Goblin vs. Hobgoblin

[CaDzilla]

Why is it that goblin society is more egalitarian than hobgoblin society. We've seen many female and male goblins in the same roles. Even one of the Bearers of the Crimson Mantle was female. We didn't see any hobgoblin women in the invading army. The only hobgoblin women that we've seen is a housewife and a cleric in a city with goblin ideals of equality.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

As we have not seen the whole of either Goblin or Hobgoblin societies, I would hesitate to make any determinations on whether one of them is more egalitarian than the other.

Edit: Also, I would say that just because we have seen less women than men in the Hobgoblin army does not mean it is less egalitarian, although that is one possible interpretation. As mentioned downthread, the lack of women in the army probably has a lot to do with the militant society of the hobgoblins. It could also be possible that the sexual dimorphism between male and female hobgoblins is less obvious than between male and female goblins.

[DaggerPen]

I imagine it has a great deal to do with Rich copying and pasting the same (male) hobgoblin figure for large crowds.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Why is it that goblin society is more egalitarian than hobgoblin society. We've seen many female and male goblins in the same roles. Even one of the Bearers of the Crimson Mantle was female. We didn't see any hobgoblin women in the invading army. The only hobgoblin women that we've seen is a housewife and a cleric in a city with goblin ideals of equality.

Without going too much into Real Life argumentation, in general tribal societies are more equalitarian than militaristic societies. This is, of course, a broad generalisation and I'm sure there are exceptions, as well as the fact that "more egalitarian" does not, by any stretch of the mind, need mean "equal". But given those caveats, societies based on who is most dangerous with weapons tend to promote men to positions of authority rather than women.

Grey Wolf

[DaggerPen]

Without going too much into Real Life argumentation, in general tribal societies are more equalitarian than militaristic societies. This is, of course, a broad generalisation and I'm sure there are exceptions, as well as the fact that "more egalitarian" does not, by any stretch of the mind, need mean "equal". But given those caveats, societies based on who is most dangerous with weapons tend to promote men to positions of authority rather than women.

Grey Wolf

I should add that it's generally a childcare thing - women who are of age in these societies will typically have to stay back to help with the kids and any agriculture and thus are rarely able to go out on long missions/marches/etc.

[Jay R]

Because hobgoblins are disgusting, pompous jerks. All efficiency, and warrior's codes, and sense of duty, with their military this and their discipline that, and-- (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0148.html)

[ti'esar]

It's also been pointed out recently in another thread that, by RAW, discrimination is closely associated with being Lawful Evil. By that standard, it makes sense that the "usually NE" goblins have a more equal society than the "usually LE" hobgoblins.

Although really I think it's just that Rich didn't bother to create multiple models of hobgoblin mook. The fact that he did for the Azurites seems more likely to be intended to make a point about them than the hobgoblins.

[MagicalMeat]

Seriously though, has anyone considered that the reason there aren't many women in the Hobgoblin army, is simply because armies throughout history are male-dominated? Considering that strength is absolutely necessary before the widespread usage of guns, and the strongest men are stronger than the strongest women, I really can't see a realistic medieval army that is equally male and female. It's only in the last 80 years that women have served in the armed forces on a large scale, and even then it's never 50/50.

Or that women simply can give birth to the desperately needed troops a militaristic society needs, and men can't?

Seriously, the past isn't polically correct. Don't expect literature set in it to always be so either.

[DaggerPen]

Seriously though, has anyone considered that the reason there aren't many women in the Hobgoblin army, is simply because armies throughout history are male-dominated? Considering that strength is absolutely necessary before the widespread usage of guns, and the strongest men are stronger than the strongest women, I really can't see a realistic medieval army that is equally male and female. It's only in the last 80 years that women have served in the armed forces on a large scale, and even then it's never 50/50.

Or that women simply can give birth to the desperately needed troops a militaristic society needs, and men can't?

Seriously, the past isn't polically correct. Don't expect literature set in it to always be so either.

Not technically accurate. While testosterone levels are coordinated with upper body strength, once trained it doesn't really make much of a difference, and there actually have been female batallions and warriors throughout history serving openly as women. However, there were never as many female warriors as men, because the cycle of pregnancy + breastfeeding + caring for toddlers + taking care of the homestead didn't leave a lot of time to go off and become a warrior.

[B. Dandelion]

I thought the comic was set in a fantasy pastiche, not the past. There's nothing particularly realistic about an army of goblins and zombies in the first place. Women don't actually take a stat penalty in D&D 3.5, do they?

[KillianHawkeye]

Women don't actually take a stat penalty in D&D 3.5, do they?

On the off chance that this was a serious question and not merely rhetorical, no. No they do not.

[ti'esar]

More importantly, this whole line of discussion is missing the point. The question isn't why the hobgoblins don't have a wholly gender-integrated military, but why there don't seem to be any female hobgoblin soldiers at all.

[zimmerwald1915]

More importantly, this whole line of discussion is missing the point. The question isn't why the hobgoblins don't have a wholly gender-integrated military, but why there don't seem to be any female hobgoblin soldiers at all.
Considering that the army mobilized at the beginning of War and XPs consisted of 90% of the hobgoblin city's population (see bonus content in that book), this is symptomatic of a bigger question: why did that particular hobgoblin city have so few women in it?

[Dissection]

Perhaps hobgoblins are like elves and you just can't tell the males and females apart most of the time

[B. Dandelion]

On the off chance that this was a serious question and not merely rhetorical, no. No they do not.

I wasn't kidding. I was 90% percent sure they didn't, but I seemed to recall maybe something along those lines had happened in an earlier edition? Which was objected to for being sexist or something? All from discussions I only can read here, since I don't actually play the game. But stuff still trips me up even after all these years, like "brain in a jar" being a monster rather than just what it sounds like... so I just don't know for sure, sometimes, when it's core D&D stuff we're talking about.

All that said, I would probably not assume a perceived lack of female hobgoblins in the army had much to do with anything besides ease of art choice, honestly. 90% mobilization sure does imply there were girls in the army, they just didn't get the specific designation the human women got.

[Kish]

Women had a lower Strength cap in 1ed. Not since then. Occasionally someone on the Internet* grumbles about the "realism lost."

*Always, in my observation, a male someone. The world is full of remarkable coincidences.

[King of Nowhere]

Women had a lower Strength cap in 1ed. Not since then. Occasionally someone on the Internet* grumbles about the "realism lost."

*Always, in my observation, a male someone. The world is full of remarkable coincidences.

I don't know, women have other perks, like greater life expectancy, need less food to survive, ad a few metabolic benefits I'm not really sure of. they could have just given different bonuses for men and women.
Ok, actually, that would have encouraged choosing sex as a minmaxing option and not as a roleplaying one. So it's probably good that they didn't. I wouldn't want my players to decide what their character has between the legs on the basis of a +2 to some saving throws or a str modifier. And I wwouldn't want all fighting classes to be male and all classes that don't need str to be female either.

Anyway, political correctness aside, in ancient societies there were practical reasons why women were needed at home. mostly, that with the infant mortality they had before the invention of modern medicine, making children was akin to an actual job. the resulting pregnancies made women unsuitable to do hard work, cause they didn't have the resources to afford maternity leaves.
goblins seem more tribal, soo every member of the clan has to do what is required by time and circumstances, so both genders can take the same roles. hobbos are a strictly organized society, they probably also have specific gender roles.
I wouldn't call it "discrimination", just different roles. I''d surely prefer to stay at home caring for the children than to go with the army in the role of cannon fodder. We associate gender specific roles with female discrimination because in our society the roles of power belonged to men, and the wife was also supposed to obey the husband. But there's no need for it to be that way. a society with gsr can be matriarcal too. vorin society from the sormlight archive is a nice example of society with very strict gsr that is mixed (women cannot access many places of power and professions, but men are forbidden from learning to write and a bunch of other stuff. DIfficult to say who has the upper hand, and it's practically impossible to do anything if you're not a married couple.)

[Jay R]

I said it once; nobody noticed. I'll try again. The first thing we found out about hobgoblins, from Redcloak, was that hobgoblin society was very different from goblin society, and far more regimented and military. See comic 148 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0148.html).

[Skorj]

Women had a lower Strength cap in 1ed. Not since then. Occasionally someone on the Internet* grumbles about the "realism lost."

*Always, in my observation, a male someone. The world is full of remarkable coincidences.

Not sure why you put realism lost in scare quotes? Or were those simply quotes? Not enough punctuation in English, I guess. Either way you seemed compelled to criticize those saying it. Insisting on realism in a fantasy game is pretty silly, IMO, but criticizing someone in a serious way for preferring a different fantasy world to game in is also quite silly (especially given the popularity of dystopian-universe games). For the other kind of fantasy games, those who know what YKINMK means know it's simply a statement of taste, not of moral judgment. Shall we divide into camps over whether we find broccoli tasty too? Only you can end the broccoloid menace!

ETA: since there's no stat difference between male and female hobgoblins AFAIK, I'm guessing they look about the same at stick figure resolution when in military garb. What makes you think 20% of those soldiers aren't female hobbos?

[Keltest]

Not sure why you put realism lost in scare quotes? Or were those simply quotes? Not enough punctuation in English, I guess. Either way you seemed compelled to criticize those saying it. Insisting on realism in a fantasy game is pretty silly, IMO, but criticizing someone in a serious way for preferring a different fantasy world to game in is also quite silly (especially given the popularity of dystopian-universe games). For the other kind of fantasy games, those who know what YKINMK means know it's simply a statement of taste, not of moral judgment. Shall we divide into camps over whether we find broccoli tasty too? Only you can end the broccoloid menace!

