outright sexist player, and nobody really liked him. But he was the one that outsiders pointed to when they'd describe why they would feel uncomfortable playing.

My point is, when you look for things to be upset about, it's not that hard to find them. But it's easy to overlook the massive volume of things that are okay in the progress. One sexy picture can be held up as an example of why art in RPGs is still sexist. But if you ignore every reasonable piece in the same body of work you're doing yourself and your argument a disservice. Be specific in your criticisms. "RPG art is sexist" is not a valid argument, because you're painting with a massive inaccurate brush, and it's trivial for your opponents to find counterpoints that disprove your stance. "Art in RPG X is sexist" is an entire valid argument, because you limit the focus of the discussion to a measurable quantity.

JusticeZero
2013-10-20, 03:03 PM
What is uncertain is the question of whether pregnancy means an individual is "taken out of general productivity for several months" when pregnant....
The real question comes up afterward. The culture we are currently in puts childraising back onto the parents, even as it demands that both parents work full time to support themself; this creates all sorts of troublesome distortions. But there is nothing absolute about the framework of our culture. You don't have to use nuclear families that would make that happen.

Prizefigter50
2013-10-20, 03:08 PM
A note on the art in rpg's, if you open up a 3.X handbook for D&D, you'll find Mialee and Hennet (a female and a male) are depicted in skimpy and potentially sexual (definitely not particularly comfortable looking) clothing, right next to the sensibly dressed Lidda and Jozan (also a female and a male), so D&D is pretty fair on that point :D

Lord Raziere
2013-10-20, 03:09 PM
But the Space Marines are a really popular faction to play for many players. To use a Star Wars analogy, it would be as though the Jedi Order only took male Padawans.

Also, I heard that the reason the Space Marines are all-male is because the God-Emperor of Mankind is sexist and does not view women as optimal warriors. So if that were the case, the Space Marine order is sexist in the in-game setting.

I'm going to break my "keep uninvolved" thing for one piece of info:


Warhammer 40k is still sexist. Space Marines are overwhelmingly male, Adeptas Sorroritas (spelling?).

I don't really consider Space Marine's "Male" they are more like things that were once men, once human but things such as gender are irrelevant to them now, while Adeptas Sororitas are probably far more numerous than them, and have super-faith powers that the Space Marine's don't get.

that and Adeptas Sororitas are in dark heresy, so when they get to Ascension they, like the rest of Dark Heresy, become massively broken in comparison to the Space Marines at the same level of experience.

your trying to compare a super-bio-engineered super-soldiers focused entirely on service to the Emperor with super-faithful zealot nuns in power armor, they aren't really comparable, as they are completely separate WH40k institutions. Adeptas Sororitas are the Ecclesiarchy military, formed because the Age of Apostasy. The Adeptus Astartes, formed because the Emperor made them that way.

Technically, its sexist the Adeptus Astartes can't have women, but its also sexist that the Adeptas Sororitas can't have men. so WH40k is an equal-opportunity offender, methinks.

that and the two people have a massively different relationship with the Emperor- the Astartes don't consider the Emperor a god at all, only a respected ancestor, Sororitas consider the Emperor a God and basically become a bride of said God-Emperor, so technically they are the Astartes mother-in-laws :smalltongue:

sorry, I can't stand inaccuracy on this, you can't talk about this issue in WH40k without acknowledging that both Astartes and Sororitas are equally sexist.

Boci
2013-10-20, 03:14 PM
I'm going to break my "keep uninvolved" thing for one piece of info:



I don't really consider Space Marine's "Male" they are more like things that were once men, once human but things such as gender are irrelevant to them now, while Adeptas Sororitas are probably far more numerous than them, and have super-faith powers that the Space Marine's don't get.

that and Adeptas Sororitas are in dark heresy, so when they get to Ascension they, like the rest of Dark Heresy, become massively broken in comparison to the Space Marines at the same level of experience.

your trying to compare a super-bio-engineered super-soldiers focused entirely on service to the Emperor with super-faithful zealot nuns in power armor, they aren't really comparable, as they are completely separate WH40k institutions. Adeptas Sororitas are the Ecclesiarchy military, formed because the Age of Apostasy. The Adeptus Astartes, formed because the Emperor made them that way.

Technically, its sexist the Adeptus Astartes can't have women, but its also sexist that the Adeptas Sororitas can't have men. so WH40k is an equal-opportunity offender, methinks.

that and the two people have a massively different relationship with the Emperor- the Astartes don't consider the Emperor a god at all, only a respected ancestor, Sororitas consider the Emperor a God and basically become a bride of said God-Emperor, so technically they are the Astartes mother-in-laws :smalltongue:

sorry, I can't stand inaccuracy on this, you can't talk about this issue in WH40k without acknowledging that both Astartes and Sororitas are equally sexist.

I fail to see how any of the information you posted contradicts what I said, aside from the nitpick that Space Marines are requited from males but can no longer be considered them. And gender is relevant for the fallen space marines of a certain faction.

Lord Raziere
2013-10-20, 03:23 PM
My point is that the entire charm of WH40k is that its all the worst parts of humanity combined in a screaming parody of skulls, anachronistic technology and an eternal war of genocide

playing sexist dogmatic bastards who kill all xenos they see is kind of the point.
those institutions kinda wouldn't be those institutions without that built in sexism. so yeah, you wouldn't fixing it, because it isn't broken int his case.

The Oni
2013-10-20, 03:29 PM
Also, I heard that the reason the Space Marines are all-male is because the God-Emperor of Mankind is sexist and does not view women as optimal warriors. So if that were the case, the Space Marine order is sexist in the in-game setting.

That's what I'm saying. Space Marines and lots of other things in WH40K are *entirely* sexist but because they are also terrible (in terms of morality, well-designed though they may be), and every other race in the galaxy is terrible, the sexism doesn't matter. It cannot be said to be making a statement about any rational human society because every society in Warhammer 40K is either monstrously inhuman, bat**** insane, or both.

If you wanna play Female Space Marines...play them. Most of them are wearing helmets.

Boci
2013-10-20, 03:35 PM
My point is that the entire charm of WH40k is that its all the worst parts of humanity combined in a screaming parody of skulls, anachronistic technology and an eternal war of genocide

playing sexist dogmatic bastards who kill all xenos they see is kind of the point.
those institutions kinda wouldn't be those institutions without that built in sexism. so yeah, you wouldn't fixing it, because it isn't broken int his case.

Neither the posts you quoted mentioned anything about fixing the sexism, so I fail to see what was inaccurate about either.

You are playing a fanatical dogmatic bastard who kills aliens and heretics on sight. Being sexist may be a factor, but it is far less important. Plus, if as girl wants to play but doesn't ;like over sexism "its meant to be that way" isn't exactly a valid point.


If you wanna play Female Space Marines...play them. Most of them are wearing helmets.

That is probably he best way to go, the only drawback is that it harms the Adeptas Sororitas and possibly undercuts the image of Space Marines as knights (but that might just be me).

Broken Twin
2013-10-20, 03:39 PM
Aren't all Space Marines in 40K augmented with the DNA of the Emperor of Mankind? The entire reason they're all been modified to be similar to their 'god'. Female Space Marines would be impossible, because after the conversion (assuming it even works) they'd be XXY. Plus, the entire setting is rather lacking in high morals to begin with, and mankind is no exception.

The entire setting is grimdark science fantasy taken to the extreme. If you're asking for moral improvements to the setting, you're rather missing the point. It's a grey vs black morality. Not really my sort of setting, but it is what it is.

Boci
2013-10-20, 03:45 PM
Aren't all Space Marines in 40K augmented with the DNA of the Emperor of Mankind? The entire reason they're all been modified to be similar to their 'god'. Female Space Marines would be impossible, because after the conversion (assuming it even works) they'd be XXY. Plus, the entire setting is rather lacking in high morals to begin with, and mankind is no exception.

The entire setting is grimdark science fantasy taken to the extreme. If you're asking for moral improvements to the setting, you're rather missing the point. It's a grey vs black morality. Not really my sort of setting, but it is what it is.

The differences is, its a dark setting for everyone, so that's easier to swallow than discrimination against a specific group. Xenos don't count because they don't exist, but females and males do. But contrast I haven't heard of much racism against ethnicity likes blacks in 40k.

Lord Raziere
2013-10-20, 03:47 PM
Neither the posts you quoted mentioned anything about fixing the sexism, so I fail to see what was inaccurate about either.

You are playing a fanatical dogmatic bastard who kills aliens and heretics on sight. Being sexist may be a factor, but it is far less important. Plus, if as girl wants to play but doesn't ;like over sexism "its meant to be that way" isn't exactly a valid point.


kay, just making sure we are all clear on that. sorry if I got things off topic or anything.

