Are there any male-only classes/prestige classes?

[Lodraygazagtar]

I ask this question because, as I was looking through the Book of Exalted Deeds, there numerous female-only classes. I would expect different from a book devoted to the good alignments.
Google did not help me.

[AMFV]

I ask this question because, as I was looking through the Book of Exalted Deeds, there numerous female-only classes. I would expect different from a book devoted to the good alignments.
Google did not help me.

Eunuch Warlock from OA

[Lodraygazagtar]

Eunuch Warlock from OA

...what's OA?

[Karnith]

...what's OA?
Oriental Adventures, a 3.0 (and AD&D, come to think of it) supplement about adventuring in Asian-themed campaign settings.

[...]

I ask this question because, as I was looking through the Book of Exalted Deeds, there numerous female-only classes. I would expect different from a book devoted to the good alignments.
Google did not help me.

And by numerous, you mean two. I'm not even joking. There are two female-only prestige classes, and one of them is just a rehash of a 2AD&D monster. Also, in BoVD, there is at least one arguable male-only feat, but I can't go on about it, because, well, BoVD.

[Lodraygazagtar]

And by numerous, you mean two. I'm not even joking. There are two female-only prestige classes, and one of them is just a rehash of a 2AD&D monster. Also, in BoVD, there is at least one arguable male-only feat, but I can't go on about it, because, well, BoVD.

Well... two is numerous, right?

[Zrak]

Two is a number.

[Zombulian]

I would expect different from a book devoted to the good alignments.

Wat.

But yeah I can't think of any besides the Eunuch Warlock, which is indeed a really nice PrC, if not the most powerful.

[StreamOfTheSky]

And by numerous, you mean two. I'm not even joking. There are two female-only prestige classes, and one of them is just a rehash of a 2AD&D monster.

Two is still twice as many as one. And neither of the female ones require genital mutilation. So yeah....

[Shining Wrath]

Arachne, from Faiths & Pantheons, is female only for Drow priestesses of Lolth.
Drow Paragon levels progress in cleric for female drow, wizard for male.
The Hathran of Faerun must be female.


So that's more for the women.

[Zombulian]

Well I know there are at least a few more female only PrC's/Substitution levels. Hathran is one right?

edit: swordsaged but the point stands

[Karnith]

As far as the female-only PrCs go, there's also Battle Maiden (Oriental Adventures), Durthan (Unapproachable East), Maiden of Pain (PGtF) Scourge Maiden (Shining South), Sword Dancer (Faiths and Pantheons), Thrall of Malcanthet (Dragon 353), and Yathrinshee (PGtF).

[AMFV]

Also Thrall of Kostiche from Dragon Magazine. But that's kind of deliberately sexist, given his whole woman murdering bit.

[Hand_of_Vecna]

Also on top of requiring one to become a Eunuch, it's a god awful class. It gives up caster levels for bonus spells.

Meanwhile the same book has Battle Maiden a female only full BAB PrC. It's pretty meh, but it does grant Special Mount at first level which makes it potentially useful in builds.

[super dark33]

Also on top of requiring one to become a Eunuch, it's a god awful class. It gives up caster levels for bonus spells.

Maybe its an early form of advancing caster level?

[Thrice Dead Cat]

Also on top of requiring one to become a Eunuch, it's a god awful class. It gives up caster levels for bonus spells.

To be fair, the Dragon magazine update to 3.5 gave it 9/10 real caster progression rather than the shoddy bonus spells, so there's that.

[otakumick]

Delving into 3rd party, the BoEF has the Harem Protector which like the OA male only class is a case of eunichy eunichy snip snip.

[Zombulian]

Also on top of requiring one to become a Eunuch, it's a god awful class. It gives up caster levels for bonus spells.

Meanwhile the same book has Battle Maiden a female only full BAB PrC. It's pretty meh, but it does grant Special Mount at first level which makes it potentially useful in builds.


Maybe its an early form of advancing caster level?

Naw they just didn't understand how little use extra spells are in comparison to advancing spell levels. They actually admitted that in the Dragon Magazine rework of the class.

[Zanos]

And by numerous, you mean two. I'm not even joking. There are two female-only prestige classes, and one of them is just a rehash of a 2AD&D monster. Also, in BoVD, there is at least one arguable male-only feat, but I can't go on about it, because, well, BoVD.
What feat is that?

[Lodraygazagtar]

Two is still twice as many as one. And neither of the female ones require genital mutilation. So yeah....

Yeah. I'd rather just be a wizard than have my genitals mutilated... besides, I'm Chaotic Good.

[...]

What feat is that?

It involves undead, that's all I'm saying.

[Rubik]

Yeah. I'd rather just be a wizard than have my genitals mutilated... besides, I'm Chaotic Good.As opposed to what, Lawful Evil? Dictators aren't very useful with their tators cut off.

[Hamste]

It involves undead, that's all I'm saying.

Lichloved? That isn't really male only unless I'm missing something

[Lodraygazagtar]

Lichloved? That isn't really male only unless I'm missing something

I just looked at the feat. Huh. I never knew being a necrophile could turn you undead.

[John Longarrow]

I just looked at the feat. Huh. I never knew being a necrophile could turn you undead.

Once you go dead, Vecna will be in your bed...

[sideswipe]

well just to bump up the score for male only classes. there is a homebrew called disciple of mym c'sil which requires you to be a man. and explicitly states you lose all powers if you become a woman.

[Vhaidara]

I just looked at the feat. Huh. I never knew being a necrophile could turn you undead.
Once you go dead, Vecna will be in your bed...

Permission to extended sig this?


well just to bump up the score for male only classes. there is a homebrew called disciple of mym c'sil which requires you to be a man. and explicitly states you lose all powers if you become a woman.

Oh, if we're getting into homebrew, there's the Bro PrC which for some reason requires male, despite the fact that there can explicitly be female bros.

[John Longarrow]

By all means.
And of course for the melee'ers out there,
Once you go Knight, you know its just right!

[Lodraygazagtar]

On an unrelated note, I just Googled a word.
I thought it was the name of a Greek guy or something.
I was wrong.
Very, very, wrong.

[Rubik]

On an unrelated note, I just Googled a word.
I thought it was the name of a Greek guy or something.
I was wrong.
Very, very, wrong.I had a joke, but I'm not going to say it.

So many possibilities...

[AMFV]

Also on top of requiring one to become a Eunuch, it's a god awful class. It gives up caster levels for bonus spells.

Meanwhile the same book has Battle Maiden a female only full BAB PrC. It's pretty meh, but it does grant Special Mount at first level which makes it potentially useful in builds.

Well the Eunuch Warlock could be really good as a closer to a fixed list caster or a class that doesn't actually get higher level spells but casts off another class list. For example the Suel Arcanamach only gets casting up to a certain level, but the Eunuch Warlock should RAW be able to extend that.

Also a Hexblade into a Eunuch Warlock should notionally get their maximum spell level, although I'd have to do the math to figure out if they wind out ahead, they'd have a lower BAB in any case. And it'd be pretty amusing thematically.

[Segev]

For some reason, the concept of the "male-only" organization seems unacceptably sexist in today's modern pop culture, while the concept of a "female-only" organization is perfectly acceptable. Rokugani Battle Maidens are "cool" emblems of women empowerment that exclude men, but that's considered fine.

Not judging this, just stating it. It's currently politically correct to have groups which exclude males, but not groups which exclude females.

[Lodraygazagtar]

Well the Eunuch Warlock could be really good as a closer to a fixed list caster or a class that doesn't actually get higher level spells but casts off another class list. For example the Suel Arcanamach only gets casting up to a certain level, but the Eunuch Warlock should RAW be able to extend that.

Also a Hexblade into a Eunuch Warlock should notionally get their maximum spell level, although I'd have to do the math to figure out if they wind out ahead, they'd have a lower BAB in any case. And it'd be pretty amusing thematically.

Even if it is a good class... EUNUCH WARLOCK. Need I say more?

[Lodraygazagtar]

I had the idea for a sexist paladin class.
"Smite Masculinity/Smite Femininity."
A pretty stupid class, but it'd be entertaining to play one.

[AMFV]

Actually five levels of Eunuch Warlock would work for a Duskblade. They wouldn't lose any spell levels and they'd get two free empowered spells to use, and a bunch of snazzy bonus spells.

[Socksy]

There's a human noble clan, , or something like that, where the women are mages and the men are fighters. There's a female-only mage PrC and a male-only warrior PrC.

[Zanos]

It involves undead, that's all I'm saying.
Are you implying that it involves bones?

[Zombulian]

Actually five levels of Eunuch Warlock would work for a Duskblade. They wouldn't lose any spell levels and they'd get two free empowered spells to use, and a bunch of snazzy bonus spells.

Yeah that a good idea. Free Maximizing and Empowering on channeled attacks could be pretty great. I had the same idea of using Mystic Ranger with SotAO for this, but Duskblade probably works better.

Edit: Mystic Ranger may actually work better for this, as Eunuch Warlock requires 5th level spells and MR gets that way quicker than Duskblade.

[Red Fel]

There's a human noble clan, , or something like that, where the women are mages and the men are fighters. There's a female-only mage PrC and a male-only warrior PrC.

Ooh! I know this one!

It's from Ghostwalk. Nobles of Bazareene get it. Females get access to two feats (Sherem-Lar Sorcery and Sherezem-Lar Sorcery) and males get access to one (Kihu-Sherem Guardian). There's also a spell cast on the womb, Sherem Transformation, that enables the child to take Kihu-Sherem Guardian (if male) or Sherem-Lar Sorcery (if female).

No classes, though, I don't think.

[Hand_of_Vecna]

Well the Eunuch Warlock could be really good as a closer to a fixed list caster or a class that doesn't actually get higher level spells but casts off another class list. For example the Suel Arcanamach only gets casting up to a certain level, but the Eunuch Warlock should RAW be able to extend that.

Also a Hexblade into a Eunuch Warlock should notionally get their maximum spell level, although I'd have to do the math to figure out if they wind out ahead, they'd have a lower BAB in any case. And it'd be pretty amusing thematically.
Even if it is a good class... EUNUCH WARLOCK. Need I say more?

I've had similar thoughts it the past regarding Gestalt. Yes, it could be exploited by a limited progression class and is only made terribad by the squick factor. Non of this is a remotely fair defense though,it was clearly meant to be combined with the full caster base class in it's own book.


For some reason, the concept of the "male-only" organization seems unacceptably sexist in today's modern pop culture, while the concept of a "female-only" organization is perfectly acceptable. Rokugani Battle Maidens are "cool" emblems of women empowerment that exclude men, but that's considered fine.


That moment when you realize that female Samuri Clan heads aren't supposed to be all that weird in setting. Then Realize they don't need to have a chip on their shoulder from breaking the glass ceiling and female ronin don't need to feel like anime heroines or exhibit girl power with extra "r".

[Segev]

That moment when you realize that female Samuri Clan heads aren't supposed to be all that weird in setting. Then Realize they don't need to have a chip on their shoulder from breaking the glass ceiling and female ronin don't need to feel like anime heroines or exhibit girl power with extra "r".

Indeed. Which only makes the "girl-only" schools weirder.

[Lodraygazagtar]

Even if it is a good class... EUNUCH WARLOCK. Need I say more?
Could you use magic to uh....regenerate?

[Rubik]

Could you use magic to uh....regenerate?So the proper response when someone tells you to "grow a pair" is, "Okay!"

[AugustNights]

Interestingly enough, the eunuch warlock prestige class is incredibly difficult to enter. (Or incredibly easy from a mechanical point of view)
It requires that one's gender be both Eunuch and Male. Generally speaking, Eunuch is often recognized as an independent gender from male. Though there are people who identify as multiple-gender individuals. Curious wording, probably written out of flagrant ignorance, but interesting all the same.

[Lodraygazagtar]

So the proper response when someone tells you to "grow a pair" is, "Okay!"

And what if a Eunuch Warlock dons a Girdle of Masculinity/Femininity or a similar item?

[Lodraygazagtar]

Interestingly enough, the eunuch warlock prestige class is incredibly difficult to enter. (Or incredibly easy from a mechanical point of view)
It requires that one's gender be both Eunuch and Male. Generally speaking, Eunuch is often recognized as an independent gender from male. Though there are people who identify as multiple-gender individuals. Curious wording, probably written out of flagrant ignorance, but interesting all the same.