ETA: since there's no stat difference between male and female hobgoblins AFAIK, I'm guessing they look about the same at stick figure resolution when in military garb. What makes you think 20% of those soldiers aren't female hobbos?

for once, I can understand Kish's point perfectly. there is not any actual realism lost, its just men being sexist on the internet where they can get away with it. Naturally, he does not approve.

[veti]

Seriously, the past isn't polically correct. Don't expect literature set in it to always be so either.

But this literature isn't set in "the past", it's set in a fantasy world that goes out of its way to avoid creating differences between sexes and pretty well marginalise, if not demonise, anyone who thinks differently.

To the question: I second the "lawful evil/neutral evil" distinction. Hobgoblins are simply more organised - that means more specialisation in their society.

[King of Nowhere]

for once, I can understand Kish's point perfectly. there is not any actual realism lost, its just men being sexist on the internet where they can get away with it. Naturally, he does not approve.

So now saying that for realism women should have a str penalty in roleplaying games is sexism? There's something as too much political correctness

[Skorj]

So now saying that for realism women should have a str penalty in roleplaying games is sexism? There's something as too much political correctness

Not even a strength penalty (as we'd see it in 3.5 terms) - a lower maximum value.

I've helped make RPGs to play with friends where we were that obsessive in our research, looking at all the world records and Olympic-level competition and basing everything on the numbers. In a system like 3.5, it's a bit different, since there are STR-based skills like Jump and Climb that are arguably strength-to-weight ratio-based, for which young women have a clear advantage at the limits of human ability. (In the system we eventually played, it turned out human sexual dimorphism was simply below what 1 point meant in our system. There were other species, however, where the difference was pretty significant. My favorite RPG character to this day was my 600-pound crab - wow she was something in a fight!)

But I don't think that's what this conversation is really about, is it? It's sadly about sending tribal-identification signals. We are such silly monkeys.

[Miriel]

Seriously though, has anyone considered that the reason there aren't many women in the Hobgoblin army, is simply because armies throughout history are male-dominated? Considering that strength is absolutely necessary before the widespread usage of guns, and the strongest men are stronger than the strongest women, I really can't see a realistic medieval army that is equally male and female. It's only in the last 80 years that women have served in the armed forces on a large scale, and even then it's never 50/50.

Or that women simply can give birth to the desperately needed troops a militaristic society needs, and men can't?

Seriously, the past isn't polically correct. Don't expect literature set in it to always be so either.
As a medieval historian, I should like to point out 1) that you are discussing from your own imagined vision of the past, not from whatever the past actually was and 2) are only making an essentialist argument which excludes social and cultural realities.

As for "strength is what prohibits women to serve in the army", well, no. That would be gender roles and sexism, about which gunpowder changed exactly nothing, unlike feminism. In the 20th century, the country which made the largest efforts to use women soldiers was the USSR, which had always been one of the countries most committed to equity between men and women (cf. the campaigns against "kitchen slavery" in the 1920s-30s, whereas the Western world barely allowed women to vote). And, surprise of surprises, because the USSR was not as sexist as, say, the US, the Red Army had no problem with having female soldiers in front line combat units and in fighting planes and everywhere during WWII. Spoiler: They also won the war.

As for medieval warfare, honestly, it was much more of a social phenomenon than modern warfare. It's much easier to see the exclusion of women (with exceptions) as the result of societal factors than because women are weak, etc. Waging useless combat of some sort with little or no consequences (at worse, a ransom) was an important part of noble male sociability. The point was often to distinguish oneself and to receive a bride, because in most families, only the first born son was usually married by their father -- the others, if they didn't join the church, had to earn one from a patron.

(I always forget where what I say comes from, but if you're interested, I think it's mostly G. Duby, Le chevalier, la femme, le prêtre, 1981, and D. Barthélémy, La chevalerie, 2012. From what I've read, at least. Not my field of research.)

It's easy to see that when an important part of the structure of military activity is based on marriage relationships, women are de facto left out.


Not sure why you put realism lost in scare quotes? Or were those simply quotes? Not enough punctuation in English, I guess. Either way you seemed compelled to criticize those saying it. Insisting on realism in a fantasy game is pretty silly, IMO, but criticizing someone in a serious way for preferring a different fantasy world to game in is also quite silly (especially given the popularity of dystopian-universe games). For the other kind of fantasy games, those who know what YKINMK means know it's simply a statement of taste, not of moral judgment.
The thing is, as I said, that this supposed "realism" only exists, most of the time, in the imagination of those who argue for it. Most of the time, in the case of gender, it's just nostalgia for a time before feminism, before the place of women became an issue. Because obviously the place of men and women before people invented the word "patriarchy" was only determined by their biology :smallsigh:

[Amphiox]

Considering that strength is absolutely necessary before the widespread usage of guns, and the strongest men are stronger than the strongest women, I really can't see a realistic medieval army that is equally male and female.

It is more accurate to say that among the cohort of the strongest of people, there are more men among them than there are women. But some of the very strongest women will fit in readily in with the strongest men - they'd just be heavily outnumbered within that group.

And this pattern would be true of any trait where there is a difference in average performance between sexes.


Note with respect to your comment about guns, in medieval/ancient times, warrior women were actually more common, relatively speaking, in armies/cultures where horse archery was a big thing. It isn't just guns that can serve to even out the potential difference in strength.

[Steven]

So now saying that for realism women should have a str penalty in roleplaying games is sexism? There's something as too much political correctness

Sexism doesn't have to be misogyny. It can be subtle as all heck and completely subconscious. By not highlighting differences which don't matter, after all remember we're dealing with an abstract of the absolute peak of humanity so unusual is standard, 3.5 manages to not reinforce the idea that women are inferior.

Now if they could just sort out the horrible artwork...

Edit: Or ignore my stumbling prose and read the far better post by Enrico Dandolo above.

[CaDzilla]

I should also point out that even if you buy into the sexist idea that women should have a strength penalty, there are classes which don't really demand that stat, like sorcerers, wizards, clerics, druids, and bards. Why haven't we seen any female browncloaks?

[Skorj]

"realism" only exists, most of the time, in the imagination of those who argue for it. Most of the time, in the case of gender, it's just nostalgia for a time before feminism, before the place of women became an issue. Because obviously the place of men and women before people invented the word "patriarchy" was only determined by their biology :smallsigh:

Wow, "gender ... feminism ... patriarchy": everyone got that tribal identification signal loud and clear.

If you're arguing that "a point here and there of stat difference is a poor predictor of ability in a soldier," sure, I agree that's an easy position to defend. Heck, the things that make soldiers good in a war (e.g., discipline, morale, unit cohesion, decisions made close to where information is fresh) aren't really even modeled by D&D stats in the first place, so even in a species with several points of stat difference between the sexes, I'm not sure it would matter.

If you're arguing that at the extremes of human ability (the stat limits in 1E D&D) there's no difference in strength between the very strongest men and women, the "realism" that Kish was snarking about, well, actual measurements disagree (you can look at Olympic records, where they make an effort to police steroid use, or powerlifting records, where steroid use is common, but either way men lift roughly 30% more in a given weight class).

Personally, I argue that "realism" isn't an important goal in an FRPG. As long as there's some sort of consistency/verisimilitude to the world, the rest is just subjective taste.

[ti'esar]

But I don't think that's what this conversation is really about, is it? It's sadly about sending tribal-identification signals. We are such silly monkeys.

Damn straight. Who cares about the persistent misogyny that still tends to crop up among gamers; it's all just about waving your team flag.

Spare me.

[Vinyadan]

You know, I'd enjoy reading a discussion without having excessive fear of seeing it closed because people touch off-topic stuff of the political kind.

For what concerns depiction of women in RPGs, I think point-buy systems give a nice answer: if you want to play a woman or a man, do as you wish, place points as you prefer, represent what you'd like to play. Done.

As for the little number of hobgoblin women: I think art could just be the reason. Having different hobgoblin models isn't very good, if you only have three or four and you have several hundreds in a page: then it's better to just let people understand that you are only showing relevant elements. After all, what difference would have made to us, if there had been a bajillion women in the hobgoblin army? The male model is simpler, and it's bald, so that you also avoid having to give different hair, not to say calculating a ratio to women:men quantities.

However, the fact that here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0702.html)there are no women lets me think that the hobbos don't like having them around. Or, maybe, that the Giant simply used the model he already had ready. Or that they had a lot of happiness after the victory and the women are at home because they have gotten really round recently and prefer to have a doze from time to time.

[MagicalMeat]

My point was before it got misinterpreted as sexism (you sure love throwing that word around), was that historically armies are primarily male because men make better cannon fodder and women can give birth, and even if this isn't true in D&D because gender doesn't influence stats, it's still based on the real world to some extent, as all fiction is.

As an aside, there IS a reason most societies favor men: rule by the strongest. The strongest caveman takes what he wants, because he will beat up anyone who says different. Since men were the main fighters, when they conquered something, they would make themselves king. Seriously, women are not exactly the same as men; if they were they would be men. Accept that there are some biological differences and leave it at that. Not everything has to be a fight about political correctness and historical revision.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

As an aside, there IS a reason most societies favor men: rule by the strongest.
[citation needed]


The strongest caveman takes what he wants, because he will beat up anyone who says different.
[citation needed]


Since men were the main fighters, when they conquered something, they would make themselves king.