Amphetryon
2013-10-20, 03:52 PM
True, but if the person ascribing gender-based motivations is not you, then you have still created a sexism-free environment. The fault is that one cannot create sexism-free players, only hope to find them. In a game with near-absolute freedom, some people will unfortunately make that choice. The best we can do as world-builders is to lay out a discrimination-free canvas for our players, either devoid of gender-based anything at all, or one that depicts the genders as generally equal. It's true though, that unless everyone involved is co-operating to create the same environment, you can't eliminate those stereotypes without limiting a player's freedom.

If sexism happens within your game, you have not created a sexism-free environment. The identity of the person at the table whose behavior - in-Character or otherwise - is sexist does not matter, merely the existence of sexism within the game, regardless of source.

Given that the thread is about how to make an RPG/Game/Setting/Whatever which is non-sexist, any sexism introduced into the game would automatically defeat that goal, and cause it to be counted a failure on that front.

Morithias
2013-10-20, 03:52 PM
You won't get good matriarchies, (or patriarchies) in DnD. Or at least you shouldn't. A good society is egalitarian. Sexism is evil. DnD doesn't do great with morality plays when there is a class that can tell automatically who is evil. "I am put a poor unfairly judged man", "Nope you're evil. Time to smite."

The Hathrans.

Prizefigter50
2013-10-20, 04:02 PM
@amphetryon then that means you must either eliminate anything which could be a source of discrimination of any kind (goodbye choice of gender, half-breed races, characters with differing philosophies, anything else interesting), or you have to manage every PC action that disagrees with your flawless utopia. And those are both ****ty premises for a game. The best you can do, as a DM or worldbuilder, is to create as positive and tolerant of an environment as you can, and encourage your players to act accordingly. Or you create a Lawful-Evil DM-triarchy.

Amphetryon
2013-10-20, 04:07 PM
@amphetryon then that means you must either eliminate anything which could be a source of discrimination of any kind (goodbye choice of gender, half-breed races, characters with differing philosophies, anything else interesting), or you have to manage every PC action that disagrees with your flawless utopia. And those are both ****ty premises for a game. The best you can do, as a DM or worldbuilder, is to create as positive and tolerant of an environment as you can, and encourage your players to act accordingly. Or you create a Lawful-Evil DM-triarchy.

While I don't disagree with the majority of your post here, that which you've called "the best you can do, as a DM or worldbuilder," falls short of the stated baseline goal of the thread.

Morithias
2013-10-20, 04:12 PM
While I don't disagree with the majority of your post here, that which you've called "the best you can do, as a DM or worldbuilder," falls short of the stated baseline goal of the thread.

That's like saying if someone went "Let's create a character that can come into the real world and assassinate the president." That the people who post "that's impossible" have 'fallen short of the stated baseline goal of the thread.'

OF COURSE THEY'VE FALLEN SHORT, SAID GOAL IS IMPOSSIBLE.

Amphetryon
2013-10-20, 04:15 PM
That's like saying if someone went "Let's create a character that can come into the real world and assassinate the president." That the people who post "that's impossible" have 'fallen short of the stated baseline goal of the thread.'

OF COURSE THEY'VE FALLEN SHORT, SAID GOAL IS IMPOSSIBLE.

And yet, we've gotten to six pages trying to determine how to achieve it.

Morithias
2013-10-20, 04:16 PM
And yet, we've gotten to six pages trying to determine how to achieve it.

And we've had hundreds of people try to create perpetual motion machines.

Irenaeus
2013-10-20, 04:26 PM
From the perspective of a certain culture in a certain time, egalitarian societies seem improbable... even though there have been many throughout history and some persisting even today.
Would you mind pointing me to any well-documented historical egalitarian societies? I've never seen any, but I'll freely admit that I haven't been looking.

Prizefigter50
2013-10-20, 04:29 PM
@Amphetryon I can create a world free of sexism. Someone else can step in and introduce sexism. Just as a craftsman can create a blank canvas, an artist can smear it with paint. It is possible to build a game/rpg/setting free of sexism, but there is nothing you can create that someone else cannot destroy. A simple, positive goal has terminated in a crushing truth about mortality, and wickedness in the world. Groovy.

Prizefigter50
2013-10-20, 04:37 PM
Interestingly, this brings a DM attempting to create a utopia to the same struggle Superman deals with every day. Yes, you can root out all evil in the world, but only by removing free will, inherently an evil act.

Amphetryon
2013-10-20, 04:38 PM
@Amphetryon I can create a world free of sexism. Someone else can step in and introduce sexism. Just as a craftsman can create a blank canvas, an artist can smear it with paint. It is possible to build a game/rpg/setting free of sexism, but there is nothing you can create that someone else cannot destroy. A simple, positive goal has terminated in a crushing truth about mortality, and wickedness in the world. Groovy.

My answer to this is the same as the last time, because the argument is the same. Did you have something else to add?

The Oni
2013-10-20, 04:42 PM
My point in getting past sexism in a tabletop game is simple: take the 40K approach and apply it to everything. Play D&D where every race, culture and faction is, as a rule, horrible. Where points of light exist, they are quickly snuffed out. Human society is patriarchal and oppressive. Drow society is matriarchal and overall horrible. Dwarven society is egalitarian but what they lack in hating women they make up for in hating everyone who's not a dwarf, and the surface elves and halflings are all dead because they weren't ruthless enough to survive against swelling, rampaging orc bands and Drow strike forces.

Paladins and Inquisitors are especially hostile, the only difference being that the Paladin Detects Evil first and asks questions later while the Inquisitor doesn't even bother with the former. The gnomes have struck a deal with an Elder Evil and been transfigured into an evil hive mind. The Tengu are scavenging bandits. Slavery is rampant. 20th-level casters rule as malevolent gods from their ivory towers, forcing refugees to swear ultimate fealty to them and surrender all personal freedoms for a chance at a half-life.

Morithias
2013-10-20, 04:46 PM
My point in getting past sexism in a tabletop game is simple: take the 40K approach and apply it to everything. Play D&D where every race, culture and faction is, as a rule, horrible. Where points of light exist, they are quickly snuffed out. Human society is patriarchal and oppressive. Drow society is matriarchal and overall horrible. Dwarven society is egalitarian but what they lack in hating women they make up for in hating everyone who's not a dwarf, and the surface elves and halflings are all dead because they weren't ruthless enough to survive against swelling, rampaging orc bands and Drow strike forces.

Paladins and Inquisitors are especially hostile, the only difference being that the Paladin Detects Evil first and asks questions later while the Inquisitor doesn't even bother with the former. The gnomes have struck a deal with an Elder Evil and been transfigured into an evil hive mind. The Tengu are scavenging bandits. Slavery is rampant. 20th-level casters rule as malevolent gods from their ivory towers, forcing refugees to swear ultimate fealty to them and surrender all personal freedoms for a chance at a half-life.

At which point you hit Darkness Induced Audience Apathy, and your players throw up their hands go "What's the point?" and quit on you.

Blackjackg
2013-10-20, 04:56 PM
Would you mind pointing me to any well-documented historical egalitarian societies? I've never seen any, but I'll freely admit that I haven't been looking.

Here's a link (http://www.second-congress-matriarchal-studies.com/du.html) to a short but interesting paper by Shanshan Du that identifies a number of historical and contemporary egalitarian societies, as well as exploring the reasons that Western people haven't recognized those societies. Du doesn't mention this, but the Shakers are also worth looking at as a gender-egalitarian society that existed or exists within modern America.

The Oni
2013-10-20, 05:03 PM
At which point you hit Darkness Induced Audience Apathy, and your players throw up their hands go "What's the point?" and quit on you.

But people still play WH40K. You can't explain that! *billoreilly.jpg*

So, yeah, you can't really just remove all aspects of sexism from a game and expect it to function as a believable world. All sexes deserve respect, but sexism arises from, well, sex. It's a natural response to treat women at least somewhat differently from men and vice versa, and it's totally bizarre to have a fully populated world, especially a medieval one, where there's no culture that doesn't.

Lamech
2013-10-20, 05:12 PM
But people still play WH40K. You can't explain that! *billoreilly.jpg*

I blame the chaos gods.

Anyway there have been some reasonably egalitarian cultures, no reason why a fantasy culture can't be egalitarian. Sure there will probably be some jerks, but Skyrim was fine and you didn't have much sexism. There was what, the one man hater?

