PDA

View Full Version : Roleplaying The most resilient gender conventions in roleplaying games?



Pages : [1] 2 3

Dr TPK
2015-06-28, 03:34 PM
What are the most resilient gender conventions in roleplaying, in general?

Just to get the ball rolling, I will suggest that
the old, wise master/sensei, who teaches the hero, is never female.
the guards at the city gate are never female.
the messenger of low status that brings an official message is never female.
the village healer is usually a woman.
the seer is usually a woman.

Feel free to contest my suggestions, but please do tell your suggestions too!

Mr Adventurer
2015-06-28, 03:53 PM
May I ask why?

Dr TPK
2015-06-28, 04:00 PM
May I ask why?

Curiosity.

Closet_Skeleton
2015-06-28, 04:57 PM
the old, wise master/sensei, who teaches the hero, is never female.

Are wise masters who teach the hero even a tabletop RPG convention?

If they are they tend to be in player written bios and therefore probably vary a lot.


the guards at the city gate are never female.
the messenger of low status that brings an official message is never female.

Most of these types of NPC aren't given gender.

Deaxsa
2015-06-28, 05:02 PM
I'll contest the sensei claim: if the master is in good shape and not too old, or is also the seer, then he(?) can be female.

The gullible king is never a queen (but princesses are plenty gullible)

The clever fool is never female, and the clever courtier is very rarely male.

Feddlefew
2015-06-28, 05:15 PM
I randomize gender whenever possible, as the need comes up.

I also have characters who don't fit into gender (or male or female) categories. Some are non-gender binary, some are hermaphrodites (both in the usual sense and sequential (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sequential_hermaphroditism)), and several important (non humanoid) NPCs use a radically different mating type (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mating_type) system.

Edit:

In modern times, the gold digger is always a woman who targets rich older men.

In Victorian times, the gold digger is always male who targets spinster daughters of wealthy families, especially if they have no siblings.

Flickerdart
2015-06-28, 05:19 PM
I would say that most NPCs the party interacts with will tend to be the DM's gender, just because it's less difficult to roleplay.

Ralanr
2015-06-28, 05:51 PM
Not sure if this works:

Hags are never male.

Pex
2015-06-28, 06:52 PM
In any home-brew and often in official published works matriarchal society males are at best serfs, slaves most often, and rest of the time killed on sight and/or food. It will never be a party mission to overthrow the Queen and liberate the male population. It is an environment the PCs must endure for an adventure arc; otherwise, it's game world flavor text.

Any organization that's male-only is Evil. Female-only organizations can be Good, Neutral, or Evil, but only female-only organizations will exist in official published works. Sisterhoods are ok but never Brotherhoods. It must be Brother & Sisterhood. The exception is naturally The Eunuch.

The town/village healer is female. The head constable is male.

Elves are always lead by a Queen with a male consort and sometimes a female consort as well.

Dwarves are patriarchal but wives are the power behind the throne.

The PC halfling is a male rogue. Important NPC halflings who are not rogues are female.

PCs never have to rescue a prince from a dragon.

In taverns, the bartender is always male. The PCs are always served by a waitress, never a waiter. The owner, if not the bartender, is male.

It's never a War goddess or Love god. A goddess can have War in her portfolio and a god have Love, but it's not what what they're generally known for. A PC thinking himself a love god is a different matter.

The god head of a pantheon is male. In a monotheistic faith, it's a goddess, often but not always only served by priestesses.

Why, yes, I do take special notice of these things. Why do you ask? :smallbiggrin:

goto124
2015-06-28, 07:04 PM
A PC thinking himself a love god is a different matter.

Was this intentional? :smalltongue:

Pex
2015-06-28, 07:29 PM
Was this intentional? :smalltongue:

Yes. It's never the female player. :smallbiggrin:

goto124
2015-06-28, 08:06 PM
Player or PC again?

Naanomi
2015-06-28, 08:13 PM
Exception: War Goddesses exist when the whole pantheon is female. Much more rare to have an entirely male pantheon.

The 'zealot blinded to the evil he does in the name of their perception of good' is almost exclusively male.

Most big monsters (giants, ogres, trolls) and savage/militaristic humanoids (orcs, hogoblins) are male by default.

RabidKoala
2015-06-28, 08:42 PM
Kings are usually male. Queens are usually female. 😉

dream
2015-06-28, 08:52 PM
You never see men in "bikini mail" armor :smalltongue:

And if you have, apologies.

YossarianLives
2015-06-28, 08:57 PM
You never see men in "bikini mail" armor :smalltongue:

And if you have, apologies.
Although you do seem to see quite a few scantily-clad male sorcerers.
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/29/81/4a/29814a73f82c77d66ffcaadef6c5af70.jpg

goto124
2015-06-28, 09:05 PM
Male barbarians are a thing, but male nakedness has different implications from female nakedness.

This goes beyond RPGs.

dream
2015-06-28, 09:19 PM
In any home-brew and often in official published works matriarchal society males are at best serfs, slaves most often, and rest of the time killed on sight and/or food. It will never be a party mission to overthrow the Queen and liberate the male population. It is an environment the PCs must endure for an adventure arc; otherwise, it's game world flavor text.
Countered with Lolth, Queen of the Demonweb Pits.


Any organization that's male-only is Evil. Female-only organizations can be Good, Neutral, or Evil, but only female-only organizations will exist in official published works. Sisterhoods are ok but never Brotherhoods. It must be Brother & Sisterhood. The exception is naturally The Eunuch.
Knights of the Round Table = all male & good.


Elves are always lead by a Queen with a male consort and sometimes a female consort as well.
Ever heard of Thranduil?


Dwarves are patriarchal but wives are the power behind the throne.
You've been playing with Wil Wheaton again :smalltongue:


The PC halfling is a male rogue. Important NPC halflings who are not rogues are female.
I've seen female halflings pitched as PC plenty of times on this site.


In taverns, the bartender is always male. The PCs are always served by a waitress, never a waiter. The owner, if not the bartender, is male.
this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOgS7SVTa-g)


It's never a War goddess or Love god. A goddess can have War in her portfolio and a god have Love, but it's not what what they're generally known for. A PC thinking himself a love god is a different matter.
Artemis, Greek war goddess. PF's Golarion boast several war goddesses, including "Chaldira Zuzaristan", halfling goddess of battle :smalltongue:

Pex
2015-06-28, 09:33 PM
Player or PC again?

Yes


Countered with Lolth, Queen of the Demonweb Pits.

She's a goddess, different issue. Also, it's not about liberating the male drow population.


Knights of the Round Table = all male & good.

Not an RPG published nor home-brew convention.


Ever heard of Thranduil?

Not an RPG published nor home-brew convention.


You've been playing with Wil Wheaton again :smalltongue:

Begone, demon, and speak not such blasphemy of the real he who shall not be named!


I've seen female halflings pitched as PC plenty of times on this site.

Rogues?


this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOgS7SVTa-g)

Not an RPG published or home-brew convention.


Artemis, Greek war goddess. PF's Golarion boast several war goddesses, including "Chaldira Zuzaristan", halfling goddess of battle :smalltongue:

goddess of the Hunt, not War, and also not an RPG published or home-brew convention. Athena was who I was referring about having the portfolio of War but not generally being known by it. She's more the goddess of Wisdom.

Steampunkette
2015-06-28, 09:50 PM
The female PC with the highest charisma is almost always volunteered to seduce the guard, regardless of sexual orientation or willingness to do so. Assuming there are multiple girls at the table. Otherwise the only one gets volunteered.

Agender NPCs exist only as semicreepy background fluff and evil advisors.

Transgender Female NPCs are almost invariably sex workers or villains. And almost always the butt of **** jokes.

Transgender Male NPCs don't exist.

Genderfluid characters are always treated as curiosities.

Bisexual Female NPCs are player love interests who often betray them.

Bisexual Male NPCcs are villains.

Cealocanth
2015-06-28, 10:11 PM
The evil dragon that must be slain can be either gender, but if it is a gold hoarder and princess capturer it is pretty much always male.

Troglodytes, kobolds, goblins, gnolls, and pretty much any other bestial monster-fodder race is pretty much universally male. (Does our society think that it is more ethical to kill males than females? This is probably why you never see female mooks in modern day spy movies either.)

The wizened wizard in the party is almost never a wizened witch.

The elven archer is usually female, despite the genre convention being a male character.

The dumb fighter is always male. If there is a female fighter, regardless of her Intelligence stat, she will not be the dumb fighter that hits things until they break.

The mad scientist is always male. (Not exactly fantasy, but still interesting)

The mob boss, crafty merchant, or politician character who attempts to usurp power using coin and guile is always male.

The Dwarf is always male. Always. Even if a player is playing a female dwarf, they will always be of the druidic, priestly, spellcaster, or tinker varieties. The beer-guzzling axe-weilding honor-obsessed Tolkien Dwarf is always male.

The Gunslinger is usually male.

The Lord of All Hells is never, never, The Lady of All Hells. This probably stems from the biblical version being male, but still you rarely see people try to subvert this one.

Drow are always matriarchal and you are always hard-pressed to find a male drow.

Pretty much every Fae race is restricted to one gender or the other. Fairies and pixies are female. Fauns are male. Mermaids, Sirens, Dryads, and similar spirits are female. The Ent are usually male. Funny how you don't see this one subverted very much, with the exception of Gnomes, which are actually remarkably equally played across gender lines.

The Werewolf is always male.


The female PC with the highest charisma is almost always volunteered to seduce the guard, regardless of sexual orientation or willingness to do so. Assuming there are multiple girls at the table. Otherwise the only one gets volunteered.

That's a funny one. It's weird, actually, that when you find the need for an escort, every player at that table will pretty much instinctively point to that particular female player, even if an equally charismatic male character is available. I think there's probably some underlying thing in our society which is more willing to accept females as seductresses then males as seducers. This is probably why succubi tend to outnumber incubi 10 to 1.

Psyren
2015-06-28, 10:19 PM
May I ask why?

I have to ask the same question. Even if the goal is to point out inequality trends in our RPGs or something similar, all it's going to do is invite people to chime in with a single counterexample, consider the overarching issue null and void as a result, and leave the thread with whatever preconceptions they entered with.

goto124
2015-06-28, 10:32 PM
Also, what sources are we using? Individual tables can vary a lot.

I see some positive discrimination. I think.

Felhammer
2015-06-28, 10:45 PM
You never see men in "bikini mail" armor :smalltongue:

And if you have, apologies.

I was DMing a game a few years back where the Dwarven Rogue's player had mentioned wanting to find some kind of special leather armor that would help him be a better rogue. A few weeks later, they were in a necromancer's crypt and came across a create with some discarded armor. The rogue was elated to find the armor he wanted but horrified that it was of the female variety. It had thigh high boots that ended in stiletto heals, a leather thong, a revealing corset-style top and elbow-length gloves. To his credit, the player donned the armor and wore it until the campaign abruptly ended. I think being a Dwarf helped the character, since he had a really long beard to begin with, so from the front, the only thing that would look weird was that he had exposed shoulders and high heels. From the back however... Many a townfolk shot the Dwarf a sideways glance, pondering if he were a female or just a guy with a weird fashion sense (especially considering he never bought pants...)

dream
2015-06-28, 11:06 PM
I was DMing a game a few years back where the Dwarven Rogue's player had mentioned wanting to find some kind of special leather armor that would help him be a better rogue. A few weeks later, they were in a necromancer's crypt and came across a create with some discarded armor. The rogue was elated to find the armor he wanted but horrified that it was of the female variety. It had thigh high boots that ended in stiletto heals, a leather thong, a revealing corset-style top and elbow-length gloves. To his credit, the player donned the armor and wore it until the campaign abruptly ended. I think being a Dwarf helped the character, since he had a really long beard to being with, so from the front, the only thing that would look weird was that he had exposed shoulders and high heels. From the back however... Many a townfolk shot the Dwarf a sideways glance, pondering if he were a female or just a guy with a weird fashion sense (especially considering he never bought pants...)
loL :smallbiggrin:

Well. Most of these aren't really gender conventions; they're tropes and/or cliches :smallsmile:

goto124
2015-06-28, 11:07 PM
The player donned the armor? That's dedication. Who made the armor?

... :smalltongue:

IZ42
2015-06-28, 11:31 PM
The character who can't roleplay worth a damn is always a male beatstick. Sadly, this is me. I'm the most knowledgeable player at my table, at least with the system being used, but I find it hard to roleplay and generally play martial characters. I'm really stepping out of my norm by playing a BFC or Mage.

Milo v3
2015-06-28, 11:40 PM
Whenever I make an NPC I flip a coin to determine sex, so none of this is even a possibility of being an issue for my group.

Elbeyon
2015-06-28, 11:45 PM
Whenever I make an NPC I flip a coin to determine sex, so none of this is even a possibility of being an issue for my group.I do something similar (even for my pc). When I have play a character of the opposite sex/gender I'll often ask the opposite sex/gender for advice.

Frozen_Feet
2015-06-29, 12:15 AM
In taverns, the bartender is always male. The PCs are always served by a waitress, never a waiter. The owner, if not the bartender, is male.

Majority of the conventions listed here don't apply to my games, but with the above, I can only say I'm guilty as charged. :smallbiggrin: Can't think of a single time of doing it the other way around.


Not an RPG published nor home-brew convention.

Pyöreän pöydän ritarit AKA Knights of the Round Table is a published RPG in Finland. Then again, I vaguely recall it having suggestions on how to incorporate female knights.


Does our society think that it is more ethical to kill males than females?

Yes.

Segev
2015-06-29, 12:33 AM
It's weird, actually, that when you find the need for an escort, every player at that table will pretty much instinctively point to that particular female player, even if an equally charismatic male character is available. I think there's probably some underlying thing in our society which is more willing to accept females as seductresses then males as seducers. This is probably why succubi tend to outnumber incubi 10 to 1.

This is the result of stereotypes and political correctness cutting both ways. A male seducer is a creep, skeevy, evil, malign, and horribly abusing his female victims. While the female seductress can be evil and manipulative and cruel, she doesn't have to be and is not so, inherently. Moreover, the stereotype nowadays is that men won't - and often almost can't - say "no" to an offer of sex. Socially, in fiction especially, it's expected that men are willing, eager, and actively seeking sexual encounters with women. For a seductress to act on a man, he must resist his carnal nature and usually must have a strong reason to say "no," such as a committed girlfriend/wife, an unusually (and often "quaintly") moral objection, feel that he shouldn't take advantage of this girl (despite her being the seductress), or knowing that he's doing a job that he should not betray for sex.

And it will be portrayed as a challenge for him to resist.

The stereotype is that women are not interested, at best, and often are offended at the offer/request for sexual engagement. Sex is an imposition men put upon them. The male seducer thus is portrayed as having an uphill battle AND as being a creep, because he's the used car salesman trying to sell her something she doesn't want for his own selfish gratification.


Therefore, it will be very rare to see the party turn to the charismatic male to seduce the female guard. It's "expected" to be harder to achieve, and it's socially more of a black mark, ironically, because while the male ladies' man having dozens of "conquests" in his off-screen background is fine and dandy and a woman behaving similarly is considered far less kindly, the actual act of encouraging a potentially initially unwilling partner is slimy when done by the evil predatory man, and merely taking advantage of the base nature of the target when done by the woman.


As for "sexual preference..."

Absent evidence to the contrary, the odds are VERY VERY HIGH that a given target is sexually attracted to the opposite sex. AT least, if ratios are similar to the real world's, rather than TVland's (where nearly every modern ensemble of at least 6 members has at least 1 if not 2 gay or bi individuals). In reality, the numbers are below 3% for all of homosexual and bisexual and asexual individuals combined. Of course, if you want to have a higher ratio for your setting, that's fine and dandy, but don't hold it up as a silly assumption before making it clear your ratios of homosexual-only people are higher in your fictional setting. (Because even if lots of people are bi-, bi-sexual people will be attracted regardless of your choice, so choosing the opposite sex won't hurt.)

(If you disagree with my numbers, you can look things up yourself. IF you find evidence you find compelling that I'm wrong, I don't really care to argue it with you; it simply means you should let your audience know what to expect if you expect them to change their behavior and choices regarding how they approach such problems as whether to seduce a guard of a given sex or not.)


I think, though, the first point's the biggest reason: it's assumed that sex is an inducement for men, but not for women. Therefore, seducing the male with the female is "likely to work" if she's able to convince him to give in to his baser nature. Seducing the female with the male requires convincing her not to "give in," but to overcome her "natural" aversion to the act in the first place.

i.e., from a stereotype perspective, seducing a female with a male is like trying to bribe her by asking her to pay the briber.

BWR
2015-06-29, 01:55 AM
Exception: War Goddesses exist when the whole pantheon is female.

In Mystara, Vanya, Patroness of War and Conquerers, is female. There are plenty of male Immortals in that setting. There are some war-crazed male Immortals as well, but the biggest and most war-like (without bringing other racial or cultural politics into it) is Vanya.
On a tangent, Valerias of the same setting is known as the Girder-on of Weapons, not because she's particularly warlike but because she will often appear to some poor sod and give him weapons and armor so he can run off and save his beloved who has been kidnapped/forced to marry someone s/he doesn't like etc.

Steampunkette
2015-06-29, 02:22 AM
Worth noting: Most villainous NPCs are male for the same reason most Heroic NPCs are male.

Societal Default.

A Goblin Fighter or an Human Wizard, alignment set aside, are generally presumed to be male. We add the addendum that a character is female as a descriptive element aside from the accepted default.

Similarly, we default to White and Heterosexual in the US. Any black character must be defined by their blackness.

As far as seducing the guard: Political Correctness does not assume or paint men as being controlled by their groin. That is the standard chauvinistic excuse for sexual harrassment or infidelity which is meant to excuse a guy's behavior.

As for men doing the seducing, I'll point you to Zorro, Baron Munchausen, The Scarlet Pimpernel, Jack Sparrow, Don Juan, and a thousand other popular depictions of male seducers buckling more than swashes!

The reasons men don't seduce guards are above. Assumed male gender and assumed heterosexuality.

TheCountAlucard
2015-06-29, 03:54 AM
In any home-brew and often in official published works matriarchal society males are at best serfs, slaves most often, and rest of the time killed on sight and/or food.Neither the Realm nor the Glorious Principality of An-Teng conform to this, thankfully.


The PC halfling is a male rogue. Important NPC halflings who are not rogues are female.Last game of mine that had halflings in it at all, this wasn't true.


PCs never have to rescue a prince from a dragon.Guilty, but I did make an adventure where the PCs need to rescue a dragon from a princess. :smallamused:


In taverns, the bartender is always male. The PCs are always served by a waitress, never a waiter. The owner, if not the bartender, is male.The PCs of my seafaring game have been to two taverns and two inns: one tavern had a male bartender, the other a female bartender, and both were owned by women; both inns were run by men, but one was owned by a man.


It's never a War goddess or Love god. A goddess can have War in her portfolio and a god have Love, but it's not what what they're generally known for.I'll notify Cupid immediately.

Also the Exalted setting has gods and goddesses of war, ranging from Ahlat (god of southern warfare and cattle) to Siakal (goddess of western warfare and sharks) to the Maiden of Battles herself.



Why, yes, I do take special notice of these things. Why do you ask?Don't quit your day job. :smallamused:


The female PC with the highest charisma is almost always volunteered to seduce the guard, regardless of sexual orientation or willingness to do so. Assuming there are multiple girls at the table. Otherwise the only one gets volunteered.Honestly never had the PCs try and seduce information out of a guard, so I don't have an answer for that.


Transgender Female NPCs are almost invariably sex workers or villains. And almost always the butt of **** jokes.In the Exalted setting, the city of Chiaroscuro has the Dereth; Dereth will be doing the same thing other people of their gender do, so there would reasonably be a few female Dereth sex workers (and male ones), but more likely you'll come across a Dereth woman that runs a teahouse, or manages a household, et cetera.


Transgender Male NPCs don't exist.In addition to the Dereth, the Exalted setting also has the Tya, transmen who ritually scar themselves and sail the western ocean.

It might also make you happy to know that of the iconic characters of the new edition, one is transgendered.


Bisexual Male NPCcs are villains.My seafaring game is thankfully an exception; the thunderbird who gave the Storm King his magical cudgel has yet to grow a black goatee.

Closet_Skeleton
2015-06-29, 04:39 AM
goddess of the Hunt, not War, and also not an RPG published or home-brew convention. Athena was who I was referring about having the portfolio of War but not generally being known by it. She's more the goddess of Wisdom.

Actually using the Greek Pantheon isn't that common, but they're in Deities and Demigods.

Egyptian (and next but a way behind; Norse) deities are the most likely to be lifted straight from the real world.



Bisexual Female NPCs are player love interests who often betray them.


Rogues and thieves are more sexually fluid than Paladins.

goto124
2015-06-29, 05:28 AM
We're relying on published works for this?


you should let your audience know what to expect if you expect them to change their behavior and choices regarding how they approach such problems as whether to seduce a guard of a given sex or not.)

'Everyone, seduction works purely on Charisma rolls, not on male or female stuff. Female-on-male has equal chance to male-on-female, assuming all other factors are equal. Don't forget that unwillingness can occure due to those other factors, such as being attracted to another person, and your character happening to smell bad on that day.'


Rogues and thieves are more sexually fluid than Paladins.

I'm a proud owner of a sexually fluid paladin then (who also happens to be bisexual) :smalltongue:

Steampunkette
2015-06-29, 06:36 AM
Bisexuality isn't sexual fluidity. It's as solid a sexuality as heterosexuality. There are sex fluid individuals who shift through attraction to different genders, of course. But Bi? Solid as any other.

Basically all of my characters are bi, regardless of alignment or class... though that does bring up an interesting thought for a second thread...

Lurkmoar
2015-06-29, 08:54 AM
Most barbarians are male.

The only female barbarian I can think of off-hand is Red Sonja.

Segev
2015-06-29, 09:00 AM
'Everyone, seduction works purely on Charisma rolls, not on male or female stuff. Female-on-male has equal chance to male-on-female, assuming all other factors are equal. Don't forget that unwillingness can occure due to those other factors, such as being attracted to another person, and your character happening to smell bad on that day.'This is actually wise to note. You may or may not be amazed by how many players would assume that NPCs (and their PC) are not going to be as easily seduced by the wrong sex as they are by the right one.

Not only is there the "dude, I'm not gay" default reaction as a blanket dismissal of attempts at seduction by the same sex, but it's a strong trope for the seductress (or seductor; this one is almost as common for the cassanova or cassanova-wannabe as it is for the femme fatale) to be failing miserably, reacting with a "this is just so wrong; I know I'm good at this so why isn't it working?" attitude, only for the target to turn out to be gay. It's usually played for laughs at the expense of the seductor who is portrayed as foolish for having assumed the wrong orientation of their target. (I think I've seen it at least played once such that, when the seductress realized the problem, revealed she was a shapeshifter and became the correct sex to try again...and succeeded.)

So saying "Charisma does it, with sexual orientation having no bearing on it" is in all honesty mechanically stating that all characters are bisexual in your setting, whether they want to be or not. They may identify otherwise, of course. But they're probably just lying to themselves.




I'm a proud owner of a sexually fluid paladin then (who also happens to be bisexual) :smalltongue:


Bisexuality isn't sexual fluidity. It's as solid a sexuality as heterosexuality. There are sex fluid individuals who shift through attraction to different genders, of course. But Bi? Solid as any other.
I'll be honest, I'm not sure I appreciate the difference. "I like chocolate ice cream today; yesterday I liked mint, but I don't feel like it today," seems the extent of it as I've heard it portrayed. That sounds a lot like "bi" but with a mood-based preference.

