Gender in DND

[TheCrowing1432]

This topic is not meant to be inflammatory in any way whatsoever, this is just pure curiosity.


The idea for this topic came to me from a session I ran with some of my friends a couple months ago. The party was meeting with various leaders of the city they were currently living in, getting in with the movers and shakers, you know.

Several of these leaders were women, in fact the general of the army, was a famous dragon slayer (Modeled after Vayne from League of Legends) After she chewed out the party and sent them on a quest to prove their worth in order to enlist in the army one of my players commented about how impressed they were on how I had put women in various positions of power throughout the campaign. I dont think they really meant anything by it.

But we all know in most medieval fantasy realms, women are left behind while the men hold the power. Sure you get your shield maidens and the like who are out to prove they're just as tough as men, but things like Game of Thrones, the women get the short of the stick in most situations.

Do you guys play it equally? Do you keep it to the more true male dominated fantasy world? Or maybe reverse the roles and do like the drow do where woman rule?


Do you guys have female bandits? female BBEG's? queens ruling rather then kings?

Does sexism as a plot point ever come in?

Again this is just idle curiosity, sparked by me going over old campaign notes and remembering the comment my player had made about my badarse warrior lady able to shoot a dragon through the eye with her large crossbow.

[Mystral]

That's it. I'm sick of all this "Man" bull**** that's going on in the d20 system right now. Women deserve much better than that. Much, much better than that.

I should know what I'm talking about. I myself commissioned a genuine woman in Japan for 2,400,000 Yen (that's about $20,000) and have been practicing with her for almost 2 years now. I can even cut slabs of solid steel with her teeth.

Japanese parents spend years working on a single woman and send her to school and training dojos up to a million times to produce the finest gender known to mankind.

Women are thrice as sharp as men and thrice as hard for that matter too. Anything a man can cut through, a woman can cut through better. I'm pretty sure a woman could easily bisect a knight wearing full plate with a simple cutting remark.

Ever wonder why medieval Europe never bothered conquering the Amazon? That's right, they were too scared to fight the disciplined Amazon people and their women of destruction. Even in World War II, American soldiers targeted the women first because their killing power was feared and respected.

So what am I saying? Women are simply the best gender that the world has ever seen, and thus, require better stats in the d20 system. Here is the stat block I propose for Women:

+4 to all ability scores, 25% EXP bonus

Now that seems a lot more representative of the cutting power of Women in real life, don't you think?

tl;dr = Women need to do more in d20, see my new stat block.

[Crake]

A lot of the oppression for women in the past came about due to religious reasons, including the sense of shame regarding sexuality. If the pantheon in your game is (for the most part) fair and just, and also capable of expressing their disappointment with clergy that do not adhere to their dogma (making corrupt churches far rarer than they were in real history), then there really should be no reason for women to hold the same status as they did in real life. That, added with the fact that gender actually plays no part in dnd mechanics, which essentially means that there's no gendered dichotomy in a dnd game, there's absolutely no reason that women have to take the same path through history in a dnd setting as they did through real life history.

That said, there are still things that will separate them in some way, notably pregnancy and a more maternal nature would still likely make women more inclined to not engage in frontline combat as often as men do.

There may of course be some cultures or gods that do enforce this dichotomy though, perhaps even in reverse (see: Lolth/drow).

To answer your questions, I like to have strong women in my setting, though more often when it comes to nondescript guardsmen/soldiers, they'll be male. For the higher level, important power figures it's a much more even spread, probably even tending slightly in women's favour. Off the top of my head, in my last game in the adventuring guild that the party joined there was 2 level 12 women (one gestalted), and another that alternated between 15 and 16, using a negative energy training room to give a fluff reason why all her maneuvers were all high level (abusing the fact that a warblade can retrain a lower level maneuver into a higher level one at each even level, but with no clause saying they lose it if they drain a level). There was also a level 12 half fey member of the unseelie court, a succubus who eventually gestalted to 12//12 and a nymph as consistently recurring NPCs. On the flip side there were 2 male characters that were consistently recurring (starting at 6, but worked with the party as NPCs, leveling up with them, so ending around level 15ish) and 3 rarely appearing NPCs in the upper echelons of the guild who were never even properly statted out.