Morithias
2013-10-20, 05:14 PM
But people still play WH40K. You can't explain that! *billoreilly.jpg*

So, yeah, you can't really just remove all aspects of sexism from a game and expect it to function as a believable world. All sexes deserve respect, but sexism arises from, well, sex. It's a natural response to treat women at least somewhat differently from men and vice versa, and it's totally bizarre to have a fully populated world, especially a medieval one, where there's no culture that doesn't.

Isn't WH40K a tabletop miniatures game that is more about warfare rather than acting on a personal level? I could see maybe having such a setting in a game that's just about combat and war and such, but a ROLEPLAYING game, that's actually about playing a solo character living in a world that makes Baator look like Paradise?

Yeah unless you're doing deconstruction or parody like in Paranoia it's just not going to work.

Irenaeus
2013-10-20, 05:33 PM
Here's a link (http://www.second-congress-matriarchal-studies.com/du.html) to a short but interesting paper by Shanshan Du that identifies a number of historical and contemporary egalitarian societies, as well as exploring the reasons that Western people haven't recognized those societies. Du doesn't mention this, but the Shakers are also worth looking at as a gender-egalitarian society that existed or exists within modern America.
Thanks. I'll check some of them out. None of them immediately piqued my interest as a setting, but I'll reserve judgement.

Btw. When I said I didn't know of any such societies, this little quote from the article is pretty relevant.

Such a tendency has been exacerbated by the double standard used to measure gender equality and hierarchy – i.e., while gender equality must be perfect to exist, gender hierarchy can exist in any degree. Under the shadow of this utopianist bias, very few scholars who have encountered gender-egalitarian societies directly acknowledge those societies as such, thus further weakening the impact of their studies.
It's a very fair point, and I was guilty of it.

Boci
2013-10-20, 05:50 PM
Isn't WH40K a tabletop miniatures game that is more about warfare rather than acting on a personal level? I could see maybe having such a setting in a game that's just about combat and war and such, but a ROLEPLAYING game, that's actually about playing a solo character living in a world that makes Baator look like Paradise?

Yeah unless you're doing deconstruction or parody like in Paranoia it's just not going to work.

They made it into 5 separate roleplaying games. Dark Heresy (you are the religious police), Rogue Trader (leaders of an interplanetary trading dynasty), Death Watch (a Space Marine kill team), Black Crusade (corrupted followers of Chaos) and Only War (don't know anything about this one).

Morithias
2013-10-20, 06:55 PM
They made it into 5 separate roleplaying games. Dark Heresy (you are the religious police), Rogue Trader (leaders of an interplanetary trading dynasty), Death Watch (a Space Marine kill team), Black Crusade (corrupted followers of Chaos) and Only War (don't know anything about this one).

Geeze...they must be hard to play, and even harder to write for. I can't imagine a first time player stepping into it would have an easy time, assuming the DM keeps the world in-character.

The Oni
2013-10-20, 07:04 PM
It's not exactly for casual fans - and that's not snark, it's completely accurate; from what I understand, a really competitive army is like, the price of a used car.

Boci
2013-10-20, 07:06 PM
Geeze...they must be hard to play, and even harder to write for. I can't imagine a first time player stepping into it would have an easy time, assuming the DM keeps the world in-character.

Rogue Trader can be relatively easy, because they often operate outside the Imperium (man controlled space), and Dark Heresy is harder but can still be done because its on a relativly small scale, Black Crusade I think is easier because the side of Chaos is less mapped out and the heretics are given more leeway for there actions, although still a lot of fluff to tackle, with Death Watch is probably the hardest because it is even more regimented then Dark Heresy but is also on a larger scale. Presumably Only War is even more difficult, but I wouldn't know.


It's not exactly for casual fans - and that's not snark, it's completely accurate; from what I understand, a really competitive army is like, the price of a used car.

Not relevant for the RPGs though. The setting fluff still is.

Mr Beer
2013-10-20, 07:10 PM
I played in a Death Watch game and I felt the opportunity for character variety to be somewhat limited, to put it charitably. I still had fun, but I'm not sure "I shout "For The Emperor!" and hit it with my force hammer" is a mode of play that can be sustained indefinitely.

Boci
2013-10-20, 07:12 PM
I played in a Death Watch game and I felt the opportunity for character variety to be somewhat limited, to put it charitably. I still had fun, but I'm not sure "I shout "For The Emperor!" and hit it with my force hammer" is a mode of play that can be sustained indefinitely.

Its a problem with playing the perfect soldier, they have no need for personality. Dark Heresy is better for that, Black Crusade offers the polar opposite (Death to the False Emperor! For the Warmaster!). Rogue Trader is where you can actually have the freedom to design a character without too many strongly recommended guidelines.

GolemsVoice
2013-10-20, 07:13 PM
Geeze...they must be hard to play, and even harder to write for. I can't imagine a first time player stepping into it would have an easy time, assuming the DM keeps the world in-character.

It's not that bad, if you accept that your character would be a horrible bastard in real life, and works for organizations that would give the Nazis pause. You have to roll with that.

Which is actually a valid point when it comes to sexist societies in game. You have to separate the in-game societies and their mentalities from what they mean out-of-game. Meaning that ingame sexism doesn't make the game sexist (although it can). Most game settings display all kinds of evil, from slave-holding to pillaging, tyranny and sacrificing souls to horrible gods. That doesn't mean that the writers advertise doing so.

Although I guess it can be hard to separate the instances in which the writer meant a society to be sexist from the instances in which a society is sexist because they reflect the writer's worldview.

The Oni
2013-10-20, 07:15 PM
Not relevant for the RPGs though. The setting fluff still is.

I just meant that it doesn't seem like Games Workshop goes for an easy-to-pick-up-and-play design philosophy, in general.

Mr Beer
2013-10-20, 07:23 PM
Its a problem with playing the perfect soldier, they have no need for personality. Dark Heresy is better for that, Black Crusade offers the polar opposite (Death to the False Emperor! For the Warmaster!). Rogue Trader is where you can actually have the freedom to design a character without too many strongly recommended guidelines.

Yeah, Rogue Trader sounds OK. I find the 40K setting quite amusing, with the whole "Grimdark! Now with extra GRIMDARK!" approach but I don't think it will ever be my go-to game.

AgentofHellfire
2013-10-20, 07:27 PM
Before I being, oh my gods computer what the hell is with you and blocking literally everything.

Okay. Venting done.


They are. Regardless of whether you have fantasies of being dominated, or even knew they existed, a cruel dominant woman with a whip is a sexual fantasy of men.

But the fact that I didn't register them as such means that not everyone is going to be distracted by it.




The problem is, you had to tell me that. I'm not exactly inexperienced with D&D and drow, and those things never came up. So yeah, drow culture is badly handled and the sexualized aesthetics (scant leather, whips, bondage, slaves and cruelty) are the most visible and emphasized feature of them.

Hrm.

You're half-right, but I'm not sure how to phrase my objection...

Put it this way: You could keep the aesthetic and emphasize the other things, though. That's really a matter of warping the storylines in it a tad.

I mean, asides from that it's just one instance, so you don't even really need to blot it out directly from a utilitarian standpoint, but...

erikun
2013-10-20, 08:10 PM
Well as I said before, creating a system or a setting with no sexism wouldn't be too difficult. Remove the mechanical differences between sexes, remove any society descrimination between genders, remove or avoid story plots that involve sex or gender. Focus on all the other things that you could in a game, from exploration to mystery to magic to fighting goblins.

Of course, there might be problems with such a system.

For one, removing sexism this way probably removes a lot of sexuality in the game as well. If someone wants to flirt with a NPC for bonuses to their diplomancy, they might find it awkward if they aren't allowed. A game which is intentionally sterilized in this method could feel fake to people who take notice. Not all groups would care, and some may even appreciate it being absent - much like a group who likes to slay goblins and gather treasure may not want to deal with golbinhood morality questions.

Another possible issue is that some people may prefer that sexism is just not put in a positive or normative light, rather than absent at all. They may enjoy it being present in the sense that they get the chance to kick in sexism's head, show it who's boss and triumph in righting a wrong. Just because a person doesn't like something doesn't mean they want to avoid it. Heck, a RPG is a good chance to take a look at an issue, either examine it freely or to extinguish it in ways that are much more difficult to in reality.

And finally, the aspects of a game are not just dependent on the system and the setting. They are very much dependent on the players in the game as well. You could build a system that has absolutely no sexist properities, but hand it to a GM who thinks that all rulers are male by default and all the work is for naught. It's probably true that the players (GM included) have a larger impact on the presence/absense of sexism in a game than the rules and setting combined. After all, if you have a system where any sexism is avoided or easily ignored, a group who doesn't want to play it it in their game would have the ability to toss it out and create their game without it.