This is likely my own bias, but the only way I've seen it portrayed that I can wrap my head around it is when there's an honest-to-goodness physiological change involved. "When I'm in dog-form, raw meat tastes amazing," says a were-wolf who, in human form, insists on things well-done. "When I'm in rabbit-form, I actually love fresh vegetables," says the 7-year-old were-bunny who can't stand veggies in human kid-form; "Mommy makes me transform every night before bed so I'll eat them for dessert." Thus, the person whose physical gender is honestly fluid might be straight 100% of the time, and "gender-fluid" because when male he likes girls, and when female she likes boys.

Without an honest physiological change, I find it hard to buy that it's more than a change of taste and mood. (Of course, "turning gay" or "discovering you're gay" plotlines often are portrayed this way. I'm not sure, come to think of it, I've seen a plotline where a gay character suddenly discovered (s)he was straight and never went back, though the reverse is not at all uncommon.)

Milo v3
2015-06-29, 09:09 AM
Most barbarians are male.

The only female barbarian I can think of off-hand is Red Sonja.

The Iconic Barbarian in Pathfinder is female and actually wears clothes (baring midriff), and the barbarian in my current party is female.

The Evil DM
2015-06-29, 09:23 AM
'Everyone, seduction works purely on Charisma rolls, not on male or female stuff. Female-on-male has equal chance to male-on-female, assuming all other factors are equal. Don't forget that unwillingness can occure due to those other factors, such as being attracted to another person, and your character happening to smell bad on that day.'

Many people mistakenly assume that seduction is only sexual. Seduction itself is a many headed serpent of charm, guile, salesmanship, manipulation and temptation.

For a very good look at what seduction is check out Art of Seduction (http://www.amazon.com/dp/0142001198/?tag=googhydr-20&hvadid=76337149159&hvpos=1t1&hvexid=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=16100201051055701530&hvpone=14.23&hvptwo=&hvqmt=b&hvdev=c&ref=pd_sl_2gii1v49l_b) by Robert Green. It is a treatise on seduction based on actual application of seduction within politics throughout history.

Segev
2015-06-29, 09:30 AM
Political Correctness does not assume or paint men as being controlled by their groin. That is the standard chauvinistic excuse for sexual harrassment or infidelity which is meant to excuse a guy's behavior.

Eh, no.

The chauvinistic standard stems from an earlier, now inverted societal expectation: that all women are lustful.

The Lystrasia Gambit is the name of the trope wherein women deny their men sex in order to compel them to a certain behavior or deed. In modern fiction, this is seen (on the surface and played straight) as a powerful tool that is highly believable; men can't live without sex (never mind, for instance, there are men who are in their 30s and still virgins) and will ultimately break down in the face of needing their "fix."

In the time period from whence this tale comes, however, it was seen as a comedic act, more akin to how it would be seen now if men were to tell their women that they're witholding sex until the women change their behavior in some way.

Victorian-era social expectations were similar.

That is, at that time, it was believed that women were lustful, sensual beings who had to exercise rigid self-control and be kept away from all temptation lest they succomb to their lusts. "Lie back and think of England" was more Edwardian, IIRC, when the Victorian-era reputation for coldness became thought of as the natural state rather than a necessary iron control to overcome said natural state.

So the more chauvanistic attitude tends to portray men as non-predatory because the women are all but begging for sex, so all she needs is "an excuse."

The idea that women really aren't as interested as men, and that men are unable to think with anything but their genitals, is not "pro-man." I've seen very few instances where it was honestly used as an excuse (Piers Anthony's works being about it; he was born a dirty old man and has gotten dirtier as he's gotten older). It is typically used to portray men in a negative light. It's not an excuse; it's proof they're baser, more animalistic, and not to be trusted. It's also the source of certain double-standards in both fiction and reality, centering around the idea that men don't ever mean "no," unless the sexual partner is hideously undesirable (in which case it's usually portrayed as some sort of righteous cummuppance to show men what it's like to be pursued unwillingly).


There are times it's played more accurately, but political correctness means that men being portrayed in those fashions is "acceptable" and won't raise a loud outcry the way it would if the sexes were reversed.

Lurkmoar
2015-06-29, 09:57 AM
The Iconic Barbarian in Pathfinder is female and actually wears clothes (baring midriff), and the barbarian in my current party is female.

That's three. Anyone want to count up the male Barbarians?

I'll start :smallbiggrin:

-Conan
-Kalidor from the film Red Sonja(Okay, it's Conan with the serial numbers filed off)
-Darkwolf from Fire and Ice animated film. Not a hundred percent sure if Larn is a Barbarian, he doesn't rage like Darkwolf. Teegra strikes me more as a rogue.
-KORGOTH OF BARBARIA!
-Guts from Berserk
-He-Man
-Thundarr the Barbarian
-Barbarians in Diablo are depicted as male
-Warriors of Chaos from Warhammer are Barbarians, pretty sure they're male.
-Enkidu from the Epic of Gilgamesh hits all the Barbarian high notes
-Herakles/Hercules
-That guy with the Tri-Sword that shoots fromt hat film. Darn, I can't remember the name. He seemed to have been molded in the barbarian frame.

Though now I'm wondering if it just shows a skew toward male heroes over females. Oh well.

Flickerdart
2015-06-29, 10:03 AM
I'm a proud owner of a sexually fluid paladin then (who also happens to be bisexual) :smalltongue:
I know it's become easier to play non-standard races, but giving class levels to sexual fluid is a little much. :smallamused:

goto124
2015-06-29, 10:06 AM
Segev: Make everyone lustful, whether male or female or hermaphrodite or whatever.

Problem solved =P


I know it's become easier to play non-standard races, but giving class levels to sexual fluid is a little much. :smallamused:

Is that an obscure PrC? *whistles innocently*

Milo v3
2015-06-29, 10:09 AM
That's three. Anyone want to count up the male Barbarians?
Krusk and some Warriors of Chaos (not all), that's all I can think of from Roleplaying games. And only rolepaying game characters matter in this discussion.

Psyren
2015-06-29, 10:16 AM
I'll be honest, I'm not sure I appreciate the difference. "I like chocolate ice cream today; yesterday I liked mint, but I don't feel like it today," seems the extent of it as I've heard it portrayed. That sounds a lot like "bi" but with a mood-based preference.

The difference is that there are folks who like both chocolate and mint all the time. Thus they are not fluid - they know what they want and it does not change. Thus when others say things to them like "you might say that, but I know you really just like chocolate", or "sure you like chocolate and mint, but you obviously like chocolate more" or even "you're just saying that, because I haven't seen you have mint in like forever" can be insulting.

Basically, if someone identifies as X, the key is to be respectful of that (assuming X is ethical obviously) until they identify otherwise.

Flickerdart
2015-06-29, 10:24 AM
Is that an obscure PrC? *whistles innocently*
It would be remarkably obscure, given that even intelligent Oozes are profoundly asexual.

Segev
2015-06-29, 10:33 AM
Segev: Make everyone lustful, whether male or female or hermaphrodite or whatever.

Problem solved =PI'm not calling it a problem or not. I'm just pointing out why things are as they are. You're welcome to attempt to change it however you like. :smallsmile:

The fact remains that the stereotypes exist and they exist for reasons, good or bad.



The difference is that there are folks who like both chocolate and mint all the time. Thus they are not fluid - they know what they want and it does not change. Thus when others say things to them like "you might say that, but I know you really just like chocolate", or "sure you like chocolate and mint, but you obviously like chocolate more" or even "you're just saying that, because I haven't seen you have mint in like forever" can be insulting.I'm fine with shrugging and agreeing with them as long as it doesn't get to the point of ridiculousness and begin impeding communication. Or they're getting rude/deceptive with it. Though that's less likely when dealing with sexual preferences than ice cream preferences. At least, I hope nobody would be huffy over not being offered sex by somebody they'd turned down on the grounds of not swinging that way.

(The analogy breaks down here because I could see somebody being a bit huffy if not offered ice cream, even if last time they'd turned it down because they didn't like the flavor and it's the same flavor this time. Not reasonably so, and I'd call them out on it, but I could see it happening whereas that level of entitlement when it comes to sex would be beyond rude and into terribly creepy.)


Basically, if someone identifies as X, the key is to be respectful of that (assuming X is ethical obviously) until they identify otherwise.Please, let's not get into "identifies as..." That...can only lead to violations of forum rules as feelings WILL be hurt (or social bullying will be applied to ensure that nobody dares speak aught but orthodoxy). Things are what they are; if you want to say you're something else, it doesn't bother me...until demands start being made of me wrt your preferences. Demanding that I accept that the Emperor identifies as wearing clothing and therefore not avert my eyes from what they're plainly seeing is, at best, annoying. If he wants to walk around naked while saying he's clothed, he's welcome to, as long as he's not telling me to celebrate his fabulous wardrobe along with him. "Live and let live" goes both ways.

Psyren
2015-06-29, 10:51 AM
I'm fine with shrugging and agreeing with them as long as it doesn't get to the point of ridiculousness and begin impeding communication. Or they're getting rude/deceptive with it. Though that's less likely when dealing with sexual preferences than ice cream preferences. At least, I hope nobody would be huffy over not being offered sex by somebody they'd turned down on the grounds of not swinging that way.

(The analogy breaks down here because I could see somebody being a bit huffy if not offered ice cream, even if last time they'd turned it down because they didn't like the flavor and it's the same flavor this time. Not reasonably so, and I'd call them out on it, but I could see it happening whereas that level of entitlement when it comes to sex would be beyond rude and into terribly creepy.)



Please, let's not get into "identifies as..." That...can only lead to violations of forum rules as feelings WILL be hurt (or social bullying will be applied to ensure that nobody dares speak aught but orthodoxy). Things are what they are; if you want to say you're something else, it doesn't bother me...until demands start being made of me wrt your preferences. Demanding that I accept that the Emperor identifies as wearing clothing and therefore not avert my eyes from what they're plainly seeing is, at best, annoying. If he wants to walk around naked while saying he's clothed, he's welcome to, as long as he's not telling me to celebrate his fabulous wardrobe along with him. "Live and let live" goes both ways.

Well, I can't speak for anyone else you may have interacted with in the past - but my goal is not to apply "social bullying" to pressure anyone into "orthodoxy" or anything else along those lines. I'm merely pointing out what I feel to be the most polite method of engagement. You are perfectly free to follow my suggestion or disregard it, as you choose :smallsmile: (keeping in mind, of course, the very forum rules you mentioned.)

Segev
2015-06-29, 10:58 AM
I'm willing to live and let live. Especially on a forum. All I ask is the same courtesy in return. Usually, I find that here, so all's well. :smallsmile:

Amphetryon
2015-06-29, 11:48 AM
Actually using the Greek Pantheon isn't that common, but they're in Deities and Demigods.

Egyptian (and next but a way behind; Norse) deities are the most likely to be lifted straight from the real world.


How did you compile the data for this statistical analysis?

TheCountAlucard
2015-06-29, 02:00 PM
ConanNot the character class - Howard's Conan could best be described as "multiclassed out the wazoo."


He-ManCrom's nipples, how is He-Man a barbarian? Aside from "he's muscular," which puts tens of thousands more people on this list, in what way does He-Man qualify? Most of his time is spent as a pampered prince, and the rest as, effectively, a demigod with a Strength of "yes."


Though now I'm wondering if it just shows a skew toward male heroes over females.This seems the more likely answer, sadly.

Steampunkette
2015-06-29, 02:05 PM
Identifies as means that someone told you who they are.

I'm a self identified bisexual woman.

I happen to be married to a man whom I love, but I still feel attraction toward other women. Most people who see me and my relationship assume I'm heterosexual, so I have to clarify through self identification.

That's all that is. Now if someone who is white tells you they identify as black they're using the term wrong and being ridiculously insulting! I know it happens, but that kinda stuff is just wrong.

Insert The More You Know gif here.

Segev
2015-06-29, 03:12 PM
Identifies as means that someone told you who they are.

I'm a self identified bisexual woman.

I happen to be married to a man whom I love, but I still feel attraction toward other women. Most people who see me and my relationship assume I'm heterosexual, so I have to clarify through self identification. Sure, fine.


Now if someone who is white tells you they identify as black they're using the term wrong and being ridiculously insulting! I know it happens, but that kinda stuff is just wrong.


And here's where we run into issues. This is an arbitrary distinction. Race is, if anything, LESS inherent to your physical body than is sex.

If you want to claim something I think is false, it's usually not my place to call you on it. However, if you claim you identify as one thing despite your body disagreeing, and that's okay, but that other person identifying as another thing despite his body disagreeing is NOT okay, that's one place I draw a line. If a person can identify as a particular sex in contrast to their biological reality, then they had better respect another's identification as a particular race, regardless of that other's biological reality.

(Besides, we should be striving for color-blindness. With the exception of certain medical realities, there's nothing inherent to race which SHOULD matter to how you are treated nor permitted to behave. Which means somebody identifying as a race other than their biological reality should not matter at all.)

Steampunkette
2015-06-29, 04:49 PM
Race is just as SOCIALLY relevant, even if it's not biologically relevant.

Racism is an overarching systemic bias. Being white and "Identifying" as black means you're taking on the symbolic struggles (and victories) for yourself without facing the actual systemic challenges. It's pretty problematic behavior.

Color Blindness doesn't work, yet. We've gotta fix a lot of problems that are related to race before we get to the point where ignoring race is useful.

Segev
2015-06-29, 04:59 PM
Race is just as SOCIALLY relevant, even if it's not biologically relevant.

Racism is an overarching systemic bias. Being white and "Identifying" as black means you're taking on the symbolic struggles (and victories) for yourself without facing the actual systemic challenges. It's pretty problematic behavior.

Color Blindness doesn't work, yet. We've gotta fix a lot of problems that are related to race before we get to the point where ignoring race is useful.

I do not think this forum is the place to debate whether color blindness works or not; I will say that, anecdotally, it was working in my tiny world until the last decade's resurgence of insistence on attention being paid to it. But that's anecdotal.

Recognize that one could say that sex is still socially relevant, too, and that by "identifying" as a woman when you are a man, you are taking on the symbolic struggles (and victories) of women for yourself without facing the actual systemic challenges.


Similarly, "identifying" as white when you are black should be perfectly acceptable, yet the hostility anybody who dared do so would face from what currently calls itself the civil rights community is almost terrifying. Just look what happens, without "identifying" as white, to those blacks who dare speak about personal responsibility and try to hold up their own successes as examples.

In reality, I'm a realist. You are what you are. If you wish to identify differently, I honestly don't care until you start demanding things of me because of it. I play RPGs wherein I pretend to be a 60-ft. red-scaled fire-breathing shapeshifting lizard. I do not personally think I am such in real life, but as long as it's not hurting anybody else, whose business is it if, tomorrow, I did? I try to live and let live. As I've said, all I ask in return is that others return the courtesy. And preferably, treat others as they wish to be treated.

Vitruviansquid
2015-06-29, 05:01 PM
I don't understand.

How does it trouble me if a white guy feels like he shares in black struggles? How does him feeling whatever silly or stupid (or, hell, legitimate, but I just can't see it) thing he wants impacts me?

Steampunkette
2015-06-29, 05:17 PM
If it doesn't bother you then it doesn't bother you. And that's all well and good. You're not obligated to be upset by the same stuff that upsets others.

But it bothers the hell out of a lot of other people. So we shouldn't do it for their sake.

Kinda like how I don't have kids and don't mind cursing, but I don't take my Nephew to Chuck E. Cheese's and then fire off endless strings of profanity in front of the kids. I don't mind it, and it doesn't trouble me...

But it troubles others. So...

Segev
2015-06-29, 05:20 PM
If it doesn't bother you then it doesn't bother you. And that's all well and good. You're not obligated to be upset by the same stuff that upsets others.

But it bothers the hell out of a lot of other people. So we shouldn't do it for their sake.

It bothers some people for people to identify as the counter-to-biological sex.

You can't restrict one kind of free speech/expression on the basis that it offends, then fail to restrict another nearly-identical type on the same basis.

Consistency is crucial.

Seto
2015-06-29, 05:42 PM
Recognize that one could say that sex is still socially relevant, too, and that by "identifying" as a woman when you are a man, you are taking on the symbolic struggles (and victories) of women for yourself without facing the actual systemic challenges.

Except that when you're white and you identify as black (and your main/only way of expressing it is verbal), you don't really face systemic bias because nobody takes you seriously enough to exert bias upon you. When you're biologically male and identify as a woman, you face a hell of a lot of systemic challenges (for different reasons than most women). You're first and foremost oppressed as a transgender person, and sometimes also as a woman. Our societies oppress transgender people and they don't oppress transrace people as far as I know (and I'm no expert).


It bothers some people for people to identify as the counter-to-biological sex.

You can't restrict one kind of free speech/expression on the basis that it offends, then fail to restrict another nearly-identical type on the same basis.

Consistency is crucial.

That's true, consistency is crucial. And, considered individually, the "bothering" and whatnot does seem pretty symmetrical. Thing is, it's actually not. The real argument to be made there is that one of those two categories is discriminated against as a whole, by the very structures of our societies (rather than individually offended) and the other has it easier (and their only problems in that regard are individual). When someone realizes that, they might go on to think that the perceived symmetry in being bothered and offended is actually profoundly asymmetrical, and that the first category is a lot more justified in being angry and assertive than the second.

Steampunkette
2015-06-29, 05:54 PM
Segev... you know how deeply personal this topic is to me and you're stomping on a bad line. Believe me when I tell you that you don't understand as much as you think you do on the matter and let's agree to drop it.

Closet_Skeleton
2015-06-29, 05:55 PM
-Warriors of Chaos from Warhammer are Barbarians, pretty sure they're male.

There are at least 3 female ones, on the whole they're male. But not all Chaos Warriors are barbarians, some are fallen knights.


How did you compile the data for this statistical analysis?

You know anyone who makes such a claim in this context means "from the my experience of reading campaign settings" so you're just being pointlessly flippant.

Steampunkette
2015-06-29, 06:02 PM
Thank you, Seto, for highlighting that.

Cealocanth
2015-06-30, 12:04 AM
Our societies oppress transgender people and they don't oppress transrace people as far as I know (and I'm no expert).

I wouldn't call it oppression, but society certainly looks down on it. My personal experience comes from someone who rejects the concept of race, and the hatred generated from that usually comes in the form of being labeled and discriminated against anyway, or being considered a traitor as if a race was some sort of organization I swore allegiance to, instead of something I was born into. It actually shares remarkable parallels to the gender discussion.

The point is, when faced with the abnormal, society will either attempt to change it and incorporate it into itself, or it will reject it until it disappears. In the case of both of these topics, society has been trying to do both for a very, very long time. The abnormal convention will not be accepted until it has changed to satisfy society's standards, or society has changed to be able to find parallels to it. The latter is a lot harder, but often the most desirable. Meanwhile, common symptoms that result from exposure to the abnormal will be hatred, rejection, discrimination, prejudice, and on lighter notes there will be rationalizing, attempting to fit it into boxes that meet society's rules, and exoticism, the fascination with the abnormal and the belief that it needs to be studied.

When you remove the differences in sheer scale as to how this hatred is expressed, there's nothing really different being said between "you're not really black" and "why can't you just be gay". It just means "Your worldview doesn't match mine, and I think that you need to change to fit my worldview."

@V: People rarely read post-edits, but in the case that you do, I meant no offense. You're right, of course, that society does not oppress transrace individuals nearly as much as it oppresses transgender individuals. I see now where you are coming from, and I understand that these current situations do not nearly compare in the sheer level of hatred each experiences. My purpose here was not to trivialize your cause, as it is a noble one and greatly deserves the same respect given to so many others, but simply to illuminate the current nature of transracialism to someone who claimed to have no insight onto the topic. My wording was not appropriate, and I am sorry.

Steampunkette
2015-06-30, 12:34 AM
A white guy who identifies as black probably won't be chopped up and set on fire. He almost certainly won't lose his job, or have his family disown and physically attack him. He won't be accused of "Tricking" people and in 48 states you can't argue that your shock at his internal blackness was so strong that the violence you enacted on him was completely justified. He won't have doctors refuse him medical treatment, or hotel owners and rental managers refuse to rent him a place to live. If he's poor he won't be turned away at the door of a homeless shelter and left on the street to die. Cops won't flag him down and check his pockets for condoms and if they find them arrest him for prostitution regardless of his actual intended use of those condoms. When he turns on the TV or heads to the movie theatre there's a minimal chance there will be a character who is an extreme charicature of himself played for laughs, but he's far more likely to see plenty of characters who act in a manner consistent to his own who are not meant to be the butt of jokes. He also likely won't be attacked or have to face angry shouting of "You lied to me!" from his lovers, best friends, or even teachers.

These things are not "Trivialities"

This is the kind of stuff that happens all across the world day in and day out. Some of the stuff above has happened to me, directly. If anything they're only remotely similar on the most basic viewpoint of "People have a problem with these types of people."

Scratch the surface and you're comparing apples to red shift brought on by an object crossing the event horizon of a black hole. Sure, they're often both red, but that's about where any actual similarity ends.

Vitruviansquid
2015-06-30, 01:32 AM
If it doesn't bother you then it doesn't bother you. And that's all well and good. You're not obligated to be upset by the same stuff that upsets others.

But it bothers the hell out of a lot of other people. So we shouldn't do it for their sake.

Kinda like how I don't have kids and don't mind cursing, but I don't take my Nephew to Chuck E. Cheese's and then fire off endless strings of profanity in front of the kids. I don't mind it, and it doesn't trouble me...

But it troubles others. So...

But you can't just arbitrarily declare that some behavior bothers you and demand that other people stop, right? You need some identifiably actually troubling about the behavior, like if you ask people to stop swearing in Chuck E. Cheese's, it's because swearing in front of young children can scare them, and swearing in front of older children can instill values their parents/guardians disagree with.

But, I can't declare that I hate vertical stripes and then demand everyone around me to change out of their vertical striped clothing, because other people wearing striped clothing doesn't cause me any harm or inconvenience. I'd look like a domineering ******* if I went around doing that.

So what is the trouble or inconvenience that makes all these people find it so offensive that a random white guy identifies himself a black guy?

Kitten Champion
2015-06-30, 01:32 AM
Admittedly, while I randomize the sex of my NPCs unless there's a specific reason not to, I do fall into the "members of monster races are all-male unless they're specifically a feminized monster" line of thinking. The idea, of, say... a female Minotaur just doesn't pop into my head.

Milo v3
2015-06-30, 01:38 AM
The idea, of, say... a female Minotaur just doesn't pop into my head.
Admittedly, minotaur are bull-people rather than cow-people.

Kitten Champion
2015-06-30, 02:06 AM
Admittedly, minotaur are bull-people rather than cow-people.

..but the Minotaur itself is an individual monster from legend, when you're making it a them for the purposes of a RPG you'll have to re-envision them.

Unless you're going by a mythological context and it's just the one dude, or they're all actually made in some evil factory by a deity of some sort using the same exact model.

Milo v3
2015-06-30, 02:09 AM
..but the Minotaur itself is an individual monster from legend, when you're making it a them for the purposes of a RPG you'll have to re-envision them.

Unless you're going by a mythological context and it's just the one dude, or they're all actually made in some evil factory by a deity of some sort using the same exact model.

Personally, I'd be amazed if Poseidon only did that sorta curse once.

Seto
2015-06-30, 02:18 AM
So what is the trouble or inconvenience that makes all these people find it so offensive that a random white guy identifies himself a black guy?