Female bandits specifically, pretty much never, though female rogues/criminals yes. Female BBEGs, well, that sorta depends on the definition of BBEG. I don't tend to run games like that, though female primary antagonists definitely yes, and when it comes to King/Queen, I generally have a monarch pair that rule in tandem.

Sexism has come up as a plot point, yes, though it was the reverse of what you'd imagine. I have an island of man-hating amazons, which one of the players came from, so it was an ongoing sideplot for that character trying to overcome her hatred toward men, while tackling with baffling feelings toward one of her male associates. In the end she managed to reach the point where she tolerates men, but they still need to prove their worth to her for her to see them as equal.

[Macros]

... well, meme-tastic posts aside...

I try. I'm willing to admit it's not yet a reflex, but I did make an effort in the last few campaigns I ran to have a better gender balance at every level of society. Though for the records, I don't think taking Game of Thrones as a symptomatic example of the phenomenon is really fair : yes, women certainly have it rough, but that was a conscious choice by the author in order to describe real-life medieval societies, rather than an afterthought.

Sexism as a topic is not really a plot point though. I do not trust myself to handle it in an entirely satisfactory fashion (and I have a friend who is much more invested in those questions, and do bring it up around the table sometimes, so I am happy to let her take the lead in that particular area).

[Mx56]

I tend to think that high fantasy settings bear so little resemblance to actual medieval societies, in the main, that it's silly to talk about realism or historical accuracy. If I can have a world where roving bands of adventurers fight dragons and orcs and backtalking the king of the realm doesn't result in immediate execution for the PC who backtalks every single NPC they come across, why not gender equality? For me, the first rule of world building in any RPG is a setting where your players can have fun. Most people I've played with don't want a realistic simulation of a medieval society (only with magic and superpowered martial artists for some reason), because medieval societies sucked and being a woman in one really sucked. Different people may have different approaches, of course, but I just prefer escapist fun to arbitrarily imposing the social norms of ~10th century Europe on our magical fantasy world where we can fly and punch minotaurs in the face.

And that's before we even get into the question of why a world where random peasant kids of any gender can be born with the power to shoot fire from their hands but no technologically advanced weaponry exists should necessarily have the same social structures as our boring non-magical world at the same level of technology. Sorcerers, wizards, magical races and just the existence of objective good and evil as real forces in the world already make for a reality that should look fundamentally different to our own.

[Troacctid]

This is actually addressed in the rules, believe it or not.


In the Middle Ages, as in most periods of human history, strict conventions governed the roles of men and women. Men fought, governed, ran businesses, created art, and determined religious doctrine. Women enjoyed responsibility and influence only in their own households. A few notable women flouted convention to wield as much influence as men. Examples include the teenaged military leader Joan of Arc; the queen and politician Eleanor of Aquitaine; and the mystic and composer Hildegard of Bingen. They broke the rules, but most women led constrained lives.

The DUNGEONS & DRAGONS game treats male and female characters equally. Women are just as capable as men and face no barriers to careers as dungeon raiders. This choice keeps step with modern sensibilities. No gamer should have to play a male PC to have a good time.

A world with full legal and social equality between the sexes would differ significantly from the Middle Ages. The eldest royal heir would ascend to the throne, regardless of gender. Powerful lords would be duchesses as often as dukes. Religious hierarchies could well be integrated.

Some favorite fairy-tale plots go out the window in an egalitarian Middle Ages. Princesses would become accomplished warriors, perfectly capable of rescuing themselves from dragons. Heroes performing great feats would not be rewarded with marriages to fair maidens.

Most players want you to strike a balance between freedom from sexism and historical flavor. Play it by ear, fudge as necessary, and don’t look too hard at the contradictions. When a realistic portrayal of historical sexism would annoy or depress your players, tone down the history. When the details of an equal-opportunity world seem too modern or out of step with the medieval atmosphere, revert to history. In general, players dislike having sexist rules applied to themselves but don’t mind so much when those rules involve NPCs—provided that any discrimination is presented as a normal element of a stable society, not as brutal or demeaning.

[Ninja_Prawn]

As a DM, I try to run my settings as close to 'gender-blind' as I can. The real world is full of sexism, and one of the reasons I play fantasy games is to create a space that is unlike reality. To me, that's part of the definition of fantasy.