Well, they had to be male in order to have their Orbs of Scrying chopped off.

[Hand_of_Vecna]

I'll try to find my physical copy of the book. For some reason, I don't have a pdf, but I think there aren't rules for "fallen" Eunuch Warlocks. I'll need to see whether the Prereqs say Eunuch or "be made a Eunuch". I'll also see if Regenerate is available in setting.


And what if a Eunuch Warlock dons a Girdle of Masculinity/Femininity or a similar item?

This will definetly result in losing PrC access, just as it would for the numerous female only classes.

[ThatKreacher]

I personally dont have much of a problem with female only prestige classes. If it encourages you to play a female character, then I'm all for it. Honestly, most of the gender exclusive prestige classes lack power anyway, so it's not that much of a big deal.

[Lodraygazagtar]

Well, the problem is that The BOOK OF EXALTED DEEDS has gender specific classes.
A book devoted to the GOOD ALIGNMENT.
I thought it'd be more inclusive.

[Zombulian]

I'll try to find my physical copy of the book. For some reason, I don't have a pdf, but I think there aren't rules for "fallen" Eunuch Warlocks. I'll need to see whether the Prereqs say Eunuch or "be made a Eunuch". I'll also see if Regenerate is available in setting.



This will definetly result in losing PrC access, just as it would for the numerous female only classes.

Actually probably not. Almost the only PrC's that specifically say you lose access to them if you later lose the prereqs for them are the ones in CWar. On the other hand, Eunuch Warlocks are the servants of the Emperor because they believe a Eunuch wouldn't have the ambition to try to overthrow him. So growing your ping pongs back may not make you fall from the PrC, but if the Imperial Court hears that you got them back, you could be facing something worse than losing class abilities.

[Zanos]

I personally dont have much of a problem with female only prestige classes. If it encourages you to play a female character, then I'm all for it. Honestly, most of the gender exclusive prestige classes lack power anyway, so it's not that much of a big deal.
I really don't think that any game mechanics should push people towards one gender or another. Mechanical gender differences are, in my experience, the sign of either antiquated or poorly designed systems.

[AugustNights]

Well, they had to be male in order tko have their Orbs of Scrying chopped off.

Uhm, no they don't. Gender is unrelated to anatomy, or at the very best influenced by a number of things outside of the shape of genitals.

[Zanos]

Uhm, no they don't. Gender is unrelated to anatomy, or at the very best influenced by a number of things outside of the shape of genitals.
The book was written when there wasn't a well-defined difference between the terms gender and sex.

[Lodraygazagtar]

Uhm, no they don't. Gender is unrelated to anatomy, or at the very best influenced by a number of things outside of the shape of genitals.

Well, we are talking about 2 different things here. When I said gender I was not referring to identity.

[Hand_of_Vecna]

Uhm, no they don't. Gender is unrelated to anatomy, or at the very best influenced by a number of things outside of the shape of genitals.

This logic is easily turned back around. There is no paradox between Male and Eunuch, because one simply has to continue to self identify as "Male" while physically being a Eunuch.

[AugustNights]

The book was written when there wasn't a well-defined difference between the terms gender and sex.
I doubt that. I don't know when well-defined differences arose, but the idea has, at the very least, been a subject of critical examination within the sciences since Jung, if not (more likely) much longer. Outside of western science, the state of gender and sex has a very long history, especially in non-western cultures (Eunuch and Hijra come to mind). Reading that the book was published in 2001, I'm dead certain that there were gender-sex distinctions at the time, as that there have been such distinctions in marginally popular culture since the late 1800's, with a growing support group.
Also, was the OA really only published in 2001? What year is it, and why does that feel like forever ago?


This logic is easily turned back around. There is no paradox between Male and Eunuch, because one simply has to continue to self identify as "Male" while physically being a Eunuch.

Hmm, that seems to have validity.
For some reason now I'm imagining Orlando Bloom as a Eunuch Warlock.


Well, we are talking about 2 different things here. When I said gender I was not referring to identity.
No. I'm talking about gender. You're misconstruing gender for the popular term "sex" which is questionable in the first place, but suitable for a system that uses arbitrarily simplified physics and the like. Though, I'd agree with Zanos, there's no real place for sex/gender/identity exclusion in role-playing game mechanics, and usually hand-wave such things.

[Lodraygazagtar]

I doubt that. I don't know when well-defined differences arose, but the idea has, at the very least, been a subject of critical examination within the sciences since Jung, if not (more likely) much longer. Outside of western science, the state of gender and sex has a very long history, especially in non-western cultures (Eunuch and Hijra come to mind). Reading that the book was published in 2001, I'm dead certain that there were gender-sex distinctions at the time, as that there have been such distinctions in marginally popular culture since the late 1800's, with a growing support group.
Also, was the OA really only published in 2001? What year is it, and why does that feel like forever ago?



Hmm, that seems to have validity.
For some reason now I'm imagining Orlando Bloom as a Eunuch Warlock.


No. I'm talking about gender. You're misconstruing gender for the popular term "sex" which is questionable in the first place, but suitable for a system that uses arbitrarily simplified physics and the like. Though, I'd agree with Zanos, there's no real place for sex/gender/identity exclusion in role-playing game mechanics, and usually hand-wave such things.

Uh.... let's not turn this into an etymology debate.

[Zombulian]

Uh.... let's not turn this into an etymology debate.

Too Late! Your thread is DOOOOOOOMED

[iTreeby]

I could be mistaken but is Jordain Vizier male only?

[AugustNights]

Unless being "raised by House Jordain" is explicitly only available to males, it doesn't appear to be male-specific.

[Hand_of_Vecna]

Almost the only PrC's that specifically say you lose access to them if you later lose the prereqs for them are the ones in CWar. On the other hand, Eunuch Warlocks are the servants of the Emperor because they believe a Eunuch wouldn't have the ambition to try to overthrow him. So growing your ping pongs back may not make you fall from the PrC, but if the Imperial Court hears that you got them back, you could be facing something worse than losing class abilities.

Whether that rule applies only to CW PrC's or not is a contentious issue, I'd rather not get into as a side conversation since I'm sure we're both aware of all the pertinent arguments.

I will just leave this here so everyone can see where Eunuch is required.

Alignment: Any Evil
Feats: Spell Focus
Gender: Male.
Spells: Able to cast 5th-level arcane spells.
Special: The character must be a eunuch member in the emperor's service. While this service is often inflicted as a punishment, many volunteer for the procedure because of the power eunuchs hold in some societies.


I really don't think that any game mechanics should push people towards one gender or another. Mechanical gender differences are, in my experience, the sign of either antiquated or poorly designed systems.

As far as I can see it's a combination of factors.

1. It's an oddity with some comedic value.

2. A bit of turnabout is fair play (having lots of female exclusive things), but having the only male exclusive class be for Eunuch's? Really?

3. One can also be offended at the idea that the developers feel females need to be coddled. They can't handle there being a male exclusive class or two, while thick skinned males can handle a half dozen female exclusive PrC's.

Finally in direct contradiction to your sentiment, I don't want the kind of people that need a mechanical incentive to play the opposite gender to ever do so (unless they grow as human beings of course).

[Zanos]

Finally in direct contradiction to your sentiment, I don't want the kind of people that need a mechanical incentive to play the opposite gender to ever do so (unless they grow as human beings of course).
I don't see how that contradicts my feelings on the matter. Your own statement indicates that mechanical gender differences serve either no purpose or are actively destructive.

3. One can also be offended at the idea that the developers feel females need to be coddled. They can't handle there being a male exclusive class or two, while thick skinned males can handle a half dozen female exclusive PrC's.
While again I don't think there should be mechanical differences between genders in games, if you are offended by a greater number of options you're just seeking to be victimized.

[Hand_of_Vecna]

I don't see how that contradicts my feelings on the matter. Your own statement indicates that mechanical gender differences serve either no purpose or are actively destructive.

I aoligize sir, I meant to quote this


IIf it encourages you to play a female character, then I'm all for it. Honestly, most of the gender exclusive prestige classes lack power anyway, so it's not that much of a big deal.

I had an issue midway through posting and had to close the window and grabbed the wrong quote the second time. I stand by my opinion that anyone playing a gender for mechanical reasons is going to be hideously offensive in their portrayal of said gender.

edit further clarification: If they would never play a different gender for roleplaying reasons. Someone who plays characters of different genders sometimes that hasn't commited to a gender for a a specific character being lured by a gender exclusive PrC is ok. Though again no gender specific classes would be better.

[Lodraygazagtar]

I don't have a problem with gender-specific classes in itself, I just found it odd that The Book of Exalted Deeds wasn't more inclusive.

[StreamOfTheSky]

I don't have a problem with gender-specific classes in itself, I just found it odd that The Book of Exalted Deeds wasn't more inclusive.

Agreed. It's the main reason (sexism) that causes me to hate unicorns in general so very much.... If unicorns were evil, then fine. But they're all pure and good and noble and...sexist. :smallannoyed:

[Vhaidara]

Agreed. It's the main reason (sexism) that causes me to hate unicorns in general so very much.... If unicorns were evil, then fine. But they're all pure and good and noble and...sexist. :smallannoyed:

And racist (Elf, human, and half elf only). And prudish (maidens only).

[Zombulian]

Agreed. It's the main reason (sexism) that causes me to hate unicorns in general so very much.... If unicorns were evil, then fine. But they're all pure and good and noble and...sexist. :smallannoyed:

I'm not sure I follow.

[Vhaidara]

I'm not sure I follow.

Unicorns only accept female elves, half elves, or humans as riders. And they must be maidens.

[Vortenger]

For some reason, the concept of the "male-only" organization seems unacceptably sexist in today's modern pop culture, while the concept of a "female-only" organization is perfectly acceptable. Rokugani Battle Maidens are "cool" emblems of women empowerment that exclude men, but that's considered fine.

Not judging this, just stating it. It's currently politically correct to have groups which exclude males, but not groups which exclude females.

Quoted for truth.

[StreamOfTheSky]

Unicorns only accept female elves, half elves, or humans as riders. And they must be maidens.

And IIRC, the PrC in question is pictured with a unicorn and thematically ties into them directly. Been a while since I checked, I kind of try to pretend that PrC doesn't exist, so I might be mis-remembering.

[Vhaidara]

And IIRC, the PrC in question is pictured with a unicorn and thematically ties into them directly. Been a while since I checked, I kind of try to pretend that PrC doesn't exist, so I might be mis-remembering.

It requires female and Vow of Chastity, but they did relax the racial requirement, though they did add that most of them are of the three races unicorns normally will work with.

[Zombulian]

Unicorns only accept female elves, half elves, or humans as riders. And they must be maidens.

I was not aware of that. Das dumb.

[Anlashok]

Agreed. It's the main reason (sexism) that causes me to hate unicorns in general so very much.... If unicorns were evil, then fine. But they're all pure and good and noble and...sexist. :smallannoyed:

Not necessarily. Could just be particularly homophobic dude unicorns.

"Naw bro. Naw I'm not letting you ride me. That !@#% is gay"

...

"Hey dude. What's that chick's name over there?"

[Lodraygazagtar]

Not necessarily. Could just be particularly homophobic dude unicorns.

"Naw bro. Naw I'm not letting you ride me. That !@#% is gay"

...

"Hey dude. What's that chick's name over there?"

Heh. Vow of Chastity. Yeah right. We know what the maidens do with those unicorns.

[StreamOfTheSky]

Heh. Vow of Chastity. Yeah right. We know what the maidens do with those unicorns.

Yeah, that's what I figured unicorns were really all about. :smallsmile: Only interested in pretty young virgin females. Sounds like any high school / college dude to me. Them reminding me of "dude-bro" types is part of the reason I dislike them, too.

[Zombulian]

Yeah, that's what I figured unicorns were really all about. :smallsmile: Only interested in pretty young virgin females. Sounds like any high school / college dude to me. Them reminding me of "dude-bro" types is part of the reason I dislike them, too.

Dude-bro unicorns you say? (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=J5GyaZhbd1U)

Also I just realized a neat use for the Eunuch Warlock. Entering it with a SotAO Mystic Ranger not only gives you those neat Empower and Maximize abilities, as well as leadership, but by 10th lvl of the PrC your Ranger ends up with 7th level Wizard spells.

[Socksy]

Ooh! I know this one!