Answer above by Steampunkette :


Racism is an overarching systemic bias. Being white and "Identifying" as black means you're taking on the symbolic struggles (and victories) for yourself without facing the actual systemic challenges. It's pretty problematic behavior.


It's kinda like baking a cake and having someone else try to take credit afterwards without having participated in the baking (even though they may have cheered). It's not the most offensive thing ever, and black people have a lot worse to deal with. It is kinda annoying and out of line, though. It's just one of the myriads of things that make you sigh when you realize that people talk about your situation without actually realizing most of the implications.

Milo v3
2015-06-30, 02:23 AM
It's kinda like baking a cake and having someone else try to take credit afterwards without having participated in the baking (even though they may have cheered). It's not the most offensive thing ever, and black people have a lot worse to deal with. It is kinda annoying and out of line, though. It's just one of the myriads of things that make you sigh when you realize that people talk about your situation without actually realizing most of the implications.

Except

Racism is an overarching systemic bias. Being white and "Identifying" as black means you're taking on the symbolic struggles (and victories) for yourself without facing the actual systemic challenges. It's pretty problematic behavior.


is effectively as problematic as:

Sexism is an overarching systemic bias. Being male and "Identifying" as female means you're taking on the symbolic struggles (and victories) for yourself without facing the actual systemic challenges. It's pretty problematic behavior.

It's hypocritical to allow one but not the other.

Seto
2015-06-30, 02:42 AM
It's hypocritical to allow one but not the other.

No, because as explained in this very page, Cisnormativity is also an overarching systemic bias. Which means that a biological male identifying as a woman will face a lot of systemic challenges all of her own, as a transgender woman rather than as a cisgender woman. You can't blame her for not taking part in your cake, because she's baking her own cake, which is a more unusual cake than yours, too, while society keeps stealing her ingredients. And occasionally lighting them on fire, because hey, fire. Pretty.
As far as I know, there is no equivalent for white people identifying as black.

To go on with the actual topic of this thread, I plead guilty to most of the gender conventions presented here, although I do put a spin on them sometimes.
Other thing I haven't seen mentioned (not on the first page anyway) : smiths and weapon merchants --> most often male.

Vitruviansquid
2015-06-30, 03:10 AM
Answer above by Steampunkette :

It's kinda like baking a cake and having someone else try to take credit afterwards without having participated in the baking (even though they may have cheered). It's not the most offensive thing ever, and black people have a lot worse to deal with. It is kinda annoying and out of line, though. It's just one of the myriads of things that make you sigh when you realize that people talk about your situation without actually realizing most of the implications.

Well, it'd be one thing if you said you were at, say, a sit-in in Birmingham when you were not. That would be a straight-up lie that steals credit from a specific group of people who did a specific big thing that deserves credit. But just being black doesn't mean you had anything to do with civil rights. It doesn't strictly even have anything to do with that struggle or any struggle. There are black people who don't care that much about race relations, there are black people who purport to be blind to race, there are black people who don't at all care to have credit for some struggle you have assigned to all black people.

But are people even identifying as different races in order to take credit for anything? My instinct is that they are not necessarily. Maybe someone is of race X but grew up with friends of race Y or gained family ties to race Y via marriage. Are they not allowed to adopt mannerisms and customs from race Y? Maybe a person just feels alienated from people of their own race and feels like they fit in better with people of another race. Are they not allowed to say they are more like that other race? Isn't it kind of rude to assign all these creepy, deceitful motivations to the white guy who says he's a black guy, when that white guy hasn't told you "I identify with black guys because I feel like I deserve credit for what a couple black guys did?"

Sith_Happens
2015-06-30, 03:35 AM
That's a funny one. It's weird, actually, that when you find the need for an escort, every player at that table will pretty much instinctively point to that particular female player, even if an equally charismatic male character is available. I think there's probably some underlying thing in our society which is more willing to accept females as seductresses then males as seducers. This is probably why succubi tend to outnumber incubi 10 to 1.

I'm pretty sure a big part of that is the unconscious assumption that the guards are all male, which means the odds are weighted heavily in favor of a female rather than male seducer.


I have to ask the same question. Even if the goal is to point out inequality trends in our RPGs or something similar, all it's going to do is invite people to chime in with a single counterexample, consider the overarching issue null and void as a result, and leave the thread with whatever preconceptions they entered with.

Maybe the goal is to make a setting that inverts all of them to mess with players' heads?:smallwink:


'Everyone, seduction works purely on Charisma rolls, not on male or female stuff. Female-on-male has equal chance to male-on-female, assuming all other factors are equal. Don't forget that unwillingness can occure due to those other factors, such as being attracted to another person, and your character happening to smell bad on that day.'

In Exalted, male-on-female, female-on-male, male-on-male, and female-on-female seduction are all more or less equally likely to work. Regardless of the sexual orientation of the seductee.:smallbiggrin:


It would be remarkably obscure, given that even intelligent Oozes are profoundly asexual.

Not on the Internet they aren't.:smalltongue:

Arutema
2015-06-30, 04:01 AM
Not sure if this works:

Hags are never male.

Now I have to include a transman hag in some game I run, just to play with expectations. And possibly to ask the question; if a race is biologically single-sex, does it follow that it will be socially single-gender, or not?


It's never a War goddess or Love god. A goddess can have War in her portfolio and a god have Love, but it's not what what they're generally known for. A PC thinking himself a love god is a different matter.

The god head of a pantheon is male. In a monotheistic faith, it's a goddess, often but not always only served by priestesses.

Since I'm building a setting with a mash-up of gods from the classical pantheons in deities and demigods, I now have to make Eros/Cupid my love god and Sif my war goddess. Haven't decided on a head god yet, maybe Amaterasu for variety.

Seriously WOTC? Eros doesn't even get a listing in deities and demigods?

Steampunkette
2015-06-30, 04:03 AM
"You can't arbitrarily decide something offends you and keep others from doing it."

... that's, like, the entire basis of our whole society.

A group of people get together and agree to abide by certain rules. The bigger and more complex the group, the more complex the rules.

How does cursing in front of children hurt them? How are words at all "Bad" except that we as a people arbitrarily decided they were?

What you're dealing with is something that causes emotional harm to others but causes no harm to stop doing. So why not, collectively, stop doing it?

And yeah. The sexism comparison is bumpkis. As a trans woman I face both sexism and transphobia (depending on whether or not a given person is aware of my trans status).

Seto
2015-06-30, 04:05 AM
Well, it'd be one thing if you said you were at, say, a sit-in in Birmingham when you were not. That would be a straight-up lie that steals credit from a specific group of people who did a specific big thing that deserves credit. But just being black doesn't mean you had anything to do with civil rights. It doesn't strictly even have anything to do with that struggle or any struggle. There are black people who don't care that much about race relations, there are black people who purport to be blind to race, there are black people who don't at all care to have credit for some struggle you have assigned to all black people.

The point is, life as a black person (or a woman, or a transgender person, etc.) is in itself a struggle in ways that life as a white heterosexual cisgender male is not. Being black doesn't mean that you're politically involved in any way and being a woman doesn't mean that you're a feminist activist ; still it does mean that you have to put up with systemic challenges that others do not, and that you benefit or suffer from changes in the relevant structures of the system.


But are people even identifying as different races in order to take credit for anything? My instinct is that they are not necessarily. Maybe someone is of race X but grew up with friends of race Y or gained family ties to race Y via marriage. Are they not allowed to adopt mannerisms and customs from race Y? Maybe a person just feels alienated from people of their own race and feels like they fit in better with people of another race. Are they not allowed to say they are more like that other race? Isn't it kind of rude to assign all these creepy, deceitful motivations to the white guy who says he's a black guy, when that white guy hasn't told you "I identify with black guys because I feel like I deserve credit for what a couple black guys did?"

I apologize if I wasn't clear. Of course it's not intentional or "in order to" take credit. More often than not, white people who say "I am, in fact, black" have good intentions ; often it's a symbolic way of fighting discrimination against black people. It is, however, a clumsy way of doing so, and not very appropriate for the reasons mentioned above.
As for identifying as black for cultural reasons, I don't think it really bothers anyone as long as you don't complain about discriminations that don't really apply to you, and you identify only with "mannerisms and customs" (on an individual level, that is), and not on a political level.

Submortimer
2015-06-30, 04:22 AM
You know...just an odd thought that popped into my head while reading this thread...

In a world where transmutation magic exists, Sexual Dysmorphia isn't a problem, or at least not as much of one.

Let me explain: The main reason why it's such a hard issue in the real world is that our only real method to treat it is intensive, physically traumatic, and is wholly imperfect. No matter how good the Hormone therapy, no matter how good the surgeon, the transition isn't perfect.

But, by comparison, a 3rd level sorcerer can cast Alter self, which can physically change you into the opposite sex. In that world, whatever you feel like on the inside, you can be that on the outside, and the change is simple and perfect.

Just an odd thought.

Sith_Happens
2015-06-30, 04:34 AM
Sadly Alter Self is temporary, but for this particular application there's a classic magic item that does do it permanently.

Vknight
2015-06-30, 04:43 AM
Looks at thread after being gone for how many months... could be interesting:smallannoyed:

I don't think NPC's that never have a gender count.
Also man some of these have not come up for my group others I have done the opposite or both.

My groups ancient wise mentor does not define itself to the constructs of mortal gender but if it had to pick it decided dog:smalltongue:.

Kitten Champion
2015-06-30, 04:48 AM
You know...just an odd thought that popped into my head while reading this thread...

In a world where transmutation magic exists, Sexual Dysmorphia isn't a problem, or at least not as much of one.

Let me explain: The main reason why it's such a hard issue in the real world is that our only real method to treat it is intensive, physically traumatic, and is wholly imperfect. No matter how good the Hormone therapy, no matter how good the surgeon, the transition isn't perfect.

But, by comparison, a 3rd level sorcerer can cast Alter self, which can physically change you into the opposite sex. In that world, whatever you feel like on the inside, you can be that on the outside, and the change is simple and perfect.

Just an odd thought.

It is something particular of certain fantasy or SF settings. Your form can be fluid either by choice or even changed against your will, the result could be a very different sort of culture if you let it be.

It's part of the reason I enjoy playing in Eberron which has Changelings and Warforged as PC races - it invites you to play the ideas of form and identity.

Steampunkette
2015-06-30, 05:03 AM
Agreed on Eberron! Changelings are pretty much my favorite race, ever.

and yeah. The girdle is super helpful. But then you get into individuals who aren't male or female, are some blending of the two, or whose gender doesn't lie on the imagined male-female spectrum...

And that's where you're gonna need more than a 2nd level spell slot to make things fit what lies inside.

SpectralDerp
2015-06-30, 05:33 AM
What are the most resilient gender conventions in roleplaying, in general?

NPCs only or PCs as well?



the old, wise master/sensei, who teaches the hero, is never female.


Do these even exist?



the guards at the city gate are never female.
the messenger of low status that brings an official message is never female.


Are these typically specified as male or female?


No, because as explained in this very page, Cisnormativity is also an overarching systemic bias.

Not any more than the expectation of "a person identifies as the race they actually belong to" (or for that matter, the expecation of "a person has two arms, legs, hands, feet, eyes and ears") is, so I don't really see the difference.

Vknight
2015-06-30, 05:46 AM
Agreed on Eberron! Changelings are pretty much my favorite race, ever.

and yeah. The girdle is super helpful. But then you get into individuals who aren't male or female, are some blending of the two, or whose gender doesn't lie on the imagined male-female spectrum...

And that's where you're gonna need more than a 2nd level spell slot to make things fit what lies inside.

Did... did you just use imagined... I do we begin with the psychological, the physical, the genetic. Please do not make a false statement

Steampunkette
2015-06-30, 06:00 AM
I did use imagined, yup!

Because the idea that male and female are in some way opposite is a relic of speech and social structure which thrives on dichotomy, even when no dichotomy (or more likely only false dichotomies) exists.

Cats are not the opposites of dogs. Men are not the opposite of Women. So the idea that there is a specific spectrum of gender wherein one is the end or the other end is just patently false.

And it becomes even more muddled when you realize that any two men are going to be more physiologically different than men and women are on average. Brain chemistry, emotional state, history... it's all relative to a mythological "Norm" that doesn't exist in the real world but only within abstractions created through large numbers.

A man who is in all ways "average" is like finding a unicorn. But due to the vagaries of defined speech we cling to the idea that reality is as simple as people figured it was several thousand years ago.

So to reinforce and protect that ages old language we launch campaigns of silence against those people struggling to find words for themselves. Anyone remember the backlash against people who want to use Xe/Xir/Xem for their pronouns since he and she didn't fit them? 'Cause it's still happening all over the place...

There are more things in heaven and earth, Vknight, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

And SpectralDerp: As someone who has dealt with some of the real horrors of transphobia I'm gonna flatly tell you that you're wrong.

Vitruviansquid
2015-06-30, 06:28 AM
"You can't arbitrarily decide something offends you and keep others from doing it."

... that's, like, the entire basis of our whole society.


Since when?

As a society, we decide whether some people's concerns are legitimate or wrong-headed/frivolous/monstrous/just-not-as-important-as-other-people's-concerns. And the metric is anything but arbitrary. I mean, if it was arbitrary, what do we do when people have concerns that are conflicting?

So here we have a situation where Person A says "I am bothered by the way you claim to be black when you were born white."

And Person B says, "I would like everyone to identify me as black, although I was born white" or even "I would like permission to call myself black, even though I was born white."

Do we flip a coin? Is there a vote? Do we have the two sides fight gladiatorial combat? No, I think what we do is inquire into the reasons why each party wants the thing they want, and judge which desire is more important, more humane, more consistent with the judgments we made previously, even more convenient/feasible to entertain.

So you point out that white people identifying themselves as black has the possibility of causing "emotional harm" to black people. Doesn't it also cause emotional harm when you tell someone they are not allowed to identify as something they feel like they are? Or that they can't partake in this culture because they weren't born into it? Or that we have some group here that this person can never be a part of due to an accident of their birth?

I think it is important that, as a society, we don't ask people to change unless what they are doing or being is strictly harmful to others. When I say "strictly," what I mean is that the criteria for "harmful" has kinda become fuzzy in many cases. I mean, there's destruction of life and destruction of property, and that's clearly harmful. If you see a person waving a loaded gun around for fun, you'd be perfectly fair in asking him or her to stop, because that's a clear and direct threat to life. But this business where we ask people to stop identifying themselves as other races because it's offensive if-you-think-about-it-symbolically and then apply these probable-but-not-absolute assumptions and then you look up and understand that it wouldn't even impact your life at all if you chose to ignore it... I don't think that should count.

Vitruviansquid
2015-06-30, 06:35 AM
The point is, life as a black person (or a woman, or a transgender person, etc.) is in itself a struggle in ways that life as a white heterosexual cisgender male is not. Being black doesn't mean that you're politically involved in any way and being a woman doesn't mean that you're a feminist activist ; still it does mean that you have to put up with systemic challenges that others do not, and that you benefit or suffer from changes in the relevant structures of the system.



I apologize if I wasn't clear. Of course it's not intentional or "in order to" take credit. More often than not, white people who say "I am, in fact, black" have good intentions ; often it's a symbolic way of fighting discrimination against black people. It is, however, a clumsy way of doing so, and not very appropriate for the reasons mentioned above.
As for identifying as black for cultural reasons, I don't think it really bothers anyone as long as you don't complain about discriminations that don't really apply to you, and you identify only with "mannerisms and customs" (on an individual level, that is), and not on a political level.

Oh, alright. That seems pretty fair for the most part, but the part I bolded doesn't make sense to me.

I was under the impression that, with oppression, it was a good thing to speak out against it no matter what your personal position was. Certainly it lends credibility to every justice-based movement when even people who are not technically wronged get involved, correct? I mean, when I got targeted with some kind of prejudice (racial, mostly, in this case) I'm not going to refuse support just because it comes from someone of the wrong skin color, or gender, or economic class, or whatever. How come there is a state you can get in that makes you disqualified to speak out against racial oppression?

Steampunkette
2015-06-30, 07:46 AM
He means a white guy complaining that "the man" is always after him with regards to police racism against black men.

Amphetryon
2015-06-30, 08:07 AM
You know anyone who makes such a claim in this context means "from the my experience of reading campaign settings" so you're just being pointlessly flippant.
No, actually, I don't know that. So far as I knew when I asked the question - and this is not in any way intended as flippant, or sarcastic - you did a legitimate study of the statistics for a graduate course. I presumed you actually DID have numbers or studies to back up the claim, because, from my perspective, that was the kinder reading of the claim.

Vknight
2015-06-30, 08:22 AM
...Xir/Xis etc. are fabricated things used to make someone feel special
Does that make them wrong. Eh up for debate does that mean I can dismiss a person for using them, certainly because there are already many in existence, spivak anyone?

Also...
Gender is not the opposition of male and female but the distinction of difference. Not just the genetic but the cultural... Please understand the subject matter
That is why many societies have a third gender which is for those who fell under neither or both.
An example being males have higher muscle mass. This is a naturally occurring thing but does not mean growth, training etc. cannot change this but it still holds true that without those factors males will be found to have more muscle mass.
As such there is gender based on.
Genetics
Cultural
and that which is
Socially Constructed

Claiming gender is some made up thing is ignorant and shows you do not know what you are talking about.
There are not hundreds of different genders, there is distinction because the term gender references differences not between two opposing extremes but rather the key things that are the few defining differences between two similar things.

Don't belittle me Steam. You just quoted the bard
ey, em, eirs

There is far more to that book then what you have glanced upon it's covers. There is a story there with adventure, duels, myths, legends, and romance. The cover is worn and old but make no mistake there is still a story worth being told. You do it no worse then the greatest dishonor to dismiss it because the title is boorish to your sensibilities.
'We can all quote things'


A reminder that Vknight is a trans-humanist and his favorite game is one where you can just do as you please. Also science. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGK84Poeynk)

Hawkstar
2015-06-30, 08:29 AM
A When he turns on the TV or heads to the movie theatre there's a minimal chance there will be a character who is an extreme charicature of himself played for laughs, but he's far more likely to see plenty of characters who act in a manner consistent to his own who are not meant to be the butt of jokes.Actually, a 'transrace' person will probably find nothing but ridicule from media, and WILL have trouble with Government paperwork for checking the 'wrong box' when asked his race, and everyone else marginalizing/mocking him for 'cultural/racial appropriation!' And being a wigga.

I was under the impression that, with oppression, it was a good thing to speak out against it no matter what your personal position was. Certainly it lends credibility to every justice-based movement when even people who are not technically wronged get involved, correct? I mean, when I got targeted with some kind of prejudice (racial, mostly, in this case) I'm not going to refuse support just because it comes from someone of the wrong skin color, or gender, or economic class, or whatever. How come there is a state you can get in that makes you disqualified to speak out against racial oppression?When the people you're allegedly trying to help against 'discrimination' are overwhelmingly responding with "Dude, shut up, you're not helping, and have no bloody clue what you're talking about."

Vknight
2015-06-30, 08:49 AM
And Hawkstar makes a fair point.
Now I want to make a Eclipse Phase character whose hypercorp parents make sure she always has a morph of X-ethnicity, well she identifies as something else. Something minor that means nothing in setting but endlessly bothers the character. Meanwhile they fully support all sorts of other strange things about her.

Segev
2015-06-30, 09:39 AM
Interestingly, the evidence that "transrace" people face discrimination in the place that would most hurt them is in this very thread's rejection of the validity of the concept. Discrimination is discrimination; it doesn't have to be done by the "evil white male-dominated majority of society." If somebody, for instance, desperately wanted to fit in with the nerds and geeks but was constantly ostricised because he's a handsome jock whose ingrained mannerisms endear him to jocks and cheerleaders and the "in crowd," he's still ostricised from the group with which he WANTS to fit in. And, of course, the more he insists on trying, the more he'll also become alienated from his "original" crowd.

Similarly, it seems that a "transrace" white-to-black person is to be villified by the "black" culture for "insulting" them by claiming to be one of them. That kind of discrimination would doubtless hurt a lot.

I would go further to discuss why I think that "race" is less of an issue than "culture," these days, but that's getting even further off-topic.

Steampunkette, while I do sympathize, and am willing to agree to disagree, you need to be very careful using the "you're hurting me, emotionally" card. I honestly, genuinely do not want to cause pain, but I have too often been attacked as a bad guy for causing pain simply because I didn't bow down and accept whatever premise is brought forth. If it's too personal for you to hear contrary views, you shouldn't bring it up; using the personal pain it causes you to silence opposing viewpoints is, in its own way, bullying. I know you are not the kind of person who seeks to do that. But it's a VERY easy trap to fall into when something touches on you, personally. "You're being mean for disagreeing with me" is not a sound logical argument. It's a powerful rhetorical one, unfortunately, which means even more unfortunately that it must be refuted powerfully lest it be used to allow assertions to be made and demand they go unchallenged.

Were I to heed every "you're being mean!" accusation, I would never participate in any discussions, and my silence would be taken for tacit agreement.

I do try to be very careful and delicate. There are points I would like to make that, while I feel they are valid, would not be heard objectively because they would be taken as insulting (for reasons I do not understand, since the openly-stated justifications should be equally insulting but are considered not insulting at all). It makes this a very difficult topic to discuss at all.


I will close by saying that the very rejection of "transrace" people by the supposedly-pro-tolelrance crowd is probably just as emotionally harmful to such people as anything else facing "trans-"anything people. A friend of mine who is gay suffered more at the hands of the gay community in college than he did at the hands of his straight-laced Christian friends who thought homosexuality was a sin: he wasn't pretty enough, and they made him feel entirely unwelcome. We, on the other hand, didn't really care; it's his life and his choices, and we're happy for him if he can find happiness. We won't condone the lifestyle, but I, personally, don't condone drinking, either, but won't judge people nor ostricise them for it (heck, my brother drinks quite a bit).

So the rejection by the very supposedly-pro-tollerance community that is supposed to be a safe place for those who feel "other" to the norm is, itself, very painful for people.

That said, it is doubtless painful for peopel to discuss. I suggest dropping it. Let's go back to our fantasy and sci-fi games, and our discussions of tropes.

One way I like to highlight the gender conventions and how we often don't even perceive them is to take a work of fiction and, with minimal changes made to ensure that it isn't a "guys in dresses comedy" or a "girls with boys' names farce," invert the sex of every character. Keep it as verbatim as possible within those guidelines. Then see how the same scenes hit you, emotionally.

One particular example I love bringing up is from Babylon 5. Garibaldi, the male security chief of the station, gets involved for one episode with a female "gropo:" a "ground-pounder" in the army (infantry) who is passing through with her unit on the way to another battlefield.

There's tension of new people meeting and a bit of concern over the nature of her transitive stay on the station, and it culminates in her coming on to him in his quarters and trying to have sex, pretty much assuming his agreement and pressing him that it'll be fun. When he tells her that this is moving too fast for him, she counters that this is all she has time for. He doesn't want a one-night stand, and explains that to her.

She comes back, not with fury or outrage, but with more than a hint of indignation that he would presume to impose that on her. She explains that "this" is all she has, because of the nature of her life, is time to seek one night stands and take what solace and comfort she can.

The whole scene is played out with just a hint of condemnation for Garibaldi not understanding her point of view. She doesn't force herself on him, and they part amicably, but there's an overall tone that it was Garibaldi who behaved less than properly.


If you swap the genders, however, you have a woman who is come onto by a soldier-boy just passing through, who assumes she's willing to have sex with him after one date, presses her for it, and, while he backs off when she says "no" firmly enough, he is indignant that she would deny him his one night stand of pleasure and would hold it back out of an expectation of more commitment than he's got time to give. As if he's being denied by her rather than him demanding more than he should.