Boci
2013-10-20, 09:41 PM
But the fact that I didn't register them as such means that not everyone is going to be distracted by it.

Just checking: did you not realize the aspects of drow society that play to a fantasy, or did you notice then and simply not realize it could be a fantasy?


Hrm.

You're half-right, but I'm not sure how to phrase my objection...

Put it this way: You could keep the aesthetic and emphasize the other things, though. That's really a matter of warping the storylines in it a tad.

I'm sure you could portray the drow society better as a DM, but I'm not sure how much you could without it getting contrived/requiring rewritting. Not that rewriting is bad, its just that if you need to do that then there is obviously a problem.

veti
2013-10-20, 10:58 PM
Well as I said before, creating a system or a setting with no sexism wouldn't be too difficult. Remove the mechanical differences between sexes, remove any society descrimination between genders, remove or avoid story plots that involve sex or gender. Focus on all the other things that you could in a game, from exploration to mystery to magic to fighting goblins.

That's the "standard" approach preached by, e.g., D&D books. But my problem with it is that it's half-baked.

Sexism isn't some sort of poison, injected purposely into society by Malign Forces. It arises from society, as a response to various pressures. Just describing, say, medieval Chinese society and saying "but without the sexism" is a bit like, say, drawing a map of a highly-populated country "but without the roads". Unless you change a whole crapton of other stuff about the society as well, then you're going to have to explain why the roads (and sexism) aren't going to be rebuilt good-as-new faster than you can say "sociopolitical implications".

Kitten Champion
2013-10-21, 12:57 AM
Hmm... I don't see sexism in TTRPGs as much of a problem really. Yeah, game art can be ludicrous, Exalted comes to mind. I'm sure if you dig around some mechanics will be troublesome, although I'm not aware of any in the systems I've used. Without a damned good reason I think gender-blindness in game math should be a given. Like a seduction attempt on a heterosexual member of your character's sex should probably be harder than otherwise. Still, when it comes to settings it should come down to what your group agrees to and is comfortable with. I mean, If my group has decided they really want to set the campaign in the Gor universe and demand my character be a submissive slave woman I wouldn't be enthusiastic about the prospect and slightly concerned about my taste in friends. However, if put to me that this campaign will deal will have sexism as a social and cultural reality in order to explore certain themes relating to them, then sure... why not?

I've never played D&D since Pathfinder existed before I started gaming, but we've gutted Eberron for our purposes and I've read Dragonlance and Forgotten Realm novels. It's all pretty vanilla. There are some RPG settings with salacious aspects to them which I have played. Cthulhutech for instance dips into Lovecraft's rather disquieting notions of monster rape, and I strongly doubt I could tolerate a story set in or around such a subject. It was ignored, good judgement was used, no real problem.

It's a cellular, almost entirely user-generated hobby. If you're considerate to the feelings of your players to what degree controversial content is applied should be apparent. Really, if your group is entirely comfortable with the Gor game then what the hell do I care?

Personally, I'm a fan of the sort of gender nuances in The Wheel of Time series. Namely that gender roles play an integral part in most societies (save maybe the Seanchan, where status and faithful meritorious duty are key) and even becomes part of the multiverse's cosmology, but that that dynamic is never quite reduced to simplistic patriarchal/matriarchal dominant/submissive model. He articulated a number of potential social structures and cultures which weren't just rehashing the romanticized middle ages nor are inexplicably modern. Granted, Jordan was rather overly loquacious and occasionally very annoying when describing this particular aspect of his setting... among other things.

Gender roles in the novels spur conflict and are significant to how the characters perceive themselves and act in the setting, but never restrict the characters from participating in the story in a meaningful way.

For instance, one character comes from a nation perpetually at war with monsters. Her role in that society as a woman is supposed to be managing estates, courtly manoeuvring, and logistical work behind the scenes while the men strategized and fight the endless war. She abandoned her assigned role, her duty to a society stilted in duty and orderliness, and sought a far more masculine (from her perspective) role of an adventurer on a grail quest. Her character eventually matures, and recognizes the faults of her past self and value of her upbringing.

You could do this character arc in a gender neutral setting I suppose, but I think it would deprive it of some of the fun and significance. Her society makes sense in its context, and even accepting she's going against a valued norm she could still go on adventures without being treated as some kind of freakish abnormality that is looked down upon for having the wrong sex characteristics.

Arbane
2013-10-21, 01:12 AM
Just describing, say, medieval Chinese society and saying "but without the sexism" is a bit like, say, drawing a map of a highly-populated country "but without the roads".

I thought Legend of the Wulin has a good take on that: Yes, (quasi-)medieval Chinese society is grotesquely sexist, and normal women are second class citizens in society.... but as wulin, player characters aren't part of 'normal society', and people in the martial-arts world care much more about your kung-fu than your gender most of the time. But they do have some character options you can buy if you want your female character's struggle with sexism to be part of the story.

erikun
2013-10-21, 01:41 AM
That's the "standard" approach preached by, e.g., D&D books. But my problem with it is that it's half-baked.

Sexism isn't some sort of poison, injected purposely into society by Malign Forces. It arises from society, as a response to various pressures. Just describing, say, medieval Chinese society and saying "but without the sexism" is a bit like, say, drawing a map of a highly-populated country "but without the roads". Unless you change a whole crapton of other stuff about the society as well, then you're going to have to explain why the roads (and sexism) aren't going to be rebuilt good-as-new faster than you can say "sociopolitical implications".
I think that sexism is fine in RPGs, but that is because the purpose of RPGs is generally to present players a challenge with values that they oppose and have them overcome it. PCs don't raid orphanages; they raid orc camps who have been attacking people and taking their stuff. PCs don't break into random people's houses and take their valuables; the go to the cave of a dragon that's been razing the countryside. RPGs can be about playing the bad guy and being in the typical evil position, but by and large, I'd say it's safe to assume that most opponents in most RPGs have negative qualities.

Of course, some groups don't like dealing with sexism. For them, they should have the option to just avoid it and have it not present in the game. I don't think you'd need to explain away why a particular world isn't sexist, unless the players delve into how gender in society works and start seeing conflicts because it isn't there. However, most groups have some topics that they wish to avoid and which simply don't show up in the game. "Logically," these things would likely exist in the world that the characters live, but if the players don't wish to deal with it then they should have the ability to just play the game without involving it.
(some examples: starvation, plague, cancer, disfigurement, dismemberment, etc.)

The Oni
2013-10-21, 02:08 AM
Well, the ancient Norse, while not strictly egalitarian, didn't have a great deal of sexism. I think the reason for that is that

A.) It was a harsh environment; if a lady could watch your back and handle a sword, you WANTED her there
B.) They were a fairly hardy and independent people without a lot of arbitrary laws and rules, so there wasn't a lot of the old "women's place is in the [X]" aphorism
C.) Their religion's war deity of choice was female, and Odin's daughters were fierce warriors as well, setting spiritual precedent

So, in trying to develop a believable world sans sexism, a Norse aesthetic might be a good starting point. Strong war goddesses/fabled heroines and an environment too hostile to turn down a good hunting partner on account of her equipment.

Arbane
2013-10-21, 02:31 AM
Has anyone mentioned We Have Always Fought (http://aidanmoher.com/blog/featured-article/2013/05/we-have-always-fought-challenging-the-women-cattle-and-slaves-narrative-by-kameron-hurley/), yet?


“Women have always fought,” he said. “Shaka Zulu had an all-female force of fighters. Women have been part of every resistance movement. Women dressed as men and went to war, went to sea, and participated actively in combat for as long as there have been people.”

Rhynn
2013-10-21, 03:03 AM
I think that sexism is fine in RPGs, but that is because the purpose of RPGs is generally to present players a challenge with values that they oppose and have them overcome it. PCs don't raid orphanages; they raid orc camps who have been attacking people and taking their stuff. PCs don't break into random people's houses and take their valuables; the go to the cave of a dragon that's been razing the countryside. RPGs can be about playing the bad guy and being in the typical evil position, but by and large, I'd say it's safe to assume that most opponents in most RPGs have negative qualities.

Artesia: Adventures in the Known World features a lot of explicit sexism, because the default setting presented in the book is one ruled by a patriarchal culture, supported by a strongly patriarchal pan-national religion (an obvious expy of a certain famous one). The "Old Faith" of the Goddess is oppressed by the Church, but where it flourishes (and it is the vast majority religion in certain exceedingly powerful empires, etc.), men and women have social equality (the comics feature pretty close to even numbers of male and female warriors in forces from those cultures), though that is not to say they have identical roles (this being a setting heavily based on myth and history of the real world).