It's from Ghostwalk. Nobles of Bazareene get it. Females get access to two feats (Sherem-Lar Sorcery and Sherezem-Lar Sorcery) and males get access to one (Kihu-Sherem Guardian). There's also a spell cast on the womb, Sherem Transformation, that enables the child to take Kihu-Sherem Guardian (if male) or Sherem-Lar Sorcery (if female).

No classes, though, I don't think.

Ah yes, I was getting that confused with the fighters who protected the (IIRC) Red Wizards.


Not necessarily. Could just be particularly homophobic dude unicorns.

"Naw bro. Naw I'm not letting you ride me. That !@#% is gay"

...

"Hey dude. What's that chick's name over there?"

Dudebro unicorns. I like this.

[Heliomance]

Well, the problem is that The BOOK OF EXALTED DEEDS has gender specific classes.
A book devoted to the GOOD ALIGNMENT.
I thought it'd be more inclusive.

They're both playing off the classic virginal purity archetype. It's hardly surprising.

[Lodraygazagtar]

They're both playing off the classic virginal purity archetype. It's hardly surprising.

If they are going of off archetypes, why not have a male exclusive paladin prestige class?
That would be great. Characterized by being a dimwit and being lawful stupid and...
Oh wait. That's every paladin ever.

[AMFV]

If they are going of off archetypes, why not have a male exclusive paladin prestige class?
That would be great. Characterized by being a dimwit and being lawful stupid and...
Oh wait. That's every paladin ever.

Well if you think that Paladins are lawful stupid and dimwitted, then it's possible that the BoED stuff isn't really going to be your cup of tea...

Also of note, the Pathfinder Iconic Paladin, is female.

Edit: Also of note, inclusiveness in 3.5 is not defined as good, it has no significant alignment component. A society with defined nobles can be just as good as an anarchist society.

[Lodraygazagtar]

Well if you think that Paladins are lawful stupid and dimwitted, then it's possible that the BoED stuff isn't really going to be your cup of tea...

Also of note, the Pathfinder Iconic Paladin, is female.

Edit: Also of note, inclusiveness in 3.5 is not defined as good, it has no significant alignment component. A society with defined nobles can be just as good as an anarchist society.

I knew someone would correct me on that first part.
Also, just polymorph into a unicorn.

[Hand_of_Vecna]

Agreed. It's the main reason (sexism) that causes me to hate unicorns in general so very much.... If unicorns were evil, then fine. But they're all pure and good and noble and...sexist. :smallannoyed:

So how do we explain the Unicorns that are mounts for healers? Did the dev's think nobody wouldever play a male healer? Are male healers so "gay" that unicorn-bro's find them non threatening?



Also of note, the Pathfinder Iconic Paladin, is female.

As is the 3.5 one, she just gets a lot less exposure than Rengar, Tordek, Milalee and Lidda.

[Vhaidara]

So how do we explain the Unicorns that are mounts for healers? Did the dev's think nobody wouldever play a male healer? Are male healers so "gay" that unicorn-bro's find them non threatening?

Dude, you've devoted your life to healing magic. They only way to be more blatantly homosexual is to specialize in the Prismatic line of spells. Real men throw fireballs, turn into dragons, and summon fields of spiked tentacles to forcibly intrude their enemies.

[NeoPhoenix0]

Dude, you've devoted your life to healing magic. They only way to be more blatantly homosexual is to specialize in the Prismatic line of spells. Real men throw fireballs, turn into dragons, and summon fields of spiked tentacles to forcibly intrude their enemies.

Say that again when my rainbow of death crashes down on top of you.

Remember death loves rainbows... so what does that say about death?
(referencing classic color spray scythe de gras combo.)

also, good is just a word in d&d, a word backed by racist genocidal maniacs backed by self proclaimed deities.

[AMFV]

Say that again when my rainbow of death crashes down on top of you.

Remember death loves rainbows... so what does that say about death?
(referencing classic color spray scythe de gras combo.)

also, good is just a word in d&d, a word backed by racist genocidal maniacs backed by self proclaimed deities.

Well Genocide is pretty explicitly Evil, since it would require killing innocents (civilians), racism may or may not be evil, depending on what sort of actions it leads to, but it's probably not good at best you'd get neutral.

[Lodraygazagtar]

Say that again when my rainbow of death crashes down on top of you.

Remember death loves rainbows... so what does that say about death?
(referencing classic color spray scythe de gras combo.)

also, good is just a word in d&d, a word backed by racist genocidal maniacs backed by self proclaimed deities.

Exactly. Morals are subjective, and even in D&D, the forces known as good and evil might not match your particular beliefs.
I have an unpopular opinion that would make tons of people guilty of supporting evil.
But let's not get into an argument 'bout that...

EDIT: And killing good and evil to preserve "balance" is evil too,

[NeoPhoenix0]

Well Genocide is pretty explicitly Evil, since it would require killing innocents (civilians), racism may or may not be evil, depending on what sort of actions it leads to, but it's probably not good at best you'd get neutral.

tell it to pelor.

[ArqArturo]

Unicorns only accept female elves, half elves, or humans as riders. And they must be maidens.

This is why Asperi are my preferred mount option.


tell it to pelor.

I'm guessing you adhere to those that believe Pelor is an Evil God (http://community.wizards.com/forum/previous-editions-general/threads/1115741)?.

[Fax Celestis]

this is why asperi are my preferred mount option.



I'm guessing you adhere to those that believe pelor is an evil god (http://community.wizards.com/forum/previous-editions-general/threads/1115741)?.

ALL HAIL THE BURNING HATE

white text so this thing actually lets me allcaps

[AMFV]

This is why Asperi are my preferred mount option.



I'm guessing you adhere to those that believe Pelor is an Evil God (http://community.wizards.com/forum/previous-editions-general/threads/1115741)?.

Well I don't think Genocide falls under the Portfolio of the Burning Hate either. Also an Evil God faking being Good, still doesn't count as Good.

[MagpieWench]

Because I can't let this bit of knowledge go unshared...

I think y'all are confusing castrati with eunuchs...castration involves the removal (or otherwise taking out of the equation) of the "ping pongs" (about died laughing) while eunuchs (especially Eastern ones) are created by the removal of the entire fishing tackle. (if you run across a very decorative short metal "straw" in an antique store, it isn't for drinking from, rather for the other end of that process...)

[Zombulian]

Because I can't let this bit of knowledge go unshared...

I think y'all are confusing castrati with eunuchs...castration involves the removal (or otherwise taking out of the equation) of the "ping pongs" (about died laughing) while eunuchs (especially Eastern ones) are created by the removal of the entire fishing tackle. (if you run across a very decorative short metal "straw" in an antique store, it isn't for drinking from, rather for the other end of that process...)

Oh gross. But I did always wonder how they did it without the easier form of self-cathetering available today.

[...]

Lichloved? That isn't really male only unless I'm missing something

You're missing something. It isn't in RAW, but it becomes apparent if you look at it long enough.

[ArqArturo]

Because I can't let this bit of knowledge go unshared...

I think y'all are confusing castrati with eunuchs...castration involves the removal (or otherwise taking out of the equation) of the "ping pongs" (about died laughing) while eunuchs (especially Eastern ones) are created by the removal of the entire fishing tackle. (if you run across a very decorative short metal "straw" in an antique store, it isn't for drinking from, rather for the other end of that process...)

I think I'd make them more anamotically... Correct, instead of just straws. With filigree and somesuch... Then again, they did chop them off for a reason O.o

Also...

http://www.realclearscience.com/blog/Varys_HBO.jpg

[nedz]

Do PrCs which require you to be a eunuch still count as male-only ?

[ArqArturo]

Do PrCs which require you to be a eunuch still count as male-only ?

You still have the Stones, not the Pillar.

[Zombulian]

You still have the Stones, not the Pillar.

Uh, no.


Do PrCs which require you to be a eunuch still count as male-only ?

We already had this discussion and the answer is yes.

[Hand_of_Vecna]

Do PrCs which require you to be a eunuch still count as male-only ?


We already had this discussion and the answer is yes.

It was the majority of page 2. I really wish people would at least skim threads before posting.

[Darkweave31]

In D&D artwork, how many men are depicted with realistic (for a fantasy game) armor vs. the number of women? Heck, how many men are depicted vs how many women? If you haven't noticed, D&D is sexist. Hopefully with 5th edition that'll get better, but until then we're stuck with boob-plate aka suicide armor.

That said, in the PHB they did make both the Druid and Wizard example characters female, indicating that they obviously knew women are the superior sex.

[Vhaidara]

That said, in the PHB they did make both the Druid and Wizard example characters female, indicating that they obviously knew women are the superior sex.

I think the Paladin and Monk balanced that out.

[AMFV]

You're missing something. It isn't in RAW, but it becomes apparent if you look at it long enough.

There are quite a few undead that are quite capable of being intimate with females. Also magic can certainly solve a lot of the problems of the ones that have lost anatomical bits. And even all of those undead might not have.

[Sith_Happens]

You're missing something. It isn't in RAW, but it becomes apparent if you look at it long enough.

If you're implying that women are somehow incapable of "repeatedly committing perverted sex acts with the undead," well... I'm not sure why you'd think that.:smallconfused:

EDIT:

There are quite a few undead that are quite capable of being intimate with females. Also magic can certainly solve a lot of the problems of the ones that have lost anatomical bits. And even all of those undead might not have.

Also, there are very few anatomical problems that can't be overcome with a bit a creativity.:smallwink:

[Hand_of_Vecna]

In D&D artwork, how many men are depicted with realistic (for a fantasy game) armor vs. the number of women? [/COLOR]

Are you talking about fanart?

Aside from Nymph and Succubus (which in my book get a pass as fanatasy staples) I'm not seeing it. The PHB artwork is all pretty conservative (aside from Ember, but she's I compare her to Bruce Lee and his ilk) and thinking through books I can recall a shirtless male with glistening rock hard abs for every female in a bustier.

I don't see how this

http://img.4plebs.org/boards/tg/image/1365/42/1365424495789.jpg

is more sexualized than this

http://steven-montano.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/sorcerer.jpg

A lot of the art of 3.5 even escapes the usual double standard of all the men being idealized men from a typical masculine perspective while women are also idealized from a masculine perspective. Many males are fit and slender. The Abjurant Champion looks like Cary Elwes.

[Vhaidara]

Did anyone ever figure out why Hennet has a pair of pants made out of belts?

[Fax Celestis]

Did anyone ever figure out why Hennet has a pair of pants made out of belts?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=anNtAshm30s

This is why.

[Zombulian]

Did anyone ever figure out why Hennet has a pair of pants made out of belts?

cuz he's punk rock

[Hand_of_Vecna]

Did anyone ever figure out why Hennet has a pair of pants made out of belts?

"Hennet Sorcerer and kinky bondage fetishist."~PHB PSA

edit:nerveskittered

[NeoPhoenix0]

I'm guessing you adhere to those that believe Pelor is an Evil God (http://community.wizards.com/forum/previous-editions-general/threads/1115741)?.

No, actually. i just think he's a (four letter word). who promotes the genocide of undead. Unless someone can point out to me somewhere where his orthodoxy doesn't kill undead? and i'm not talking about those individuals who believe in killing evil undead first then the not evil ones.

[Rubik]

I don't see how this

http://img.4plebs.org/boards/tg/image/1365/42/1365424495789.jpg

is more sexualized than this

http://i100.photobucket.com/albums/m38/Spacemonkey3434/realmario.jpgFixed that for you.

[Lodraygazagtar]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=anNtAshm30s

This is why.

Well, now I know who I would be attracted to if I was gay.


WHO WOULD WIN?
Hennet or BATMAN???

[ArtlessMammet]

Some persons in this thread might find it worthwhile to check their privilege.

If nothing else, the fact that there are classes and feats permitted only for female characters would be a response to the undeniable fact that the vast majority of persons involved in this hobby are male.
It's also a hobby unfortunately associated with a bit of objectification (whether or not 3.5 deserves that is not the point) and the hope, presumably, is that making 'female-friendly' classes expands their customer base. Which is a goal I think no-one here should disagree with (at least in theory. In practice that hasn't really worked so well, I suppose).

As well as that, I think it's pretty safe to say that both historically and currently, females are under-represented in pretty much everything, and this discussions smacks in some parts of those 'anti-feminist' women.