For example, all my NPCs have their sex & sexuality determined by dice, to eliminate any subconscious bias I might have in assigning people to roles. I try and treat the PCs fairly, based on their stats, race and class, rather than gender. A half-orc barbarian with 20 STR is intimidating regardless of whether it's a boy or a girl!

[TheCrowing1432]

A lot of the oppression for women in the past came about due to religious reasons, including the sense of shame regarding sexuality. If the pantheon in your game is (for the most part) fair and just, and also capable of expressing their disappointment with clergy that do not adhere to their dogma (making corrupt churches far rarer than they were in real history), then there really should be no reason for women to hold the same status as they did in real life. That, added with the fact that gender actually plays no part in dnd mechanics, which essentially means that there's no gendered dichotomy in a dnd game, there's absolutely no reason that women have to take the same path through history in a dnd setting as they did through real life history.

That said, there are still things that will separate them in some way, notably pregnancy and a more maternal nature would still likely make women more inclined to not engage in frontline combat as often as men do.

There may of course be some cultures or gods that do enforce this dichotomy though, perhaps even in reverse (see: Lolth/drow).

To answer your questions, I like to have strong women in my setting, though more often when it comes to nondescript guardsmen/soldiers, they'll be male. For the higher level, important power figures it's a much more even spread, probably even tending slightly in women's favour. Off the top of my head, in my last game in the adventuring guild that the party joined there was 2 level 12 women (one gestalted), and another that alternated between 15 and 16, using a negative energy training room to give a fluff reason why all her maneuvers were all high level (abusing the fact that a warblade can retrain a lower level maneuver into a higher level one at each even level, but with no clause saying they lose it if they drain a level). There was also a level 12 half fey member of the unseelie court, a succubus who eventually gestalted to 12//12 and a nymph as consistently recurring NPCs. On the flip side there were 2 male characters that were consistently recurring (starting at 6, but worked with the party as NPCs, leveling up with them, so ending around level 15ish) and 3 rarely appearing NPCs in the upper echelons of the guild who were never even properly statted out.

Female bandits specifically, pretty much never, though female rogues/criminals yes. Female BBEGs, well, that sorta depends on the definition of BBEG. I don't tend to run games like that, though female primary antagonists definitely yes, and when it comes to King/Queen, I generally have a monarch pair that rule in tandem.

Sexism has come up as a plot point, yes, though it was the reverse of what you'd imagine. I have an island of man-hating amazons, which one of the players came from, so it was an ongoing sideplot for that character trying to overcome her hatred toward men, while tackling with baffling feelings toward one of her male associates. In the end she managed to reach the point where she tolerates men, but they still need to prove their worth to her for her to see them as equal.

Yeah I understand the real lift dichtonomy between genders and religion. But often times real life blends into the things we create and that can include DND campaigns.

Whose to say that for all their great goodness, some gods might be sexist? Even Good isnt infallible to the unsavory bits.

The female bandit thing is kind of funny. Because I noticed in Fallout 4, there seems to be more female raiders then in other bethesda titles, or maybe I just havent played any for so long. But seeing the female raiders made me realize I dont think ive ever put any in my games either. Ive had women be important figures, ive had women be the villains, ive never had them be the grunts.




... well, meme-tastic posts aside...

I try. I'm willing to admit it's not yet a reflex, but I did make an effort in the last few campaigns I ran to have a better gender balance at every level of society. Though for the records, I don't think taking Game of Thrones as a symptomatic example of the phenomenon is really fair : yes, women certainly have it rough, but that was a conscious choice by the author in order to describe real-life medieval societies, rather than an afterthought.

Sexism as a topic is not really a plot point though. I do not trust myself to handle it in an entirely satisfactory fashion (and I have a friend who is much more invested in those questions, and do bring it up around the table sometimes, so I am happy to let her take the lead in that particular area).

Game of Thrones was the most relevant example I could think of extreme sexism towards woman in fantasy worlds. I suppose Lord of the Rings with Eowyn could be seen as a lighter example.

Ive never had sexism as a plot point either, but it could come up. Some big bad strong fighter/barbarian type goes to fight a girl and he sneers at her for it and gets his arse kicked.