They part amicably, but the tone remains that it's somehow her failing to refuse to give him what he needed.


The first passes almost without comment to modern culture. "A man is always eager," so it's kind-of odd that Garibaldi would turn down a one night stand. And with the explanation for why she wants a one-night stand, the man is the one who was wrong because he imposed his selfish needs on her. The second comes off with a creepy, skeevy vibe that makes the modern American audience uncomfortable with the implication that this girl in any way "owed" sex to this selfish jerk who just wanted to use her and leave her.


Ken Akamatsu's works were the first ones I applied this "game" to, and it's fascinating how the gut reaction changes. There are a lot of works where this does little to nothing, but it's sometimes stunning where the change makes something you never would have thought of as a "gender role" issue crop up as really off-putting or strange.

Star Wars is a good one for this. Sure, Prince Lee being come onto by Hannah Solo obviously has a different vibe, and you expect the "distressed dude" role Lee plays to be unusual. But this one also highlights something brought up in this thread: how the default for "NPCs" is "male." It is almost jarring to picture the femanine storm troopers as the rank-upon-rank of faceless mook, and to picture Darth Vadrex in a room full of female admirals and adjutants on the Death Star. Because we really do have a "default male" expectation for the random individuals. Sure, the Empress and even Darth Vadrex could work; leading ladies in positions of power have become a common enough thing. But the hordes of military women with nary a man to be seen would be notable for its oddity to the modern American audience.


There are also ones for which it just doesn't work. You don't have a "Mr. America" contest with anything like the same overtones as the "Miss America" contest, so Sandra Bullock's "Miss Congeniality" can't really survive the translation to "Mr. Congeniality" while following both rules of "keep changes minimal" and "don't let it become an obvious sex-swap farce." This is unsurprising, given that Miss Congeniality is deliberately exploring a gender-role-specific portion of our society.

Vknight
2015-06-30, 09:45 AM
Wouldn't/Shouldn't it still be Darth Vader because it is supposed to be Invader?

The default male thing I think probably does exist I guess the thing is I always have a mix and unless there are reasons for it it's always close in my mental image to being a 50-50. It all just depends I guess depending the individuals mentality

Hawkstar
2015-06-30, 10:02 AM
The default male thing I think probably does exist I guess the thing is I always have a mix and unless there are reasons for it it's always close in my mental image to being a 50-50. It all just depends I guess depending the individuals mentality

Which means it's probably actually closer to 70-30.

SpectralDerp
2015-06-30, 11:36 AM
And SpectralDerp: As someone who has dealt with some of the real horrors of transphobia I'm gonna flatly tell you that you're wrong.

About what? I'm wrong about transracial people facing issues specifically applying to transracial people because trangendered people face issues specifically applying to transgender people? That makes no sense.


[A]ny two men are going to be more physiologically different than men and women are on average.

I'm willing to bet this is not true. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_human_physiology)

halcyonforever
2015-06-30, 11:52 AM
I would say that most NPCs the party interacts with will tend to be the DM's gender, just because it's less difficult to roleplay.

I'll agree to that. I tend to do that just because cross-playing devolves into silliness very quickly.

Vknight
2015-06-30, 11:59 AM
Which means it's probably actually closer to 70-30.

No 50-50 going to depending on time period/my idea of the location/group 70-30 it all depends. I don't know if this is an assertion, or what. I really can't tell what to take from that though I mostly am getting miffed.

SpectralDerp just don't
It is becoming obvious they have come to there own predefined conclusions from listening to others spout pretty prose and statements that are appealing, no matter the validity. Reason and science fall to deaf ears when one see's themselves having a moral high ground, and deep understanding.


Also man the whole bots and things hasn't greatly improved

Seto
2015-06-30, 01:48 PM
SpectralDerp just don't
It is becoming obvious they have come to there own predefined conclusions from listening to others spout pretty prose and statements that are appealing, no matter the validity. Reason and science fall to deaf ears when one see's themselves having a moral high ground, and deep understanding.

I flap my deaf elephant ears in your direction, good sir. (No hidden meaning, just really wanted to say that sentence once in my life). Also, you're being kind of rude, and assuming a lot about what we think and can or cannot accept as convincing arguments. I was not under the impression that I'd been dismissive of other's opinions, or refused debate.

That said, I agree with Segev, let's drop it. It's an important matter to talk and think about, and contrary to Steampunkette, I'm not justified in taking offence or talking from experience, but it's also draining, easily heated and stuff. If I haven't made that clear, I do not think anyone here is voluntarily hurtful or comes in bad faith, and I certainly do not think of myself having any moral high ground, thank God (although I plead guilty to thinking I have a - however slight - deeper understanding of these matters than people - however clever and articulate - who may have not given them a lot of thought until yesterday). If someone is interested and wants to continue discussing that, I'm open to PMs. I also want to thank you Playground for being one of two places yet on the Internet that I've seen where that can of worms has been opened for a full day, among people of differing positions, without (much) immature or derogatory comments/allusions.

Ralanr
2015-06-30, 03:08 PM
The child to go against gender norms of the society is usually female.

I think that's an appropriate one for rpg stories.

Segev
2015-06-30, 03:29 PM
The child to go against gender norms of the society is usually female.

I think that's an appropriate one for rpg stories.

True. I am unsure if it was ever as "eye them oddly"-worthy for a girl to dress as a boy in story as it is for a boy to dress as a girl now. Nowadays, it most certainly isn't; "girl pretending to be a boy" is not particularly weird, nor is a girl wearing boy's clothes considered something that might embarass her. But a boy wearing girls' clothes - outside of certain tales meant to be about accepting such preferences - tends to be treated as something embarassing for the boy and, at the least, weird.

I suspect it's because there's a cultural expectation that stereotypically "male" activities are desirable to both sexes, but that there's something "wrong" with a boy who enjoys stereotypically "female" activities. And that you have to dress the part to engage in either.

In an unfortunate sort of sense, I think the "girl faking being a boy" trope started in some ways as a female empowerment thing...but it gives the unfortunate implication that being a boy is better than being a girl, because boy activities are desirable and boy clothes are acceptable for anybody, but girl clothes are embarassing for boys.

I was about to write that an interesting inversion would be for the reason why girls can wear boy clothes being "okay" but not boys wearing girl clothes to be due to girls' clothes being a mark of status, and thus boys in dresses would be dressing "above their station." Except that the straw feminist argument would be that that's precisely why girls don boy-clothes and pretend to be boys, to get above the station the evil patriarchy forces upon girls. And thus it's "equality" for boys never to wear the "degrading" clothing of women.

This is further bolstered to some degree by the fact that, if a story were set in a culture where women were higher caste than men and men couldn't wear women's clothing because it was above their station, the narrative would naturally involve a boy pretending to be a girl in order to engage in the more socially powerful activities reserved for women. To complete the inversion, women would never wear men's clothing because it would be beneath them and thus highly embarassing.

Even that, though, doesn't quite cover it, because the reality of it is that women often had different outfit conventions from men not because of overt "station" or "rank," but because "standards of decency" said so. Women dressed as men weren't scandalous because they were getting above themselves, but because men's clothing exposed more of the human shape than the women's dresses. Even if it's just trousers, "you can see her leg-shapes!" was scandalous.

Lampshaded, almost, in an episode of Doctor Who where the 10th Doctor and Rose go back in time to meet Queen Victoria, and the Queen keeps insisting that Rose is "naked" when Rose is, by any modern western standard, fully clothed. (She doesn't even have a bare midriff. IIRC, her neckline isn't even particularly low. She's in jeans and a t-shirt.)



But yes, the girl-dressing-as-boy is definitely something that has distinct gender-specific tropes. Invert it, and you're basically telling a completely different story.

Vitruviansquid
2015-06-30, 04:17 PM
Well, since it appears to have become fashionable to claim you want to drop it and make a last statement:

I think you should find yourself in a moral quandary every time you feel tempted to tell someone to stop what they're doing and change because keeping other people from from doing what they want, especially when it has to do with identity or expression, is inherently immoral - like, say, violence. However, as with violence, there are cases where the immorality of the act should be ignored because of the morality of the means, like when you inflict debilitating violence on someone in order to prevent them from doing something more monstrous. But as with all cases where you're going for "the ends justify the means," it's responsible to really look into yourself and *really* make that judgment call about what is the actual greater evil, what is the slippery slope potential, and so on.

And upon doing so, I find that what Seto has said throughout the conversation makes the most sense; you are allowed to identify as whatever, but you are not allowed to engage in explicit deceit about your experiences (such as saying you faced discrimination when you didn't) or your activities (such as claiming credit for fighting discrimination when you didn't). Correct me if I'm putting words in your mouth. Makes sense to me because deceit is bad, and the immorality of telling someone to change himself or herself is weighed here against being deceived, another immoral thing. But I'd also be careful of applying this deceit to all people who identify as different genders - you don't know their life, you don't know their motivations.

What I don't think makes sense is the idea that you need to stop what you're doing if someone claims their feelings were hurt. This was the principle that brought about the multiplicity of oppressions that we are trying to uproot today, and I'm seeing it used here as abusively as it was in all those nasty, obsolete agendas that most people have now agreed are nonsense - to stifle personal expression, to stifle discussion, to evade giving explanations rather than help everyone see the issues more clearly. And honestly, it just doesn't make any sense. It's not how society works, and it'd be naive or outright villainous if you want it to work that way. And if you won't buy that, then allow me to tell you that forum avatars are deeply offensive, degrading, and insulting to me. I have been keeping my fear and disgust of forum avatars from you all this whole time because I did not think anybody would be sympathetic to me asking them to get rid of their avatars. But honestly, just seeing them around while I browse internet forums is emotionally damaging to me. Don't ask me why it's hurtful for me to see forum avatars - just accept that as the non-oppressed section of the population that does not find forum avatars offensive, you know less about what you are talking about than I do, and that you cannot help. In fact, the more you try to understand my problems, the more you are hurting me, so if you truly care about creating a comfortable and safe forum environment for everyone to enjoy, you would get rid of your forum avatar, and go avatarless.

Seto
2015-06-30, 05:40 PM
Correct me if I'm putting words in your mouth. Makes sense to me because deceit is bad, and the immorality of telling someone to change himself or herself is weighed here against being deceived, another immoral thing. But I'd also be careful of applying this deceit to all people who identify as different genders - you don't know their life, you don't know their motivations.
You're not putting any words in my mouth, although you might be removing some (most notably, and that makes up the bulk of my point, the distinction between systemic and occasional/accidental injustice). But I said I'd drop it, so I'll drop it :) I agree with what you said there, I'll just add that things (obviously) are often a lot more complicated than "deceit", because someone may, in all honesty, feel hurt and discriminated against etc. without actually realizing that they... are not, or not in a way that can realistically be likened to what some groups of people suffer. Here, "deceit" becomes "lack of awareness that can be clumsy and detrimental to others". And you can't really blame someone for not being aware of certain things, but sometimes, you want to. Especially when it comes up often and you have to constantly explain all over again why it's clumsy, while being patient and not taking offence, because after all the person in front of you has good intentions. And that person thinks "I have good intentions, why am I being told that's inappropriate", so they try to defend themselves. Which is natural, but doesn't make it any easier. That's why it's complicated.
(Just to be clear, I'm not dismissing people who feel discriminated against, but are not, as whiny or anything. As far as I'm concerned, any pain deserves help. I, however, want to point out that putting different types of injustice on equal footing both hurts truth, and sometimes takes awareness away from problems that need more of it.)


What I don't think makes sense is the idea that you need to stop what you're doing if someone claims their feelings were hurt.
Sure. No one can or will exist as a thinking and acting being without hurting a lot of people's feelings. In that case, you need, however, to pause and think about it, to make really sure what you're doing/saying warrants hurting someone's feelings. For example, do you think truth is more important than their feelings ? That's probably the case when you're discussing something important, but it might not be the case if you're discussing whether the color of the car you just saw across the street is greyish blue or bluish grey.
When someone tells me "your opinion is hurting my feelings", I first contain my knee-jerk reaction ("well tough, sorry I have an opinion") because that's pretty much never the way to go. Then I ask them why exactly I'm hurting their feelings, and I wonder if I really know what I'm talking about. If not, I drop it. If yes, I consider whether having that conversation is really worth the effort/risking alienating someone. If not, I drop it. If yes, I stick to my previous attitude while adding "I'm sorry if I hurt you, I didn't intend that, but..."
(In your avatar example, that's a case where I'd judge, as you do, that my freedom to have this awesome elephant as an avatar overrides your mild distaste of it, unless it turns out to be serious and you start having a seizure over it or something)

SpectralDerp
2015-07-01, 12:37 AM
I'm having a hard time imagining a scensrio where "truth is less important than feelings" when asked to live another person's lie.

Vknight
2015-07-01, 01:17 AM
I flap my deaf elephant ears in your direction, good sir. (No hidden meaning, just really wanted to say that sentence once in my life). Also, you're being kind of rude, and assuming a lot about what we think and can or cannot accept as convincing arguments. I was not under the impression that I'd been dismissive of other's opinions, or refused debate.

That said, I agree with Segev, let's drop it. It's an important matter to talk and think about, and contrary to Steampunkette, I'm not justified in taking offence or talking from experience, but it's also draining, easily heated and stuff. If I haven't made that clear, I do not think anyone here is voluntarily hurtful or comes in bad faith, and I certainly do not think of myself having any moral high ground, thank God (although I plead guilty to thinking I have a - however slight - deeper understanding of these matters than people - however clever and articulate - who may have not given them a lot of thought until yesterday). If someone is interested and wants to continue discussing that, I'm open to PMs. I also want to thank you Playground for being one of two places yet on the Internet that I've seen where that can of worms has been opened for a full day, among people of differing positions, without (much) immature or derogatory comments/allusions.

I'm not in a very charitable, or nice mood, mind you always upon to discussion. Also I did not/was not referring to you Seto, I believe you have done well to try and be polite like I normal engage to do with conversation but have not been in this case

Seto
2015-07-01, 02:26 AM
I'm having a hard time imagining a scensrio where "truth is less important than feelings" when asked to live another person's lie.

Well, how to prioritize things is for you and everyone to decide personally on a case-by-case basis. For me, such scenarios would be :
- objective but unimportant truths (is your sweater grey or blue)
- opinions you're convinced are the truth, but that can't be proved either way.
These are two scenarios where I find it acceptable (in most cases, because the second one has exceptions) to just "agree to disagree", of which "let's spare our feelings and stop talking about it" is a particular case.

Steampunkette
2015-07-01, 03:56 AM
There's also facts that cannot be verified by an external observer. Like how a person thinks, feels, or believes.

In those instances you can try to apply similar scientific studies and facts that may or may not be remotely relevant to try and prove someone is a liar, or you can take them at their word that their personal experiences are outside your comprehension/experience.

Frozen_Feet
2015-07-01, 04:48 AM
There are, in actuality, a great many ways in which an external observer can verify someone's thoughts, feelings and beliefs. Society wouldn't be able to function if those were somehow categorically impossible to do.

Anyways, back to the interesting question of how shapeshifting magic would change things for trans, agendered or gender fluid people: it depends a lot on how shapeshifting magic operates.

Does it work based on what the user knows? In those cases, it would not be overtly helpful. As atypical sex-gender combinations are rare, you would not get a stabile parallel to our LGBTA-culture in most sparsely populated lands and settings. A person might entirely lack the ability to reliably put their feelings into words, and hence also lack the capacity to change into a proper form. Basic male-to-female or female-to-male might be possible, but more combinations or more complicated forms might end up as caricatures or just not work.

However, typically magic is spiritually essentialist (I wrote a long post on this once, but can't remember where to find it). Each person has a true self or form, a soul, a platonic ideal of their being that exists above and beyond their mortal form. If shapeshifting magic can access such metaphysical information, it should be able to "fix", or rather, properly convey the true self of anyone using it.

Steampunkette
2015-07-01, 06:20 AM
Definitely agreed. The main issue is that magic of that kind is, even in high magic settings like Eberron, nit available to most people. Some handful of adventurers who fall under the trans umbrella might be able to achieve the magical skill required, or get enough gold to pay someone else... but it'd be rare!

hewhosaysfish
2015-07-01, 06:22 AM
But yes, the girl-dressing-as-boy is definitely something that has distinct gender-specific tropes. Invert it, and you're basically telling a completely different story.

I would also note that (in the specific context of a tabletop RPG) a girl wanting to join a boys-only club usually means Eowyn/Arya wanting to a warrior instead of staying at home sewing i.e. she want's to go on/start/join an adventure.

How often does a tabletop game see a reverse-Billy-Elliott, a girl who wants to be a coal miner instead of a ballet dancer? I've not seen it and I'm guessing it's not that common. Neither girl-wants-to-be-coal-miner nor boy-wants-to-be-ballet-dancer really lends itself to a classic adventure plot.

Milo v3
2015-07-01, 06:32 AM
Definitely agreed. The main issue is that magic of that kind is, even in high magic settings like Eberron, nit available to most people.

Eh, speak for yourself. :smalltongue:
My setting has everyone with at mid-level magic and high wealth and most households open to a demi-plane or magnificent mansion. Plus they're are games like Eclipse Phase where individuals can be whatever you want to be, even if you feel you're true self is a robotic octopus.

Submortimer
2015-07-01, 06:40 AM
Definitely agreed. The main issue is that magic of that kind is, even in high magic settings like Eberron, nit available to most people. Some handful of adventurers who fall under the trans umbrella might be able to achieve the magical skill required, or get enough gold to pay someone else... but it'd be rare!

I don't think so, ESPECIALLY in Ebberon. As far as game rules go, like I said, Alter Self does everything you could ever want: it makes your (humanoid) form putty in your hands. It's not much of a stretch to say that you could apply Permanency to Alter self (it's not explicitly stated, but I tend to believe they didn't include it because it confers no mechanical benefit), at which point you're looking at about 4k gold for a ring that let's you change shape at will, or 2500 and a bunch of studying. Certainly not out of the realm of possibility for a PC, and probably easy to access in a high magic setting.

Steampunkette
2015-07-01, 06:46 AM
Sure... for a PC. But most characters, and thus most trans characters, are gormless background NPCs who couldn't hope to have that much money. Including other NPC adventurers.

And without such a market, magical gender swapping would never be viable for most people. Barring a low level ritual possibly performed by the local low level clergy.

SpectralDerp
2015-07-01, 07:22 AM
These are two scenarios where I find it acceptable (in most cases, because the second one has exceptions) to just "agree to disagree", of which "let's spare our feelings and stop talking about it" is a particular case.

These two scenarios also don't really apply here. The issue is "Should people be prohibited from voicing or having an opinion that offends other people?". Take the example of forum avatars, should they be removed if people don't like them/are uncomfortable with them around/get PTSD-induced anxiety from cartoon elefants?

An attitude of "Let's agree to disagree" is actually just flat out insulting in this scenario, because it's effectively saying "This isn't really worth discussing, but you are wrong".

Hawkstar
2015-07-01, 07:51 AM
Sure... for a PC. But most characters, and thus most trans characters, are gormless background NPCs who couldn't hope to have that much money. Including other NPC adventurers.
Actually, due to the industrialized and socially advanced nature of Eberron, they probably could. Not directly and immediately, no, but social health and wellness programs that rebalance wealth and healthcare (such as those provided by House Jorasco, and funded through insurance/loans/investment from House Kundark) could easily foot the bill for magical surgery needed for transexual people (Who make up an insignificant portion of the population)

Segev
2015-07-01, 09:01 AM
I would also note that (in the specific context of a tabletop RPG) a girl wanting to join a boys-only club usually means Eowyn/Arya wanting to a warrior instead of staying at home sewing i.e. she want's to go on/start/join an adventure.

I know this is probably besides the point you were trying to make, but you reminded me of one: When you have a "boys-only club" (whether a class, 'school,' society, or whatever), it almost seems inevitable that there will be the tale of the girl who pretends to be a boy in order to get in. And this will almost invariably be portrayed as a positive thing, breaking gender barriers and showing up unwarranted bias. When you have a "girls-only club," however, it is almost unheard-of for there to be a boy-pretending-to-be-a-girl to get in, and if there is, he's portrayed at his most sympathetic as a misguided jerk intruding where he is not wanted, and more often as some sort of nefarious infiltrator.

The only time the boy-as-girl pretense to be in a "girls-only club" is played positively is when the boy is forced into it by external circumstances, is highly uncomfortable with it, and it is played still as a joke on him and with the understanding that the girls-only organization is within its rights to be upset at him if they find out. (The boys-only organization is usually portrayed as in the wrong if it is upset with the girl faking masculinity to get in.)

In addition, the reveal of the girl-in-the-boys'-club will usually lead to the boys'-club realizing the error of their segregationist ways and allowing women in from then on. The reveal of the boy-in-the-girls'-club will almost never result in that. He'll be ousted, sometimes with a "but we like you so you're welcome as a guest" sop should the boy's reasons be reasonable enough and it have been sufficiently forced upon him.


The first time I really took note of this was in Legend of the Five Rings; the Utaku Battle Maidens are one of the most prominent and well-respected schools for warriors in the setting, but they're girls-only. Invert the genders, and you'd expect to see the empowerment tale of the samuraiko who sneaked in by faking being a boy; this never happens in the setting as-is, and any effort to suggest such is met, generally, with an expectation that he WOULD be discovered, he WOULD be executed for his temerity, and the Battle Maidens would be in the right to do so.

Ralanr
2015-07-01, 09:33 AM
So far all I get from this is that we as a species have latched ourselves onto something that has become increasingly hard to define and not in a good way. Not that it was good to have it easily defined, but it seems higher intelligence has a hard time understanding that both are required to survive and thus should be considered equally important.

A downside to higher thinking (and upside most of the time) is that one tends to try and understand rather than accept (again. This is an upside most of the time. Though sometimes I feel people take it too far, particularly with labels.)

Basically: Gender is messed up (I prefer the, "it's their life, why should I be bothered what they identify as?).

Then again, I can be pretty bias. I usually prefer people play their gender (mainly because of voices in role play. I'm probably less bias in text). But gender isn't well described and I've never had to explain it.

Hawkstar
2015-07-01, 09:39 AM
So far all I get from this is that we as a species have latched ourselves onto something that has become increasingly hard to define and not in a good way. Not that it was good to have it easily defined, but it seems higher intelligence has a hard time understanding that both are required to survive and thus should be considered equally important. What do you mean by this?

Segev
2015-07-01, 10:02 AM
Understanding brings acceptance; one cannot really accept without understanding. One can ignore, allow, and tollerate, but one cannot accept without understanding.

There is a conceit in some late-20th-century fiction exploring alien and higher intelligences that these non-human, oft-portrayed-as-superior minds would be puzzled, troubled, or condescendingly amused by the human obsession with naming things. As if it were both primitive and limiting, and kept us from truly accepting and appreciating what something is due to our requirement to label.

This is a conceit I have, through no small part in my own scholarly studies as I learned how the brain works in my efforts to create better artificial computational systems inspired by it, come to realize is not just wrong, but exactly opposite of the truth. The ancients who wrote of magic had it right: in names lie power, and knowing a thing's name gives you power over it.

I don't mean this in a mystical sense, nor am I saying there really are "truenames." But having a word, a label, that encompasses a concept actually crystalizes that concept in the human mind. It enables that concept to be joined to other concepts, relationships to be explored, examined, and discovered, and empowers the human mind to create and understand in ways that were previously impossible. A label, a name, a word makes a thing exist for the human thought process in a way that is useful.