Those three statements are, as far as I can tell, complete fantasy. Tribal societies, such as the "cavemen" people, were not ruled by strength. Rule of "strength", i.e. militaristic, started after the agricultural revolution, and even then it was politics, i.e. the guy with the biggest army rather than the greatest warrior, that actually ruled. If you believe otherwise, please provide evidence for your position.


Seriously, women are not exactly the same as men; if they were they would be men. Accept that there are some biological differences and leave it at that. Not everything has to be a fight about political correctness and historical revision.

Seriously, there is no significant difference in military capability between men and women. Not with guns, not before guns. Most soldiers are not at the peak of human development, and thus the fact that men might eventually become stronger than women can is irrelevant when neither will get the chance to achieve such status.

Grey Wolf

[Keltest]

My point was before it got misinterpreted as sexism (you sure love throwing that word around), was that historically armies are primarily male because men make better cannon fodder and women can give birth, and even if this isn't true in D&D because gender doesn't influence stats, it's still based on the real world to some extent, as all fiction is.

Well, youre half right. Women were needed back home because men were physically unable to perform some of the more important parts of childbearing (ie getting pregnant and keeping the kid alive until it can eat solid food).

[CaDzilla]

I've been thinking, if goblins are relatively equal and hobgoblins patriarchal, does this mean that bugbears are matriarchal?

[DaggerPen]

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0702.html

"Seventeen nations around the world have recognized our borders, stretching from here - in Gobbotopia City - through the fertile Blueriver Valley and back to the mountain forts where so many of your women and children still live." (emphasis mine)

The hobgoblin forces are predominantly male. The women stayed back to raise the children, likely to keep the children sheltered from the same types of slaughters that the goblins often faced, a la SOD.

We do see a hobgoblin woman here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0703.html). They are sexually dimorphic and do typically have hair.

We do see some goblin females scattered throughout the Dark One's army in the crayon shot of the goblinoid afterlife (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0704.html). All of the hobgoblins seem to be male, but we don't get detailed shots of too many of them. The implication is that all worshippers of the Dark One serve in this capacity, so I find it likely that they are still around in there somewhere.

I skimmed through the Azure City occupation scenes and could not find any female hobgoblins serving in any capacity.

We do not know exactly why the hobgoblin women are not typically found in hobbo warcamps. It can NOT be a difference in physical ability; in the first place, such differences are not in the 3.5 ruleset, but in the second place, there are a variety of classes, such as spellcasting, for which such physical differences would be irrelevant.

In-universe, my bet is that the hobgoblins have a heavy militaristic focus for the purposes of glory-seeking and warfare, for similar reasons to those listed above, that do not offer much social prestige to female warriors, and so women will typically stay at home to raise children and take care of agriculture. Out-of-universe, my bet is that Rich copied and pasted a hobgoblin figure a zillion times, realized after the fact that he'd wound up with an entirely male hobgoblin force, slapped in a note about how the hobgoblin women stayed back at home to take care of the kids, and didn't really think about it again.

[CaDzilla]

Okay, the MM says that women stay behind to help in defense.

[DaggerPen]

Okay, the MM says that women stay behind to help in defense.

Oh, that makes sense. The militaristic hobgoblins have special warcamps set up, but women who are pregnant or nursing need to stay behind, and if there's a pattern of women staying behind anyway, that leads easily to a "women defend the homefront, men attack the new fronts" pattern. That way, if things go wrong out on the battlefields, the kids are still safe, and the soldiers have a good place to retreat to. Plus, it's easier to repopulate with a few men and many women than the other way around, if it comes to that.

The goblins, not having separate warcamps, just have one village all together. Everyone contributes to the defense, so there's about an equal number of women and men serving in various capacities. Same goes for Azure City.

And once in the afterlife, everyone serves in the Dark One's army, because there's no longer a homefront to worry about.

There, a plausible explanation that requires absolutely no assumptions about any inherent combat capabilities of anyone.

[happyman]

What I think most surprises me about this thread is the fact that people are treating the Hobgoblin's being sexist as though it would reflect on the Giant's attitude towards sexism. They're definitely treated more sympathetically (i.e. with any sympathy at all) than they are in most works of fiction, but they're also pretty warlike and backward. Even if it's not their fault, it's still true! So why can't hobgoblins be traditionally sexist like most armies were, for whatever reason?

In strictly practical terms, I will avoid the discussion about relative combat readiness of men and women, because I think that the reproductive argument is much more telling (and probably the driver behind any average differences that actually exist IRL).

In a situation as bad as the hobgoblins, constrained to survive on the worst possible land, constantly hunted by humans and adventurers, reproduction would be at an absolute premium. Having lots of children would be a serious duty for the women because it could mean the difference between having *any* children survive the famines, raids, disease and childbirth, versus having none. And only Hobgoblins who have children which survive can raise them into the next generation of Hobgoblins. And sending the women out to fight? Get real. Cutting the number of potential children down by a factor of even 0.9 is tribal suicide, especially if you're also competing with the tribe just across the river which is keeping their numbers up.

So I think that the calculus of strict necessity is enough to justify the Hobgoblin horde being as it is.

Edit: Ninja'd. Ah well. I stand by my statements.

[Amphiox]

So now saying that for realism women should have a str penalty in roleplaying games is sexism? There's something as too much political correctness

Well, giving individual women characters a strength penalty is NOT realism. Because the difference is a difference in *average* strength across the entire populaton. But adventurer characters in role playing games are already by definition exceptional individuals. Giving a penalty essentially means saying that it is impossible for a female character to have the maximum strength score, but that is simply not true in reality. It may be that *fewer* women would have that maximum score, but your particular female adventurer character can easily be one of those few.



The strongest caveman takes what he wants, because he will beat up anyone who says different.

This is unlikely to be true. In fact one theory about human evolution specifically states that in our lineage, long before we even got to the "caveman" stage, one of the things that differentiated us from our ape relatives was that the strongest caveman DIDN'T get to take what he wanted. Because from the moment we developed language, we developed the ability for 3 or 4 of the weaker cavemen to conspire together to gang up on the strong guy and stab him in the back, and take back whatever he had tried to take from them by dint of his individual strength before, and that it was that change in selective pressure on aggression that resulted in many of the different traits between ourselves and say, chimpanzees, where the rule of the strongest really is a thing.

[King of Nowhere]

well, it makes sense in general, since women can make babies and men only need to help them for a few minutes. if your society practices poligamy (we have no idea if the hobbos do) then if your women are safe while 90% of your men are killed on the battlefield, you still can repopulate pretty fast. while if your women are killed alongside the men, you cannot. for this reason, a militaristic society has all the interest in keeping women safe and make men expendable.

Men being stronger than women is also a factor, and while by far not the only concern for an army, it helped a lot before gunpowder.
If there weren't advantages to using men for war instead of women, but it were just a byproduct of society, then women should have been the warrior caste in about half the ancient society. instead, we see that practically all ancient societies, includding several who had no contact with each other, used mostly men as soldiers, with only a handful of exceptions. Not necessarily as rulers, but even in societies were women commanded, men would fight. There must be a good objective reason for that.
Then, since men made the best warriors in ancient societies - for whatever reason - it got ingrained in culture, and that stopped women from taking a large part in the army once gunpowder nullified gender differences.
Or maybe those ancient women were smart and realized that if men went off to fight wars or had to work in mines and factories, while they had to take care for the home and the children, they had no interest in reversing roles.

EDIT:

Well, giving individual women characters a strength penalty is NOT realism. Because the difference is a difference in *average* strength across the entire populaton. But adventurer characters in role playing games are already by definition exceptional individuals. Giving a penalty essentially means saying that it is impossible for a female character to have the maximum strength score, but that is simply not true in reality. It may be that *fewer* women would have that maximum score, but your particular female adventurer character can easily be one of those few.
Actually, that's not true. look at the olympics result, and the stronger men athletes are physically stronger than women athletes.
As I already said, to keep things fair one could put into the rules the other advantages women have, or they could just give them a small xp boost to say they have to compensate with skill for the lower strenght, but still, in reality, the strongest woman is weaker than the strongest men. We just choose to not care about that, and it's probably the best way. An occasional woman with a str of 18 do not break my suspension of disbelief.

[The Giant]

Out-of-universe, my bet is that Rich copied and pasted a hobgoblin figure a zillion times, realized after the fact that he'd wound up with an entirely male hobgoblin force, slapped in a note about how the hobgoblin women stayed back at home to take care of the kids, and didn't really think about it again.

It warms my heart that someone is finally beginning to understand how my creative process works.

But also, I wanted to make sure the audience was on the Azurite's side during the battle. Giving their side gender integration was an easy shorthand way to show that they were more enlightened, socially. Further, having all the hobgoblins be identical helped de-emphasize them as individuals, which made it easier to do things like a horse ramp of dead hobgoblins. Having several different models for the Azurites (male, female, sword-and-shield, archer, halberd, etc.) made them feel more like people and less like cogs in a machine. I didn't really want the audience to weep for the hobgoblin dead, though, so I made them all interchangeable.

I suppose it would have been equally valid to make the entire fighting force identical women rather than men, in that case, but a.) it didn't occur to me, b.) I think that would have required more explanation, and c.) it may have lead to a weird misogynist vibe when I did things like the aforementioned horse ramp, or Belkar's Sexy Shoeless God of War scene. Maybe there will be a day when we're all so gender-blind that a bloodthirsty male killer standing atop a pile of women's corpses and bellowing about his martial and sexual prowess will be seen as nothing but a warrior who has courageously defeated his worthy combat adversaries with great skill, but that day ain't today.