[georgie_leech]

This really doesn't seem like an appropriate venue for this sort of thing. This is treading really close to real-world politics.

[Socksy]

Well if you think that Paladins are lawful stupid and dimwitted, then it's possible that the BoED stuff isn't really going to be your cup of tea...

Also of note, the Pathfinder Iconic Paladin, is female.

Edit: Also of note, inclusiveness in 3.5 is not defined as good, it has no significant alignment component. A society with defined nobles can be just as good as an anarchist society.

So's the PHB Paladin in 3.5, Alhandra.


Some persons in this thread might find it worthwhile to check their privilege.

If nothing else, the fact that there are classes and feats permitted only for female characters would be a response to the undeniable fact that the vast majority of persons involved in this hobby are male.
It's also a hobby unfortunately associated with a bit of objectification (whether or not 3.5 deserves that is not the point) and the hope, presumably, is that making 'female-friendly' classes expands their customer base. Which is a goal I think no-one here should disagree with (at least in theory. In practice that hasn't really worked so well, I suppose).

As well as that, I think it's pretty safe to say that both historically and currently, females are under-represented in pretty much everything, and this discussions smacks in some parts of those 'anti-feminist' women.

"WE NEED FEMINISM BECAUSE WOMEN ARE OVER-REPRESENTED IN D&D AND HAVE NICE THINGS!"

This thread has nothing to do with feminism and you're complaining about women being under represented AND over-represented. So a typical feminist, really.

EDIT: Oh, a troll. Only one post on their profile. Reporting the post

[AMFV]

No, actually. i just think he's a (four letter word). who promotes the genocide of undead. Unless someone can point out to me somewhere where his orthodoxy doesn't kill undead? and i'm not talking about those individuals who believe in killing evil undead first then the not evil ones.

First undead aren't a species, and therefore do not qualify for Genocide, second they aren't alive and therefore cannot be killed (and may not qualify for genocide depending on your views about sentience and life). Undead are also explicitly powered by literal Evil energy... so they're existence is pretty Evil regardless of anything else. Now there are Undead that can be redeemed or who could have a higher balance of Good to Evil, but they're already starting at a pretty steep deficit.

[NeoPhoenix0]

First undead aren't a species, and therefore do not qualify for Genocide, second they aren't alive and therefore cannot be killed (and may not qualify for genocide depending on your views about sentience and life). Undead are also explicitly powered by literal Evil energy... so they're existence is pretty Evil regardless of anything else. Now there are Undead that can be redeemed or who could have a higher balance of Good to Evil, but they're already starting at a pretty steep deficit.

You do have a point that undead aren't really their own race. However, i must say i find it surprising to hear that undead are powered by "evil energy" and would be very interested in where this is stated.

[AMFV]

You do have a point that undead aren't really their own race. However, i must say i find it surprising to hear that undead are powered by "evil energy" and would be very interested in where this is stated.

Libris Mortis. Also Undead are explicitly healed by negative rather than positive energy. They are powered by the opposite of life. Which is why so many undead creation spells get the [Evil] Tag

[NeoPhoenix0]

Libris Mortis. Also Undead are explicitly healed by negative rather than positive energy. They are powered by the opposite of life. Which is why so many undead creation spells get the [Evil] Tag

k, i cannot find anywhere in dnd that states positive energy is good and negative energy is evil. they are just energy with opposite functions.

[AMFV]

k, i cannot find anywhere in dnd that states positive energy is good and negative energy is evil. they are just energy with opposite functions.

Well Clerics of Good Alignment can NEVER channel negative energy, Clerics of Evil Alignment can never channel positive energy. Clerics of Evil Gods, cannot channel positive energy even if neutral, Clerics of Good Gods cannot channel negative energy even if neutral. It's a pretty logical leap then to assume that Good beings cannot give access to negative energy (vis a vis the neutral issue), and that Evil Gods cannot give access to Positive Energy.

Additionally mindless undead, predispose themselves to Evil, meaning that the only way that Undead can be non-evil is to fight their predispositions. If they can be Evil while not possessing any mental faculties or soul, then something inherent in their makeup must make them Evil, so the energy powering them is likely Evil

[Darkweave31]

I think the Paladin and Monk balanced that out.

But paladins and monks are OP, look at all those cool class features!


Why are the Beloved of Valarian and Swanmay female only? Because the writers decided that they wanted to make the concept of the good, pure, chaste maiden into a prestige class because for women it is virtuous to be pure and chaste. It isn't coddling, it's taking medieval views on women's roles and developing them into a fantasy setting.

Why are unicorns sexist? This has to do with the mythos behind the unicorn. A unicorn is traditionally a male symbol. When it is wild and free it is a single bachelor, but when tamed and allows a rider that represents marriage. Essentially a unicorn is a metaphor for a husband. The developers didn't consider there could be gay unicorns because they aren't inclusive.

So a Beloved of Valarian is a virtuous, chaste maiden that gets rewarded for her chastity with a husband unicorn.

Edit: In the case of the healer, I assume the developer was thinking of the unicorn's association with healing rather than the whole "only tamed by a virgin/marriage" symbolism.

[AMFV]

But paladins and monks are OP, look at all those cool class features!


Why are the Beloved of Valarian and Swanmay female only? Because the writers decided that they wanted to make the concept of the good, pure, chaste maiden into a prestige class because for women it is virtuous to be pure and chaste. It isn't coddling, it's taking medieval views on women's roles and developing them into a fantasy setting.

Why are unicorns sexist? This has to do with the mythos behind the unicorn. A unicorn is traditionally a male symbol. When it is wild and free it is a single bachelor, but when tamed and allows a rider that represents marriage. Essentially a unicorn is a metaphor for a husband. The developers didn't consider there could be gay unicorns because they aren't inclusive.

So a Beloved of Valarian is a virtuous, chaste maiden that gets rewarded for her chastity with a husband unicorn.

Edit: In the case of the healer, I assume the developer was thinking of the unicorn's association with healing rather than the whole "only tamed by a virgin/marriage" symbolism.

Well the Swanmay is very clearly based on a few specific fairy tales, all of which involve women turning into Swans.

[Segev]

I admit I'd never thought of the "unicorn as metaphor for bachelor/married man" symbolism before.

I also tend to prefer the depictions that use the word "virgin" rather than "maiden," because it allows for the partial subversion when it turns out a male can ride one. Still preserved today is the mostly-unspoken assumption that "men are not virgins." i.e. that while it's pure for a woman to remain chaste, it is somehow a mark against a man's virility if he has done so. See: the movie Hocus Pocus for this done well.

Put another way: virginity is not gender-specific; maidenhood is. But "virgin" and "maiden" are so often used as poetic equivalents that it can lead to amusement value when it's pointed out that your rather evil and disreputable male necromancer (who may be a party member or may just be a not-quite-antagonist sometimes-ally) who uses virgin's blood in dark rituals actually cuts open his own hand for the material. Hey, it is easier to come by and doesn't tend to bring heroes looking for the kidnapped maidens.

(Technically, a female necromancer could do this as well; it's just less against expectation.)

[Darkweave31]

Are you talking about fanart?

No, I'm talking about armor... Both the fighter and the cleric get full scale armor whereas the paladin gets a tiny flap of it over her chest. Also way to post one counter-example when I was talking about a trend. Just from the class pictures in PHB, 5 men in functional armor, 2 women (and that's being generous since both of those examples are leather)


This really doesn't seem like an appropriate venue for this sort of thing. This is treading really close to real-world politics.

Considering the thread started with "why are men so underrepresented in D&D" there's really not much else where this could go. I'm surprised it lasted this long.


As for the Swanmay, I believe the fairy tales you refer to are those of the swan maidens? That's not much better because it involves forced marriage, at least that part didn't explicitly make it into the class.

[Segev]

"It's totally fair and actually it's unfair but against women" is now being raised?


Okay, playground! Let's try a challenge: can we come up with a concept for a male-only PrC that is neither insulting to males nor "unfair" to females for excluding them?

One of my favorite mental games to play with myself is to invert the gender of every character in a work of fiction (changing as little as possible to avoid it being an apparent farce), and seeing how the thing is taken differently. (Consider Love Hina gender-inverted: the tsundere boy rocket-punching a girl for being a pervert is a lot less "funny," I'll bet, than the girl doing it to the boy. Or worse, Negima.) Perhaps we can start with one or more of the female-only PrCs and invert them? Heck, does it become more, less, or neutrally offensive to make the eunuch warlock female-only by changing out the mostly-fluff prereq to a different sort of mutilation?

CAN we come up with a traditionally masculine archetype that would fittingly be male-only as a PrC?

[Effero]

Well Clerics of Good Alignment can NEVER channel negative energy, Clerics of Evil Alignment can never channel positive energy. Clerics of Evil Gods, cannot channel positive energy even if neutral, Clerics of Good Gods cannot channel negative energy even if neutral. It's a pretty logical leap then to assume that Good beings cannot give access to negative energy (vis a vis the neutral issue), and that Evil Gods cannot give access to Positive Energy.

Additionally mindless undead, predispose themselves to Evil, meaning that the only way that Undead can be non-evil is to fight their predispositions. If they can be Evil while not possessing any mental faculties or soul, then something inherent in their makeup must make them Evil, so the energy powering them is likely Evil

If we have to get into a what is Good and Evil then...

IMO, Negative energy is simply a force of the D&D universe, not inherently good or evil. It is a force that 'feeds' on Positive energy and in the case of undead replaces that 'life giving force' (which would make it a life giving force also). As for Mindless Undead being predisposed to Evil, first we have to ask what is evil about them, killing the innocent? Well they are mindless and therefore can't tell the difference between combatant and noncombatant. The driving force behind their un-life is Negative energy which feeds on Positive energy and life as we see it is made of it. It is simply D&D physics, we don't call a black hole evil when it swallows a planet.

Next we ask why Good Clerics can channel Positive and Evil ones can channel Negative. Because thats the way the Gods want it. Positive energy heals the vast majority of life on the material plane therefore far better for others, while Negative energy is channeled in the self-interest of the channeler.

EDIT: I realise this got off topic but I don't understand how a force in and off itself can have a 'evil' or 'good' tag. Its like saying fire is evil.

[Rubik]

Well Clerics of Good Alignment can NEVER channel negative energy, Clerics of Evil Alignment can never channel positive energy. Clerics of Evil Gods, cannot channel positive energy even if neutral, Clerics of Good Gods cannot channel negative energy even if neutral. It's a pretty logical leap then to assume that Good beings cannot give access to negative energy (vis a vis the neutral issue), and that Evil Gods cannot give access to Positive Energy.

Additionally mindless undead, predispose themselves to Evil, meaning that the only way that Undead can be non-evil is to fight their predispositions. If they can be Evil while not possessing any mental faculties or soul, then something inherent in their makeup must make them Evil, so the energy powering them is likely EvilUm... Negative energy is Neutral, and mindless undead are incapable of morality. Unless they're literally made of Evil (ie, fiends), they cannot be of Evil alignment. The alignments of skeletons and zombies in the SRD are impossible and incorrect, by WotC's own alignment rules.

[AMFV]

If we have to get into a what is Good and Evil then...

IMO, Negative energy is simply a force of the D&D universe, not inherently good or evil. It is a force that 'feeds' on Positive energy and in the case of undead replaces that 'life giving force' (which would make it a life giving force also). As for Mindless Undead being predisposed to Evil, first we have to ask what is evil about them, killing the innocent? Well they are mindless and therefore can't tell the difference between combatant and noncombatant. The driving force behind their un-life is Negative energy which feeds on Positive energy and life as we see it is made of it. It is simply D&D physics, we don't call a black hole evil when it swallows a planet.

A black hole isn't evil. But a 1 HD Zombie is... and is explicitly so RAW. So that means that there is something about their makeup that makes them Evil. Dire Bears aren't Evil, regardless of how feral or vicious they are. Natural disasters aren't evil, the spell Control Weather isn't evil. So we must conclude that it isn't the destruction of life, even innocent life by something that isn't capable of moral agency which is evil. So it must be something more in their make up than that.

Mindless Undead aren't predisposed to Evil, they are Evil:



Alignment

Always neutral evil.

That is in the section on the application of the template, the template always creates an evil creature. So there is something inherently Evil in being a zombie. Since mindless animals, and insects who are often hostile are not inherently Evil, we must assume that aggression is again not the only factor here.