It's something like "Renaissance Mists of Avalon meets Conan the Barbarian meets Ancient Greece" ...

When I ran it, my players (a bunch of dudes with little interest in gender studies etc.) pretty much immediately aligned themselves against the Church, with no prompting from me, a lot of obvious trouble to come, just because it seemed right. Patriarchal despots are just that obvious of a target (even when they're not exaggerated compared to history).


Of course, some groups don't like dealing with sexism. For them, they should have the option to just avoid it and have it not present in the game. I don't think you'd need to explain away why a particular world isn't sexist, unless the players delve into how gender in society works and start seeing conflicts because it isn't there. However, most groups have some topics that they wish to avoid and which simply don't show up in the game. "Logically," these things would likely exist in the world that the characters live, but if the players don't wish to deal with it then they should have the ability to just play the game without involving it.
(some examples: starvation, plague, cancer, disfigurement, dismemberment, etc.)

Obviously, no group should play a game (either game-as-written or game-as-played) that makes members of the group uncomfortable. When designing a game, though, you probably need to make decisions about the inclusion of many potentially uncomfortable elements.

I think the original thread topic may be a bit off-base, though. Is it even that valuable to create a game with no sexism? Remove the art from D&D 3E/4E and you're pretty close to there, as far as a game (not setting) goes.

Wouldn't it be much more interesting and useful (to create, play, or discuss) a game that is actively feminist rather than passively non-sexist?

Actively feminist works aren't, IMO, about espousing certain values or presenting utopias. I'm not sure how much worth such works would even have, outside of safe-space entertainment (which can be a fine end unto itself, certainly). Feminism isn't a set of values or ideals - people who call themselves feminists hold widely and wildly differing values and ideals. The uniting factor is essentially "gender studies": critically examining culture and media and their relationships to gender, sex, sexuality, and power. A feminist work is, I'd propose, one that actively does this. For instance, the case for Buffy the Vampire Slayer as a feminist work is fairly strong: right from the start, it uses sexist tropes, turning them upside-down or inside-out, underlining them, leading the viewer towards them and then pulling a 180-degree turn. It's examination of gender, sex, sexuality, and power through entertainment.

So, might a better question be "How to make a RPG/setting which is feminist" ?

I think A:AKW is a decent start, but between the art (sure to turn some people off; it's realistic, watercolor, non-exaggerated, but with plenty of both male and female full nudity) and the comics (which have author-owned issues in the start, more nudity, and other issues that one probably can't discuss without breaking forum rules), it's got more than its share of issues.

I think any actively feminist work has the potential to be uncomfortable at times (Artesia is, and Buffy is, and you can bet your behind Dworkin's Intercourse is), but I honestly wouldn't be too concerned about that: to make a game, you need to decide on tone and content anyway, and you're never going to please everyone.

I've heard good stuff about Blue Rose, but never had a chance to so much as skim any of the books. I'm curious as to whether it's more the passive non-sexist or actively progressive type of game and setting?

Themrys
2013-10-21, 04:44 AM
That's the "standard" approach preached by, e.g., D&D books. But my problem with it is that it's half-baked.

Sexism isn't some sort of poison, injected purposely into society by Malign Forces. It arises from society, as a response to various pressures. Just describing, say, medieval Chinese society and saying "but without the sexism" is a bit like, say, drawing a map of a highly-populated country "but without the roads". Unless you change a whole crapton of other stuff about the society as well, then you're going to have to explain why the roads (and sexism) aren't going to be rebuilt good-as-new faster than you can say "sociopolitical implications".

Of course, of course ... medieval Chinese society "but without the sexism" would be really unrealistic, almost as bad as, say, medieval European society "but with dragons".

We're really lucky no one wants to play in a medieval, feudalistic Europe with dragons. Would be too unbelievable to suspend disbelief, right?





For one, removing sexism this way probably removes a lot of sexuality in the game as well. If someone wants to flirt with a NPC for bonuses to their diplomancy, they might find it awkward if they aren't allowed. A game which is intentionally sterilized in this method could feel fake to people who take notice. Not all groups would care, and some may even appreciate it being absent - much like a group who likes to slay goblins and gather treasure may not want to deal with golbinhood morality questions.

You do realize it is possible to flirt without sexism, yes?
In fact, gender-equal societies present a great advantage in that respect: Now, your male PC, too, can flirt with important female NPC. Not just with the barmaid who can only give you some beer for free.





And finally, the aspects of a game are not just dependent on the system and the setting. They are very much dependent on the players in the game as well. You could build a system that has absolutely no sexist properities, but hand it to a GM who thinks that all rulers are male by default and all the work is for naught. It's probably true that the players (GM included) have a larger impact on the presence/absense of sexism in a game than the rules and setting combined. After all, if you have a system where any sexism is avoided or easily ignored, a group who doesn't want to play it it in their game would have the ability to toss it out and create their game without it.

Still, if you hand a non-sexist system to a GM who is indifferent to the sex of his rulers, but would have defaulted to male if inventing them himself, you reduce the sexism in the game a whole lot.

And don't forget the people who think it's blasphemy to change anything in the setting. They do exist. They might want to play a different game but not feel they have the right to. (I mean,there are players who think they have to obey the GM, for heaven's sake!)

Astrella
2013-10-21, 04:56 AM
It's also just often lazy because a lot of creators just directly copy our existing system of inequality, rather than actually investigate and see how different axes of inequality would develop in their fictional world. It seems very unlikely that in so many varied worlds you'll end up with something similar to ours so often.

Sapphire Guard
2013-10-21, 05:06 AM
Well, to say the truth, they don't really have mooks. Their proud warriors ride into battle to protect the farmers, they don't send the farmers to die first. I know that isn't realistic, and no upper class would risk their own lives first, but it's a fantasy world and I don't write grimdark. If Tolkien could have noble kings, so can I.

(The main enemy consists of little tribes where every woman is a warrior. Much like the Swiss. Those don't even have a lower class they could send to die first)

That fantasy world contains no monsters, humans fight better than lions and other animals, and the other societies are matriarchies, too, so any disadvantage in breeding mooks is evened out by the enemy having the exact same disadvantage.

If you'd suggest to them that sending their men into combat would be more efficient, they would call you a heartless monster.

They also don't breed like rabbits, as women are in charge and pregnancies aren't fun, so they don't need more land, which removes an important reason to send superfluous men to be killed off.

If they do start wars, it's for moral principles and such, and, of course, they can't just send their sons and husbands to die on the battlefield in order to prove that they're morally superior - that would prove that they're horrible monsters, and would defeat the purpose for which the war was started in the first place.


I guess a RPG set in that setting would involve a lot less mook-slaying than D&D, but I don't think that'd be a bad thing.

Can I ask what the problems are within this society? Taken in isolation, this reads to me a bit like someone designing a world to prove how awesome matriarchies would be. Nobody is oppressed, the noble classes ride to defend the serfs, wars only happen for morally justified reasons, there's no overpopulation... all because the women are in charge? So what causes the problems in this gameworld that the PCs have to solve? Is there any corruption? Clashes of ideology? Rivalries within the structure?

On topic: To make a balanced RPG, yeah, better cover art and no gender based feature caps. I would also say include female mooks or even roll a dice/flip a coin to decide the gender of important NPCs. Anything beyond that would vary from setting to setting and campaign to campaign.

Mr. Mask
2013-10-21, 05:28 AM
Themrys: China has had a few female rulers, and it had female generals. An interesting case was the King Wu Ding, whose top general was his favourite wife Fu Hao. She was buried with a massive axe; as in, something so stupidly big it looks like it belongs in a fantasy piece. Few people are strong enough to wield that, man or woman alike.

China has a number of great military female leaders, despite their cultural views of women staying at home and serving. Over in Japan, you had the female Bushi, who were trained to fight. Though their roles were largely defence of their homes while the male Bushi went afield.


Rhynn: I've read the first book of Artesia. Within that, most of the female soldiers were among the officers, something like 80 to 90 percent of the soldiery being male. Still, yeah, I think it's certainly worth a look for anyone interested in females in fantasy settings (you won't definitely like it).


Saphire Guard: I think the idea wasn't that things were good because women were in charge, so much as things were good because it enhanced the goals of the setting.

Themrys
2013-10-21, 05:31 AM
Can I ask what the problems are within this society? Taken in isolation, this reads to me a bit like someone designing a world to prove how awesome matriarchies would be. Nobody is oppressed, the noble classes ride to defend the serfs, wars only happen for morally justified reasons, there's no overpopulation... all because the women are in charge? So what causes the problems in this gameworld that the PCs have to solve? Is there any corruption? Clashes of ideology? Rivalries within the structure?