[Amphiox]

Actually, that's not true. look at the olympics result, and the stronger men athletes are physically stronger than women athletes. As I already said, to keep things fair one could put into the rules the other advantages women have, or they could just give them a small xp boost to say they have to compensate with skill for the lower strenght, but still, in reality, the strongest woman is weaker than the strongest men. We just choose to not care about that, and it's probably the best way. An occasional woman with a str of 18 do not break my suspension of disbelief.

The computer game Arcanum tried that. Female characters got a STR -1, CON +1 adjustment. Unfortunately, the gameplay was such that the bonus abilities for maxing out STR (which female characters could never get due to the -1 adjustment at the start) turned out to be far superior to the one for maxing out CON.

And that would be the problem you'd always risk running into in a game situation - unforeseen aspects of game mechanics and balance, particularly once the munchkins get a hold of your game system.

But my point is that giving a blanket modifier like this is not realistic doesn't change even if you can show that the individual strongest man is stronger than the individual strongest woman, because the top strength category is a population, not individuals. If you take that Olympic athletes are the elite of the elite, what does that translate to in game mechanics? One could easily argue that they are all STR 18 in the strength categories. And yet there is a gold, silver, and bronze medal winner. Among all the STR 18's, one is strongest of them all. But the others are still STR 18. Perhaps that one strongest one will always be a man (and we cannot say that for certain. We cannot declare that the strongest possible human in any given generation must always be a man, only that most of the time it will be a man. It is still possible that one time, one extremely rare, unusual woman will actually be the strongest person of her generation), but among that population of the top tier strength, there are bound to be a few women.

Thus it is not realistic to give a penalty score like this based on gender.

[MagicalMeat]

So true. People tend to have this weird sexist opinion at female lives are more valuable than male lives. People are far more saddened at the sight of a dead women than a man. "Women and children" first anyone? Of course this is explainable in terms of reproduction, as women are far more vital to the process, but is still sexist in our modern world where reproduction is not vital.

I really love the Giant's explanation; excellent Doyalist explanation. From an in-universe perspective, I always assumed that the reason there were so many women in the Azurite forces was simply because they were defending, and they accepted any man, women or child able to hold a sword. The goblins didn't because they didn't need to bring their women and doom their prospects of siring another generation. And for the identical hobgoblins, they don't have hair which severely limits their range of appearances for a stick comic.

Edit: I also would like to make it clear that I'm not advocating for limiting female characters' options in stars or character class. That would promote sexism and make gender a stats choice instead of a roleplaying one

[Miriel]

My point was before it got misinterpreted as sexism (you sure love throwing that word around), was that historically armies are primarily male because men make better cannon fodder and women can give birth, and even if this isn't true in D&D because gender doesn't influence stats, it's still based on the real world to some extent, as all fiction is.

As an aside, there IS a reason most societies favor men: rule by the strongest. The strongest caveman takes what he wants, because he will beat up anyone who says different. Since men were the main fighters, when they conquered something, they would make themselves king. Seriously, women are not exactly the same as men; if they were they would be men. Accept that there are some biological differences and leave it at that. Not everything has to be a fight about political correctness and historical revision.
... historical revision? Do you even know what it means?

Historical revision is what happens when historians, based on documents, revisit our construction of the past and correct it to account for new evidence. It's actually a meliorative word (which is why Holocaust deniers like to call themselves "revisionists", which they are not). Historians delight in being revisionists -- it means you're doing something new, that they discovered something original.

I'm not a revisionist on this. I don't have direct evidence, which is why I cited two historians who did.

And nobody says "cavemen". I'm not an expert on prehistory, but all I know indicates they didn't even live in caves at all, it's just that material remains are better conserved/found there, + caves were used for "ritual" purposes. (When archeologists don't understand what's going on, they say it's ritual or religious.)

As a historian, I think it's futile to just promote sexist fictional worlds only on the basis of "historical realism". All of history is just a reconstruction of the past in the first place, so this realism is misplaced. It's not about political correctness. There are plenty of valid reasons for having exclusively male armies of goblins, many of which have been given (EDIT: and now, we know what that was). But saying that there is no other option because "biology"? Nope. That's, you know... not a supported claim. It's just essentialism.

Your idea of "rule by strength" is also invalidated not only by what Amphiox said, but also by taking age into account. Now, who is physically strongest? Young men in their 20s-early 30s. But in most societies, from tribal societies to city states and from modern day Western democracies to medieval feudalism, who leads? Almost always people in their forties or beyond. In some tribal societies, basically, the oldest person leads -- i.e. not the strongest. In the Middle Ages, which inspire most of the fantasy worlds we know, youth could last well into the 30s, and young people were discredited in many ways. Of course, many feudal princes inherited their functions and took office when that happened, young or not, but advisers at court or "elected" city officials did not. In Italian republics, there were strict minimum age limits for all official positions. In Venice, you had to be 30 to hold any position, and older (it varies) for the more important ones.

Anyway. Grey Wolf and others already covered most of the other stuff you said.


Actually, that's not true. look at the olympics result, and the stronger men athletes are physically stronger than women athletes.
As I already said, to keep things fair one could put into the rules the other advantages women have, or they could just give them a small xp boost to say they have to compensate with skill for the lower strenght, but still, in reality, the strongest woman is weaker than the strongest men. We just choose to not care about that, and it's probably the best way. An occasional woman with a str of 18 do not break my suspension of disbelief.
It must be understood that everything exceptional that happens to fictional characters has to happen for the story to work at all. If you want to write about a Spanish lesbian Jew converted to Protestantism who embarks in secret for America in the late 16th century, well... you've created one unlikely historical character, but you would not write [I]her story if she wasn't exceptional.

From a fictional point of view, your 18 STR female fighter is not an irrealistic character -- she would not be a character in the first place if she didn't have 18 STR. In any case, having 18 or more STR as a female human is not as exceptional in a D&D world than having half the magic items or WBL a lvl 10 character normally has.

Creating compensations is useless. The only people these should apply to are standard peasants, commoners and assorted minor NPCs, who generally don't even need stats and who would do things more according to whatever society expects them to be doing that what they're actually good at.

[MagicalMeat]

The whole caveman thing I said was really just me saying that leadership is initially awarded to whoever has the most power. And as Xykon says power is power, it doesn't matter what it is. I know that cavemen is a misnomer. I really don't feel like describing what was on my mind when I made that hyperbole, mainly because I have no idea. I had gone about 36 hours without any food besides instant ramen and a potato.

Anyway, giving stat penalties to PCs according to sex is ridiculous. But having an NPC army that is exactly 50/50 in terms of sex is equality ridiculous, as biology and society simply don't work that way.

[The Giant]

But having an NPC army that is exactly 50/50 in terms of sex is equality ridiculous, as biology and society simply don't work that way.

Fictional biology and fictional society. They can work however we want them to work, according to whatever point or message or mood the author is trying to achieve.

Positing that there is no possible combination of made-up biology and made-up society that could possibly result in female equality on the battlefield is actually way more sexist than simply saying this one society happened to not turn out that way.

[oppyu]

I suppose it would have been equally valid to make the entire fighting force identical women rather than men, in that case, but a.) it didn't occur to me, b.) I think that would have required more explanation, and c.) it may have lead to a weird misogynist vibe when I did things like the aforementioned horse ramp, or Belkar's Sexy Shoeless God of War scene. Maybe there will be a day when we're all so gender-blind that a bloodthirsty male killer standing atop a pile of women's corpses and bellowing about his martial and sexual prowess will be seen as nothing but a warrior who has courageously defeated his worthy combat adversaries with great skill, but that day ain't today.
:smalleek: As much as I advocate equal gender representation in fiction, good call. There are some messy gender politics involved with that (tvtropes link (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MenAreTheExpendableGender)), but still, definitely the right call.

[Loreweaver15]

I suppose it would have been equally valid to make the entire fighting force identical women rather than men, in that case, but a.) it didn't occur to me, b.) I think that would have required more explanation, and c.) it may have lead to a weird misogynist vibe when I did things like the aforementioned horse ramp, or Belkar's Sexy Shoeless God of War scene. Maybe there will be a day when we're all so gender-blind that a bloodthirsty male killer standing atop a pile of women's corpses and bellowing about his martial and sexual prowess will be seen as nothing but a warrior who has courageously defeated his worthy combat adversaries with great skill, but that day ain't today.

Yeeeegh. I hadn't even had that occurred to me, and I've toyed with all-female fighting forces in stories before.

That really would come off really awful, wow.

[ti'esar]

Though to be fair, Belkar doesn't exactly come across as "a warrior who has courageously defeated his worthy combat adversaries with great skill" at the best of times.

[Miriel]

Anyway, giving stat penalties to PCs according to sex is ridiculous. But having an NPC army that is exactly 50/50 in terms of sex is equality ridiculous, as biology and society simply don't work that way.


But saying that there is no other option because "biology"? Nope. That's, you know... not a supported claim. It's just essentialism.

+, you know... what the Giant said.

[Jasdoif]

I skimmed through the Azure City occupation scenes and could not find any female hobgoblins serving in any capacity.I happened to remember the last panel of 779 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0779.html) has a female hobogoblin scanning for Thanh and Niu.