Additionally,



Animate Dead
Necromancy [Evil]


So by this we can infer that the very act of creating undead is inherently Evil. However... Building a construct isn't Evil, summoning a creature isn't Evil either.

Additionally if you'll check Heroes of Horror, you'll find that we can rule out the misuse of a corpse or the violation of the natural order as the aspect of Undead that makes them Evil, since the spell, Summon Undead is also tagged as Evil.



Next we ask why Good Clerics can channel Positive and Evil ones can channel Negative. Because thats the way the Gods want it. Positive energy heals the vast majority of life on the material plane therefore far better for others, while Negative energy is channeled in the self-interest of the channeler.

EDIT: I realise this got off topic but I don't understand how a force in and off itself can have a 'evil' or 'good' tag. Its like saying fire is evil.

But in D&D Good and Evil are explicit forces. So it is not unreasonable to assume that there is an association between them and negative and positive energy, in a similar way to the association between mass and gravity.


Um... Negative energy is Neutral, and mindless undead are incapable of morality. Unless they're literally made of Evil (ie, fiends), they cannot be of Evil alignment. The alignments of skeletons and zombies in the SRD are impossible and incorrect, by WotC's own alignment rules.

Cite your source or refute my examples then... Even Spells which only summon undead into existence are explicitly evil.

[Fax Celestis]

But in D&D Good and Evil are explicit forces. So it is not unreasonable to assume that there is an association between them and negative and positive energy, in a similar way to the association between mass and gravity.

Do me a solid and explain to me why inflict serious wounds and harm don't have [Evil] descriptors, then.

[...]

There are quite a few undead that are quite capable of being intimate with females. Also magic can certainly solve a lot of the problems of the ones that have lost anatomical bits. And even all of those undead might not have.

Really? Also, if you follow dumb Twilight memes like I do, you would know that there is more than existence of the anatomical bit to make it do its anatomical function.

[Fax Celestis]

Really? Also, if you follow dumb Twilight memes like I do, you would know that there is more than existence of the anatomical bit to make it do its anatomical function.

Necropolitan seems like a good place to start.

[Rubik]

Cite your source or refute my examples then... Even Spells which only summon undead into existence are explicitly evil.The SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/planes.htm#negativeEnergyPlane) places the negative energy plane as having no alignment traits, thereby defaulting to Neutral.

The same is said by the Manual of the Planes, page 80.

MotP, page 169. Xag-yas (outsiders composed completely of negative energy) are True Neutral.

According to the SRD, ghosts can be of any alignment. Libris Mortis has necropolitans, which are the same. And there are plenty of others, if you need more.

The SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm#goodVsEvil) also states that "Animals and other creatures incapable of moral action are neutral rather than good or evil. Even deadly vipers and tigers that eat people are neutral because they lack the capacity for morally right or wrong behavior." Being mindless, skeletons (which are even specifically called out as doing nothing unless explicitly commanded) and zombies are incapable of moral decisions, because they're incapable of any kind of thought.

Out of the 359 necromancy spells in the game (http://dndtools.eu/spells/?name=&range=&spell_resistance=&area=&duration=&saving_throw=&casting_time=&school__slug=necromancy&sub_school__slug=&descriptors__slug=&verbal_component=1&somatic_component=1&material_component=1&arcane_focus_component=1&divine_focus_component=1&xp_component=1&rulebook__slug=&description=&class_levels__slug=&domain_levels__slug=&_filter=Filter) (not including duplicates, Dungeon, Dragon, and 3rd party), only 92 are tagged as [Evil] (http://dndtools.eu/spells/?name=&range=&spell_resistance=&area=&duration=&saving_throw=&casting_time=&school__slug=necromancy&sub_school__slug=&descriptors__slug=evil&verbal_component=1&somatic_component=1&material_component=1&arcane_focus_component=1&divine_focus_component=1&xp_component=1&rulebook__slug=&description=&class_levels__slug=&domain_levels__slug=&_filter=Filter), and 12 are even marked as [Good] (http://dndtools.eu/spells/?name=&range=&spell_resistance=&area=&duration=&saving_throw=&casting_time=&school__slug=necromancy&sub_school__slug=&descriptors__slug=good&verbal_component=1&somatic_component=1&material_component=1&arcane_focus_component=1&divine_focus_component=1&xp_component=1&rulebook__slug=&description=&class_levels__slug=&domain_levels__slug=&_filter=Filter)! Check it out for yourself.

So, no. Negative energy is not Evil. It might tend toward Evil for some things (like creating mindless -- and therefore Neutral -- undead, for some reason), but it's by no means Evil itself.

[Effero]

While most are Evil because of what they do (ie feeding on positive energy creatures without discrimination) or created for Evil reasons. Being undead, however, doesn't make one Evil - Neropolitan, Dry Lich, ghosts, etc. Nor does being infused with Negative energy - Entropic Creature template, Energon, ect.

I prefer the idea that spell descriptors focus on the use of the spell over the energy use. However if your argument is otherwise there are spells that use Negative energy that are not evil - Chill touch, Enervation, Ghoul Touch, Harm, Inflict light wounds, Touch of Fatigue, etc.

EDIT - Rubik beat me to the punch

EDIT 2 - If you use dndtools to search the evil spells (367) for Negative energy in the description that would leave you only 28 spells. Seems a bit low but my point is that evil uses all means and negative energy is a means to harm life, so is fire (40 spells).

[AMFV]

Do me a solid and explain to me why inflict serious wounds and harm don't have [Evil] descriptors, then.

That's interesting actually. Well we may be able to conclude then that the act of channeling negative energy isn't enough for it to be evil, which is why Clerics of Neutral Gods can Rebuke rather than Turn if they so choose. So channeling negative energy isn't evil (or isn't Evil enough), but that's not enough to conclusively say that undead are not evil (or even that negative Energy isn't)

Furthermore we have at least the examples of undead things which are powered by negative energy being Evil. Furthermore we have also instances if I recall correctly of Shadows being generated on the negative Energy plane rather than constructed from a living thing, and they are also evil.

So this is an interesting conundrum though, so channeling negative energy in and of itself is not enough to be evil, but using to create unlife is. However not all unlife is explicitly evil (Necropolitans for example are by default neutral).

So again in summary our facts:
1.) Mindless Undead are generally Evil, despite having no conscience or soul

2.) The majority of the spells required to create Undead are Evil.
2a.) The spells that are used to summon undead are also Evil.
2b.) Undead which spontaneously generate are still evil, regardless of their origin.

3.) Not all undead are Evil, Undead can overcome their Evil tendencies.

4.) Good Clerics of Neutral Gods cannot channel negative energy, Neutral clerics of Good Gods can likewise not channel negative energy.
4a.) Spells like Inflict which involve channeling Negative Energy are not explicitly Evil.

So we can conclude that the act of channeling negative energy isn't evil (per point 4b), I suspect that the reason for this is game system related rather than plot, but we can't assume that. Channeling as far as Turning Or Rebuking however is...

So we can conclude that the relationship between Undead and Negative Energy is in some way Evil.


Really? Also, if you follow dumb Twilight memes like I do, you would know that there is more than existence of the anatomical bit to make it do its anatomical function.

Without violating forum rules I can't really go into it, but suffice it to say, "perverse sexual acts" could be a wide variety of things and not all of those are limited by anatomical function.

Furthermore, Undead have moving limbs, which would normally require blood flow it isn't too much of a stretch to suppose that their other bits function afterwards.


The SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/planes.htm#negativeEnergyPlane) places the negative energy plane as having no alignment traits, thereby defaulting to Neutral.

The same is said by the Manual of the Planes, page 80.

MotP, page 169. Xag-yas (outsiders composed completely of negative energy) are True Neutral.

According to the SRD, ghosts can be of any alignment. Libris Mortis has necropolitans, which are the same. And there are plenty of others, if you need more.

Which actually is something I've addressed, both Ghosts and Necropolitans are capable of sentient thought. Therefore, they can act against their alignment.

So I will concede that the relationship between undead and negative Energy appears to be the source of the Evil.



The SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm#goodVsEvil) also states that "Animals and other creatures incapable of moral action are neutral rather than good or evil. Even deadly vipers and tigers that eat people are neutral because they lack the capacity for morally right or wrong behavior." Being mindless, skeletons (which are even specifically called out as doing nothing unless explicitly commanded) and zombies are incapable of moral decisions, because they're incapable of any kind of thought.

Out of the 359 necromancy spells in the game ([url=http://dndtools.eu/spells/?name=&range=&spell_resistance=&area=&duration=&saving_throw=&casting_time=&school__slug=necromancy&sub_school__slug=&descriptors__slug=&verbal_component=1&somatic_component=1&material_component=1&arcane_focus_component=1&divine_focus_component=1&xp_component=1&rulebook__slug=&description=&class_levels__slug=&domain_levels__slug=&_filter=Filter) (not including duplicates, Dungeon, Dragon, and 3rd party), only 92 are tagged as [Evil] ([url=http://dndtools.eu/spells/?name=&range=&spell_resistance=&area=&duration=&saving_throw=&casting_time=&school__slug=necromancy&sub_school__slug=&descriptors__slug=evil&verbal_component=1&somatic_component=1&material_component=1&arcane_focus_component=1&divine_focus_component=1&xp_component=1&rulebook__slug=&description=&class_levels__slug=&domain_levels__slug=&_filter=Filter), and 12 are even marked as [Good] ([url=http://dndtools.eu/spells/?name=&range=&spell_resistance=&area=&duration=&saving_throw=&casting_time=&school__slug=necromancy&sub_school__slug=&descriptors__slug=good&verbal_component=1&somatic_component=1&material_component=1&arcane_focus_component=1&divine_focus_component=1&xp_component=1&rulebook__slug=&description=&class_levels__slug=&domain_levels__slug=&_filter=Filter)! Check it out for yourself.

So, no. Negative energy is not Evil. It might tend toward Evil for some things (like creating mindless -- and therefore Neutral -- undead, for some reason), but it's by no means Evil itself.


Specific rules override general cases. The alignment of Mindless undead is a specific rule, and therefore overrides the general case regarding alignment of mindless creatures.

[Rubik]

I could see zombies and skeletons being Neutral Evil solely because they're created with an [Evil] spell, but it'd be easy to research an unaligned spell that does the same, which would result in True Neutral zombies and skeletons.

But even so, at the worst, zombies and skeletons should be True Neutral with the [Evil] subtype, because they have no moral imperative whatsoever.

[lord_khaine]

Really? Also, if you follow dumb Twilight memes like I do, you would know that there is more than existence of the anatomical bit to make it do its anatomical function.

I think you need to broaden your horizon if you think that a single anatomical bit are needed for commiting perverse sexual acts with the undead....

[AMFV]

I could see zombies and skeletons being Neutral Evil solely because they're created with an [Evil] spell, but it'd be easy to research an unaligned spell that does the same, which would result in True Neutral zombies and skeletons.

But even so, at the worst, zombies and skeletons should be True Neutral with the [Evil] subtype, because they have no moral imperative whatsoever.

Again you are giving a general rule precedence over a specific rule.

[Fax Celestis]

Furthermore we have at least the examples of undead things which are powered by negative energy being Evil. Furthermore we have also instances if I recall correctly of Shadows being generated on the negative Energy plane rather than constructed from a living thing, and they are also evil.

Just because skeletons are (A) powered by negative energy; and (B) are Always Evil per their alignment line does not conclude that the two cases are related at all. Mounting evidence would actually instead indicate that it is a coincidence in this instance, as other forms of undead are also powered by negative energy but are not evil--and there are a multitude of negative-energy spells that are similarly not [Evil].

[AMFV]

Just because skeletons are (A) powered by negative energy; and (B) are Always Evil per their alignment line does not conclude that the two cases are related at all. Mounting evidence would actually instead indicate that it is a coincidence in this instance, as other forms of undead are also powered by negative energy but are not evil--and there are a multitude of negative-energy spells that are similarly not [Evil].

Well it appears that interaction between the two is probably the source of the Evil. The ritual used to create Necropolitan, is described as Evil, even though the resulting Undead may not necessarily be Evil. Furthermore there is some evidence regarding the channeling aspect of clerics. So it appears that the interaction between Negative Energy and Undead is the alignment based aspect.