Taken in isolation, LotR reads a bit lot like someone designing a world to prove how awesome patriarchies are.

Did I mention that the people in my matriarchy practice polyandry? The birth ratio is the same as in our world. Which means that some women can't get married. You can imagine how happy they are ... not. Oh, they can have children just fine ... there are enough male prostitutes. But it just isn't the same, you know?

Where did I say no one is oppressed? It is a monarchy, of course about 90% of population are oppressed. I just don't focus on it, just like LotR doesn't focus on the oppression that logically follows from feudalism and has only happy gardeners as representatives of the lower classes.


@Mr. Mask: Thanks. I was 99% sure that Ancient China could very well function without sexism, but I think that whether or not that's realistic just is not important if we're talking about fantasy.

Frozen_Feet
2013-10-21, 06:37 AM
"She is a butch lesbian who wants to crush evil of male sex under the heel of matriarchy. He is a passive-aggressive knight-figure with a savior complex, who wants to free women from their abusive jerk husbands. Together, they hate men."
:amused:

Sapphire Guard
2013-10-21, 07:01 AM
I'm not sure about that. The setting of LOTR could use more women, but it's not like male rulers can do no wrong and are seen as the ultimate form of government. (I'm not saying that your setting is the inversion of that, the below is solely concerns LOTR.)


Isildur was subject to the lure of the ring, Denethor gave in to despair and almost ended up destroying his own people, and ordered his son almost to his death because he was pissed at him. Theoden was rendered ineffectual by Wormtongue, Boromir also betrayed his party, the King of Numenor led his kingdom to annihilation in a futile war. Feanor caused a tonne of unnecessary suffering and death over the Silmarils.

At the end of the book, Aragorn expressly does not extend his rule to the Shire, because they're better off on their own.

Minas Tirith and Rohan are the major patriarchal societies. Neither of them had any major role in saving the world, they managed to be a diversion from the important stuff. Alone, they were doomed to miserably fail.

Galadriel's rule ranks with Elrond's as one of the safest and nicest places in the world.

Insofar as Sauron has a gender, he's a he. His rule isn't shown to be benevolent.

Sam does not live in any kingdom with a feudal system.


The reason I'm inquiring about more details in the first place is because I don't know enough to make a judgement about your gameworld. But what stood out to me so far was

'Matriarchy'

'No one is expendable'

'Wars are started for moral principles'

'Women in charge, therefore no surplus population, no need for conquest'

LOTR:

'Patriarchy'

'Everyone is expendable' Aragorn leads an entire army to the Black Gate, aware that they're probably all due to be slaughtered, because that might destroy Sauron even if it results in the fall of Minas Tirith.

'Wars are started for things like greed (Siege of the Lonely Mountain, the Silmarils,) spite, (Saruman scouring the Shire), or desire to rule, (Sauron, Last King of Numenor.) Minas Tirith doesn't start a war due to its principles, it fights because it's been invaded. Because Sauron wants to rule.

'no reference to population expansion' Both patriarchal kingdom are in decline during the story.

Now, I don't know enough about your gameworld to make judgements, which is why I'm asking for more details. But from what I know so far, it seems to be a rather nicer place than many of the patriarchal kingdoms in LOTR. But I don't know enough, which is why I'm asking these questions

'What causes the clashes with the tribes you mentioned'

'What kinds of quests do the PCs go on?'

I'm not trying to trick you or prove a point here, I'm just trying to get a clearer picture.

Themrys
2013-10-21, 07:10 AM
'Everyone is expendable' Aragorn leads an entire army to the Black Gate, aware that they're probably all due to be slaughtered, because that might destroy Sauron even if it results in the fall of Minas Tirith.

Yeah, and what does he fight for? More farming land? Or the freedom of Middle Earth?
I don't quite remember ... maybe he did only attack poor, innocent Mordor because the oppressed, used-as-breeding-machines women had popped out more babies than could live off the land he already ruled.
Or to distract from his bad internal politics. Or something.


And who are the people in his army? Granted, I am judging from the movie here, but it didn't look as if they're poor farmers or the like. But yeah, probably they're expendable mooks and their armor is just made from paperbags, just for the nice look.

However, to me, it looks as if the only expendable ones in LotR are the orcs. They are the only ones slaughtered in dozens without anyone caring about it.

Should I have orcs in my matriarchy, to show that it isn't perfect?

Mr. Mask
2013-10-21, 07:17 AM
All the armour in the films was made from paper bags, based off their ability to stop swords and arrows. Their only quality was looking good.

TuggyNE
2013-10-21, 07:29 AM
Yeah, and what does he fight for? More farming land? Or the freedom of Middle Earth?
I don't quite remember ... maybe he did only attack poor, innocent Mordor because the oppressed, used-as-breeding-machines women had popped out more babies than could live off the land he already ruled.
Or to distract from his bad internal politics. Or something.

I've lost track of where the irony marker is. Mind recalibrating for me a bit, guys?

Or, y'know, stop trying to just score points, that'd work too. :smallwink:


And who are the people in his army? Granted, I am judging from the movie here, but it didn't look as if they're poor farmers or the like. But yeah, probably they're expendable mooks and their armor is just made from paperbags, just for the nice look.

In the books, it indicates that the army comes from all over Gondor; various valleys and towns and fiefdoms sending their feudal contingent. So a lot of fairly-well-off peasants and the like, and a modest number of well-trained professional soldiers. (If I recall correctly, 600 or so knights, and another few hundred in one or two other bodies.)

I suppose if one wanted to get upset about patriarchy, one could pounce on Minas Tirith's sending the women and children to a safe place, away from the nearly hopeless defense. Or something. I dunno what sets people off, really.

Themrys
2013-10-21, 07:43 AM
I've lost track of where the irony marker is. Mind recalibrating for me a bit, guys?

Or, y'know, stop trying to just score points, that'd work too. :smallwink:


I didnt't start that ridiculous debate. I mean, really, you can't argue that LotR doesn't idealize patriarchy, monarchy and feudalism all in one go. And war. War is extremely idealized. In LotR, it is about freeing the world from an Evil Empire that is undeniably evil and can't be reasoned with.

How often does that happen in real life, I ask you?

Mr. Mask
2013-10-21, 07:48 AM
Depressingly frequently.

Thrudd
2013-10-21, 07:58 AM
I wouldn't say LOTR is about how awesome patriarchies are, implying that a patriarchy is more awesome than a matriarchy, or any other form of government. There is no representation of any other form of government in it to compare to. It is about the strong bonds of manly friendship and love which form during times of war, as Tolkien experienced in the trenches of the Great War. It is also inspired by the epics and mythology of Northern Europe and England which glorify and idealize battle with poetic prose.

Themrys
2013-10-21, 08:10 AM
Depressingly frequently.

There are objectively Evil Empires in real life?

Or do you mean that countries try to make it seem like that? We're not allowed to discuss real-life politics here ... but I guess I can get away with writing that, in real life, no country is undebatably Evil.

@Thrudd: Well, there are no representation of any other form of government to compare to my fantasy matriarchy, either. There's just matriarchy, and that's it.

I like LotR. I like that it's not all dark and gritty and rapey, as certain other fantasy books out there.

But it doesn't show the negative impacts of patriarchy, and thus, can be said to idealize patriarchy.

Mr. Mask
2013-10-21, 08:14 AM
Depends if you consider Sauron's empire objectively evil. If you do, there are plenty of examples which are objectively evil, or possibly worse depending on how much you infer of Sauron's terror (Tolkien didn't like to delve into that).

I can't think of anything Sauron or his orcs did which is doesn't have a matching or worse example in history.

Thrudd
2013-10-21, 08:15 AM
There are objectively Evil Empires in real life?

Or do you mean that countries try to make it seem like that?

@Thrudd: Well, there are no representation of any other form of government to compare to my fantasy matriarchy, either. There's just matriarchy, and that's it.

I like LotR. I like that it's not all dark and gritty and rapey, as certain other fantasy books out there.

But it doesn't show the negative impacts of patriarchy, and thus, can be said to idealize patriarchy.

I suppose that is true, insofar as it idealizes everything. There is nothing in the story which is not a poetic, glorious ideal.

detritus
2013-10-21, 08:24 AM
I wouldn't say LOTR is about how awesome patriarchies are, implying that a patriarchy is more awesome than a matriarchy, or any other form of government. There is no representation of any other form of government in it to compare to. It is about the strong bonds of manly friendship and love which form during times of war, as Tolkien experienced in the trenches of the Great War. It is also inspired by the epics and mythology of Northern Europe and England which glorify and idealize battle with poetic prose.