Never allow yourself to be caught up in the falsely high-minded trap of dismissing understanding as somehow a bad thing. Understanding something is never, under any circumstances, bad. It is always, always useful. To understand allows one to accept or reject; one cannot truly do either without understanding, for lack of understanding means that you don't know what it is you are truly accepting or rejecting. Only by understanding it can you recognize it in all its forms and embrace that which you find praiseworthy and shun that which you find offensive. It is a tool of those who know what they propose is in your worse interests, or against your desires or moral compass, to convince you to accept without understanding (and, though they will further cloak it in pretty words, reject other things without undrestanding).

In this fashion does "tollerance" become a soft and fuzzy term that is used to form rigid, intollerant attitudes that require acceptance of anything they choose to claim fits something incompletely understood but "accepted," and require rejection as heresy anything which might bring into question the orthodox idea, again without permitting understanding lest, through understanding, minds be engaged to think on something logically, and that which is praiseworthy no longer be rejected and that which should be shunned no longer be accepted.

Ralanr
2015-07-01, 10:28 AM
What do you mean by this?

Gender is a mess. In discussions about it I have trouble seeing what is presented as fact. I see opinions too much and people sparking conflict when they cannot support their opinion (which I've done in the past and sadly, may do in the future. Hopefully not as often). People argue ethics and morality as all knowing truths when for all we know they are just creations of the human mind. I usually try to avoid bringing my opinion up due to how it brings up religious views and how people feel undermined when told their personal religious beliefs should not be brought up as a fact in the discussion.

Doing so makes both parties jerks. Putting their personal beliefs as above the other by putting the others below.

Though that's probably seen mostly as negative extremes on the Internet, ignited by trolls who want to see others get frustrated.

My point has flaws, ones personal beliefs have great impact on their opinion on something. But we need to know when it is right to judge by our opinion or judge by facts.

Facts seem to be hard to find.


Understanding brings acceptance; one cannot really accept without understanding. One can ignore, allow, and tollerate, but one cannot accept without understanding.

There is a conceit in some late-20th-century fiction exploring alien and higher intelligences that these non-human, oft-portrayed-as-superior minds would be puzzled, troubled, or condescendingly amused by the human obsession with naming things. As if it were both primitive and limiting, and kept us from truly accepting and appreciating what something is due to our requirement to label.

This is a conceit I have, through no small part in my own scholarly studies as I learned how the brain works in my efforts to create better artificial computational systems inspired by it, come to realize is not just wrong, but exactly opposite of the truth. The ancients who wrote of magic had it right: in names lie power, and knowing a thing's name gives you power over it.

I don't mean this in a mystical sense, nor am I saying there really are "truenames." But having a word, a label, that encompasses a concept actually crystalizes that concept in the human mind. It enables that concept to be joined to other concepts, relationships to be explored, examined, and discovered, and empowers the human mind to create and understand in ways that were previously impossible. A label, a name, a word makes a thing exist for the human thought process in a way that is useful.

Never allow yourself to be caught up in the falsely high-minded trap of dismissing understanding as somehow a bad thing. Understanding something is never, under any circumstances, bad. It is always, always useful. To understand allows one to accept or reject; one cannot truly do either without understanding, for lack of understanding means that you don't know what it is you are truly accepting or rejecting. Only by understanding it can you recognize it in all its forms and embrace that which you find praiseworthy and shun that which you find offensive. It is a tool of those who know what they propose is in your worse interests, or against your desires or moral compass, to convince you to accept without understanding (and, though they will further cloak it in pretty words, reject other things without undrestanding).

In this fashion does "tollerance" become a soft and fuzzy term that is used to form rigid, intollerant attitudes that require acceptance of anything they choose to claim fits something incompletely understood but "accepted," and require rejection as heresy anything which might bring into question the orthodox idea, again without permitting understanding lest, through understanding, minds be engaged to think on something logically, and that which is praiseworthy no longer be rejected and that which should be shunned no longer be accepted.

Understanding does bring acceptance, though I guess I failed to get my view across. I try to just not care about things like gender. What I usually care about is the ability to do what you want as long as it doesn't harm others. I don't think race, gender, sexual orientation, or religious beliefs should have a grand effect on how the world treats you.

I guess I just try to have my view be, "Do what makes you happy. Unless it affects me, then I'm not bothered." Though that might be an irresponsible worldview.

Sorry if all of that doesn't make sense or sounds hypocritical. I've been having trouble explaining my points for the past year for some reason.

Segev
2015-07-01, 10:32 AM
"Live and let live" is just fine. I try to do pretty much that. I only get up in (rhetorical) arms when somebody tries to claim that "live and let live" means I must change my life and culture to accommodate with special, new privileges and treatment. "Live and let live" means you also let me live and leave me alone; you don't get to demand that I behave a certain way to make you more comfortable, either.

Ralanr
2015-07-01, 10:43 AM
"Live and let live" is just fine. I try to do pretty much that. I only get up in (rhetorical) arms when somebody tries to claim that "live and let live" means I must change my life and culture to accommodate with special, new privileges and treatment. "Live and let live" means you also let me live and leave me alone; you don't get to demand that I behave a certain way to make you more comfortable, either.

Yes. This. Thank you.

SpectralDerp
2015-07-01, 11:21 AM
Gender is a mess. In discussions about it I have trouble seeing what is presented as fact. I see opinions too much and people sparking conflict when they cannot support their opinion (which I've done in the past and sadly, may do in the future. Hopefully not as often).

Discussions about gender suffer from the fact that it can be used to refer to

1) grammatical categories,
2) sex (in the sense of male/female),
3) a person's own sense of being male/female/neither/both/X,
4) all of the above
5) JOKER!

Once someone takes a step back and decides to establish a convention with regards to which words are used how, problems pertaining to vagueness go away. All this highlights is that the overwhelming majorit of people has never learned to actually think rigorously about arguments and sneak in a number of associations into what they are saying. Another example that highlights that the problem is with expression used and not the content is the word "faith" in the english language, because it is both used as a label for any religious relief and for beliefs that aren't supported. This occurs less frequently in languages where the corresponding expressions differ.

TLDR: People think they can think logically but fail at homonyms.

Yukitsu
2015-07-01, 12:23 PM
There is that convention and you sort of allude to it there. Gender is identity while sex is the biological reality. That people don't use conventions when talking or worse still intentionally equivocate them is what makes it hard, but there is a "proper" way to use those terms.

Honest Tiefling
2015-07-01, 12:40 PM
Am I the only person here to have ever played in a game where a male PC was encouraged to go seduce a female NPC? At this point, I'm actually kinda wondering.

Yukitsu
2015-07-01, 12:54 PM
Am I the only person here to have ever played in a game where a male PC was encouraged to go seduce a female NPC? At this point, I'm actually kinda wondering.

My DMs have my male characters get clubbed in the head and dragged off by Amazonian/Drow/Green skinned space alien princesses, so it's similar but more assertive.

On gender roles in a more general sense, my male characters have a track record for being the most likely members of the party to end up being damsel in distressed. 9/10 times by something like an Amazonian/Drow/Green skinned space alien princess.

Ralanr
2015-07-01, 12:54 PM
Am I the only person here to have ever played in a game where a male PC was encouraged to go seduce a female NPC? At this point, I'm actually kinda wondering.

No. I had such a moment. But I didn't do it because I used to have a crush on my DM, it felt pretty awkward to me.

Other than that I haven't really done romance or seduction in tabletops.

Edit: I was being hit on by a fellow pirate who (didn't know at the time) was the daughter of the pirate lord of the dock we just shipped off. He was a cool guy though, one of the more likable ones.

Frozen_Feet
2015-07-01, 12:56 PM
If you want to understand sex and gender, it's useful to divide feminine and masculine traits into following categories:

Primary sexual characteristics: in short, which kind of gonads you have. Penis and testicles for males, vagina, womb and ovaries for females. Roughly 49.5% of people have the male set, while 49.5% have the female set, with the remaining 1% divided between those who have neither or have a bit of both. Also includes genetic make-up, mostly differences in sex chromosomes.

Secondary sexual characteristics: results of biological sexual dimorphism which are directly or tangentially related to the primary ones. Examples: wider hips for females, broader shoulders for males. This also encompasses some psychological and behavioral trends, such as sexual preferences: above 90% men prefer females and 95% of females prefer males. Basically anything which can be traced and attributed to differences in sex crhomosomes and hormonal influence falls here. However, secondary traits vary much more than primary traits: for example, males are typically taller than females, but there's enough variance that you can easily find some women who are taller than some men.

Tertiary sexual characteristics: these are traits culturally assigned to sexes. They have only tangential or no connection to biology. Examples include lenght of hair, clothing, make-up, naming conventions, whether red is manly color or not, whether blue is womanly color or not, those sorts of things. They also include lot of behavioral traits which occur both in males and females, but appear more commonly or more strongly in one than the other. Example: physical aggression and violence. We have no shortage of aggressive and violent women, but since men produce more testosterone which strenghtens their impulses and makes them think less of themselves, we see men acting more overtly aggressive and violent. Hence, aggressiveness and violence come to be seen as domains of men. And, since femininity and masculinity are juxtaposed in our culture, women come to be seen as passive, even though in truth they're merely less aggressive, which is not quite the same thing.

The word "sex" is concerned with biological characteristics - primary and secondary ones. Gender, meanwhile, is concerned with the social and cultural aspects, so mainly focuses on the tertiary ones. Majority of arguments over sex and gender are about whether a trait falls under tertiary or secondary characteristics, or secondary or primary characteristics.

The variance found in secondary and tertiary traits is the root behind the statements "gender is non-binary" and "gender is a cultural/social construct". Both are true to an extent, though not to the extent the most radical proponents claim. Pretty much all people who don't comfortably fit into male nor female can be described as a mixture of those two (or neither), like the ancient Greeks did (they had manly men, womanly men, neuters, manly women and womanly women).

The value judgements made of certain traits are the other major source of contention. For example, suppose you're born a woman - you clearly have primary sexual characteristics of a woman - but then grow up to be really tall and muscular and are very assertive by nature. By your secondary and tertiary traits, you are hence less feminine than someone who'd be smaller, slimmer and passive. If you live in a culture where only very feminine women are considered attractive, you might find the notion that you're "less of a woman" to be rather objectionable. Something which could be a trivial statement becomes a matter of identity and self-esteem.

If you think of the above, you'll also realize that transgenderism and transsexualism, though commonly used interchangeably, are not the same thing. Transgenderism is a choice of social role - choosing to live as a different gender than was assigned to you by society. Transsexualism is a physical condition, requiring actual bodily transformation to treat and achieve properly. For obvious reasons, most transsexual inviduals double as transgender ones, but there's a semantic difference which becomes relevant if you want to discuss, say, transmedicalism (=the belief that being trans is primarily a medical condition and you don't qualify if you don't have gender dysphoria, which is a diagnostic criteria for transsexualism).

SpectralDerp
2015-07-01, 01:23 PM
Gender, meanwhile, is concerned with the social and cultural aspects, so mainly focuses on the tertiary ones.

[...]

Transgenderism is a choice of social role - choosing to live as a different gender than was assigned to you by society. Transsexualism is a physical condition, requiring actual bodily transformation to treat and achieve properly.

No.

Medically speaking, a persons gender is that persons sense of belonging to a certain sex and transgenderism is having a sense of not belonging to the sex one belongs to, that is to say, having a mismatched gender and sex. It's not a choice, but rather a serious mental condition which can in distress and discomfort resulting from this mismatched gender, which is called gender dysphoria, which is a mental disorder that often results in suicide. Bodily transformation through hormone therapy and surgery is "required" in the sense that there is nothing available to modern medicine which has a greater impact in reducing suicide rates. Or maybe not.

Segev
2015-07-01, 01:50 PM
Bodily transformation through hormone therapy and surgery is "required" in the sense that there is nothing available to modern medicine which has a greater impact in reducing suicide rates.

There is actually no evidence that the physical surgeries and treatments actually reduce suicide rates. Even constructing the experiment pool is hard to do, because of the self-reporting and cultural stigma natures of the condition.

I would honestly prefer we not continue discussing whether the physical transformation procedures are good or not; it's one of those subject areas where only orthodoxy is tolerated because contrary views are considered "cruel" or "mean" or "bigotry," without worthiness of examination.

And there is a question which I feel all but compelled to ask which I know would insult people, though I fail to understand why it is insulting while the contrary is "empowering."

As I do not wish to ask that question, but this conversation cannot actually be anything but a orthodoxy-only echo chamber without it or similar ones being permitted, I strongly suggest that we leave this particular subject alone. Perhaps restricting ourselves to fantasy settings wherein magical means do exist for 100% true and genuine transformations of bodies and minds.


Heck, in D&D, bestow curse could ironically be considered a blessing if used to "curse" somebody to the opposite physical sex...and they liked it that way. (It's the listed spell used to make the infamous belt of masculinity/femininity.)

Ralanr
2015-07-01, 01:57 PM
The leader of the secret organization is rarely in their elder years and if so, is never female.

I for one would need a pair of brown pants if an elderly woman was in charge of the resistance group that's been sabotaging my empire or surviving for so long under it. You don't reach that age in that kind of life easy, so whatever she'd done before would worry me.

And if it turns out she's been a normal person her entire life, I might lock my door. If someone with no experience seems to be making a good effort against you, their is either something wrong or they're unconsciously very good if not lucky.

Flickerdart
2015-07-01, 02:03 PM
The leader of the secret organization is rarely in their elder years and if so, is never female.
You mean like Lady Stoneheart, or older than that?

I can't really think of any other examples though. Old people don't come up much in media outside of wizards who rarely do anything proactive.

SpectralDerp
2015-07-01, 02:14 PM
There is actually no evidence that the physical surgeries and treatments actually reduce suicide rates. Even constructing the experiment pool is hard to do, because of the self-reporting and cultural stigma natures of the condition.

It was my belief that statistics had shown that suicide rates were significantly higher among transgender people who had not undergone surgery when compared to those who had, but I had not checked these statistics for rigor myself and I can see the difficulties with getting an accurate picture, so I'll withdraw my earlier statement and change it to

"Bodily transformation through hormone therapy and surgery is "required" in the sense that there is nothing available to modern medicine which seems to have a greater impact in reducing suicide rates."

Segev
2015-07-01, 02:19 PM
Again, I don't think there is that statistical evidence of reduced suicides. And I still am abjured from asking what seems a painfully obvious question due to it being likely to cause offense despite being honestly meant.

Ralanr
2015-07-01, 02:29 PM
You mean like Lady Stoneheart, or older than that?

I can't really think of any other examples though. Old people don't come up much in media outside of wizards who rarely do anything proactive.

Who is this old lady and where does she appear?

Also, Pathfinder has an iconic character that's transgender. There is a campaign that has a story element in helping someone change their gender.

And there is a half-Orc iconic born from consensual sex. He was kidnapped after he was born...but not a rape baby. (Yeah this is random. I just like that Paizo reworks things. )

Flickerdart
2015-07-01, 02:41 PM
Who is this old lady and where does she appear?

Lady Stoneheart is the leader of the Brotherhood Without Banners, a group of rebels who fight against the ruling dynasty and the houses that support them. In the books she is 35, but in the show the character that would become Lady Stoneheart is portrayed by a 51 year old actress.

Lord Torath
2015-07-01, 02:52 PM
I know this is probably besides the point you were trying to make, but you reminded me of one: When you have a "boys-only club" (whether a class, 'school,' society, or whatever), it almost seems inevitable that there will be the tale of the girl who pretends to be a boy in order to get in. And this will almost invariably be portrayed as a positive thing, breaking gender barriers and showing up unwarranted bias. When you have a "girls-only club," however, it is almost unheard-of for there to be a boy-pretending-to-be-a-girl to get in, and if there is, he's portrayed at his most sympathetic as a misguided jerk intruding where he is not wanted, and more often as some sort of nefarious infiltrator.

The only time the boy-as-girl pretense to be in a "girls-only club" is played positively is when the boy is forced into it by external circumstances, is highly uncomfortable with it, and it is played still as a joke on him and with the understanding that the girls-only organization is within its rights to be upset at him if they find out. (The boys-only organization is usually portrayed as in the wrong if it is upset with the girl faking masculinity to get in.)

In addition, the reveal of the girl-in-the-boys'-club will usually lead to the boys'-club realizing the error of their segregationist ways and allowing women in from then on. The reveal of the boy-in-the-girls'-club will almost never result in that. He'll be ousted, sometimes with a "but we like you so you're welcome as a guest" sop should the boy's reasons be reasonable enough and it have been sufficiently forced upon him.Song of the Lioness quartet by Tamara Pierce is an example of this. Alana must disguise herself as "Alan" to enter training to become a knight, but her brother Thom, does not need to disguise himself as a girl to take her place at a monastery (where he learns magic). And after The Reveal, Knighthood is again opened up to both men and women.

Later on in the timeline (Protector of the Small Quartet, about the first openly-female knight-in-training since The Reveal) the queen has a personal guard that is entirely female (noble ladies who can ride, shoot, and dance). The King's Own is a 300-strong force made up entirely of single young noblemen. But no-one attempts to "infiltrate" either group that I'm aware of.


The leader of the secret organization is rarely in their elder years and if so, is never female.

I for one would need a pair of brown pants if an elderly woman was in charge of the resistance group that's been sabotaging my empire or surviving for so long under it. You don't reach that age in that kind of life easy, so whatever she'd done before would worry me.

And if it turns out she's been a normal person her entire life, I might lock my door. If someone with no experience seems to be making a good effort against you, their is either something wrong or they're unconsciously very good if not lucky. Counter-example: The assassins' guild on the Air world in the Death Gate Cycle (Hugh the Hand is a member of) is lead by an old (one might say ancient - 100+ years old, which is OLD for elves in the series) elf woman.

Edit: I had a female halfling thief as a PC. She's in the "Here Lies _____" thread.

Sith_Happens
2015-07-01, 03:40 PM
Agreed on Eberron! Changelings are pretty much my favorite race, ever.

and yeah. The girdle is super helpful. But then you get into individuals who aren't male or female, are some blending of the two, or whose gender doesn't lie on the imagined male-female spectrum...

And that's where you're gonna need more than a 2nd level spell slot to make things fit what lies inside.

I see no reason someone couldn't invent an upgraded version of the girdle capable of doing all of the above.


Am I the only person here to have ever played in a game where a male PC was encouraged to go seduce a female NPC? At this point, I'm actually kinda wondering.

Been there, done that.

Frozen_Feet
2015-07-01, 04:31 PM
No.

Medically speaking, a persons gender is that persons sense of belonging to a certain sex and transgenderism is having a sense of not belonging to the sex one belongs to, that is to say, having a mismatched gender and sex. It's not a choice, but rather a serious mental condition which can in distress and discomfort resulting from this mismatched gender, which is called gender dysphoria, which is a mental disorder that often results in suicide. Bodily transformation through hormone therapy and surgery is "required" in the sense that there is nothing available to modern medicine which has a greater impact in reducing suicide rates. Or maybe not.

You are not arguing against anything I said, you are just tripping yourself up by using transgender synonymously with transsexual. Do you know why I recommend separating the two? Because there are people who identify as transgender but do not suffer from gender dysphoria. Since gender is supposed to be about social constructs and roles anyway, the logical way is to use the word "transgender" for those people, and use the word "transsexual" for those with the medical condition.

Steampunkette
2015-07-01, 05:29 PM
It seems logical, but it's really a bad idea...

Transsexual has a lot of heavily negative connotations to it that have made it a bad word within the community, for the most part.

For that reason, within the community we generally don't differentiate between operative and nonoperative trans individuals. If it's something you want to do, great. If it isn't, awesome.

And then you get into stuff like Demigender, Genderfluid, and more. All of which are perfectly valid expressions of a person's being, but are generally maligned outside of the community (and in it within certain circles like the Truscum) as being "Illogical" or "Made Up".

Ralanr
2015-07-01, 07:19 PM
It seems logical, but it's really a bad idea...

Transsexual has a lot of heavily negative connotations to it that have made it a bad word within the community, for the most part.

For that reason, within the community we generally don't differentiate between operative and nonoperative trans individuals. If it's something you want to do, great. If it isn't, awesome.

And then you get into stuff like Demigender, Genderfluid, and more. All of which are perfectly valid expressions of a person's being, but are generally maligned outside of the community (and in it within certain circles like the Truscum) as being "Illogical" or "Made Up".

Words only have the power you give them. Turning words of hatred to words that belong to the community is a good step.

Example: the N-word.

Course I could be misremembering my communication studies.

Steampunkette
2015-07-01, 09:21 PM
It's a pretty thought. It doesn't always reflect reality. For example you used the phrase N word, which shows you clearly acknowledge the power it still has. Using the Word to describe a specific subset of black folks for distinctive language purposes would probably not fly well.

Kinda in the early part of that for most trans people. Especially to have people outside the community casually dropping it.

Time and distance are required to defang that kind of thing.

goto124
2015-07-01, 09:35 PM
Actually, I think the N word is not allowed on these forums.

Steampunkette
2015-07-01, 09:35 PM
Allow me to rephrase. A large enough portion of the trans community that it is more or less accepted as something most people don't use unless they're applying it to themself. Like Tranny. Which a painful amount of gay men feel is appropriate to use to describe their trans friends or acquaintances.

I'm also not really surprised that one isn't filtered...

Hawkstar
2015-07-01, 09:53 PM
My DMs have my male characters get clubbed in the head and dragged off by Amazonian/Drow/Green skinned space alien princesses, so it's similar but more assertive.Now, let's flip the genders on THIS situation!

Yukitsu
2015-07-01, 10:00 PM
Now, let's flip the genders on THIS situation!

My female characters all get attacked by tentacle monsters from just about every published random encounter table AND all my female characters will only (but chronically) suffer clothes based damage from crit fumble/success charts even when that's only a 2% chance and even when it's always out in open rolls.

Basically it's pretty awful no matter which way you slice it. Worse part is, for dudes it's typically because I usually roll appearance as a stat (mostly for fun) and haven't had below a 16 on a 4d6 best of 3 in like, ever, and when prompted to make appearance stat checks, I usually roll multiple 20s.

goto124
2015-07-01, 10:02 PM
The real question is why were they clubbed and dragged off (presumbly prisoned)?

Though it does happen regularly to PCs of all sexes and genders.

Steampunkette
2015-07-01, 10:18 PM
The Princess who needs to get rescued by the party can be a 10th level character when it comes to bluffing the party about her true goals, but Goblins and Orcs can take her out instantaneously when it is time to get kidnapped.

The Fury
2015-07-01, 10:42 PM
As previously mentioned, guards, bartenders, blacksmiths etc. are almost never female. When they are, it's pretty much given that they are special in some way. Maybe the guard is an elite commander, maybe the bartender has some strange mystical power, maybe the blacksmith knows some obscure maguffin-related lore. In any case a female guards, bartenders, and blacksmiths are never just guards, bartenders and blacksmiths.


Are wise masters who teach the hero even a tabletop RPG convention?


I've never met one in the game itself, I've always sort of wanted to though. Though, as you seem to imply, there's not really the hero in tabletop RPGs, but you can be a hero.

Ralanr
2015-07-01, 11:12 PM
It's a pretty thought. It doesn't always reflect reality. For example you used the phrase N word, which shows you clearly acknowledge the power it still has. Using the Word to describe a specific subset of black folks for distinctive language purposes would probably not fly well.

Kinda in the early part of that for most trans people. Especially to have people outside the community casually dropping it.

Time and distance are required to defang that kind of thing.

Actually, I use n word because it's not my or my cultures word. So when I use it or even reference the full word, retribution happens.