[Rubik]

Which actually is something I've addressed, both Ghosts and Necropolitans are capable of sentient thought. Therefore, they can act against their alignment. Their alignment is whatever it was during life. You saying, "against their alignment" indicates that they're Evil by default, when the creature entries explicitly say they aren't Evil.

ie, you're demonstrably wrong.


So I will concede that the relationship between undead and negative Energy appears to be the source of the Evil.You mean, you concede that the relationship between undead and negative energy DOES NOT appear to be the source of the Evil. Since that is (again, demonstrably) the case.


Specific rules override general cases. The alignment of Mindless undead is a specific rule, and therefore overrides the general case regarding alignment of mindless creatures.An Evil skeleton is like an Evil hammer. Neither do anything whatsoever without input from another creature, since the skeleton entry says explicitly that they don't do anything at all unless commanded.

And yes, this Hammer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mc_hammer) is Evil. That doesn't mean regular hammers are.

[Fax Celestis]

Well it appears that interaction between the two is probably the source of the Evil. The ritual used to create Necropolitan, is described as Evil, even though the resulting Undead may not necessarily be Evil. Furthermore there is some evidence regarding the channeling aspect of clerics. So it appears that the interaction between Negative Energy and Undead is the alignment based aspect.

Still incorrect. It would appear that the ritual used to create undead itself is evil.

[Effero]

Well it appears that interaction between the two is probably the source of the Evil. The ritual used to create Necropolitan, is described as Evil, even though the resulting Undead may not necessarily be Evil. Furthermore there is some evidence regarding the channeling aspect of clerics. So it appears that the interaction between Negative Energy and Undead is the alignment based aspect.

IMO, the channeling aspects of clerics can be explained by the fact that their power comes from the divine. Good Gods would not want a power that harms the vast majority of life to be channeled by their clerics. Evil gods wouldn't want power that heals instead of destroys to be channeled. Turn vs Rebuke is just a matter of the energy used in the process. Positive Energy cancels or drives out the Negative Energy and destroys the undead, while channeling Negative Energy at a creature made of it becomes more powerful. It is no different with living creatures (only the other way around) and again why Good Gods like Positive Energy.

Btw, the desire to destroy the living could be an aspect of the Negative Energy trying to drive out the Positive but the same could be said of the living desire to destroy the Undead (Positive trying to drive out the Negative). Could be that the Gods themselves are Positive Energy beings making killing undead fine, but not the undead killing the living.

[AMFV]

Their alignment is whatever it was during life. You saying, "against their alignment" indicates that they're Evil by default, when the creature entries explicitly say they aren't Evil.

ie, you're demonstrably wrong.

Well it's questionable, they're created in an Evil ritual, and therefore have to overcome that. I should have said against their ancestry.




You mean, you concede that the relationship between undead and negative energy DOES NOT appear to be the source of the Evil. Since that is (again, demonstrably) the case.

It is not demonstrably the case. And I didn't state that. We have instances where negative energy is demonstrably not evil enough to qualify for an evil tag, which does not necessarily make it non-evil, it's inconclusive.



An Evil skeleton is like an Evil hammer. Neither do anything whatsoever without input from another creature, since the skeleton entry says explicitly that they don't do anything at all unless commanded.

And yes, this Hammer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mc_hammer) is Evil. That doesn't mean regular hammers are.

Well if you can find me a mindless undead that does not default to Evil I'll rethink it, but as it stands the matter is quite well established. And even if there is an exception, the vast majority of Undead are Evil, particularly mindless undead.


Still incorrect. It would appear that the ritual used to create undead itself is evil.

However, Summoning them is still Evil, and rebuking is not available to Good Clerics, so this is an interesting quandary.

I believe we may be stumbling against the rules here, and there may be no answer that will satisfy all of the issues with this. To note, I'm fine with even Good necromancers, because I don't believe that acts that are inherently Evil, make you completely Evil unless you have some falling clause. One can be a good person who does Evil things in the same way that one can be a good worker who takes methamphetamines. It's a matter of balancing.

But I think we've hit what is likely an area where there is too much self-contradiction for it to be resolved.


IMO, the channeling aspects of clerics can be explained by the fact that their power comes from the divine. Good Gods would not want a power that harms the vast majority of life to be channeled by their clerics. Evil gods wouldn't want power that heals instead of destroys to be channeled. Turn vs Rebuke is just a matter of the energy used in the process. Positive Energy cancels or drives out the Negative Energy and destroys the undead, while channeling Negative Energy at a creature made of it becomes more powerful. It is no different with living creatures (only the other way around) and again why Good Gods like Positive Energy.

Btw, the desire to destroy the living could be an aspect of the Negative Energy trying to drive out the Positive but the same could be said of the living desire to destroy the Undead (Positive trying to drive out the Negative). Could be that the Gods themselves are Positive Energy beings making killing undead fine, but not the undead killing the living.

Some of the Gods are explicitly Undead, Orcus for example.

[Hand_of_Vecna]

No, I'm talking about armor... Both the fighter and the cleric get full scale armor whereas the paladin gets a tiny flap of it over her chest. Also way to post one counter-example when I was talking about a trend. Just from the class pictures in PHB, 5 men in functional armor, 2 women (and that's being generous since both of those examples are leather)

Alhandra is definetly bad art, but under that admitedly silly flap of scale isn't exposed flesh, but dull grey. She also has a riveted collar. I've always assumed she had a metallic breastplate.

Did you ever notice that Gimble appears to be wearing a leather vest? It isn't even a jacket, you can tell because of the poofy sleeves. As opposed to full armor on Lidda.

Krusk appears to be wearing a oversized cod piece and pauldron. I went back and looked so hard I went cross eyed and I guess that his green tunis might actually be hide armor. That would make it not stupid, but it's still bad/unclear art like Alhandra has.



Okay, playground! Let's try a challenge: can we come up with a concept for a male-only PrC that is neither insulting to males nor "unfair" to females for excluding them?

It's very difficult, since applying anything positive to masculinity is generally percieved as sexist.

Well Greyhawk has a male nature diety and Pathfinder has a male diety of farming/family and homesteading, so how about a Jhonny Appleseed class. Traveling the land planting super seeds that grow based based on the potency of the seeds rather than the fertility of the soil.

[AMFV]

Well Greyhawk has a male nature diety and Pathfinder has a male diety of farming/family and homesteading, so how about a Jhonny Appleseed class. Traveling the land planting super seeds that grow based based on the potency of the seeds rather than the fertility of the soil.

I think having a male character who goes around spreading their potent seed might cause more problems than sexism... I for one, wouldn't be able to get through even that one sentence description without falling on the floor and laughing.

Edit: Although it is of note that most of the female exclusive classes are created through some sort of organizational policy, rather than because of physical limitations. With the questionable exception of the Swanmay, and potentially we could rule the Unicorns differently as well.

So what we should do is rather than seek out male exemplary traits, we should look at respected organizations that are male only and then replicate that sort of thing. For example you'd have arguably several different religious Priesthoods are male exclusivist, and that would be a sort of thing that could be replicated. Certain military groups are (although that's a different issue).

The issue I suspect is that the female PRCs involve women entering traditional male roles (per our society not necessarily the campaign society), and the male PRCs would represent rigidification of those roles. So might want to avoid that. For example we could go the way they did. Instead of having a Female Battle Maiden, we could have some kind of Male Earthmother, who basically nurtures and cares for orphaned monstrous creatures and forest creatures, teaching them to overcome their bestial nature. Which is not something that a male is incapable of under normal circumstances but it is stereotypically perceived as a female role.

[Vaz]

As opposed to what, Lawful Evil? Dictators aren't very useful with their tators cut off.

Whats... tators, precious?

[Rubik]

Whats... tators, precious?"Dictators" minus "tators" equals "???"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FrgF1S0iKSA

[Hamste]

Did anyone ever figure out why Hennet has a pair of pants made out of belts?

:smallwink: A true adventurer is always prepared if you know what I mean.

[Segev]

It's very difficult, since applying anything positive to masculinity is generally percieved as sexist. True. That's what makes it an interesting challenge, though, too, I think.


Well Greyhawk has a male nature diety and Pathfinder has a male diety of farming/family and homesteading, so how about a Jhonny Appleseed class. Traveling the land planting super seeds that grow based based on the potency of the seeds rather than the fertility of the soil.

A good place to start, though it still begs the question as to what about it is exclusively masculine in a mythic or thematic sense, such that women should be barred.

"Swanmay" are tied mythically to a race of all-women mythic creatures, hence the restriction. Though I might argue a male swanmay should be perfectly possible and sensible, mechanically. Still.

"Battle Maiden" has cultural restrictions; the family says only women may be riders of their superior breed of horses. But the restriction is purely cultural, and enforced culturally by refusing to train boys in the techniques nor letting them ride as part of Battle Maiden squads. This has historical reflection in the majority of military units, where women were often not allowed in combat at all in near-modern militaries. (This has changed or is changing in most where it is still true, but I'm sure it's still true in some armies even now.)

So we need solid reasons why it's "male-only," and to know if it's a mythic, magical, or cultural restriction. Or even a physical one. Though that largely doesn't work for most purposes in D&D, where there's little to no mechanical difference between men and women.

[Fax Celestis]

What about some sort of Samson-esque class that derives its power from Vow of Chastity? Sort of a Beloved of Valarian counterpart?

[Vaz]

"Dictators" minus "tators" equals "???"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FrgF1S0iKSA

Not this, then?
http://youtu.be/qrQVFZx7XX4

[Vhaidara]

So we need solid reasons why it's "male-only," and to know if it's a mythic, magical, or cultural restriction. Or even a physical one. Though that largely doesn't work for most purposes in D&D, where there's little to no mechanical difference between men and women.

I think we should discount cultural restrictions. Otherwise, "Soldier" becomes a problem, as does "Priest"

[Segev]

I think we should discount cultural restrictions. Otherwise, "Soldier" becomes a problem, as does "Priest"

Perhaps. Though that does make the Battle Maiden hard to create a mirror to.


So, what associations are masculine enough that we can mythically or thematically say a male-only PrC would be built around them?

[Red Fel]

So, what associations are masculine enough that we can mythically or thematically say a male-only PrC would be built around them?

Easy enough. The Fop.

[Rubik]

Not this, then?
http://youtu.be/qrQVFZx7XX4I'm not letting anyone boil, mash, or stew my tators.

What I will allow is probably against the CoC to talk about.

[AMFV]

Well if we're going about it the same way as the Swanmay (which notably is not based on a race of swan women but rather a fairy tale where a woman is turned into a swan). We could focus on that Fairy Tale Archetype.

You could have the Chaste Knight, who has an oath to serve his beloved, everything he does is for the honor and glory of his beloved, he adventures to bring her honor and treasure. He responds to slights to her honor, he respects the ideal of courtly love with regards to her.

One could have the Prince in Disguise, who is essentially hiding his princely nature to seek out a woman worthy enough of winning the throne at his side. He'd have powers in deception and disguise and some martial aspects, having military training. His whole purpose is to find a bride whom he can truly love, a fitting co-ruler for his kingdom, who doesn't marry him only because of his station.

Those are both representations of what the Swanmay and the Beloved of Valarian represent. It's important to remember that while women were respected for their chastity, men were respected for overcoming their urges, for courtly love without giving into their more base physical nature. And the prince in Disguise is a near analogue to the Swanmaiden.

And again for the Battle Maiden:

We could have the Earth Father, a man who travels the wilds seeking those who are orphaned and alone, he heals the young animals, and he makes the brutal ones into kind creatures through the sheer force of his compassion. He would get a multitude of small animal companions to assist with tasks such as cleaning and cooking and the like, and perhaps some kind of bardic music.

[Hand_of_Vecna]

What about some sort of Samson-esque class that derives its power from Vow of Chastity? Sort of a Beloved of Valarian counterpart?

This actually reminds me of a third party PrC that was for young fey blessed questing knights. I don't recall whether it was male exclusive or even if it required chastity, but they was definetly implied. It also had a weird "fall" mechanic where they lost some abilities and couldn't progress the class after reaching a certain age.

I could see it be developed into a class that requires Vow of Chastity and Nymph's Kiss. The class's signature abilities would come from the patronage of powerful fey who admire their young charges and also want what they can't or more acuratly shouldn't have. Their temptations wouldn't be malicious, just short sighted and not focused on the cosmic good.

[Rubik]

I could see a class based around creatures of legend who are archetypally and exclusively male, such as satyrs or centaurs.