[DaggerPen]

I happened to remember the last panel of 779 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0779.html) has a female hobogoblin scanning for Thanh and Niu.

Oh, well spotted! I thought I remembered seeing one somewhere, but when I couldn't find her again I figured I must have been thinking of a female goblin instead.

[Steven]

Actually, that's not true. look at the olympics result, and the stronger men athletes are physically stronger than women athletes.

The Olympics has quite a narrow rulesfor what constitutes a woman and there are people who are not allowed to compete because their blood tests contradict their physical appearance. Since they identify as women, looks female to an observer and in all other parts of life would be treated as women it's hardly fair to rule out these exceptions when talking about exceptional people is it?

[DaggerPen]

The Olympics has quite a narrow rulesfor what constitutes a woman and there are people who are not allowed to compete because their blood tests contradict their physical appearance. Since they identify as women, looks female to an observer and in all other parts of life would be treated as women it's hardly fair to rule out these exceptions when talking about exceptional people is it?

This is actually a really interesting topic, because it shows just how much our idea of sex is actually rather artificial. There's this idea that women must have testosterone levels below a certain point in order to be eligible to compete, since higher testosterone levels typically grant higher muscle mass. So the strongest women are filtered out of the Olympics with the justification that they aren't "female" enough for the Olympics, because "real" women have testosterone levels below a certain point. When women break the records of male Olympians, they are scrutinized harshly, subjected to testing, and may be disqualified. And lo and behold, women consistently do worse than men in the Olympics. Imagine that.

Mind you, on average, women do have lower testosterone levels than men, so on average, women have less muscle mass. This effect is particularly striking with transgender people who take hormones, as trans men will typically gain muscle mass, and trans women lose it. But pure muscle mass isn't actually as useful in combat as it's made out to be, anyway, and in feats of strength, people with higher muscle mass are going to be selected for regardless, and I'm not actually sure that there are that many more men at the peak than there are women.

[ti'esar]

I happened to remember the last panel of 779 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0779.html) has a female hobogoblin scanning for Thanh and Niu.

Of course, she's mainly there for the inversion joke.

[factotum]

But my point is that giving a blanket modifier like this is not realistic doesn't change even if you can show that the individual strongest man is stronger than the individual strongest woman, because the top strength category is a population, not individuals.

Didn't somebody earlier in the thread say that 1st edition had a lower Strength cap for women as opposed to men, rather than a blanket modifier? Wouldn't that be more realistic *and* fulfil your requirements as well? (Having said that, I never quite understood why the original AD&D allowed Fighters--and *only* Fighters--to have higher strength scores than any other class, with the whole 18/00 modifier thing; so a thief or a mage aren't allowed to work out?).

[Hajutze]

Or female hob's in OOTSverse are the same as the dwarves in the disk-world-verse - females and males are pretty much indistinguishable in appearance.

[Keltest]

Or female hob's in OOTSverse are the same as the dwarves in the disk-world-verse - females and males are pretty much indistinguishable in appearance.

Weve seen at least 1 female hob whom you would immediately be able to tell apart even without the little mini-hobs she was taking care of.

[halfeye]

The Olympics has quite a narrow rulesfor what constitutes a woman and there are people who are not allowed to compete because their blood tests contradict their physical appearance. Since they identify as women, looks female to an observer and in all other parts of life would be treated as women it's hardly fair to rule out these exceptions when talking about exceptional people is it?
There is one test of femaleness that works for me, having babies. I don't see anyone who (in the right age range) couldn't have had babies as female. This may change with medical advances, but it's where we are now, and it seems unlikely that OotS is more advanced in that respect, though who knows what magic is limited to?

[kailkay]

I would have been as happy with the in-universe explanation that at no point in the strips do we actually see 30,000 hobgoblins, that there may, in fact, be a whole crapton of female hobgoblins off panel filling other military roles that are not frontline shock troops, and that a military society like the hobgoblins probably requires all soldiers to shave their heads to defeat a grapply advantage for their foes, or for unit cohesion or whatever (whether or not it is an actual mechanical reason or not). It's entirely possible that among that sea of bald-headed hobbos, there are some belonging to either gender (or a potential third hobbo-specific gender, who knows, it's a fantasy setting!)

The explanation that 'they're all at home with the kids' wasn't so bad, I suppose. Reflective of oppression, which, considering the hobgoblins are carting human slaves around the city, is pretty much par for the course. We must never forget, the hobgoblins, despite just wanting a 'place to thrive', are being led by a pretty wretched couple of dudes, and likely have generations upon generations of brutality and rule-by-strength ingrained into them.

[oppyu]

There is one test of femaleness that works for me, having babies. I don't see anyone who (in the right age range) couldn't have had babies as female. This may change with medical advances, but it's where we are now, and it seems unlikely that OotS is more advanced in that respect, though who knows what magic is limited to?
*cough* seahorses *cough* :smallbiggrin:

[DaggerPen]

There is one test of femaleness that works for me, having babies. I don't see anyone who (in the right age range) couldn't have had babies as female. This may change with medical advances, but it's where we are now, and it seems unlikely that OotS is more advanced in that respect, though who knows what magic is limited to?

I have a friend with ovarian cysts who is likely sterile due to her endometriosis. She's in her mid-20s.

[Kish]

Never mind seahorses, the idea that being born infertile, or by any means becoming infertile before puberty, means someone cannot be female is plenty appalling even if it's restricted to humans.

[halfeye]

*cough* seahorses *cough* :smallbiggrin:
:smallbiggrin:

You get funny genetics going on with tilapia and I think with Sticklebacks too, but that's not mammals.

[Amphiox]

Didn't somebody earlier in the thread say that 1st edition had a lower Strength cap for women as opposed to men, rather than a blanket modifier? Wouldn't that be more realistic *and* fulfil your requirements as well? (Having said that, I never quite understood why the original AD&D allowed Fighters--and *only* Fighters--to have higher strength scores than any other class, with the whole 18/00 modifier thing; so a thief or a mage aren't allowed to work out?).

No, it wouldn't be more realistic, because having such a cap essentially means you're saying that within those game mechanics, there is a maximum possible strength that the human(oid) species can achieve, and that it is impossible for females to achieve it.

Which isn't the real-life situation. There is no known reason why a woman couldn't achieve the maximum strength that a human is capable of, whatever that is, only that it is quite a bit more likely for a man to approach that strength than a woman. But a small number or exceptional women achieving it is well within the realm of possible.

If you really wanted to be realistic, the only way I can see to go about it is to bias the dice you use to roll your characters originally. The "female" dice would be weighted so that the highest numbers come up a little less frequently than the "male" dice.

BUT, that doesn't address the issue that the sexual dimorphism in strength applies in real life mostly to *mammals*, and that even on earth there are plenty of species where there isn't any such dimorphism, or where the dimorphism is reversed (reptiles, for example, typically have females being the stronger sex on average - Tarquin's biggest and strongest dinosaurs should tend to be female, if they're based on real-life dinosaurs, and birds often have no noticeable sexual dimorphism at all)

And in a fictional world where you can have lizardfolk, and birdmen, and dragonkin, and all sorts hybrids....

[nogall]

It warms my heart that someone is finally beginning to understand how my creative process works.


DaggerPen, I would so sig that! :smallcool:

[halfeye]

Never mind seahorses, the idea that being born infertile, or by any means becoming infertile before puberty, means someone cannot be female is plenty appalling even if it's restricted to humans.
They would be neuter/"it" in my nomenclature, and still people, with rights, just not fully female (and clearly not male, Or in the case of infertile male originated people, clearly not female).

If (big bang forfend) we fall from civilisation, the only people able to give birth will be females. It is a big, BIG deal, the biggest deal there can be for the human species.

We need to get off this trapped rock, but that's obviously off topic.The survival of the species is also off topic, but it's more important.

[Cizak]

There is one test of femaleness that works for me, having babies. I don't see anyone who (in the right age range) couldn't have had babies as female.

That's quite a horrible thing to say. :smallconfused: You do know women can become infertile at any age because of numerous reasons, right?

EDIT: Ninja'd.

They would be neuter/"it" in my nomenclature, and still people, with rights, just not fully female (and clearly not male, Or in the case of infertile male originated people, clearly not female).

If (big bang forfend) we fall from civilisation, the only people able to give birth will be females. It is a big, BIG deal, the biggest deal there can be for the human species.

We need to get off this trapped rock, but that's obviously off topic.The survival of the species is also off topic, but it's more important.

Did I say "quite" horrible? Scratch that. Just plain horrible.

[halfeye]

That's a horrible thing to say. :smallconfused: You do know women can become infertile at any age because of numerous reasons, right?
If they could have had babies before, they are females, in my account. Which I don't claim is general.

OTOH, if they became neuter before puberty, I don't see why the female status is such a bonus that they must have whether they can fulfil the conditions for it or not. That sounds homophobic to me.

[DaggerPen]

BUT, that doesn't address the issue that the sexual dimorphism in strength applies in real life mostly to *mammals*, and that even on earth there are plenty of species where there isn't any such dimorphism, or where the dimorphism is reversed (reptiles, for example, typically have females being the stronger sex on average - Tarquin's biggest and strongest dinosaurs should tend to be female, if they're based on real-life dinosaurs, and birds often have no noticeable sexual dimorphism at all)

Not even all mammals - look at hyenas. And lionesses do the hunting, of course.