I'm not saying it's a perfect idea, since the word is still met with a harsh reaction if spoken by the unexpected, which does not show well of the culture.

Though taking words in stride might help. Some people may choose to identify with words that are considered slurs. I think that is the case with Dyke.

Though anyone who mocks others with names probably has some issues that they are too afraid or are not fully aware of to deal with.

Basically, if you need to mock someone to feel better, you're the one with the problem.


On topic: if the hero (protagonist) of the story is not human, than he is a guy 100% of the time.

Sith_Happens
2015-07-01, 11:18 PM
The Princess who needs to get rescued by the party can be a 10th level character when it comes to bluffing the party about her true goals, but Goblins and Orcs can take her out instantaneously when it is time to get kidnapped.

This is NPCs in general. As well as entirely possible within the rules in more game systems than not.

Yukitsu
2015-07-01, 11:18 PM
This is NPCs in general.

That's like, 4 of the PCs I've made so far.


The real question is why were they clubbed and dragged off (presumbly prisoned)?

Though it does happen regularly to PCs of all sexes and genders.

Most of the time they were getting dragged off either for debauched things or marriage followed presumably by those same sorts of things which were now church approved so at the very least not debauched.

Frozen_Feet
2015-07-02, 04:37 AM
It seems logical, but it's really a bad idea...

Transsexual has a lot of heavily negative connotations to it that have made it a bad word within the community, for the most part.

That's a difference in how the word is used in medical diagnostics and colloquial speech. I don't think swapping "transsexual" to "transgender" has remedied the situation at all, on the contrary, I'm fairly sure "transgender" is now quickly absorbing all the negative connotations with the earlier term. As noted, in colloquial speech, they are used interchangeably.

It's like "idiot" used to be a technical term for people with IQ in a certain range, but because stupidity is looked down upon, it became a general insulting word. As long as the negative stigma against trans people persists, you cannot escape it by swapping around terms which refer to them.

EDIT: Other similar examples: "schizophrenic" and "schizoid" are medical terms for certain disorders; but because mental disorders have a negative stigma, the word "schizo" is used as an insult. "Psychopath" and "sociopath", likewise, are (now obsolete) psychological terms, but again, due to negative stigma, they and the word "psycho" are commonly used as insults. For the closest possible parallel, "homosexual" is a literal description of a sexual preference, but due to stigma against them, "homo" is used as an insult.

It does not follow the medical terms ought to be changed just because someone is using them wrong, because the terms and their definitions are not the problem - the value judgements made by common folks are.

EDIT2: And by accident, I might have actually stumbled back on topic. Because I'm willing to bet that using terms that refer to homosexuals (homo, gay, dyke, lezzie, whatever) are regularly used as insults in great many games and settings, following the real-life usage of those words.

SpectralDerp
2015-07-02, 05:12 AM
Since gender is supposed to be about social constructs and roles anywa

The notion "gender is a social construct" is nothing more than a slogan that second wave feminists used and flat out offended transgender people. Medically speaking, gender is used either as a synonym for sex or gender identity. Using the same word to refer to the social connotations of a sex is really not a good choice. Likewise, the difference between transsexual and transgendered is not as clear cut as one would want it to be.

Frozen_Feet
2015-07-02, 05:33 AM
SpectralDerp, you're still not arguing against anything I've said. We both agree that using gender and sex synonymously causes confusion. Defining and using those words differently is the proposed solution. It's not about how the words are used, but how they should be used.

Steampunkette
2015-07-02, 06:19 AM
Spectral, it's transgender. Not transgendered.

Think of it like a state of matter. Solids don't solided. Gasses don't gassed. Transgender individuals transition.

SpectralDerp
2015-07-02, 06:59 AM
SpectralDerp, you're still not arguing against anything I've said.

I'm pretty sure taking a statement and explaining why it's wrong counts as arguing against it. Because you are making objectively false claims such as "Transsexualism is a physical condition" which is wrong even given your definitions.

Frozen_Feet
2015-07-02, 08:35 AM
I'm pretty sure taking a statement and explaining why it's wrong counts as arguing against it. Because you are making objectively false claims such as "Transsexualism is a physical condition" which is wrong even given your definitions.

Transsexualism, and hence gender dysphoria, has links to genetics and brain structure. That's why it's a physical condition. To my knowledge, biological theories for causes of transsexualism have gained more, not less, scientific evidence recently. If you want to argue how I'm making objectively false claims, please go to, say, Wikipedia page for "causes for transsexualism", and then come back with data debunking all studies referenced therein.

EDIT: hopefully, in the process, you will also notice I'm not exactly the first person to distinquish between transgender and transsexual.

SpectralDerp
2015-07-02, 09:03 AM
A condition is physical if it primarily affects the state of the affected, not just any condition with physical causes such ad the brain and genetics.

Also, sorry if these posts are short, I have to type these on my phone and there are ablot of things I would like to elaborate on, I just can't get myself to write anything longer than two paragraphs.

Frozen_Feet
2015-07-02, 09:08 AM
A condition is physical if it primarily affects the state of the affected

I suspect you left out a word there, as I can't parse what you mean by this sentence.

SpectralDerp
2015-07-02, 09:28 AM
The missing word is obviously physical.

But yeah, phone.

Frozen_Feet
2015-07-02, 10:27 AM
The division between mental and physical is somewhat obsolete, as modern science is not dualistic. But okay, let's agree transsexualism isn't a physical condition.

As per your initial response, you still appear to agree it's a medical condition best treated by physically transitioning.

It still has roots in genetics and biochemistry.

And there still are people who identify as transgender and wish to live as a different gender than initially assigned, but do not suffer from gender dysphoria, do not have pressing need for physical transitioning and do not fit the medical diagnostics of transsexuality.

Hence, your argument does not meaningfully alter my initial reasoning for distinquishing the terms.

Segev
2015-07-02, 10:31 AM
Ah, the can of worms that is special privilege based on race.

Is this really the thread for it?

SpectralDerp
2015-07-02, 10:36 AM
Frozen Feet, I kinda doubt you even understood what I was actually disagreeing with.

Ralanr
2015-07-02, 10:41 AM
Ah, the can of worms that is special privilege based on race.

Is this really the thread for it?

It is slowly becoming it.

Frozen_Feet
2015-07-02, 11:22 AM
Frozen Feet, I kinda doubt you even understood what I was actually disagreeing with.

More like everything you're disagreeing with is near-irrelevant to the points I'm making. If there's something left unaddressed, underline it for me and explain why it's relevant.

Karl Aegis
2015-07-02, 01:55 PM
Wait, are we treating Holy Race War like it is a legitimate game now? Please don't. It doesn't even have combat mechanics.

The Grue
2015-07-02, 02:31 PM
Myself, I'm intensely curious how this discussion does not fall under Politics.

Steampunkette
2015-07-02, 03:34 PM
Because it has nothing to do with governance or people trying to achieve power and the thread's topic is instead about story tropes.

Well. That and lately semantics that should probably be taken to PMs out of simple decorum.

Tiktik Ironclaw
2015-07-06, 03:17 PM
Last-ditch effort to find some rails!

While the male high priest is called Father Clericman, the female high priestess will almost never be called Mother Clericwoman, because it feels strange to call a 20-year old 'mother'. The rare event when the female priestess is middle-aged, she's undoubtably still beautiful, and more likely than not a drow or another elf. I've noticed this while worldbuilding.

Segev
2015-07-06, 04:11 PM
Actually, the "Mother" appellation seems more prominent in fantasy than IRL, from what I've seen. It is the title given to the Amyrlin Seat in Wheel of Time, and to the "Mother Confessor" in Sword of Truth. Dune gives us the "Reverend Mothers." Not to mention many abbesses and their expies being "Mother" or "Mother Superior."

I think the lack of the title is more to do with more prevelance of male priests in the higher-up positions of most fantasy churches, and rarely running into the higher-ups of the female-dominated ones. Definitely a trope, though.

Steampunkette
2015-07-06, 07:51 PM
That's part of it, Segev.

Also that people tend to use the world around them to create their worlds with a baseline verisimilitude, and in our world most religions have kept women out of the priesthood for most of recorded history. It's also why Kings are men and female rulers are Queens who have one or more consorts as their husbands rather than having Kings taking the political place of queens within society.

Sith_Happens
2015-07-07, 12:06 AM
It's also why Kings are men and female rulers are Queens who have one or more consorts as their husbands rather than having Kings taking the political place of queens within society.

This is actually entirely a matter of "What's in a name." A man married to a queen-regnant technically is a king, most cultures (at least Western ones) just refuse to call him one due to the historical attitude that "king" > "queen" and therefore a man who isn't regnant must not really be a king but still merely a prince.

Basically "no true Scotsman" as applied to royal titles.

goto124
2015-07-07, 12:08 AM
But does he hold the power of a King? Doesn't seem so in this case.

Sith_Happens
2015-07-07, 12:27 AM
But does he hold the power of a King? Doesn't seem so in this case.

The arbitrary distinction between what's seen as the inherent level of a King versus a Queen, as demonstrated perfectly by this question, is exactly what I was talking about.

A "queen" can be either a queen-regnant or a queen-consort depending on whether they officially have any political power. A "king," by contrast, traditionally only gets called such if he's a king-regnant. A king with no official political power gets called a prince-consort instead, due to the historically-ingrained idea that "king" = "regnant." This distinction (i.e.- that "king" is considered to necessarily imply "regnant" while "queen" is not) is entirely due to it historically being the default that the king holds the power rather than the queen.

Segev
2015-07-07, 12:28 PM
It's also why Kings are men and female rulers are Queens who have one or more consorts as their husbands rather than having Kings taking the political place of queens within society.


This is actually entirely a matter of "What's in a name." A man married to a queen-regnant technically is a king, most cultures (at least Western ones) just refuse to call him one due to the historical attitude that "king" > "queen" and therefore a man who isn't regnant must not really be a king but still merely a prince.

Basically "no true Scotsman" as applied to royal titles.

This one's always bugged me, aesthetically. You can have ruling Queens, and non-ruling Kings (see many Constitutional Monarchies wherein the royal family are figureheads). I get that the connotation of "King" is "King outranks Queen," but the terms are really just gender-swaps of the titles. Even the more patriarchal Western societies view married couples, usually, as united. Even if the King "outranks" the Queen, unless there's obvious discord between the royal couple it will often be assumed until told otherwise that the Queen's word is the same as the King's, at least insofar as any orders she gives. And most marriage traditions and stereotypes would have anybody who claims that a King acts entirely without care for what the Queen thinks laughed at behind the hands of every married man in the room. (Again, stereotypes; obviously, there are relationships and even subcultures wherein the women really are chattel, just as in others there is truth behind the stereotype that the man is the head of the household, but the woman is the neck and turns him whichever way she so chooses.)

All of which is to say I would much prefer to see ruling Queens have Kings rather than "royal consorts" or the like. The King just isn't the one who happens to sign the official documents. And maybe he sits to the Queen's right, rather than the other way around.



Side note: It would be interesting to me to see a monarchy wherein the line of succession went first spouse-to-spouse, then parent-to-child. So the Crown Prince (or Princess) would only take the throne when both of his parents were deceased. And marrying the King (or Queen) would put you in line for the throne directly.

This could lead to plots such as the Crown Prince(ss) being angry that not only has the Queen remarried, but she's having another child. Should the Queen die before her new King, the new King would not only be the new ruler, but since it goes parent-to-child, if he didn't adopt the Crown Prince(ss), the heir would be the half-sibling, not the old Crown Prince(ss).

Alternatively, the Crown's powers could be divided along gender lines, such that a Queen and a King are always needed as they have different areas of absolute authority. The oldest child and his or her spouse are the heirs apparent. Leading at times to the King and his mother or the Queen and her father being the ruling King and Queen, while their spouse will inherit when the mother or father passes away or abdicates.

Sith_Happens
2015-07-07, 04:03 PM
You can have ruling Queens, and non-ruling Kings (see many Constitutional Monarchies wherein the royal family are figureheads).

It's funny that you mention constitutional monarchies, because the downright odd thing is that Europe has kept the terminology difference in question despite mostly having switched to gender-blind succession 2+ centuries ago now.

Steampunkette
2015-07-07, 11:50 PM
In one of the best 5e games I've played in so far, my character is a Princess.

The Princess Venyra Salitzar of the Immortal Principality of Hult.

Her ancient royal line began when the second in line for becoming the Emperor renounced all claim to the throne in exchange for eternal rulership of a small nation by his family line and the opportunity to marry a common woman.

It was granted to him along with the title of Prince/Princess for his family line from then on. And the royal lineage follows the bloodline and ignores the consort's bloodline as per standard.

So to differentiate from the ruler and everyone else, you add the appellation of "Crown". Right now the ruler is the Crown Princess of Hult and she's married to a Prince (No blood relation)

You could do the same in any game. Or keep the terminology and use grammar to indicate authority. Like saying the Queen and her husband the King, since the Queen is given Primacy as the topic it could indicate her position of power over her hubby.

SowZ
2015-07-08, 02:43 AM
As previously mentioned, guards, bartenders, blacksmiths etc. are almost never female. When they are, it's pretty much given that they are special in some way. Maybe the guard is an elite commander, maybe the bartender has some strange mystical power, maybe the blacksmith knows some obscure maguffin-related lore. In any case a female guards, bartenders, and blacksmiths are never just guards, bartenders and blacksmiths.



I've never met one in the game itself, I've always sort of wanted to though. Though, as you seem to imply, there's not really the hero in tabletop RPGs, but you can be a hero.

Yeah, I try really hard to randomize my pronouns and balance the genders of background NPCs and named NPCs, but even still I very frequently find myself favoring one gender or another for various professions. And that's for someone actively trying and messing up on accident. If one isn't aware of it, though? It's probably worse.

Segev
2015-07-13, 04:22 PM
One that came up in another thread (a DM's wife is a player) reminded me that it's a classic:

It is always taken as a serious threat (in that it's a legitimate one that is a punishment which can reasonably be meted out) when a woman tells her husband/boyfriend that he is going to be sleeping on the couch.

You never see a man threatening his wife/girlfriend that she is going to sleep on the couch, and the very notion that he could even give the command is so unthinkable as to never even come up.

Sith_Happens
2015-07-13, 06:33 PM
Yeah, I try really hard to randomize my pronouns and balance the genders of background NPCs and named NPCs, but even still I very frequently find myself favoring one gender or another for various professions. And that's for someone actively trying and messing up on accident. If one isn't aware of it, though? It's probably worse.

This thread actually got me thinking about how certain aspects of a stereotypical D&D setting might influence the development of gender roles. Once I've hashed something out in detail I'll probably post it to the 3.5 subforum (since I'll probably end up getting into some edition-specific minutiae).


One that came up in another thread (a DM's wife is a player) reminded me that it's a classic:

It is always taken as a serious threat (in that it's a legitimate one that is a punishment which can reasonably be meted out) when a woman tells her husband/boyfriend that he is going to be sleeping on the couch.

You never see a man threatening his wife/girlfriend that she is going to sleep on the couch, and the very notion that he could even give the command is so unthinkable as to never even come up.

I feel like this one's a product of the "Men always want sex all the time, women don't" one, but I'm not sure.

goto124
2015-07-13, 07:25 PM
A serious threat? I've only seen it used as comedy.

And I never caught the sex part... as I saw it, not sleeping in the same room as your partner is due to waning love, thus it's a warning sign that the relationship may be in a bit of trouble.

You're right though, I've never seen a man tell an woman to sleep on the couch. It would probably be regarded as 'dude not funny', much like a man slapping an woman (why can a man engage an woman in combat, but not slap her?)

Not quite an RPG trope though? Adventurers must sleep in caves, forests, etc, and I don't think players actually play out this couch thing all that much?

Sith_Happens
2015-07-13, 09:28 PM
(why can a man engage an woman in combat, but not slap her?)

This one's easy: the idea of "engaging someone in combat" generally implies they're capable of competently fighting back, which negates the underlying reason for the various biases people have in how they regard male-on-female versus female-on-male violence.

Segev
2015-07-13, 10:18 PM
This one's easy: the idea of "engaging someone in combat" generally implies they're capable of competently fighting back, which negates the underlying reason for the various biases people have in how they regard male-on-female versus female-on-male violence.

If the guy is winning handily - especially if the girl is not making a good showing - it gets into "dude not funny"/"what a creep" territory again, though, sometimes with overtones of 4th-wall "really? the girl has to be helpless?"

Whereas if it goes the other way around, you might still get the "oh, gee, he's jobbing for the girl" reaction, but you won't get the "what a creep" angle unless she overplays her advantage and overtly mocks him WAY too hard.

Steampunkette
2015-07-13, 10:44 PM
Pretty much anytime someone is able to handily destroy someone else they get looked at as a bully if they don't disengage.

Women just don't get the "Beating a boy is bad because they're weaker!" Instead we get "What a colossal bitch!" or something similar.

Often we get that for even standing up for ourselves at all, though... so... y'know.

Sith_Happens
2015-07-13, 11:19 PM
If the guy is winning handily - especially if the girl is not making a good showing - it gets into "dude not funny"/"what a creep" territory again, though, sometimes with overtones of 4th-wall "really? the girl has to be helpless?"

Whereas if it goes the other way around, you might still get the "oh, gee, he's jobbing for the girl" reaction, but you won't get the "what a creep" angle unless she overplays her advantage and overtly mocks him WAY too hard.

Um... I think that was implied? Obviously if one side isn't putting up a fight worth mentioning then you're back to square one.

Gritmonger
2015-07-13, 11:54 PM
Pretty much anytime someone is able to handily destroy someone else they get looked at as a bully if they don't disengage.

Women just don't get the "Beating a boy is bad because they're weaker!" Instead we get "What a colossal bitch!" or something similar.

Often we get that for even standing up for ourselves at all, though... so... y'know.

hard on the other side as well. Few people are willing to call it spousal abuse when the female is doing all the hitting. There is the expectation that a guy who doesn't fight back deserves it.

And as far as the "Trainer of the hero" - I always look to Augra from The Dark Crystal - a classic crone-teacher. The lone male master teacher might be a trope, but the trio of female advisors is a bit older, and I'd suspect overlooked. One could argue her three eyes were a throwback to that other classic three women advisors, along with the removable eye. The pythoness, the three fates... wisdom and foresight rather than combat prowess.

Segev
2015-07-14, 12:09 AM
There tends, when it is a guy being handed his ass, to be a sense that he brought it on himself. Not all the time, by any means, but there's a much higher probability that he mouthed off to the wrong person and is being put in his place, rather than simply being a victim. You just don't see female characters mouthing off and being put in their place very often; or, if you do, it's by another female character. Fighting a girl is a no-win situation for a guy: if he wins, he's the jerk who beat up a girl (and that's not considered an impressive feat; herein lies the unfairness to the girl); if he loses, he lost to a girl. It doesn't matter if she's the most badass warrior princess in the galaxy; it's a hit to his reputation that is far more severe than if he'd lost to a guy.

Again, this is not saying it's harsher for the guy than the girl; the stereotypes in question undeniably are slated against women at least as much as men. It's just a part and parcel of persistent gender conventions: hitting the girl is a bad move unless she's gone out of her narrative way to deserve it.


When it's two guys fighting, you CAN get the "guy who's winning is being a bully" vibe, but depending on how it's written, you can also get the vibe that the guy who lost had it coming. Whether he mouthed off to the wrong person or not, "might makes right" remains something we often subconsciously accept as human beings. It takes avoiding any overt "stop hitting yourself" style bullying, but if two guys are in conflict and one brings it to blows and trounces the other...

Well, it's not considered as BAD as if the one who was trounced was a girl. Even if the girl actually started the physical violence.

Which is kind-of back to the notion that it's acceptable/funny when a girl hits a guy, and it's still the guy who's a monster if he retaliates with even semi-equivalent violence.

Even what was to me a refreshing change of pace after too many anime starring tsunderes, Kaze no Stigma, had to handle the guy not putting up with it in a very particular fashion: he didn't just not accept being beaten up, he caught the girl's assault and completely suppressed it by simple restraint.

That, too, has some potentially unfortunate implications, of course. But leaving those aside to focus on a different point at the moment, if the guy had actually fought with the girl, he'd have come off far less sympathetically. (He's still portrayed as a "jerk with a heart of gold" for his smug self-defense and amusement at it, not as a sympathetic nice guy.)


Tangentially, that brings us to another convention: a guy with an "abhorrent admirer" girl who keeps physically coming on to him is portrayed as funny. Reverse genders, and it is swiftly "dude, not funny." (I believe we've covered this one already, though, so I won't retread it too much.)



Anyway, fair or not, there is an undertone that a guy who loses a fight in some way deserves whatever comes to him. It is more and more often written to underscore the falsehood of this, but it always takes extra effort in the writing to manage it. Whereas a girl who's physically harmed and bullied - especially by a guy - is a victim and automatically purely sympathetic (absent additional effort to diminish her sympathetic appearance).

Though I suppose neither is really "resilient" quite so much anymore, given all the effort that's gone into subverting and averting them. If anything, their biggest vestiges are in how it's treated as expected that the audience will expect them, so the subversion or aversion takes pains to point out and even lampshade the trope that's being avoided. The girl HAS to say "you thought I was weak, but look how much better than the male protagonist I am," at least once (in some form). (This gets particularly laughable when the very trope they're supposedly averting gets played straight later and the audience wonders how she stopped being competent.)

Well, I'm rambling.


I think one point is right: the "sleep on the couch" thing is related to the modern expectation that a guy is always after sex while a girl reluctantly lets him have it as a wifely or steady girlfriendly duty. What's interesting, even with that, is the notion that the girl orders the guy to the couch. It's never the other way around, and it's never the girl saying, "Enjoy your cold bed" while she sleeps on the couch. There's some gender convention that states that it is the girl's place to control the bed, almost implying it's HER bed, and she just lets him sleep there (as opposed to a shared bed to which both have the same rights, or even - not saying this would be desirable, just pointing out the option as it's never explored - the GUY's bed and he just lets HER sleep there).

The closest to that last one is when the guy and girl don't live together, and if a guy in any way invokes the fact that it's his bed in his home, he's portrayed as an utter jerk for using and abusing the poor girl.

Note: I am not complaining nor saying this is some sort of unfairness. I'm just noting that it's most definitely the gender convention in fiction. (As for roleplaying...it is only likely to come up if it's an OOC thing with a wife/girlfriend telling her husband/boyfriend this to suggest a modification to his OOC behavior, or IC when a PC or NPC has a female significant other who does this as a plot point or point of drama. Again, if a guy does this to a girl, it's almost certainly, in the fictional world of the game, going to come off as making him seem like a jerk, possibly a serial romancer-and-dropper of women a la Tony Stark. And yes, guys are seen as jerks but not as Static Look-Up Tables for this behavior, which is another convention we've already discussed and is definitely not fair.)

YossarianLives
2015-07-16, 10:48 PM
If there is a pregnant character in any kind of story, they will start to give birth at the worst possible moment.

I have not seen a single example of this not happening to a pregnant character in a story. I guess writers really like the juxtaposition of life and death.

Segev
2015-07-16, 11:00 PM
If there is a pregnant character in any kind of story, they will start to give birth at the worst possible moment.

I have not seen a single example of this not happening to a pregnant character in a story. I guess writers really like the juxtaposition of life and death.

Slight bit of truth in television: high stress can induce labor.

goto124
2015-07-16, 11:50 PM
If there is a pregnant character in any kind of story, they will start to give birth at the worst possible moment.

Less a gender convention and more the writers seeing no reason to include the pregnant character and give up the drama of a labor scene. The truth in television bit is coincidence.

Pregnant characters tend to be female for obvious reasons. That's inevitable.