[Fax Celestis]

I could see a class based around creatures of legend who are archetypally and exclusively male, such as satyrs or centaurs.

I think a serial rapist class might not go over very well.

[Fates]

Well, the problem is that The BOOK OF EXALTED DEEDS has gender specific classes.
A book devoted to the GOOD ALIGNMENT.
I thought it'd be more inclusive.

Well, the PrC in question (Beloved of Valarian) is all about unicorns, which in mythology typically would only approach women (maidens, specifically). What's more, in D&D unicorns are both sexist and racist- it's not a part of the PrC but if I recall correctly that it's mentioned that only good,
Female humans, elves, half elves and possibly halflings are allowed to ride them. So too bad if you're a male elf or a lady Orc- it doesn't matter how nice you are- you could have every exalted feat and the saint template, but that Unicorn is still kicking you off.

[Rubik]

I think a serial rapist class might not go over very well.D&D satyrs are more "masculine fey spirits of revelry," and centaurs likely have females, but they're generally depicted as male. I imagine females are kept safe, whereas males are the ones who interact with the world at large, so they're seen far more often, leading to the idea that there are only males of the species.

Real life mythology may have seriously unsavory connotations to both races, but D&D has sterilized them a bit.

Both could be used to produce male-only PrCs, one who takes on the satyrs' spiritual essence to change those around him and to change the world itself, and one who is taught by centaurs in the ways of their kind -- females are not typically warriors, so centaurs would only teach other males, assuming they found them worthy.

[Darkweave31]

Hmmmmm... a male-only PrC... insert tongue in cheek

M’Ra

The M’Ra are a loose organization of men who have taken it upon themselves to fight against the oppression of men no matter where it is or what form it takes. Virtuous and level-headed to a fault, these men prefer to fight from a distance under the protection of shadows and anonymity, inciting their enemies into a self-defeating rage.

HD: d6
Good Saves: Will
Poor Saves: Refl, Fort
BAB: medium (3/4 level)
Skill points: 4 per level

Tongue of Flames
At level 1, a M’Ra gains the ability to force their opponents to face unavoidable truth. Once per day per class level, as a standard action the M’Ra can begin to speak (or otherwise communicate). This ability forces an opponent that can hear the M’Ra to make a will save (DC 10+class level+charisma modifier) or take a -1 penalty to wisdom, as well as a -1 penalty to attack and damage. This penalty worsens to -2 at 4th level, -3 at 7th level, and -4 at 10th level. The penalty lasts so long as the M’Ra continues to speak. This is a language-dependent, mind-affecting ability.

Ethereal Anonymity
At level 2, the M’Ra can speak with a disembodied voice. Whenever the M’Ra speaks, or uses any ability dependent on speech (such as the tongue of flames or bard song abilities), he can make his voice emanate from the ether rather than his mouth. This voice can be heard in a radius equal to 10ft per class level. This ability allows an M’Ra to continue to hide while using these abilities, though enemies will still react to hearing the voice, they can’t pinpoint where it is coming from.

Relentless Flame
At Level 5, an M’Ra becomes more forceful when repeating their arguments. When an opponent saves against the Tongue of Flames ability they must continue to make a save each round so long as they can hear the M’Ra.

Virtuous Voice
At 8th level, an M’Ra becomes more resolute in his righteousness as his enemies begin to question themselves. An M’Ra gains a bonus to attacks and damage equal to the number of enemies that are affected by his Tongue of Flames ability.

[Fates]

Hmmmmm... a male-only PrC... insert tongue in cheek

M’Ra

The M’Ra are a loose organization of men who have taken it upon themselves to fight against the oppression of men no matter where it is or what form it takes. Virtuous and level-headed to a fault, these men prefer to fight from a distance under the protection of shadows and anonymity, inciting their enemies into a self-defeating rage.

HD: d6
Good Saves: Will
Poor Saves: Refl, Fort
BAB: medium (3/4 level)
Skill points: 4 per level

Tongue of Flames
At level 1, a M’Ra gains the ability to force their opponents to face unavoidable truth. Once per day per class level, as a standard action the M’Ra can begin to speak (or otherwise communicate). This ability forces an opponent that can hear the M’Ra to make a will save (DC 10+class level+charisma modifier) or take a -1 penalty to wisdom, as well as a -1 penalty to attack and damage. This penalty worsens to -2 at 4th level, -3 at 7th level, and -4 at 10th level. The penalty lasts so long as the M’Ra continues to speak. This is a language-dependent, mind-affecting ability.

Ethereal Anonymity
At level 2, the M’Ra can speak with a disembodied voice. Whenever the M’Ra speaks, or uses any ability dependent on speech (such as the tongue of flames or bard song abilities), he can make his voice emanate from the ether rather than his mouth. This voice can be heard in a radius equal to 10ft per class level. This ability allows an M’Ra to continue to hide while using these abilities, though enemies will still react to hearing the voice, they can’t pinpoint where it is coming from.

Relentless Flame
At Level 5, an M’Ra becomes more forceful when repeating their arguments. When an opponent saves against the Tongue of Flames ability they must continue to make a save each round so long as they can hear the M’Ra.

Virtuous Voice
At 8th level, an M’Ra becomes more resolute in his righteousness as his enemies begin to question themselves. An M’Ra gains a bonus to attacks and damage equal to the number of enemies that are affected by his Tongue of Flames ability.


You, sir, madame, or whatever you prefer, just became one internet richer.

Though I think you forgot Alignment: CG. The M'Ra is a freedom fighter to be counted amongst the likes of The Rebel Alliance, Dumbledore's Army and the Fellowship of the Ring.

[nedz]

Are there any Deities who require that their Clerics be of one particular sex ?

[Darkweave31]

You, sir, madame, or whatever you prefer, just became one internet richer.

Though I think you forgot Alignment: CG. The M'Ra is a freedom fighter to be counted amongst the likes of The Rebel Alliance, Dumbledore's Army and the Fellowship of the Ring.

Right! Should I also make Vow of Chastity a requirement? Since it's meant to be a counterpart to Beloved of Valarian of course.

[A.A.King]

Right! Should I also make Vow of Chastity a requirement? Since it's meant to be a counterpart to Beloved of Valarian of course.
No, this is obviously the counterpart to the equally homebrew Feminazi PrC. All you have to do is replace each use of the term men with women.

On a more serious note (though I'm guessing still not all that serieus) can't we really think of a mythical beast that we can use as counterpart for the Unicorn? One that is known for better manners then a Centaur or a Satyr.

[Fax Celestis]

No, this is obviously the counterpart to the equally homebrew Feminazi PrC. All you have to do is replace each use of the term men with women.

On a more serious note (though I'm guessing still not all that serieus) can't we really think of a mythical beast that we can use as counterpart for the Unicorn? One that is known for better manners then a Centaur or a Satyr.

...succubus?

[A.A.King]

...succubus?

I don't think those have manners which are that much better manners. (At least in traditional demonology, don't know about their D&D counterparts) There is still very much a rapey feel to it.

[Zanos]

...succubus?
They aren't really picky about gender.

[A.A.King]

They aren't really picky about gender.

Really? Did D&D remove the Incubus (their male counterpart for women)?

[Rubik]

Are there any Deities who require that their Clerics be of one particular sex ?Lolth, I believe. She's pretty much a literal Feminazi, though the term is not one I'd usually use to describe anyone. (It has a lot of connotations usually given to massive hyperbole and generally is better left alone.)


On a more serious note (though I'm guessing still not all that serieus) can't we really think of a mythical beast that we can use as counterpart for the Unicorn? One that is known for better manners then a Centaur or a Satyr.Djinn?

[StreamOfTheSky]

Okay, playground! Let's try a challenge: can we come up with a concept for a male-only PrC that is neither insulting to males nor "unfair" to females for excluding them?
One of my favorite mental games to play with myself is to invert the gender of every character in a work of fiction (changing as little as possible to avoid it being an apparent farce), and seeing how the thing is taken differently. (Consider Love Hina gender-inverted: the tsundere boy rocket-punching a girl for being a pervert is a lot less "funny," I'll bet, than the girl doing it to the boy. Or worse, Negima.) Perhaps we can start with one or more of the female-only PrCs and invert them? Heck, does it become more, less, or neutrally offensive to make the eunuch warlock female-only by changing out the mostly-fluff prereq to a different sort of mutilation?

On that note, multiple posters here have made light of an utterly horrific and violent act with "funny" euphemisms and so forth. I can't help but wonder how fast the thread would have been locked if we were doing that in relation to female genital mutilation.


It's very difficult, since applying anything positive to masculinity is generally percieved as sexist.

That about sums it up. Political correctness gone too far.


What about some sort of Samson-esque class that derives its power from Vow of Chastity? Sort of a Beloved of Valarian counterpart?

Samson was not the least bit chaste. If he had been, he probably wouldn't have been duped by his lover to cut his hair and been led to his downfall.

...How about modeling a PrC after Nikola Tesla, a hero who actually was chaste, choosing to devote everything to his research. I guess in D&D it would be a caster class.

[torrasque666]

...How about modeling a PrC after Nikola Tesla, a hero who actually was chaste, choosing to devote everything to his research. I guess in D&D it would be a caster class.

Or something like an artificer. Or even an artificer PrC.

[Hand_of_Vecna]

Really? Did D&D remove the Incubus (their male counterpart for women)?

I believe they mean that neither are concerned about gender. Succubus for people attracted to humanoid females, Incubus for people atracted to humanoid males. They don't care about your gender or even wether you're humanoid.

[Darkweave31]

Really? Did D&D remove the Incubus (their male counterpart for women)?

:sabine: Honey, I'm a shapechanger, it's not like we never tried-

Caught in the Actl (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0365.html)

[Fax Celestis]

Samson was not the least bit chaste. If he had been, he probably wouldn't have been duped by his lover to cut his hair and been led to his downfall.

I meant an "if you bone, you lose everything" sort of class, in the same way that Samson lost everything when he cut his hair.

Wasn't one of the Round Table knights chaste? Galahad? Percival?

[A.A.King]

Lolth, I believe. She's pretty much a literal Feminazi, though the term is not one I'd usually use to describe anyone. (It has a lot of connotations usually given to massive hyperbole and generally is better left alone.)
This way most sides get at who you are aiming, whereas when you use just "Feminist" then you'll bound to derail the thread into comments saying "That's not Feminist" and an endless discussion about what something is. Same reason I didn't go into the remarks about MRA, which also isn't just the people at 4 Chan. But lets all leave those kinds of discussions outside of the 3.5 section

[QUOTE=Hand_of_Vecna;17895042]I believe they mean that neither are concerned about gender. Succubus for people attracted to humanoid females, Incubus for people atracted to humanoid males. They don't care about your gender or even wether you're humanoid.


:sabine: Honey, I'm a shapechanger, it's not like we never tried-

Caught in the Actl (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0365.html)

I shouldn't rely on the bits I remember from Demonology to comment on how mythological creatures work in the D&D universe -.-

[AMFV]

I meant an "if you bone, you lose everything" sort of class, in the same way that Samson lost everything when he cut his hair.

Wasn't one of the Round Table knights chaste? Galahad? Percival?

Galahad was explicitly chaste. Percival was married for several days prior to consummation in some versions, embodying the courtly love ideal that was popular at that time.

[Fax Celestis]

Galahad was explicitly chaste. Percival was married for several days prior to consummation in some versions, embodying the courtly love ideal that was popular at that time.

So maybe something like Percival then. "Betrothed of Valarian" or something, where they're literally married to their goddess.

[AMFV]

So maybe something like Percival then. "Betrothed of Valarian" or something, where they're literally married to their goddess.

Yep, that was almost one of my suggestions, although most of mine revolved around courtly love.

[...]

Necropolitan seems like a good place to start.

I just had a quick look at the Necropolitan, and it doesn't seem to say anything about that. Also, I'm going to assume we're talking about the normal methods, so we don't cross the Forum Rules. You could theoretically say that Negative Energy takes the place of blood in that scenario, but that's a stretch and a half.

[NeoPhoenix0]

So maybe something like Percival then. "Betrothed of Valarian" or something, where they're literally married to their goddess.

you do know valarian is a dude, right? not that i'm judging such a relationship or anything, but he is a god not a goddess.

[Zanos]

Really? Did D&D remove the Incubus (their male counterpart for women)?
As someone above mentioned, I think that a D&D succubus and incubus are the same thing what with the shapeshifiting.