I agree.

You can't apply a modern take on feminism to works written in the 1930's. Tolkien came from an almost exclusively male Oxford establishment, and, indeed based the LOTR on his experiences of male bonding and comradeship in the First World War. Female characters are rare, but those that are there are strong (Eowyn) and powerful (Galadriel). Patriarchy is not set up as a paragon - look at Denethor, Théoden, Boromir, Saruman; all are deeply flawed, often weak characters.
LOTR is about how anyone can make a difference, no matter how insignificant they seem to be.

There seems to be a tendency to see sexism and oppression where there isn't any, or at least none deliberately intended. And to see a lack of sexism as some kind of holy grail for all player characters/npc's (since we're talking about RPG here). My own RPG game is not biased either way to male or female - there are no stat differences, but I don't keep a list of exactly how many npc's are male or female mainly because none of my players has ever seen the need to enquire, whether a male or female player; many of the npc city state rulers are male, not because I am in any way suggesting that women cant be equally good in that role but because Im a man, I find it easier to roleplay a man. Conversely there are a number of powerful female npc's, and the most kick-ass PC in the game is female - my wife's PC actually, although she is equally happy playing male or female roles in the game.
The last word is important in the context of this thread - it's a GAME. If you are the DM/GM you have ultimate power over the system, you don't have to slavishly follow the dictates of the rule book I you don't want to. If your system is inherently sexist because it reflects the current society's attitude to sexism, and your players are ok with that, then what's the issue? If you DON'T like it, change it. Making a big issue out of how many guards are male/female seem pointless to me - my npc city guard are just that, guards. If they get involved in a conversation or interaction with the player characters I will flesh them out more, some may indeed turn out to be female depending on my mood. But why worry about things like that if you're playing a RPG? If your GM says, oh you cant be X class because you're female, then yes that's sexist, but is that because the GM is sexist or the society your PC lives in is sexist? Why see sexism as some insurmountable dark force of oppression in every aspect of a game/book whatever?
D&D when created was aimed fairly squarely at a teen male audience, hence the chainmail bikini attitudes and rather dodgy drow fetishism. But it can evolve and change, and I think it has over the years, ok maybe the art hasn't always but that's just a picture, ignore it if you like.

Themrys
2013-10-21, 08:28 AM
I suppose that is true, insofar as it idealizes everything. There is nothing in the story which is not a poetic, glorious ideal.

Well, yes. LotR idealizes everything in it.

So, why, when I write a similar novel, people like Sapphire Guard feel the need to complain about the idealization?


If you don't like idealized fantasy, don't read it. But don't defend LotR while complaining about my idealized fantasy society.

Boci
2013-10-21, 08:31 AM
I didnt't start that ridiculous debate. I mean, really, you can't argue that LotR doesn't idealize patriarchy, monarchy and feudalism all in one go. And war. War is extremely idealized. In LotR, it is about freeing the world from an Evil Empire that is undeniably evil and can't be reasoned with.

How often does that happen in real life, I ask you?

Well there was this thing called the second world war, but apart from that fair point.

Mr. Mask
2013-10-21, 08:41 AM
The NAZIs aren't actually the best comparison for Mordor. I'd look more to examples like Genghis Khan, the Viet Kong, and the Lord's Resistance Army.

Boci
2013-10-21, 08:48 AM
The NAZIs aren't actually the best comparison for Mordor. I'd look more to examples like Genghis Khan, the Viet Kong, and the Lord's Resistance Army.

They are the best comparison in that they were undeniably evil.

Themrys
2013-10-21, 09:00 AM
They are the best comparison in that they were undeniably evil.

They were, but still, they were just ruling the country.

Mordor, on the other hand, was never implied to have such a thing as innocent civilians. Or even babys, at that.

In reality, you can't have an evil country. An evil group of adult rebels could theoretically happen, but with countries, you always have the problem that soldiers don't get to choose whether they join the war.
You will have to kill people who only got to choose to either fight or be executed.

Which makes your heroic deeds much less heroic, if you think about it. Tolkien, apparently, put enough thought in the whole thing to realize that he needed a supernatural Evil Empire to remove those unheroic implications.

Boci
2013-10-21, 09:03 AM
They were, but still, they were just ruling the country.

And aggressively expanding across every front possible, and committing war crimes.


Mordor, on the other hand, was never implied to have such a thing as innocent civilians. Or even babys, at that.

Maybe not the orcs, but the humans working with Sauron presumably did.


Which makes your heroic deeds much less heroic, if you think about it. Tolkien, apparently, put enough thought in the whole thing to realize that he needed a supernatural Evil Empire to remove those unheroic implications.

Or he just didn't think of them. Plenty of enlightened and intelligent people have subscript to the flawed logic of their time.

Calinero
2013-10-21, 09:04 AM
First off: Godwin's Law invoked.

Secondly: there's a whole bunch of material here, too much to comment on all at once, so I'm just going to mention what I find to be a very disturbing trend. A lot of people say that a society without sexism would be too unrealistic, or too weird. To that, I say that if you can imagine a fantasy setting with different laws of physics but can't imagine a setting where people are a little less horrible to each other, I pity your imagination.

That being said, you can have a game that isn't sexist but still has sexist elements within the setting--as long as they are presented as sexist. If everyone knows Kingdom A is a backwater, misogynistic pit, then it's okay for the laws there to be sexist. Everyone knows it, and it can be used to present commentary on real world issues if you really find those to be necessary in your game. The problems arise when you take sexist ideas and make them a part of the mainstream game without realizing that they are sexist--you present them as normal. We don't want to normalize sexism.

It's true that saying "Ancient China without the sexism" is a very reductive statement, and no one could possibly think through every single change that would result. However, the same can be said of the changes made to any fantasy setting (does anyone want to talk about the economic ramifications of...well, everything in D&D?). So, forgive me if it sounds a little hollow when the realism debate comes up to defend sexist behavior.

Boci
2013-10-21, 09:07 AM
First off: Godwin's Law invoked.

Technically yes, but it was valid here. The implications of Godwin's Law is that the Nazi comparison is used as an insult. Also I originally just mentioned WWII, meaning I could have been referring to the Germans or the Japanese (but failed to point this out when someone mentioned the Nazis).

Mr. Mask
2013-10-21, 09:12 AM
Boci: Well, the main reason for the NAZI's evil reputation, is that the standards for western countries were raised by the 20th century (there was the belief of some that the Kingdom of God was achievable and that things were moving to that, I've heard it said). The cruelty of German forces in occupied countries came as something of a shock. What most labelled the NAZIs are pure evil, of course, was the death camps Jews were sent into for no frigging reason! Even Sauron's supposed desire to wipe out mankind and replace it with orcs was less evil, in the fact it was less senseless (he wasn't even human). The USSR was still slaughtering insane numbers of people which dwarfed the NAZI genocide, but they were doing it to maintain their despotic regime. The Jews were killed for the same reason as the Armenians... evil and irrational hatred.


Themrys: That's the popular belief, but I've found most evidence to the contrary. The orcs had propaganda, and from it believed the Rohhirm (white-skins I think they called them) were going to kill and eat them. Tolkien was also a strong Catholic, and believed no creature which could be allowed to exist was irredeemable (he was asked about this, and basically said orcs weren't entirely evil). Tolkien was sensitive to the idea of how cruel the lives and upbringings of orc children would be, cruelty to children being something he didn't like to dwell on.

I don't see the orcs as a race of evil creatures, so much as a violent conglomeration of war bands who are naturally aggressive.

Much of the German army had a genuine belief they were working for the good of their country, and possibly for the good of the countries they were conquering. Largely due to ignorance, propaganda, and convenience of believing that, of course. A lot of people were poor, hungry, and angry due to the economic down from WW1, which certainly didn't help.

Boci
2013-10-21, 09:15 AM
@ Mr. Mask - I'm aware of the history. The reason I am being so vague is I'm trying to be on the side of caution with the forum rules. As the USSR, the main reason I didn't mention them is Mordor is "an evil empire defeated through military action" so they definitely do not qualify for the second clause.


I don't see the orcs as a race of evil creatures, so much as a violent conglomeration of war bands who are naturally aggressive.

I guess that could explain why the two times we see the orcs interact with each other when not on the battle field one ends up killing the other, but on the other hand, every time we see the orcs interact with each other when not on the battle field one ends up killing the other. Although the theory does gain support in that (in the books) as soon as Sauron is destroyed the orcs stop fighting (and humans I think) stop fighting, as it is noted that the menace that had driven them was suddenly gone.