TheCountAlucard
2015-07-17, 12:18 AM
Pregnant characters tend to be female for obvious reasons. That's inevitable.You don't know enough transmen. :smalltongue:

EDIT: Alternatively, tell that to Arnold Schwarzenegger and Danny DeVito.

Sith_Happens
2015-07-17, 07:05 AM
Pregnant characters tend to be female for obvious reasons. That's inevitable.

I can think of quite a few sci-fi plots that involved a pregnancy somehow occurring in a male of a species where that's not normal. None of them involved poorly-timed labor though.

Segev
2015-07-17, 07:24 AM
You don't know enough transmen. :smalltongue:

EDIT: Alternatively, tell that to Arnold Schwarzenegger and Danny DeVito.


I can think of quite a few sci-fi plots that involved a pregnancy somehow occurring in a male of a species where that's not normal. None of them involved poorly-timed labor though.

You'll note that he said "tend to," not "always are."

The truth of the matter is, it's almost always played for laughs when it's the male who's pregnant.


Though I did create a fantasy-setting humanoid race wherein either sex could be the one carrying the child; a conscious choice is made whether to transfer the fertilized egg from the female to the male during sex. The child will be the same sex as the parent who carried it to term.

Ralanr
2015-07-17, 07:55 AM
Ran into one while writing.

"The rite of passage for men usually involves proving oneself. Commonly done by hunting the biggest creature they can find or etc. There is no rite of passage for women."

I'm on a phone, so I'm not editing this for a while.

goto124
2015-07-17, 08:00 AM
Out of curiosity, what female rites of passage are there in RL tribes? I googled it. Nope. Ew. Gah. I advice others not to make the same mistake I did.

Anyway, I think that sentence means 'there are no rites of passage for women in fiction, even though they exist IRL'.

Ralanr
2015-07-17, 08:39 AM
Out of curiosity, what female rites of passage are there in RL tribes? I googled it. Nope. Ew. Gah. I advice others not to make the same mistake I did.

Anyway, I think that sentence means 'there are no rites of passage for women in fiction, even though they exist IRL'.

Yes. That.

I forgot how unrealistic reality tends to be. XD

Segev
2015-07-17, 10:44 AM
There is a rite of passage for women that is portrayed in fiction as seriously as it is for men, and it exists with varying strength in modern cultures as depicted in fiction: Sex as a rite of passage.

This is actually gender-neutral in that it is viewed, when held in a positive light, as a rite of passage for the character regardless of gender. "Tonight will make a (wo)man out of you," spoken to one who is by context conveyed to be "merely" a boy or girl, not an adult man or woman.

The other stereotype tropes - that a man is always eager/is a player, while a woman is protecting virtue if she is not a static look-up table - vary by gender, and they could be played up or down afterwards. Because of the nature of this "rite of passage" when it's portrayed positively, the masculine tropes likely will be played up, while the femanine ones will be downplayed. (Both man and woman will be treated with the "now you're an adult" aura, but the man will be congratulated with a 'you sly dog' and 'now you've got to find another!' sort of deal while a woman is not shamed but is instead congratualted on her maturity and things just move on.)

(Again, stereotypes, broad strokes, etc. As a hotly contested set of tropes, these are averted, subverted, combined, and twisted in a lot of examples.)

When NOT portrayed positively - when used as a "stay chaste until marriage" aesop, for example - the FEMALE tropes will tend to be played up (shame, loss of purity) while the male will instead be shown actively subverting the male tropes (everybody else seems to think he's hot stuff for it, but he feels something's wrong/missing/hollow, or even feels he's somehow lost HIS purity).

Ralanr
2015-07-17, 11:34 AM
The concept of purity is kinda funny when you think about it. With no outside sources to adapt to, the pure cannot change. Which isn't a good thing on a biological level.

Then we have pure good, pure evil, and pure neutral (the rarest of them all). I really don't like the, "only purest of heart" element when it comes to using a macguffin.

Also pure metals suck when just alone.

Frozen_Feet
2015-07-17, 01:27 PM
Yeaaah, real rites of passage frequently involve genital mutilation, seclusion and pointless hazing and bullying. As pertains to sex-as-rite-of-passage, a really weird example was, in one tribe all children are raised up as girls; during puberty, boys are expected to become lovers for older men, and they become men after having sex with them. (Don't ask what the rite of passage for girls is or how it's supposed to work. I don't know.)

Segev
2015-07-17, 01:28 PM
It's noteworthy that almost all cultures which do maintain a concept of chastity do not consider it a sin to have sex. Just to do so outside of wedlock. "Purity" in this case really is referring to "from sin." As you would drink pure, but not polluted, water.

The more modern near-scientific connotation of "pure water" meaning "with nothing else in it at all" rather than merely "clean and potable" is different, and is almost a flanderization of the concept in a connotative sense.

Getting into "pure alignment" is probably going to derail this thread a bit too much, though.

Ralanr
2015-07-17, 01:35 PM
Yeaaah, real rites of passage frequently involve genital mutilation, seclusion and pointless hazing and bullying. As pertains to sex-as-rite-of-passage, a really weird example was, in one tribe all children are raised up as girls; during puberty, boys are expected to become lovers for older men, and they become men after having sex with them. (Don't ask what the rite of passage for girls is or how it's supposed to work. I don't know.)

I remember reading about that. Apparently it's because the "vitality" (I'm not sure I want to say it) of these older men is believed to help the growth process.

Homosexuality isn't in a high percentage there. I find that interesting (I'm on the nature side of that debate).

Red Fel
2015-07-17, 01:55 PM
I really don't like the, "only purest of heart" element when it comes to using a macguffin.

Are you kidding? I love that one. Know why? Because it doesn't say good. It says "pure," which means uniform, undiluted, consistent, homogeneous. And I love turning that on its head by having a character who is pure, unashamedly evil use the MacGuffin successfully. There's a certain glee to be found in linguistic ambiguity, isn't there?

But perhaps we're wandering too far abroad from the topic...?

Ralanr
2015-07-17, 01:58 PM
Are you kidding? I love that one. Know why? Because it doesn't say good. It says "pure," which means uniform, undiluted, consistent, homogeneous. And I love turning that on its head by having a character who is pure, unashamedly evil use the MacGuffin successfully. There's a certain glee to be found in linguistic ambiguity, isn't there?

But perhaps we're wandering too far abroad from the topic...?

Possibly.
I do wish they'd use other forms of pure.
"The orb only works for the pure"
"Ok" *throws at the pure evil BBEG, who catches it*
"Why di-" *explosion*

Frozen_Feet
2015-07-17, 02:12 PM
Speaking of homosexuality, are homosexual men still portrayed as predominantly pederasts, or has that faded to the background? In games I've been in, intimacy between males has swayed towards Tom of Finland / hard gay stereotypes.

Segev
2015-07-17, 02:26 PM
Speaking of homosexuality, are homosexual men still portrayed as predominantly pederasts, or has that faded to the background? In games I've been in, intimacy between males has swayed towards Tom of Finland / hard gay stereotypes.

I can't speak to games in general, but if they're anything like "fanworks" and modern fictional trends, no. Not only are most groups more than a bit uncomfortable with pedophilia in any form, even if it's bad guys doing it, but those who bring homosexuals in tend to be more on the pro- side than anything else. I won't pretend potentially offensive stereotypes don't still crop up, but I think gay men show up almost more as much wish fulfilment as do lesbians in most games.

Where that's not the case, it's usually done similarly to how it's done in TV and other modern fiction: to a much greater extend than it shows up in the real world because it demonstrates some kind of "diversity" or "equal-mindedness" in the one(s) doing it.

(That is, again, hwere it isn't pure author appeal.)

(I have more than one friend who are either the female equivalent of the guy who thinks lesbians are hot or are gay themselves and who thus insert homosexuals into their narratives, whether they're writers, players, or GMs. Usually it's not intrusive, so it's not a big deal one way or the other, any more than it is when I have a necromancer or a dragon show up. It's something they like or identify with.)


I actually think homosexuals-as-pedophiles has falling out of favor because it's considered horrible to portray them in any negative light at all in a backlash against how often it happened in past works. Right or wrong, it's an effort to balance out past stereotypes by averting them entirely.





That DOES bring up another creepy gender convention, though: The unsympathetic pedophile will be male. The comedic pedophile will be female. The latter will always be straight; the former could prefer either sex (but more modern ones will tend to be straight while older renditions will tend to be gay, as the social convention was once that "gays are evil" and is now "never portray a gay in a negative light"). There will never be a lesbian pedophile.

This in part goes back to "a man is always eager:" a boy is "lucky" if an older woman wants to "make a man" out of him; a girl is a victim if an older man wants to prey upon her. (The truth is generally that the latter is true, and that the boy is ALSO a victim in the former case; it's just not nearly so often portrayed that way.)

Ralanr
2015-07-17, 03:09 PM
I remember when southp park played around with that.

Red Fel
2015-07-17, 03:22 PM
This in part goes back to "a man is always eager:" a boy is "lucky" if an older woman wants to "make a man" out of him; a girl is a victim if an older man wants to prey upon her. (The truth is generally that the latter is true, and that the boy is ALSO a victim in the former case; it's just not nearly so often portrayed that way.)

Well, contrast that with the whole "old man with trophy wife vs. Norma Desmond" gender convention, why don't you?

That is, when a much older man has a much younger lady friend, the old man may be played either as creepy or as charmingly doddering, and the woman either as gold-digging or as genuinely affectionate towards her older companion. But, by contrast, when a much older woman has a much younger gentleman friend, it's played off only as disturbing (e.g. Norma Desmond, Sunset Boulevard, which was written explicitly to draw on this gender convention). The woman is depicted almost exclusively as bizarre, disturbed, or delusional, while the man is almost exclusively greedy for the "creature comforts" the relationship provides (e.g. access to her money). And while the older man and younger woman scenario may be used to lampshade that true love knows no limits, the older woman and younger man scenario is generally used to show that some things aren't worth compromising your morals for - as if to say that such a relationship possessed an inherent wrongness. (Again, see Sunset Boulevard, where the climax of the film comes after the protagonist has decided that his relationship with Norma cannot continue.)

This, in turn, plays into the gender conventions regarding the "kept" partner - that is, where one partner is wealthy and the other is not. A female character being "kept" by a wealthy male character may, as previously mentioned, be seen as either greedy for the material wealth or genuinely caring (e.g. of the "I don't care if you're as poor as a dormouse" school). By contrast, the male character being "kept" by the female character is almost exclusively greedy, playing on the female character's eagerness for love and affection.

Think about the illustration, possibly seen at one of your tables, of the prince who has taken a commoner to be his bride. In some cases, she's secretly an evil sorceress and wants his money, but in others, she's a genuinely pleasant person who truly feels for him. (And in some, she's secretly an evil sorceress and wants his money but comes to truly feel for him!) Now, think of the reverse situation - the beautiful princess has taken a common man as her groom. Some of you may already be visualizing what schemes this guy has for his unwitting bride. (But only half points if you lifted the plot from a Disney movie.) That gender convention - that the man is interested in remaining kept, because money - seems to endure; or, at the very least, we seem ready to believe it.

Frozen_Feet
2015-07-17, 03:47 PM
Oh hey, that reminds me of another gender convention originally found in a lot of fairytales and inherited to RPGs from there:

In fantasy, when a man of apparently-low social status courts a princess or other woman of high status, it will typically turn out the man is long-lost prince or some other "lost heir" type character so he will gain social parity with the woman.

The only exception I can think of is Disney's Aladdin, and even there it turns out in the third movie that Aladdin is a prince... of thieves.

Ralanr
2015-07-17, 03:47 PM
Depending on the tone of the story, he'll want out of she is considered extremely ugly.

But that's tone.

The same with the reverse, depending on tone.

Jay R
2015-07-17, 04:05 PM
The most automatic gender-based thing I've seen in rpgs is this:

In my experience, a player who is arguing for absurd rules interpretations for personal gain has always been a male. There may be exceptions, but I haven't seen them.

Sith_Happens
2015-07-17, 04:07 PM
There is a rite of passage for women that is portrayed in fiction as seriously as it is for men, and it exists with varying strength in modern cultures as depicted in fiction: Sex as a rite of passage.

This is actually gender-neutral in that it is viewed, when held in a positive light, as a rite of passage for the character regardless of gender. "Tonight will make a (wo)man out of you," spoken to one who is by context conveyed to be "merely" a boy or girl, not an adult man or woman.

I wonder how many people have actually heard of this coming up in an RPG context, though. I know I've seen it in action in one of my own groups, though it ended up being an... interesting case.


Now, think of the reverse situation - the beautiful princess has taken a common man as her groom.

The first thing I thought of was "Ending to a star-crossed lovers plot of which the princess is the protagonist."

Ralanr
2015-07-17, 04:16 PM
The most automatic gender-based thing I've seen in rpgs is this:

In my experience, a player who is arguing for absurd rules interpretations for personal gain has always been a male. There may be exceptions, but I haven't seen them.

In my experience I have to say the same (usually me). Makes it all the more funny!

Sith_Happens
2015-07-17, 05:21 PM
Ooh, here's a good one that's incredibly specific to RPGs: the sexual liaisons of male PCs are exponentially more likely to result in accidental pregnancy than those of female PCs.

Of course the main reason for that one is simple practicality, so it's a nice reminder that tropes are tools (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TropesAreTools).

Ralanr
2015-07-17, 05:57 PM
Ooh, here's a good one that's incredibly specific to RPGs: the sexual liaisons of male PCs are exponentially more likely to result in accidental pregnancy than those of female PCs.

Of course the main reason for that one is simple practicality, so it's a nice reminder that tropes are tools (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TropesAreTools).

And that they are not bad.

TheCountAlucard
2015-07-17, 06:13 PM
Ooh, here's a good one that's incredibly specific to RPGs: the sexual liaisons of male PCs are exponentially more likely to result in accidental pregnancy than those of female PCs.I've not had a game of mine include sexual contact that results in accidental pregnancy.

-D&D games I've run didn't have pregnancies occur. They were either too "beer & pretzels" to focus on that sort of thing happening, or the PCs were too busy to get laid.
-In Vampire: the Masquerade, Kindred are incapable of getting pregnant or impregnating others. Pretty much their only bodily fluid is blood. Same for Vampire: the Requiem.
-In Shadowrun, we have futuristic birth-control available, and that's assuming the PC didn't just have his or her reproductive bits cut out to make room for one more piece of cyberware!
-In Star Wars games, we assumed there were various means of birth control, plus most species are pretty incompatible, aren't they? At least I don't recall any half-Twi'lek, half-Wookiees in the canon. Also droids don't have to worry about pregnancy.
-In Exalted, a number of means of birth control are likewise available, ranging from maiden tea to taking the venom of certain western shellfish to induce temporary sterility (or a lot of it to induce it permanently).
-In Paranoia, new citizens of the Alpha Complex are grown in vats. Doing otherwise would be treason. Have a nice daycycle.

Actually, the only birth I recall taking place was an intentional bit of parthenogenesis in an Infernals game after one of the PCs engaged in sexual congress with one of the Yozis.

Sith_Happens
2015-07-19, 03:34 AM
Actually, the only birth I recall taking place was an intentional bit of parthenogenesis in an Infernals game after one of the PCs engaged in sexual congress with one of the Yozis.

How exactly did parthenogenesis come into that?:smallconfused:

TheCountAlucard
2015-07-19, 07:56 PM
How exactly did parthenogenesis come into that?They were both female. No ovum fertilization took place.

Sith_Happens
2015-07-21, 12:19 AM
They were both female. No ovum fertilization took place.

Why not? This is Exalted we're talking about, if a woman can't impregnate another woman it's because neither of them are trying hard enough.:smalltongue:

TheCountAlucard
2015-07-21, 05:15 AM
That may have been a joke on your part, Sith, but I still resent it.

Eldan
2015-07-21, 05:17 AM
One I noticed in my group: the often older, no-nonsense, uptight, humourless character (often a supervisor, mentor or superior) is always female. Male supervisors are more of than not of the fat, jolly sort.

ArcanaFire
2015-07-21, 07:21 AM
The PC halfling is a male rogue. Important NPC halflings who are not rogues are female.

I'm sure someone has already pointed out Lidda (I skimmed over a lot of posts that waxed more on the political side) but I'm going to do it again. She was depicted in the PHB for 3.5 and on the Dungeons and Dragons wiki page is listed as THE iconic character under "Rogue".


PCs never have to rescue a prince from a dragon.

Never rescued a prince from a dragon, but I had my party rescue a good-aligned silver dragon from a wicked princess once.


The Princess who needs to get rescued by the party can be a 10th level character when it comes to bluffing the party about her true goals, but Goblins and Orcs can take her out instantaneously when it is time to get kidnapped.

So she's a bard, then? No, all joking aside though, this is one of the few things that can totally ruin a game for me. If a character is capable, I expect that character to stay capable even when it's not convenient for the plot. This is basically the entire reason I couldn't finish watching Sword Art Online.


A "queen" can be either a queen-regnant or a queen-consort depending on whether they officially have any political power. A "king," by contrast, traditionally only gets called such if he's a king-regnant. A king with no official political power gets called a prince-consort instead, due to the historically-ingrained idea that "king" = "regnant." This distinction (i.e.- that "king" is considered to necessarily imply "regnant" while "queen" is not) is entirely due to it historically being the default that the king holds the power rather than the queen.

We had one of our PCs marry the queen of a city state and he was her king-consort. This was partly because he was a dwarf and the city was predominantly human and partly because to have him actually ruling would have been game-breaking and he needed to be able to keep adventuring and travelling for things to work.

That's not to say I would have been cool with her losing power just because she got married, but generally if I'm DMing a game and there's a choice between a PC doing something awesome and an NPC doing the same thing, I'm going to go with the PC just because it's good manners. They both ascended to godhood later and left their son (we rolled for gender) on the throne.


Ooh, here's a good one that's incredibly specific to RPGs: the sexual liaisons of male PCs are exponentially more likely to result in accidental pregnancy than those of female PCs.

I played in a group that tried to handle this "fairly" by making the odds the same. To be fair they were all male and until a friend of mine and I joined them there weren't any female PCs. After a couple of near incidents of this we all mutually decided it was unfair and awkward (no one wants to have to retire a character because they had a one night stand with a tavern boy) and they stopped rolling for it at all.

A lot of my players enjoy playing second and third generation characters so a lot of our PCs end up having kids but most of the time we brush it off as "having happened during a timeskip" or assume it occurred after the game ends.

-/-/-/-/-

Okay I'm done replying to stuff now so some other things...now I'm saying 'usually'. I know exceptions to all of these, but since we're discussing trends I'm going to discuss trends.

Redheads in RPGs are more likely to be female. Most male characters I've seen have dark hair or white, and a few have been blond, but I can count the male red-heads I've seen on one hand. The female red-heads on the other hand...

Orcs and half-orcs are usually male.

Dwarves are usually male.

Twins are usually one male, one female. In fact I can't think of an example of twins in any game I've been in that have ever been one gender or the other with the exception of the dvati, and in that case you're basically playing one character in two bodies so I'm not sure how much that counts. (Of course there's also the notable example of Raistlin and Caramon for a pair of same sex twins).

Sith_Happens
2015-07-21, 08:17 AM
That may have been a joke on your part, Sith, but I still resent it.

http://img3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20121206184402/coasterpedia/images/b/b8/Okay_meme.jpg

Milo v3
2015-07-21, 08:36 AM
That may have been a joke on your part, Sith, but I still resent it.

To be honest it's probably actually true with exalted... I mean... There is that Exxxalted book... if it wasn't in there I'd be amazed.

Segev
2015-07-21, 09:48 AM
In Exalted, having a child of any number of parents of any combination of genders is a First Circle Sorcery away.

Demon of the First Circle will let you bind a Neomah, and Neomah can take samples of flesh from any number of people, form them into an infant, cast that infant into the fire at the top of the tin tower they spin from their mouths, and have that infant take its first breath. It is the child of all contributors of flesh.

So, yes, two women can have a child in Exalted if they try hard enough. Because magic.


I had a PC once who wanted to create a breed of Dragonblooded horses. (Dragonblooded are a kind of Exalt, and are human.) He planned to use Neomah to facilitate this by selectively breeding for high-Breeding Dragonblooded parents with the finest horseflesh he could find, working to find just the right ratio of human to horse to make them look equine but have human souls with refined enough Dragonblooded bloodlines to be likely to Exalt.

Amphetryon
2015-07-21, 09:53 AM
Well, contrast that with the whole "old man with trophy wife vs. Norma Desmond" gender convention, why don't you?

That is, when a much older man has a much younger lady friend, the old man may be played either as creepy or as charmingly doddering, and the woman either as gold-digging or as genuinely affectionate towards her older companion. But, by contrast, when a much older woman has a much younger gentleman friend, it's played off only as disturbing (e.g. Norma Desmond, Sunset Boulevard, which was written explicitly to draw on this gender convention). The woman is depicted almost exclusively as bizarre, disturbed, or delusional, while the man is almost exclusively greedy for the "creature comforts" the relationship provides (e.g. access to her money). And while the older man and younger woman scenario may be used to lampshade that true love knows no limits, the older woman and younger man scenario is generally used to show that some things aren't worth compromising your morals for - as if to say that such a relationship possessed an inherent wrongness. (Again, see Sunset Boulevard, where the climax of the film comes after the protagonist has decided that his relationship with Norma cannot continue.)

This, in turn, plays into the gender conventions regarding the "kept" partner - that is, where one partner is wealthy and the other is not. A female character being "kept" by a wealthy male character may, as previously mentioned, be seen as either greedy for the material wealth or genuinely caring (e.g. of the "I don't care if you're as poor as a dormouse" school). By contrast, the male character being "kept" by the female character is almost exclusively greedy, playing on the female character's eagerness for love and affection.

Think about the illustration, possibly seen at one of your tables, of the prince who has taken a commoner to be his bride. In some cases, she's secretly an evil sorceress and wants his money, but in others, she's a genuinely pleasant person who truly feels for him. (And in some, she's secretly an evil sorceress and wants his money but comes to truly feel for him!) Now, think of the reverse situation - the beautiful princess has taken a common man as her groom. Some of you may already be visualizing what schemes this guy has for his unwitting bride. (But only half points if you lifted the plot from a Disney movie.) That gender convention - that the man is interested in remaining kept, because money - seems to endure; or, at the very least, we seem ready to believe it.
Fair to say this stereotype has deep roots in human norms of fertility, and the underlying assumption that heterosexual, intimate relationships have a built-in desire for creating offspring? I'm not saying the underlying assumption is right, merely that it informs the 'gender convention,' as you call it.

Segev
2015-07-21, 10:11 AM
The "older woman/younger man" relationships' portrayal will also vary depending on the absolute ages of the duo.

If it's "20-40 year old woman with teenaged to 20ish man," it tends to be more played like the "lucky youth chased by hot woman" trope. Or played for comedy, if she's the aggressor and he isn't interested.

If it's a woman who's well into or beyond middle-aged, however, with a 20s or early 30s man, yes, it's played more like Red Fel outlined.


Inverting the sexes, the 20-40 year old man with the teen to early 20s girl is either "a player" (if it's fully consentual), a sugar daddy (if it's clearly a "kept woman in exchange for favors" relationship), or a monstrous creep (in the situation which is played for comedy when the sexes are reversed, because a guy who is inappropriately older chasing a girl who is THAT not interested is a dirty old man, and that's only considered funny if he's the butt of all the jokes. The situation above, where the potentially sexy older woman is coming onto the unwilling youth, is played for laughs at the boy's, not the woman's, expense, generally).