DaggerPen, I would so sig that! :smallcool:

I'm quite tempted!


OTOH, if they became neuter before puberty, I don't see why the female status is such a bonus that they must have whether they can fulfil the conditions for it or not. That sounds homophobic to me.

Speaking as a queer cis woman with a reasonable education in transgender related topics - what?

[Jay R]

Didn't somebody earlier in the thread say that 1st edition had a lower Strength cap for women as opposed to men, rather than a blanket modifier? Wouldn't that be more realistic *and* fulfil your requirements as well?

When those rules first appeared in The Dragon in the 1970s, they were hotly debated. Nobody liked them, but every player had a different own proposed solution.


(Having said that, I never quite understood why the original AD&D allowed Fighters--and *only* Fighters--to have higher strength scores than any other class, with the whole 18/00 modifier thing; so a thief or a mage aren't allowed to work out?).

For the same reason that only thieves hide in shadows - it was considered a class skill. Yes, thieves and mages can work out, but after they all work out together, the thief goes off and practices sneaking and lockpicking, the wizard returns to his books for spell research, and the fighter goes out and practices fighting.

It made sense to all us math & science geeks (the only players at my school in 1975). I worked out twice a week in the gymnastics room, but was never as strong as any of the football players.

[Mauve Shirt]

LOL today I learned that it's OK to call a female "it" if she can't have babies. :smallyuk:

[Kish]

OTOH, if they became neuter before puberty, I don't see why the female status is such a bonus that they must have whether they can fulfil the conditions for it or not. That sounds homophobic to me.
Why on earth do you imagine you have the right to define what the "conditions" are for being female, and declare that anyone--excuse me, any female--who isn't fertile is "neuter"?

[Loreweaver15]

Speaking as a queer cis woman with a reasonable education in transgender related topics - what?

Hell, speaking as a cis male with a reasonable education in transgender-related topics--what?

[Morph Bark]

LOL today I learned that it's OK to call a female "it" if she can't have babies. :smallyuk:

"if gui loose balz he stil gyu?"

[oppyu]

They would be neuter/"it" in my nomenclature, and still people, with rights, just not fully female (and clearly not male, Or in the case of infertile male originated people, clearly not female).

If (big bang forfend) we fall from civilisation, the only people able to give birth will be females. It is a big, BIG deal, the biggest deal there can be for the human species.

We need to get off this trapped rock, but that's obviously off topic.The survival of the species is also off topic, but it's more important.
Woah, I thought you were kidding. Or at least hadn't fully thought through your gender definitions. That is a ... problematic interpretation of gender.

[Vanitas]

"if gui loose balz he stil gyu?"

*slow clap*

[halfeye]

Not even all mammals - look at hyenas. And lionesses do the hunting, of course.

Lionesses do the hunting because lions are built do the bullying.



If they could have had babies before, they are females, in my account. Which I don't claim is general.

OTOH, if they became neuter before puberty, I don't see why the female status is such a bonus that they must have whether they can fulfil the conditions for it or not. That sounds homophobic to me.

Speaking as a queer cis woman with a reasonable education in transgender related topics - what?

Speaking with no education on transgender topics whatever, but a moderately strong grounding in biology, what is the problem with being an "it"? I don't have kids, and am not now likely to do so, so I'm an "it". I don't think parenthood should be a big deal. Survival of the species is a big, BIG deal, and parenthood is a 1/(7 billion)th part of that (so, worthwhile, but not in any particular case critical though the sum is utterly important), at this point in time.

[Miriel]

They would be neuter/"it" in my nomenclature, and still people, with rights, just not fully female (and clearly not male, Or in the case of infertile male originated people, clearly not female).

OTOH, if they became neuter before puberty, I don't see why the female status is such a bonus that they must have whether they can fulfil the conditions for it or not. That sounds homophobic to me.
I don't know about homophobia (which I don't see in what was said). However what you say, however, is deeply offensive for 1) intersex people 2) infertile women 3) transgender women 4) trans* people generally. None of these are "it". An "it" is my chair and my table lamp and my television.

Just, you know... Don't. Gender is complex. Sex is complex. Your very simple model doesn't work.
EDIT:

Speaking with no education on transgender topics whatever, but a moderately strong grounding in biology, what is the problem with being an "it"? I don't have kids, and am not now likely to do so, so I'm an "it".
Well, enjoy your life as a table lamp. As a person who fits one of the 4 categories of offended people, I just use "she".

Please, educate yourself on transgender topics. Or just on gender topics. I don't know any society that has used your gender criteria. In any case, fertility is known only past puberty, after the most critical part of gendered socialization, so... yeah.

[B. Dandelion]

I haven't had kids, I have no reason to believe I'm not capable of doing so. I'd be tremendously insulted if you designated me an "it". Maybe that means something different to you in your hypothetical society, but it already has a pre-defined meaning in our own, as a stigma that is used here and now to denigrate and hurt people.

[Cizak]

OTOH, if they became neuter before puberty, I don't see why the female status is such a bonus that they must have whether they can fulfil the conditions for it or not.

...what?


That sounds homophobic to me.

...what??

[Loreweaver15]

Speaking with no education on transgender topics whatever, but a moderately strong grounding in biology, what is the problem with being an "it"? I don't have kids, and am not now likely to do so, so I'm an "it". I don't think parenthood should be a big deal. Survival of the species is a big, BIG deal, and parenthood is a 1/(7 billion)th part of that (so, worthwhile, but not in any particular case critical though the sum is utterly important), at this point in time.

Because when you get to talking about people most people find being referred to as an "it" rude, insulting, and demeaning, unless they specifically ask for it. That it's technically illogical doesn't take into account the emotional state of the people to whom you're actually referring.

Also, the "it" logic is superficially understandable; what we're bewildered by is how any of that amounts to homophobia, as that's an apparent non-sequitur.

[halfeye]

I don't know about homophobia (which I don't see in what was said). However what you say, however, is deeply offensive for 1) intersex people 2) infertile women 3) transgender women 4) trans* people generally. None of these are "it". An "it" is my chair and my table lamp and my television.
Well, we need a neuter gender that impiles personhood without implying potential parenthood. Also, some gay people have children.


Just, you know... Don't. Gender is complex. Sex is complex. Your very simple model doesn't work.
If we ever get stuck in caveman mode again (post apocalypse, of whatever sort), it is the ONLY thing that will work.

I really hope we won't need to rely on it, but I'd really like us to be prepared for the possibility that it might someday (thousands of years from now?) come down to that.


EDIT:

Well, enjoy your life as a table lamp. As a person who fits one of the 4 categories of offended people, I just use "she".

Please, educate yourself on transgender topics. Or just on gender topics. I don't know any society that has used your gender criteria. In any case, fertility is known only past puberty, after the most critical part of gendered socialization, so... yeah.
I am who I am, which is possibly bizzare. We are all who we are, whoever that may be. I don't tend to be good at following other people's rules that I don't understand. If rules don't make sense to me I tend to think about things, I suggest that's generally a good idea.

[Loreweaver15]

Well, we need a neuter gender that impiles personhood without implying potential parenthood. Also, some gay people have children.

...Why?

If you think people are hung up on their gendered pronouns because they're concerned about whether they can have kids or not, you are quite far off the mark. That's not what they're for.

[halfeye]

...Why?
Why do some gay people have children? I have no idea.

[Miriel]

Well, we need a neuter gender that impiles personhood without implying potential parenthood. Also, some gay people have children.
Well, we do have a variety of genderqueer people and the like who will possibly use singular "they" or new pronouns likes "ze". No one uses "it".

And none of these people use fertility as a criterion. A female assigned at birth genderqueer person might very well have babies, yet use "they". Or even a trans man ("he"), with pregnancy and all, before hysterectomy. Yeah.


If we ever get stuck in caveman mode again (post apocalypse, of whatever sort), it is the ONLY thing that will work.

I really hope we won't need to rely on it, but I'd really like us to be prepared for the possibility that it might someday (thousands of years from now?) come down to that.
I don't understand why cavemen come back in this thread. I already said they are a bit of a myth, because they didn't live in caves. Cave are really an unpleasant place to live in.

We don't know much on supposed "cavemen" (I guess you mean the people who lived in Europe in the Paleolithic?), because the archeological record is really scarce. However, modern or recent tribal societies can also have complex gendered dynamics where fertility plays no role. Google "third gender" and "bi-spirited", for example.

EDIT:

I am who I am, which is possibly bizzare. We are all who we are, whoever that may be. I don't tend to be good at following other people's rules that I don't understand. If rules don't make sense to me I tend to think about things, I suggest that's generally a good idea.
If you like being called "it", I mean, fair enough. Your choice. But be aware that you can be confused with my table lamp in conversation. And DO NOT force your unusual pronoun choice on others (all of which will be deeply offended).

[oppyu]

Why do some gay people have children? I have no idea.
... wow. Not touching that with a ten-foot pole. So, back to the roles that gender plays in goblin/hobgoblin societies in OOTS?

[B. Dandelion]

I wonder if hobgoblin society is more sexist or patriarchal than Redcloak is accustomed to. That'd be an interesting angle. Does he try to stamp that out? Leave it alone because it's their totally valid alternate culture?

[DaggerPen]

Well, we do have a variety of genderqueer people and the like who will possibly use singular "they" or new pronouns likes "ze". No one uses "it".

And none of these people use fertility as a criterion. A female assigned at birth genderqueer person might very well have babies, yet use "they". Or even a trans man ("he"), with pregnancy and all, before hysterectomy. Yeah.