[AMFV]

you do know valarian is a dude, right? not that i'm judging such a relationship or anything, but he is a god not a goddess.

Right. He's the male God of Unicorns who hangs around with chaste women... We could completely build a prestige class around his relationships with men and not be too far off lore I don't think.

[Zanos]

Right. He's the male God of Unicorns who hangs around with chaste women...
That's actually super creepy. Who was saying something about dudebro unicorns?

[Fax Celestis]

you do know valarian is a dude, right? not that i'm judging such a relationship or anything, but he is a god not a goddess.

Betrothed of Shar, then.

Because obviously Shar is the best choice in a spouse

[Hand_of_Vecna]

One of my favorite mental games to play with myself is to invert the gender

I just reread this sentence fragment in Stream's quote and lol'd.

[AMFV]

That's actually super creepy. Who was saying something about dudebro unicorns?

Yes, but they can't become unchaste, he can't unchastify them or they lose his favor. So he's not doing anything specific to them, they're just not doing anything with anybody.

[Red Fel]

Really? Did D&D remove the Incubus (their male counterpart for women)?

Actually, as I recall, the Incubus is an entirely different creature. If I remember the entry right, Succubus is a physical sex-based demon(ess), while Incubus is a dream-based demon - seducing and draining the life out of people in their unconscious fantasies, rather than their literal ones.

I don't think either one really cares that much about gender. I mean, for the most part, gender is just one of those awkward phases mortals on the Material go through, right? Like "being alive?"

EDIT: Found it (http://archive.wizards.com/dnd/article.aspx?x=dnd/4ex/20100709). Sorry, turns out that I was looking at 4e. Pretty sure Incubus still has its own entry, though.

[NeoPhoenix0]

That's actually super creepy. Who was saying something about dudebro unicorns?

brother of valarian, requires entry into the fraternity of valarian.

leaves it open for both dude-bro like binges/trying to pickup chicks (for chaste adventuring only of course), and... experimenting..(chastely of course)

[Vhaidara]

Point of order, since he is not a female elf, half elf, or human, nor can he qualify for Beloved of Valarian, Valarian, the god of Unicorns, cannot ride a unicorn.

[...]

Actually, as I recall, the Incubus is an entirely different creature. If I remember the entry right, Succubus is a physical sex-based demon(ess), while Incubus is a dream-based demon - seducing and draining the life out of people in their unconscious fantasies, rather than their literal ones.

I don't think either one really cares that much about gender. I mean, for the most part, gender is just one of those awkward phases mortals on the Material go through, right? Like "being alive?"

I dunno, a lot of fey seem to be okay with it. :smallamused:

[Fax Celestis]

Yes, but they can't become unchaste, he can't unchastify them or they lose his favor. So he's not doing anything specific to them, they're just not doing anything with anybody.

#NoChasteo

[Trilby]

the same way that Samson lost everything when he cut his hair.

Emphasis mine. I distinctly remember it being cut by someone else...

Also, this is generally why I think gender-defined classes are a sh**e idea. It usually comes back to whatever is doing the defining being of the 'opposite' gender, which carries all sorts of--problematic--heteronormative real world connotations over into my fantasy game.

In my campaigns, all classes are open to beings of all genders, be they cis-, trans-, fluid (yay magic), or anything else. Furthermore, once someone decides to play a 'traditionally atypically' gender-defined being--unless it is explicitly specified in their backstory as being unique--diversity is considered the norm, and you'd better find another way to make your transgendered lady orc unicorn rider stand out.

Also, pet peeve of mine since starting this game: If you do have gender-defined classes (which you do in 3.5), THEN WHY NOT HAVE THE MONK CLASS BE GENDERED, TOO. Have it be fore males only, and introduce an Nun class of equivalent *snort* 'power'.

I always forget which word I'm not supposed to use, sex, or gender. I went with gender. I confuse easily.

[nedz]

Valarian is the only deity to grant the Fey domain — which does contain Blinding Beauty and Unearthly Beauty.
OK Druids can get both of these, and several other classes the first, but they are quite strange spells: Death by Girl Power.

[gr8artist]

Dude-bro unicorns you say? (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=J5GyaZhbd1U)

That's actually super creepy. Who was saying something about dudebro unicorns?
Obligatory (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23x6oR5tXWg).

I read the vast majority of the thread, hoping to come up with some clever insight or idea for a male-only prestige class or somesuch. No luck. Since physically and mentally there's really no difference between a woman in D&D and a man, the only thing to base such a PrC around would be the way they're perceived. So it'd have to be a club/church/organization that only allowed members of a certain gender.
In which case there's nothing they'd give or grant that couldn't be given or granted to a member of the opposite gender as well, making the point in the PrC being gender-biased moot.

[AMFV]

Obligatory (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23x6oR5tXWg).

I read the vast majority of the thread, hoping to come up with some clever insight or idea for a male-only prestige class or somesuch. No luck. Since physically and mentally there's really no difference between a woman in D&D and a man, the only thing to base such a PrC around would be the way they're perceived. So it'd have to be a club/church/organization that only allowed members of a certain gender.
In which case there's nothing they'd give or grant that couldn't be given or granted to a member of the opposite gender as well, making the point in the PrC being gender-biased moot.

Point of Order, the Eunuch Warlock is only accessible by men, by virtue of a physical difference between a woman in D&D and a man in D&D.

[Fax Celestis]

Point of Order, the Eunuch Warlock is only accessible by men, by virtue of a physical difference between a woman in D&D and a man in D&D.

BRB, rolling a Eunuch Warlock named Rod Biggerstaff.

[A.A.King]

Also, pet peeve of mine since starting this game: If you do have gender-defined classes (which you do in 3.5), THEN WHY NOT HAVE THE MONK CLASS BE GENDERED, TOO. Have it be fore males only, and introduce an Nun class of equivalent *snort* 'power'.

This one is simple, it's not a western monk but a asian monk. The asian monk doesn't have a female "nun" counterpart the same way monks and nuns are gender opposites.

[...]

BRB, rolling a Eunuch Warlock named Rod Biggerstaff.

That made me laugh so hard...

[NeoPhoenix0]

This one is simple, it's not a western monk but a asian monk. The asian monk doesn't have a female "nun" counterpart the same way monks and nuns are gender opposites.

that's not true, they have bhikkhunis

[Trilby]

Valarian is the only deity to grant the Fey domain — which does contain Blinding Beauty and Unearthly Beauty.
OK Druids can get both of these, and several other classes the first, but they are quite strange spells: Death by Girl Power.

These are my new favourite spells for my upcoming filthy gorgeous, manly dwarven druid. Whose name shall not end in -ili. And he'll not pine for some elvish lass that nobody had ever heard of before. He doesn't quite know before what, though. What is this 'movie' you speak of?

EDIT: cool, I knew they existed, just didn't know they were called bhikkuni. TIL Today :D

[Lodraygazagtar]

Considering the thread started with "why are men so underrepresented in D&D" there's really not much else where this could go. I'm surprised it lasted this long.


It didn't start with that, it started with these two things:
1. Are there any male only prestige classes?
2.Why isn't the book devoted to the good alignments(BOED) more inclusive?

It wasn't an accusation of sexism.

[A.A.King]

that's not true, they have bhikkhunis

Touché. Then it might just be me that sees it as
Western-style monks: Monks are Male and Nuns are female
Eastern-style monks: Monks can be are either male or female
Oh well.

[gr8artist]

Point of Order, the Eunuch Warlock is only accessible by men, by virtue of a physical difference between a woman in D&D and a man in D&D.
But there could be a female equivalent of the same thing, undergoing a gender-appropriate mutilation. The act of removing the organ doesn't inherently change the person on whom the operation is performed.

[Lodraygazagtar]

Idea for a male-only prestige class:
HE-MAN!

[Rubik]

Idea for a male-only prestige class:
HE-MAN!Retort:

SHE-RA!

They do the exact same thing, honestly.

[Fax Celestis]

Idea for a male-only prestige class:
HE-MAN!

She-Ra would like a word with you.

[super dark33]

Idea for a male-only prestige class:
HE-MAN!

Retort:

SHE-RA!

They do the exact same thing, honestly.



The Giant already did it.
(http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=9623431&postcount=9)

[Trilby]

2.Why isn't the book devoted to the good alignments(BOED) more inclusive?


The first question was answered upthread, so that's cool. No sexism intended, also cool. Whether that succeeded, is open to interpretation IMO.

As for your second question, could you define 'more inclusive'? More inclusive than what? The rest of the system? The Evil book? Also, why is the onus on the Good book to be 'more inclusive'?

[Lodraygazagtar]

The Giant already did it.
(http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=9623431&postcount=9)

Ugh... okay...
New class: THE MANLY MAN!

[Darkweave31]

Sassy Gay Friend would be a fun prestige class that's male only

[AMFV]

BRB, rolling a Eunuch Warlock named Rod Biggerstaff.

I seriously have to figure out a way to optimize and use the class now. I'll get to speak in a creepy falsetto all game. What's not to love?

[Lodraygazagtar]

The first question was answered upthread, so that's cool. No sexism intended, also cool. Whether that succeeded, is open to interpretation IMO.

As for your second question, could you define 'more inclusive'? More inclusive than what? The rest of the system? The Evil book? Also, why is the onus on the Good book to be 'more inclusive'?

Yes. I meant TEH BOOK OF EVILZ.
And... because... good doesn't discriminate? Never mind, Pelor and his paladins proved me wrong again.

[Darkweave31]

Can I just say that this entire thread is based on the assumption that the game designers were actually thinking about the classes they developed :smallamused:

[Rubik]

Sassy Gay Friend would be a fun prestige class that's male onlySASSY. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1kKNZTxszs)
Blurgleflart.

[AMFV]

Yes. I meant TEH BOOK OF EVILZ.
And... because... good doesn't discriminate? Never mind, Pelor and his paladins proved me wrong again.

You know there are Good gods that are a lot more bigoted than Pelor, who isn't really, unless you count undead as being their own species... Moradin is pretty exclusionary, Garl Glittergold, is fairly open, but a little exclusionary.

[Lodraygazagtar]

I seriously have to figure out a way to optimize and use the class now. I'll get to speak in a creepy falsetto all game. What's not to love?

His main goal throughout the game is to find ancient regeneration magic.

[Fax Celestis]

I seriously have to figure out a way to optimize and use the class now. I'll get to speak in a creepy falsetto all game. What's not to love?

The question becomes, do you play Varys...or do you play one of the guys from History of the World Part I?

[Red Fel]

I seriously have to figure out a way to optimize and use the class now. I'll get to speak in a creepy falsetto all game. What's not to love?

Optimizing the class is easy.

Just name your character Varys. You'll win at everything, forever.

... Except, you know, that. It's a small price to pay, depending on your relevant ability score modifier.

EDIT: Dangit, I got cut off.

[AMFV]

The question becomes, do you play Varys...or do you play one of the guys from History of the World Part I?

He is not yet very large, as he has just been snipped.

[NeoPhoenix0]

on this whole bigoted good gods thing, i find garl interesting, since he initiated the feud with the kobalds by collapsing kurtulmak's cave. i don't care if he is a god of pranksters that just ain't right.

[Trilby]

Can I just say that this entire thread is based on the assumption that the game designers were actually thinking about the classes they developed :smallamused:

This is true.

[Hand_of_Vecna]

As for your second question, could you define 'more inclusive'? More inclusive than what? The rest of the system? The Evil book? Also, why is the onus on the Good book to be 'more inclusive'?

More inclusive han it is. Not having gender gated PrC's and the OP wasn't aware of several more female exclusive PrC's or Eunuch Warlock, so it made BoED seem less inclusive than other books.


Sassy Gay Friend would be a fun prestige class that's male only

I thought we established that male Healers were Dude-bro Valarian's gay friends. Sassiness level not withstanding.

[NeoPhoenix0]

Can I just say that this entire thread is based on the assumption that the game designers were actually thinking about the classes they developed :smallamused:

it is our responsibility as die hard fans of the system to over analyze and deconstruct everything they wrote without thinking about why they wrote it.:smalltongue:

[LibraryOgre]

The Mod Wonder: Yep, this went to a stupid place. While it is possible to talk about a male-only PrC, about the time the word "Feminazi" starts flying around, we've stepped into a combination of "Inappropriate Topic" and "Flaming".