The older gentleman with the young-to-middle-aged woman (not a teen and not a "girl," definitely a woman...just significantly younger) almost doesn't raise an eyebrow, depending how it's played. In part because older men are, for some reason, still portrayed as potentially sexually attractive to women far longer than older women are so played for men. This could be due to the fertility thing: men remain fertile pretty much as long as they're able to *ahem* participate.

Regardless of genders, when it's an older (wo)man with a younger member of the opposite sex, the question is almost always raised: Is (s)he a gold-digger? This question may well be answered "no," particularly with a younger woman and an older man. We seem to be, again, more willing to believe that the younger woman can find the older man sexually desirable, or at least her presumed nurturing, kind nature allows her to care for him as a nurse and as a romantic interest. Positively-portrayed relationships of younger men with older women tend to shy away from even a sexless romantic connoctation and look more towards "surrogate mother/son." When there's a romantic element, it's almost always also sexual, and it's never portrayed totally positively. The guy is either uncomfortable because he's "selling himself" when he isn't...interested...or he's a sleezeball for taking advantage of the woman's needs just for her money.


I'm not sure I've seen many homosexual relationships portrayed with large age differences. Particularly not since the "gay pedophile" became taboo to show on TV (an inversion from when it was so much the norm that it was oft conflated; political correctness and moral guardianship have swung mightly in that time). Obviously, just because I don't know of any such portrayed relationships doesn't mean they don't exist, but I can't think of any where an older wealthy man takes on a younger sexy but still mature man, nor the gender-flipped version, so I don't know how the tropes play out with it. The tropes above are strongly influenced by the expected desirability of the sexes as they age, as well as by the supposed purity of motives for men vs. women getting into relationships where sexual desire may not be the prime motivator. The combination creates conflicts which mean the above versions would come off jarring in some way if played straight (pun unintended).

TheCountAlucard
2015-07-21, 11:38 AM
-snip-"Having a child" is not "getting pregnant."

More importantly, saying that "it's your fault" that you can't get access to an Exalted sorcerer (mortals can't bind demons, remember?) because "you're not trying hard enough" is victim-blaming, and it's the same kind of stuff I see in real life that makes me sick to my stomach.

No prosthetic limbs for your debilitating injury? Guess you just didn't want them enough! Crippled by debt? You should have worked harder! Your chronic depression is taking over your life? You just need to apply some willpower, Sunny Jim!

You physically cannot conceive a baby together, loving couple? Obviously you aren't trying hard enough!

(That's hardly the worst of it, but it would almost certainly skirt forum rules to go much further.)

To clarify, that is what has earned my rancor. :yuk:

Flickerdart
2015-07-21, 12:02 PM
(mortals can't bind demons, remember?)
Couldn't mortals go to someone who can bind demons, and bribe them a bunch?

Talakeal
2015-07-21, 12:29 PM
"Having a child" is not "getting pregnant."

More importantly, saying that "it's your fault" that you can't get access to an Exalted sorcerer (mortals can't bind demons, remember?) because "you're not trying hard enough" is victim-blaming, and it's the same kind of stuff I see in real life that makes me sick to my stomach.

No prosthetic limbs for your debilitating injury? Guess you just didn't want them enough! Crippled by debt? You should have worked harder! Your chronic depression is taking over your life? You just need to apply some willpower, Sunny Jim!

You physically cannot conceive a baby together, loving couple? Obviously you aren't trying hard enough!

(That's hardly the worst of it, but it would almost certainly skirt forum rules to go much further.)

To clarify, that is what has earned my rancor. :yuk:

But thats real life.

Isnt Exalted all about being a larger than life character for whom nothing is impossible?

Segev
2015-07-21, 12:32 PM
...oh, for crying out...

I'm going to take this all too seriously for all of this post, then I'm dropping it.

Mortals can't bind demons, but they can absolutely call them, and all that takes is Thaumaturgy. Neomah are pretty easy to bargain with; they LIKE making children and will often ask for the bit of flesh precisely for that purpose as payment for sexual favors. Ask them to make a child and they probably won't ask too much of you, especially since you just got them out of Hell.

Moreover, given the specific example listed, at least one of the participants and would-be parents was a Yozi, who has such absolute power that she could compel any number of Neomah to present themselves for any service she desired.

Thirdly, I'm sorry that I conflated the end result of pregnancy and pregnancy; it's not common for people to lament that they are unable to "get pregnant" and not mean it as primarily a lament that they're unable to "have children." There's a certain visceral pleasure to knowing the child is a product of yourself and your loved one, but generally people don't get hung up over whether or not they personally carried the child to term or instead found him under a proverbial cabbage patch.

I'm sorry you were offended. I am not going to give a fake apology for something for which I am not sorry, however: making a joke about something that happened in a fictional setting and is only feasible in a fictional setting known for its over-the-top antics and excessive overkill in its problem-solving.

I am not going to accept the accusation of "victim-blaming." It is an accusation hurled by people who want to shield themselves from any criticism all too often. Yes, it happens, and yes, it's awful when it does, but fake people in ludicrous situations with over-the-top solutions available who are not in fact portrayed as victims in the first place are hardly ones who are "victims" being "blamed" for their situation.

In truth, I think part of what offends me so much about this particular accusation is that "you're not trying hard enough" actually is a valid point in that setting. It's quite justifiable to be unwilling to try "hard enough;" there are a number of things which you might not wish to do (such as consorting with demons) to achieve your goal. And you're not being 'blamed' when somebody points out that you could have done it. You are free to stand proudly and say, "I could have, but I chose not to because I would not stoop to that." Yes, there are people in unfortunate circumstances. THere are people who are genuinely victims. I feel badly for them, sympathize with them, and sometimes may even wish to help them (obviously, I don't all the time or I would be out there doing it all the time rather than posting here on this message board).

But pointing out that there are things they CAN do is not "victim blaming," even if they choose not to do them. Hurling the accusation of "victim blaming" for pointing out solutions is reprehensible; it is designed to KEEP people victims and to GLORIFY victimhood almost as if it's something to which to aspire. It isn't. It's tragic and awful, and any help for getting victims out of such situations is wonderful.

We celebrate people who overcome adversity.

We should not celebrate people who are suffering it. Support them, sure. Encourage them, definitely. Enable them to remain there? No. Celebrate their suffering for its own sake? Disgusting.

I'm sorry if you're somehow personally wounded by people enjoying discussing fictional solutions to problems in the context of a fictional setting, and pointing out that they're there for people who are dedicated enough to want to seek them to find. Not without risk, of course, but what worth having ever is? But you're thread-crapping in the guise of self-righteous indignation. You're taking offense where none was intended, and where little was even warranted. Please stop.

I'm done with this sidetrack in this thread. Feel free to get in the last word.

TheCountAlucard
2015-07-21, 12:35 PM
It wasn't you I accused of victim-blaming, Segev. Earlier upthread, "neither of them are trying hard enough" was literally what the poster said.


Why not? This is Exalted we're talking about, if a woman can't impregnate another woman it's because neither of them are trying hard enough.

I posted about victim-blaming because people seemed to think I was getting offended over semantics. I'm not (though sometimes I do).

Exalted is not a setting where wanting something hard enough magically delivers it into your lap. It may have fantastical things that take place in its world, but it's all a fine veneer over something very human, something very real. Just like the Exalted themselves - for all the glorious power they have, they're supposed to be human inside.

Red Fel
2015-07-21, 12:53 PM
It wasn't you I accused of victim-blaming, Segev. Earlier upthread, "neither of them are trying hard enough" was literally what the poster said.

I posted about victim-blaming because people seemed to think I was getting offended over semantics.

While I agree that victim-blaming is reprehensible (and probably not the best topic for this forum), the post in question was talking about Exalted, where - as others have mentioned - one of the defining traits of PCs is the ability to do basically anything they want if they want it hard enough. I mean, the process of Exaltation basically involves doing something so awesome that it attracts heavenly attention.

You talk about the characters' humanity, and their flaws, and that's true. But the flaw of the Exalted isn't that they're incapable of reality-defying feats; it's that they're incapable of self-defying feats. They can't change who they really are. Nor can they change who other people really are. They can break or build continents, but they can't build a nation. They can trick the mind and the senses, but they can't create true love. They can reshape the body, but not the soul. And what we're discussing is merely a breaking of physical reality - changing the laws of nature to serve their desires, which is very much within the wheelhouse of your typical Exalted.

So while the statement, in any other context, might be offensive, in this context it's actually kind of true; in Exalted, if you can't do whatever, it's because you're not trying hard enough. Want to explode the sun? Try harder. Want to punch Cthulhu in the face? Try harder. Want to dodge gravity? Try harder. Want to rearrange time? Try harder. In Exalted, a PC really could become impregnated by a female character if they tried hard enough; there's got to be some kind of charm that does it.

Tasteless, certainly, but technically accurate.

Now can we please get back to discussing my awesome post? There's not nearly enough conversation about gender conventions evidenced in Sunset Boulevard in this thread.

TheCountAlucard
2015-07-21, 12:59 PM
There is no single thing you can do that guarantees the Sun sits up from the Games of Divinity and says, "Bless that guy!"

Much as I despise the "cosmic lottery" term the echo chamber slings around, the most you can do is buy a ticket. That doesn't mean you can guarantee a win. All the folks who don't win the lottery, is it for lack of trying?

Additionally, though Exalted is indeed the name of the game, by no means are you required to play one. Rules for mortal characters are in the Core book, and other supplements allow you to play demigods, half-demons, mutants, Dragon Kings, gods and elementals, and even Jadeborn.

Additionally additionally, no, there are some things even an Exalt, even all the Exalted, are going to fail at. Sometimes you're not privileged enough, not lucky enough. Sometimes you can't beat the tough guy on the other side. Sometimes you don't have the right tool or the right skill for the job. Sometimes you get tricked or betrayed or hurt, even by the people who love you. Saying otherwise is setting up some bad assumptions for people.

Segev
2015-07-21, 01:15 PM
There's a term for old/young romantic relationships: May-December Romance (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MayDecemberRomance)

That leads a bit naturally in an RP forum with a heavy contingent of fantasy-and-magic RPers to its kin, the Mayfly-December Romance. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MayflyDecemberRomance) This version tends to be approched very differently. (It's where the older participant is probably older than the younger one will ever be, e.g. the classic vampire/human romance.)

Fiction (and RP) tends to treat the ancient being as being their apparent age for romance purposes. Played straight, the immortal is between 18 and 35, physically, and usually is dating somebody who is between 5 years younger and 5 years older than their appearance. In such relationships, while the exploration of what it means to live forever and to have centuries of experience comes up, but it's as a "wonder vs. ennui" and "joy vs. sorrow" thing. It's rare, for example, for the "ancient" one to be young enough that his natural human life wouldn't yet be over. You rarely have, say, a 70-year-old vampire who looks 20 dating an 18-year-old mortal in a serious romance sort of way, probably precisely because that is close enough to possible that the audience might wonder at their relationship if he were still mortal.

Rarely, if ever, is it actually examined as "older person taking advantage of younger person." I've NEVER seen it played as "younger person exploiting older sugar daddy/momma"/"gold-digger." Largely because the latter has some morbid implication, usually, that the younger one is waiting for the older one to no longer be able to indulge or to simply die of old age/illness so they can inherit.


There are the occasional teen romance novels (let's not bring up the ones that take place where the sun don't shine - you know, near Seattle) where the immortal looks like a high schooler. Not shocking overall; target audiences identify with their own age group. But make that a 70-year-old mortal hitting on those 16-year-olds... and it goes from "romantic with an edge" to "ew."

But conversely, there are the immortals who became that way "recently" and look their age...and fall in love with a mortal their own age...and stay with their loved one as their loved one looks older and older while they...do not. And that, too, would wind up with the squicky implications, if not for the audience (who know what's going on and may even go "how sweet and tragic"), then at least for onlooking NPCs.

And worse...those poor immortals who are in their 90s and look 25...who ARE they to date? Sure, other immortals, but is that it?

Even worse - and this one was explored at the least in a comic book series called Eternals - what about the poor kid stuck as a young teen or pre-teen? He's mentally grown-up, and his body is not disinterested, but is he to look to others his own apparent age, and be the creepy older guy? Is he to look to 20-somethings? Isn't he still being "creepy?" What about the knowledge that the kind of person who might be interested in him is also...well, creepy, if they're not kids, themselves?

(Actually, I'm wondering from all the examples of precocious crushes of young teens on older teens and 20-somethings if even young people just starting to be interested are not wired to like "kids" their own age; that may be why the "suddenly she's beautiful" trope exists, because the adolescent looks to the fully-developed people as their standard of beauty, not to their fellow gawky adolescents, and then when they get to full maturity, themselves, suddenly their peer group is attractive. Maybe our standards don't change all that much as we age, and that's why almost everybody still thinks the 20-something is closest to the ideal, physically.)



Anyway, I'm not sure this one realy varies by sex so much. The ancient woman with the mortal man and the ancient man with the mortal woman (all of whom look to be of an age with each other) usually plays out similarly. The gender dimorphic tropes that come out are not unique to that aspect of their relationship. But maybe I'm wrong. Anybody have some?

Red Fel
2015-07-21, 01:30 PM
There's a term for old/young romantic relationships: May-December Romance (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MayDecemberRomance)

That leads a bit naturally in an RP forum with a heavy contingent of fantasy-and-magic RPers to its kin, the Mayfly-December Romance. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MayflyDecemberRomance) This version tends to be approched very differently. (It's where the older participant is probably older than the younger one will ever be, e.g. the classic vampire/human romance.)

Fiction (and RP) tends to treat the ancient being as being their apparent age for romance purposes. Played straight, the immortal is between 18 and 35, physically, and usually is dating somebody who is between 5 years younger and 5 years older than their appearance. In such relationships, while the exploration of what it means to live forever and to have centuries of experience comes up, but it's as a "wonder vs. ennui" and "joy vs. sorrow" thing. It's rare, for example, for the "ancient" one to be young enough that his natural human life wouldn't yet be over. You rarely have, say, a 70-year-old vampire who looks 20 dating an 18-year-old mortal in a serious romance sort of way, probably precisely because that is close enough to possible that the audience might wonder at their relationship if he were still mortal.

Rarely, if ever, is it actually examined as "older person taking advantage of younger person." I've NEVER seen it played as "younger person exploiting older sugar daddy/momma"/"gold-digger." Largely because the latter has some morbid implication, usually, that the younger one is waiting for the older one to no longer be able to indulge or to simply die of old age/illness so they can inherit.

To be fair, that's generally because the Mayfly-December romance is generally played from the perspective of December. That is, it's all about the immortal's ennui, or his sudden rekindling of joy as related through the eyes of his mortal partner, or her feeling of inevitable grief knowing that she will lose the one she loves. As such, it tends to depict both in a positive light; the longer-lived one isn't taking advantage, because that character is the perspective character; similarly, the younger one isn't exploiting a sugar daddy/momma, because we're seeing him/her through the eyes of the older one, who sees that naive innocence that comes from a lack of experience.


Anyway, I'm not sure this one realy varies by sex so much. The ancient woman with the mortal man and the ancient man with the mortal woman (all of whom look to be of an age with each other) usually plays out similarly. The gender dimorphic tropes that come out are not unique to that aspect of their relationship. But maybe I'm wrong. Anybody have some?

Well, playing into the stereotypical gender roles, I think December tends to be male, while Mayfly tends to be female. And not just because of the similar parallel with May-December; even when they appear physically the same age, the immortal tends to be the older, wiser, sadder male, while the younger, brighter, more innocent one tends to be female. Again, stereotypical gender roles; the male character tends to be set in his ways, stubborn, with a bit of anger below the surface, while his companion (and I use that word deliberately, see Doctor Who) tends to be a naive, innocent, bright and energetic girl. And yes, she tends to be more of a "girl" than a "woman;" the more mature women in these stories tend to be either rivals, enemies, or flirts, while the younger companion looks on with passion and a bit of jealousy. These traits do tend to be gender-specific; the cool-headed, weary-yet-wily, experienced woman is less frequent (we miss you, Kat Hepburn), as is the bright, bouncy, enthusiastic young man (outside of shounen anime).

Now, assuming the difference in age was physical as well as mental, I also see a pattern. The ancient man with the mortal woman could play out any number of ways - true love, exploitation on either side, etc. But the physically ancient woman tends to have a single, recurring plot - she devours the youth and beauty of others. That much is a pretty consistent gender stereotype.

Segev
2015-07-21, 02:48 PM
But the physically ancient woman tends to have a single, recurring plot - she devours the youth and beauty of others. That much is a pretty consistent gender stereotype.

I'll grant it's more common, but... Dracula himself was a bit of that in the reversed gender, at least in his original. As he fed on Ms. Harker, he got younger-looking.

Red Fel
2015-07-21, 03:37 PM
I'll grant it's more common, but... Dracula himself was a bit of that in the reversed gender, at least in his original. As he fed on Ms. Harker, he got younger-looking.

Dracula fed on life to sustain his strength and maintain his existence; a more youthful appearance was simply a byproduct. With female characters, however, the "eternal youth and beauty" angle tends to be the focus, not the side benefit.

Although, I will grant you Dorian Gray as the example that pretty much defies all of the conventions we've just described - he's male, functionally immortal, not particularly driven by love or ennui, repulsively hedonistic, and doesn't actually feed on anybody. He simply exists until the story decides he should stop doing that.

Segev
2015-07-21, 03:44 PM
Although, I will grant you Dorian Gray as the example that pretty much defies all of the conventions we've just described - he's male, functionally immortal, not particularly driven by love or ennui, repulsively hedonistic, and doesn't actually feed on anybody. He simply exists until the story decides he should stop doing that.

Tangentially, when I was in theaters and first saw a trailer that opened with "Grey Industries" on the side of a building, I was briefly very excited by the possibility of a movie that did any sort of modern take on The Portrait of Dorian Grey. Imagine my disappointment when I realized it was a trailer for some movie of some Twilight fanfiction. Er, I mean, 50 Shades of Grey.

Followed shortly by another movie of some Twilight fanfiction. You know, that Dracula movie that came out last year.

HolyCouncilMagi
2015-07-21, 03:47 PM
The power-hungry spellcaster who wants to achieve godhood is always male.

This is admittedly a subset of the more general "the evil spellcaster BBEG is almost never female" trope, but I've seen variations on that. I've never once seen the one who was after ascendency to godhood portrayed as anything but male.

Talakeal
2015-07-21, 04:32 PM
The power-hungry spellcaster who wants to achieve godhood is always male.

This is admittedly a subset of the more general "the evil spellcaster BBEG is almost never female" trope, but I've seen variations on that. I've never once seen the one who was after ascendency to godhood portrayed as anything but male.

IIRC the end boss of Baldur's Gate 2: Throne of Bhaal is doing just that.

http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Amelyssan

Segev
2015-07-22, 09:01 AM
The power-hungry spellcaster who wants to achieve godhood is always male.

This is admittedly a subset of the more general "the evil spellcaster BBEG is almost never female" trope, but I've seen variations on that. I've never once seen the one who was after ascendency to godhood portrayed as anything but male.

What have the goals of "power-hungry evil female spellcaster BBEG" been in your experience?

Red Fel
2015-07-22, 09:15 AM
What have the goals of "power-hungry evil female spellcaster BBEG" been in your experience?

If I had to guess, I would say power. I mean, it's right there in the title.

Joking aside, I've not had to deal with a female BBEG. Closest I came was in V:tM (oWoD) when we dealt with a female Nosferatu Prince. She wasn't actually the antagonist, just a general Power That Be, (being the local Prince and all), and worryingly, my own Nosferatu was the one who decided to make the seduction checks necessary to get her on our side. (For those unfamiliar, each clan in Vampire has its own unique curse. The Nosferatu are cursed with hideousness. My PC looked like half of his face was melted off; the Prince looked like an unidentifiably female Jabba the Hutt after binging on Ben & Jerry's and Domino's. It was meant to be.) However, she wasn't the power-hungry type. (Just generic hungry. She fed on a lot of kine.)

I don't know that the female BBEG is all that common a convention in tabletop games, at least not when she's recognizably humanoid. It's one thing when it's a certain five-headed dragon-queen-goddess; it's quite another when it's an elf or something. I think there's a certain discomfort to killing a lady that is absent when the BBEG is male. The few times we've dealt with a humanoid female boss-type, we either negotiated her down, or she was in fact a lieutenant to some other BBEG; I don't recall an instance where we had a humanoid female end-game BBEG. (Again, demons or monsters or what-have-you, all bets are off.)

KnotKnormal
2015-07-22, 09:24 AM
I actually want to contest a lot of those. I as well as my usual DM have done a lot with the gender mixing. We've had entire organization, and even cities that had exclusively women in them. 2 of my characters had women who trained them, one was even a black smith. Same with the men we've had the town healer be a young man in his 20 somethings. as well as the seer be kind of an Atlantis King kind of guy. and it doesn't stop at gender either. we've had black dragons run a magic shop enterprise. A zombie named Frank as a tailor.

goto124
2015-07-22, 09:26 AM
Would it be a good idea to stick to published settings for this discussion? After all, individual tables can vary a lot.

Segev
2015-07-22, 09:29 AM
IMy PC looked like half of his face was melted off; the Prince looked like an unidentifiably female Jabba the Hutt after binging on Ben & Jerry's and Domino's. It was meant to be.)

Please tell me your PC's name was "Jack Sprat."

Sith_Happens
2015-07-22, 09:18 PM
I had a PC once who wanted to create a breed of Dragonblooded horses. (Dragonblooded are a kind of Exalt, and are human.) He planned to use Neomah to facilitate this by selectively breeding for high-Breeding Dragonblooded parents with the finest horseflesh he could find, working to find just the right ratio of human to horse to make them look equine but have human souls with refined enough Dragonblooded bloodlines to be likely to Exalt.

Orochimaru approves.:smallwink:


"Having a child" is not "getting pregnant."

More importantly, saying that "it's your fault" that you can't get access to an Exalted sorcerer (mortals can't bind demons, remember?) because "you're not trying hard enough" is victim-blaming, and it's the same kind of stuff I see in real life that makes me sick to my stomach.

No prosthetic limbs for your debilitating injury? Guess you just didn't want them enough! Crippled by debt? You should have worked harder! Your chronic depression is taking over your life? You just need to apply some willpower, Sunny Jim!

You physically cannot conceive a baby together, loving couple? Obviously you aren't trying hard enough!

(That's hardly the worst of it, but it would almost certainly skirt forum rules to go much further.)

To clarify, that is what has earned my rancor. :yuk:

http://i.imgur.com/8mK6GsV.png


Additionally, though Exalted is indeed the name of the game, by no means are you required to play one. Rules for mortal characters are in the Core book, and other supplements allow you to play demigods, half-demons, mutants, Dragon Kings, gods and elementals, and even Jadeborn.

...Uh, who said anything about mortals? Last I checked this was about an Infernal and a Yozi.:smallconfused:


[Snip]

I'm suddenly reminded of an inversion of this: The Chiss species in Star Wars matures both physically and mentally about twice as fast as humans, which lead to a surprisingly civil thread on the Old Republic forums a few years ago discussing whether it's "okay" for a twenty-year-old human to date a ten-year-old Chiss.


Would it be a good idea to stick to published settings for this discussion? After all, individual tables can vary a lot.

Part of the point of the thread is to compare different tables and see which trends actually are such.

TheCountAlucard
2015-07-22, 09:28 PM
...Uh, who said anything about mortals?Your "joke" did.
…if a woman can't impregnate another woman it's because neither of them are trying hard enough.Most women are mortals. So are most men, for that matter.