I don't understand why cavemen come back in this thread. I already said they are a bit of a myth, because they didn't live in caves. Cave are really an unpleasant place to live in.

We don't know much on supposed "cavemen" (I guess you mean the people who lived in Europe in the Paleolithic?), because the archeological record is really scarce. However, modern or recent tribal societies can also have complex gendered dynamics where fertility plays no role. Google "third gender" and "bi-spirited", for example.

EDIT:

If you like being called "it", I mean, fair enough. Your choice. But be aware that you can be confused with my table lamp in conversation. And DO NOT force your unusual pronoun choice on others (all of which will be deeply offended).

For the record, I have been thoroughly enjoying your posts on this thread, and I'd really love to hear more about the history of gender roles amongst various cultures. Though perhaps on a thread that's a bit less... fraught.

[Vaynor]

The Red Towel: This thread has gotten thoroughly off topic and entirely too antagonistic. Please limit your discussion to goblin and hobgoblin society.

[Morty]

I wonder if hobgoblin society is more sexist or patriarchal than Redcloak is accustomed to. That'd be an interesting angle. Does he try to stamp that out? Leave it alone because it's their totally valid alternate culture?

Redcloak was exasperated with Xykon and Right-Eye's casual sexism in Start of Darkness (I figure it's a mild enough spoiler), but it might be the kind of thing he'd leave until after the Plan succeeds.

[CaDzilla]

I wonder if hobgoblin society is more sexist or patriarchal than Redcloak is accustomed to. That'd be an interesting angle. Does he try to stamp that out? Leave it alone because it's their totally valid alternate culture?

It's probably very easy for Redcloak to tell the hobgoblins to cool it with their sexism since most hobgoblins would gladly die for his convenience.

[Zmeoaice]

Simple explanation; Hobgoblins generally don't have that much sexual dimorphism. Half the hobgoblins you saw in the battle of Azure City were in fact female. The female hobgoblim with hair was an outlier in terms of appearance.

[Vinyadan]

Simple explanation; Hobgoblins generally don't have that much sexual dimorphism. Half the hobgoblins you saw in the battle of Azure City were in fact female. The female hobgoblim with hair was an outlier in terms of appearance.

The problem is her body shape, which is typically stick-feminine. Unless they develop sexual dimorfism later, or under determinate conditions.

[Amphiox]

The female hobgoblin we saw was a spellcaster. It could be that hobgoblin culture has fairly rigid gender-roles, such that females are precluded from military combat classes, but are allowed in spellcaster classes.

There's also the possibility that that particular female spellcaster was unusual. She seemed to be in some position of authority/prestige, and even in the most patriarchical of human traditional societies, the occasional woman has entered combat/marched with the army/even lead parts of the army, particularly if she is attached to a male relative who was in a position of power/prestige within the military hierarchy.

So, for example, the female hobgoblin spellcaster we saw might have been the wife/daughter/sister/etc of some bigwig hobgoblin general, who, for his own personal reasons, is ok with her serving in the army, and used his clout to make it so, despite the culture's general conventions.

[Keltest]

The female hobgoblin we saw was a spellcaster. It could be that hobgoblin culture has fairly rigid gender-roles, such that females are precluded from military combat classes, but are allowed in spellcaster classes.

There's also the possibility that that particular female spellcaster was unusual. She seemed to be in some position of authority/prestige, and even in the most patriarchical of human traditional societies, the occasional woman has entered combat/marched with the army/even lead parts of the army, particularly if she is attached to a male relative who was in a position of power/prestige within the military hierarchy.

So, for example, the female hobgoblin spellcaster we saw might have been the wife/daughter/sister/etc of some bigwig hobgoblin general, who, for his own personal reasons, is ok with her serving in the army, and used his clout to make it so, despite the culture's general conventions.

Are you talking about one in the crayon army or "mother of hobgoblin cleric #2"?

[King of Nowhere]

after all it's been said and done, I think we can agree that on hobbos only men are soldiers in the army - for greater strenght, for cultural reasons, for women are needed as baby making machines, wathever - but women can be spellcasters and as such be auxiliary troops, although there aren't that many.


It warms my heart that someone is finally beginning to understand how my creative process works.



We figured that out, but we wouldn't be fans if we weren't still trying to find some plausible in-world justificattion for it.


Also, on a slight tangent about the pronoun thing (i hope it's a tangent enough to not be against the rules, and anyway it's just a small trivia that shouldn't possibly offend anyone), in italian the neutral form has falllen off use, so we nly have male and female form. inanimated obects are either male or female. for example the lamp you have on the table is female, while the big lamp you have in your living room is male, and for the table itself we have two words, one male (tavolo) and one female (tavola), and we use preferrably the female form for the one we eat on and the male form for other tables. It's a pretty complicated system, and i have no idea how the "gender" of various objects got determined. But no one confuses people with lamps anyway.

[CaDzilla]

Are you talking about one in the crayon army or "mother of hobgoblin cleric #2"?

She's talking about this cleric here. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0779.html) Though the hobgoblin is a cleric, she could have been appointed by Redcloak. Out of universe, she's female to be called a bitch.

EDIT:Also, that was a bugbear in the army

[Kish]

She could be a blackguard.

[CaDzilla]

She could be a blackguard.

She had a dweomer out when using it. Also, blackguards are still divine warriors.

[CaDzilla]

Prediction: Bugbears are matriarchal. Being based on bears and bugs the bugbears should have likewise gender roles devoted to that. The mother either raises the children alone and keeps them close to her like a bear, or just has a lot of babies and leaves them to fend for themselves. Or maybe they're eusocial, like naked mole rats.

[DaggerPen]

It's probably very easy for Redcloak to tell the hobgoblins to cool it with their sexism since most hobgoblins would gladly die for his convenience.

Without getting into examples from actual history that would probably go awry, I donno if he really could. As Supreme Leader, he's operating well within existing hobgoblin culture - strongest guy kills the supreme leader and leads the warriors into glorious battle. A structual overhaul like that is a lot tougher, and would likely lead to a lot of "What? How is that sexist? It's just a bit of stress relief!" protests from baffled troops who insist that it's fine to harass the female soldiers or something. They wouldn't go against the Supreme Leader, but they'd likely follow the letter of the law much better than the spirit of it, and a massive overhaul to troop demographics would take a lot of time and personal handling by Redcloak that I doubt he's willing to devote at this juncture.

[MagicalMeat]

I'm not too sure about that DaggerPen. It's pretty clear that Redcloak is an unorthodox leader. He actually didn't defeat the leader, he just scared the leader into submission. I forget who, but someone in comic mentioned that Hobgoblins don't usually run to their deaths the way they did in the early Battle of Azure City. I'm pretty sure that the Hobgobins just respect/are terrified of the High Priest of the Dark One, Redcloak, enough to follow his crazy orders.

[oppyu]

There's a difference between 'follow your commander's orders in battles' and 'overcome what could be centuries of entrenched and institutionalised prejudice just because I said so'. If Redcloak set up gender quotas and affirmative action promotions then they would follow to the letter of the law, but they wouldn't magically cease gender discrimination. That's why fictional corporations need things like quotas and affirmative action in the first place; because just saying 'hey dudes, stop being prejudiced' simply isn't enough.

[Steven]

We've already had the answer from Rich as to why they all look male but here is my crack at make it all make sense:

Hobgoblin females don't have secondary sexual characteristics. Their breasts develop only when needed to feed their children. The hobgoblin army also has strict rules around appearance and has fantastic parental leave allowing it's members, both male and female, to take up to 18 months off at a time to raise their kids.

Thus, many of the bald hobgoblins in the army are female, they simply don't conform to our casual visual cues and thus we're assuming they're male.

The spell caster is just back to active duty after taking care of her kids and so hasn't reverted to being flat chested and spell casters are allowed to have long hair as they're not part of the army proper. Works for the mother as well.
</speculation>

edit: I should have said "don't have the same secondary sexual characteristics as humans"

[Vinyadan]

In my head, the female divine caster is now the daughter of the bearded hobgoblin general.

Or, even cooler, the sister of the hobgoblin who died to save Redcloak's life.

[Draconi Redfir]

i'm just going to say one little thing and go.


a lot of times, the whole "men only in X position women only in Y etc etc etc"


most of the time it's not because of some secret underground misogynistic agenda held together by the patriarchy leaders to keep the fairer sex in line and themselves in power.

most of the time... it's just like that because that's the way things are and that's how they've been for however many thousands of years. people just don't get all uppity about it because it's never been a problem before.

[ti'esar]

There's a difference between 'follow your commander's orders in battles' and 'overcome what could be centuries of entrenched and institutionalised prejudice just because I said so'. If Redcloak set up gender quotas and affirmative action promotions then they would follow to the letter of the law, but they wouldn't magically cease gender discrimination. That's why fictional corporations need things like quotas and affirmative action in the first place; because just saying 'hey dudes, stop being prejudiced' simply isn't enough.

In support of this, we know directly from the comic that Redcloak has not totally succeeded in eradicating anti-goblin prejudice among the hobgoblins.

[multilis]

...That's why fictional corporations need things like quotas and affirmative action in the first place; because just saying 'hey dudes, stop being prejudiced' simply isn't enough.

In support of this, we know directly from the comic that Redcloak has not totally succeeded in eradicating anti-goblin prejudice among the hobgoblins.
So if there are more males behind bars in jail in fictional prisons, then affirmative action is needed to get more females in jail, it is all result of prejudice?