Mr. Mask
2013-10-21, 09:22 AM
I take your point with the history of NAZI Germany in the war, though I disagree a little. Mordor wasn't actually defeated through military action. Military action was necessary, extremely so--but Mordor wasn't a place you could defeat militarily under the given situation. Nazi Germany was in the end crushed by the Allies, whereas Mordor was a bastion of power until Sauron was destroyed.

Boci
2013-10-21, 09:36 AM
You're right, military action was necessary but insufficient in of itself. Did you catch my edit about the orcs?

Mr. Mask
2013-10-21, 09:45 AM
Looking over the edit now.

Sauron was what kept the orcs as an organized fighting force. It was very clear that Sauron was destroyed, when it happened. To the orcs, Sauron was their god. Seeing that is enough to make most any army break and rout.

Without Sauron, the orcs would dissolve into the infighting which had already plagued their ranks, and the massive threat to Middle Earth would splinter into numerous orc bands which could be handled on their own. Without Sauron's ambition for conquest of Middle-Earth, the most that could be expected from Mordor is the occasional bandit raid or a half-hearted attempt at war from a smaller collection of warbands; less organized and less driven.

Sapphire Guard
2013-10-21, 09:49 AM
Yeah, and what does he fight for? More farming land? Or the freedom of Middle Earth?
I don't quite remember ... maybe he did only attack poor, innocent Mordor because the oppressed, used-as-breeding-machines women had popped out more babies than could live off the land he already ruled.
Or to distract from his bad internal politics. Or something.


And who are the people in his army? Granted, I am judging from the movie here, but it didn't look as if they're poor farmers or the like. But yeah, probably they're expendable mooks and their armor is just made from paperbags, just for the nice look.

However, to me, it looks as if the only expendable ones in LotR are the orcs. They are the only ones slaughtered in dozens without anyone caring about it.

Should I have orcs in my matriarchy, to show that it isn't perfect?

No, you can just answer the questions I asked, namely 'Why did those tribes you mention clash with your matriarchal nation?' Give me one example of a reason that caused conflict.

I'm not complaining about your society, I'm asking questions about it, because I know more about LOTR than the world you made. I'm interested in how it works.

LOTR had an idealised feudal nation... it also has despotic nations with male figureheads, patriarchies that fail, male figureheads that mess up. That's all I'm saying. I'm not saying that matriarchies are bad or that you can't idealise anything. I'm asking questions about something you created in order to learn more about it. My point in defending LOTR was just that you used it as a counterexample of an idealised patriarchal society. Gondor is not presented as perfect... It's a shadow of its former self, Denethor has cracked under the pressure, there's a total atmosphere of gloom and despair among its citizens, it's not presented as some idealised society where everything is awesome. Yours likely isn't either, but I know very little about it, because all I have to go on is a brief summary. So, in order to correct my initial impression if it was unfair, I need to ask questions to learn more. I mentioned my initial impression, but initial impressions are often unfair. So I'm asking more questions to correct it if necessary.

So:

You mentioned your society clashing with tribes. Why does this happen?

A novel or an RPG has to have some conflict to be a story. Where does it come from?

Boci
2013-10-21, 10:00 AM
Without Sauron, the orcs would dissolve into the infighting which had already plagued their ranks, and the massive threat to Middle Earth would splinter into numerous orc bands which could be handled on their own. Without Sauron's ambition for conquest of Middle-Earth, the most that could be expected from Mordor is the occasional bandit raid or a half-hearted attempt at war from a smaller collection of warbands; less organized and less driven.

Yet the Hobbit claims that the battle of 5 armies was to determine the fate of Middle Earth. The threat posed by orcs and goblins seems to vary.

The Oni
2013-10-21, 10:02 AM
Presumably it varies depending on the centralization of their leadership?

Boci
2013-10-21, 10:05 AM
Presumably it varies depending on the centralization of their leadership?

Nothing major, but spoilered all the same.

So the Orcs need a near all powerful evil overlord to unite them into a threat, but the goblins just need a king (and the old one killed by an elven blade)?

The Oni
2013-10-21, 10:08 AM
Difference between goblins and orcs. Orcs are proud warriors, goblins are easily cowed skirmishers.

Boci
2013-10-21, 10:12 AM
Difference between goblins and orcs. Orcs are proud warriors, goblins are easily cowed skirmishers.

No, no they are not. Seriously, the orcs attacking Helms Deep ran back whenever they were shot at, only to resume their charge, each time getting that much closer to the walls. Those aren't proud warriors, that's mob mentality battling the instincts to flee.

Plus, what exactly are the differences between orcs and goblins. If Tolkien had called the antagonists of the Hobbit "orcs", would people have noticed the difference?

Themrys
2013-10-21, 10:16 AM
Themrys: That's the popular belief, but I've found most evidence to the contrary. The orcs had propaganda, and from it believed the Rohhirm (white-skins I think they called them) were going to kill and eat them. Tolkien was also a strong Catholic, and believed no creature which could be allowed to exist was irredeemable (he was asked about this, and basically said orcs weren't entirely evil). Tolkien was sensitive to the idea of how cruel the lives and upbringings of orc children would be, cruelty to children being something he didn't like to dwell on.

From what I know, he had several theories where the orcs came from and some of those may not have included children. And - to my knowledge - all those theories were made after inventing the orcs.
I'm a writer myself, I know how those things happen. I absolutely agree with you in that he believed as a principle that no one can be irredeemable, but I also think he had a strong wish to not have his beloved main characters kill innocent people.

He had the conflict that he wanted to portray good, idealized people, and wanted to write in a tradition that, traditionally, made songs and stories about war.

I think it's legitimate do not dwell on violence towards children if you don't want to.

However, as pointed out, Sapphire Guard seems to be of the opinion that I have a duty to dwell on the less nice aspects of my fantasy people, while no such thing is demanded of Tolkien. And I do not approve of that.

The Oni
2013-10-21, 10:16 AM
Forgive me, I never saw LOTR, but the Orcs seemed pretty imposing in the Hobbit, not like goblins at all other than the ugly-as-sin and generally chaotic evil bit.

Mr. Mask
2013-10-21, 10:17 AM
In that case, the orcs (orcs and goblins are the same beast, more or less) were unified by greed for dragon treasure, as well as their king. When the battle for the treasure was lost, and their king too was lost, their power was thoroughly scattered.

Orc kings could unite orcs and make them into a serious threat. It would still pale in comparison to the unstoppable super power that was Sauron's regime.


Themrys: He might be baiting you, or he might be genuinely interested in your setting (the former is more likely in the context, but innocent until proven guilty).

I agree that having main characters killing innocents is something Tolkien was trying for. Just, I feel the orcs he invented are quite deep and well thought out. I feel they have a genuine culture and psychology that drives them into the book's situation plausibly, and have come to think so more as I learned more about history.

Boci
2013-10-21, 10:23 AM
However, as pointed out, Sapphire Guard seems to be of the opinion that I have a duty to dwell on the less nice aspects of my fantasy people, while no such thing is demanded of Tolkien. And I do not approve of that.

But there are numerous differences between you and Tolkien. Tolkien isn't here for one, and LotR was written a long time ago when black and white morality was more accepted. Regardless, Sapphire Guard has pointed out some of the less nice aspects of LotR (the corrupted and insane leaders of Rohan and Gondor, the feeling of despair amongst the citizens).

Your attempts to dismiss his argument seems more like defensive sidestepping than righteous indignation.

AMFV
2013-10-21, 10:28 AM
No, no they are not. Seriously, the orcs attacking Helms Deep ran back whenever they were shot at, only to resume their charge, each time getting that much closer to the walls. Those aren't proud warriors, that's mob mentality battling the instincts to flee.

Plus, what exactly are the differences between orcs and goblins. If Tolkien had called the antagonists of the Hobbit "orcs", would people have noticed the difference?

This is tangential but Tolkien did not originally intend the Goblins to be in the same universe as the Orcs, they are a reference to fairy tale boogeymen, it was only later that he decided to incorporate the world of the Hobbit in his previously existing world.

Mr. Mask
2013-10-21, 10:32 AM
Edited my above post with a reply for Themrys.


Boci: Themrys has a legitimate argument, that she doesn't have to consider such elements of her setting if she doesn't wish to. I feel it's good to work out a world as plausibly as can be managed, but we must accept that we can't consider everything (and that some things we reasonably prefer not to consider).

Her assumption about Saphire Guard is questionable, I admit. This has been a long and stressful discussion, over two or three threads, and I'm surprised she's managed to be as active as she has. So, I will submit that it's easy to become over-cynical about others under such duress (these discussions do involve a lot of baiting, so everyone gets edgy when asked about something personal and important to us, like a setting or story we worked on).