There may be gender differences... goblins comics for example has females stay out of most fighting to make babies instead. Possible that average male has better stats for fighting with weapons, enduring long marches, etc. Possible that some female spellcasters make babies and time raising the young reduces time available to learn new spells. (So male clerics given a little more average time to devote to learning end up being on average higher level)

Also possible that males have much higher "standard deviation" despite same "average" in mental ability tests, which means more end up on both top and bottom even without prejudice. So socially that may mean more end up in jail and more end up in leadership roles.

[DaggerPen]

So if there are more males behind bars in jail in fictional prisons, then affirmative action is needed to get more females in jail, it is all result of prejudice?

There may be gender differences... goblins comics for example has females stay out of most fighting to make babies instead. Possible that average male has better stats for fighting with weapons, enduring long marches, etc. Possible that some female spellcasters make babies and time raising the young reduces time available to learn new spells. (So male clerics given a little more average time to devote to learning end up being on average higher level)

Also possible that males have much higher "standard deviation" despite same "average" in mental ability tests, which means more end up on both top and bottom even without prejudice. So socially that may mean more end up in jail and more end up in leadership roles.

Are we still talking about hobgoblin society here?

[oppyu]

So if there are more males behind bars in jail in fictional prisons, then affirmative action is needed to get more females in jail, it is all result of prejudice?

There may be gender differences... goblins comics for example has females stay out of most fighting to make babies instead. Possible that average male has better stats for fighting with weapons, enduring long marches, etc. Possible that some female spellcasters make babies and time raising the young reduces time available to learn new spells. (So male clerics given a little more average time to devote to learning end up being on average higher level)

Also possible that males have much higher "standard deviation" despite same "average" in mental ability tests, which means more end up on both top and bottom even without prejudice. So socially that may mean more end up in jail and more end up in leadership roles.


But also, I wanted to make sure the audience was on the Azurite's side during the battle. Giving their side gender integration was an easy shorthand way to show that they were more enlightened, socially. Further, having all the hobgoblins be identical helped de-emphasize them as individuals, which made it easier to do things like a horse ramp of dead hobgoblins. Having several different models for the Azurites (male, female, sword-and-shield, archer, halberd, etc.) made them feel more like people and less like cogs in a machine. I didn't really want the audience to weep for the hobgoblin dead, though, so I made them all interchangeable.
As bolded, the gender diversity of the Azure City army was meant to show that the human forces were more socially enlightened than the hobgoblins. So the ship has pretty much sailed on 'gee, maybe there's a perfectly good reason the hobgoblin army was a total sausage-fest. Why is everything about sexism with you people? Maybe the men are just inherently better than women at soldiering and clericing...'

[ReaderAt2046]

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0702.html

"Seventeen nations around the world have recognized our borders, stretching from here - in Gobbotopia City - through the fertile Blueriver Valley and back to the mountain forts where so many of your women and children still live." (emphasis mine)

The hobgoblin forces are predominantly male. The women stayed back to raise the children, likely to keep the children sheltered from the same types of slaughters that the goblins often faced, a la SOD.

We do see a hobgoblin woman here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0703.html). They are sexually dimorphic and do typically have hair.

We do see some goblin females scattered throughout the Dark One's army in the crayon shot of the goblinoid afterlife (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0704.html). All of the hobgoblins seem to be male, but we don't get detailed shots of too many of them. The implication is that all worshippers of the Dark One serve in this capacity, so I find it likely that they are still around in there somewhere.

I skimmed through the Azure City occupation scenes and could not find any female hobgoblins serving in any capacity.

We do not know exactly why the hobgoblin women are not typically found in hobbo warcamps. It can NOT be a difference in physical ability; in the first place, such differences are not in the 3.5 ruleset, but in the second place, there are a variety of classes, such as spellcasting, for which such physical differences would be irrelevant.

In-universe, my bet is that the hobgoblins have a heavy militaristic focus for the purposes of glory-seeking and warfare, for similar reasons to those listed above, that do not offer much social prestige to female warriors, and so women will typically stay at home to raise children and take care of agriculture. Out-of-universe, my bet is that Rich copied and pasted a hobgoblin figure a zillion times, realized after the fact that he'd wound up with an entirely male hobgoblin force, slapped in a note about how the hobgoblin women stayed back at home to take care of the kids, and didn't really think about it again.

It's also possible that hobgoblins have a gender system similar to Brandon Sanderson's Vorinism, where each gender is barred from certain professions. In Vorinism, for example, only men can be soldiers, but only women can be authors or clerks. Indeed, Vorin men can't read or write, save for the ideogrammatic glyphs, which are more like picture-writing.

[CaDzilla]

Without getting into examples from actual history that would probably go awry, I donno if he really could. As Supreme Leader, he's operating well within existing hobgoblin culture - strongest guy kills the supreme leader and leads the warriors into glorious battle. A structual overhaul like that is a lot tougher, and would likely lead to a lot of "What? How is that sexist? It's just a bit of stress relief!" protests from baffled troops who insist that it's fine to harass the female soldiers or something. They wouldn't go against the Supreme Leader, but they'd likely follow the letter of the law much better than the spirit of it, and a massive overhaul to troop demographics would take a lot of time and personal handling by Redcloak that I doubt he's willing to devote at this juncture.
He could just how them this
PSA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SScWv0b1wVg)

[Malimar]

Prediction: Bugbears are matriarchal. Being based on bears and bugs the bugbears should have likewise gender roles devoted to that. The mother either raises the children alone and keeps them close to her like a bear, or just has a lot of babies and leaves them to fend for themselves. Or maybe they're eusocial, like naked mole rats.

I can see where you got the idea that bugbears are based on bears and bugs, but it isn't so. The name is related to "bogeyman" and "bugaboo", and is basically just an old synonym for "goblin". Doesn't actually have much to do with bugs or bears (though I can't speak to the inspirations of whatever D&D designer first made the leap from "bugbears are a kind of goblin" to "bugbears are bigger, hairier goblins").

That said, the reasoning mentioned upthread, that "usually lawful evil" hobgoblins are patriarchal and "usually neutral evil" goblins are gender-equal means "usually chaotic evil" bugbears are matriarchal, doesn't entirely lack merit.

[Steven]

Except there is no link between chaos and matriarchies as far as I'm aware....

The reason the usually lawful evil works is because it's mentioned that discrimination is associated with lawful evil. At least that's what the poster up thread said.

[Keltest]

Except there is no link between chaos and matriarchies as far as I'm aware....

The reason the usually lawful evil works is because it's mentioned that discrimination is associated with lawful evil. At least that's what the poster up thread said.

Theres a lot of snark bait here. I must... be... strong...!

[DaggerPen]

He could just how them this
PSA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SScWv0b1wVg)

What IS this show?

[R-Group]

What IS this show?

A hilarious satire with good music (if Death Metal is your thing), and a hyperbole.

[DaggerPen]

A hilarious satire with good music (if Death Metal is your thing), and a hyperbole.

I am in general all in favor of satires with supervillain organizations behaving like regular offices. I may have to check it out.

[R-Group]

It's pretty damn funny, if you can handle some gore and aren't too sensitive to the main characters throwing vulgarities around. So be warned...but I would definitely suggest it, and not just for the humor. Their music is superb, if that's your thing.

On topic, if I were to justify the all-male Hobgoblin army beyond Mr. Burlew's own description, I would imagine pragmatism would be a critical factor in the decision. We know from Redcloak that the Hobgoblins are highly militaristic, and likely eager for warfare. The fact that they had eighty-some Legions of infantry ready and willing to march so soon after the Team Evil takeover is indicative of this alone.

After that massive army, ninety percent of the Hobgoblin population, engages with an equal force (such as Azure City), it will result in a massive blow to their general population. I don't think it is too far-fetched to imagine that females might be required, perhaps even by law as well as social custom, to remain in a place of safety during warfare rather than the front lines. This way, after so many Hobgoblin men have marched off and do not return, they might recoup their losses with a new generation provided by the women, healthy and safe from harm.

On the prospect of female soldiers, I've never been exactly sure what to think. Certainly, there is nothing preventing a woman from being just as effective a soldier as a man, if not even more so. However, the biggest problem I see is pregnancy - especially for the Hobgoblins. As unlikely as it is, I could see women and female Hobgoblins becoming pregnant while on campaign, and subsequently becoming a deadweight. A soldier who can't fight and needs to feed effectively two mouths isn't a very good soldier after all. Now, it would be poor of me to actually believe that any significant portion of female soldiers would become impregnated on campaign. And trust me, anyone who has the determination to become a soldier most definitely has the good sense and (since no better word comes to mind) integrity to prevent that from ever occurring.

On the other hand, however, as a usually Lawful Evil society and people, it might just be more reasonable for the Hobgoblins to prevent that situation from the get-go, by dividing their people between two roles. Those who further the population will remain behind to safely do so, while those who do not shall freely die at war.

[crayzz]

So if there are more males behind bars in jail in fictional prisons, then affirmative action is needed to get more females in jail, it is all result of prejudice?

To my knowledge, men do actually get unfair levels of scrutiny and harsher sentences than women do. Better scrutiny upon the justice system with regards to gender bias would be beneficial.

(Though really, it's a silly analogy)

[Vaynor]

The Red Towel: Apparently this topic can't be discussed without resorting to discussing real world politics or insulting each other. Thread closed.