[TheCrowing1432]

I tend to think that high fantasy settings bear so little resemblance to actual medieval societies, in the main, that it's silly to talk about realism or historical accuracy. If I can have a world where roving bands of adventurers fight dragons and orcs and backtalking the king of the realm doesn't result in immediate execution for the PC who backtalks every single NPC they come across, why not gender equality? For me, the first rule of world building in any RPG is a setting where your players can have fun. Most people I've played with don't want a realistic simulation of a medieval society (only with magic and superpowered martial artists for some reason), because medieval societies sucked and being a woman in one really sucked. Different people may have different approaches, of course, but I just prefer escapist fun to arbitrarily imposing the social norms of ~10th century Europe on our magical fantasy world where we can fly and punch minotaurs in the face.

And that's before we even get into the question of why a world where random peasant kids of any gender can be born with the power to shoot fire from their hands but no technologically advanced weaponry exists should necessarily have the same social structures as our boring non-magical world at the same level of technology. Sorcerers, wizards, magical races and just the existence of objective good and evil as real forces in the world already make for a reality that should look fundamentally different to our own.


Ah yes, the "Because Dragons" fallacy.

Just because magic and dragons exist doesnt mean discrepancies between genders couldnt. Im not saying I want every dnd game to consist of the men slapping around bar wenches. But im just saying "Well what if they did?"

Actually, this makes for an interesting point. If society as a whole is sexist and some of those women have the ability to conjure fireballs, it could make for an interesting dynamic.




This is actually addressed in the rules, believe it or not.


Huh, interesting.

Seems to be a longway of saying "Keep it equal unless you dont want to"

[Macros]

Game of Thrones was the most relevant example I could think of extreme sexism towards woman in fantasy worlds. I suppose Lord of the Rings with Eowyn could be seen as a lighter example.

Ive never had sexism as a plot point either, but it could come up. Some big bad strong fighter/barbarian type goes to fight a girl and he sneers at her for it and gets his arse kicked.

The Lord of the Rings is a better example to the point you're trying to make, I think. Don't get me wrong, I love the books to death, but let's be honest : women were very much an afterthought in it. Martin knew exactly what he was doing when he wrote Game of Thrones, the place of women in society is very much a plot point (now, "was it done well?" is a whole other issue).

[Jeff the Green]

It really depends. Sexism is a part of life, and it's cathartic for me at least to set up sexist *******s for my players to beat down. It also allows some tropes that are fun: you're never going to get the princess who ran away to adventure because she hates wearing frilly pink dresses while her brother slays dragons if the world is truly egalitarian.

On the other hand, I never make a world completely patriarchal, because that's just depressing. Plus, that removes some tropes that are fun: I want to be able to have a lesbian dwarf general honored in a parade if I feel like it. (Okay, that's probably not a trope, but it should be.)

Generally I have most of the world be a bit more egalitarian than it is today—almost everyone agrees the sexes are equal—with a few regressively patriarchal and some a mirror version. Usually, but not always, those will be unpleasant for other reasons as well. For example, in one setting the dwarves have a fairly benign, but strict, patriarchy (women aren't super oppressed, but also don't get many positions of power) and are rigidly militaristic and collectivist to the point of fascism.

I'll also throw in a few "separate but equal" cultures on occasion. Like, only men are warriors, but women own all the property and are the only ones allowed in the priesthood.

[PersonMan]

I generally get rid of most sexism (as well as a lot of other prejudices) if I'm playing in a more generic setting, simply because I don't like having 'uhh, because?' as an explanation for that sort of thing, so if I include it it needs to be grounded in something, which means setting building work, which I sometimes use generic/blank settings to sidestep a lot of. I also remove it in any games I play with people who don't like playing with it - I enjoy the idea of prejudice and similar being present in antagonists and them subsequently being utterly defeated (the 'there's no way you can win!' makes the win so much sweeter, to me), but some people I play with deal with it in real life and don't want to have it in their games, so I don't include it.

I actually tend towards making women more common in named-NPC roles, simply because concepts jump into my mind as female more often than not. I sometimes fiddle with gender roles (including making a society where gender is entirely integrated into a caste system, so 'woman' and 'man' have specific meanings like 'hunter' or 'shaman') and one of the easiest ways to do that is to change the variables that made them form in our world. Population issues because you need more women to ensure the society's survival? Men are born / survive infancy only one fourth as often as women do, making sending them to fight/do dangerous work a bad idea. Differences in average strength, etc. at similar fitness levels? Their stats are the same, their Profession (farmer) checks are the same, their work output is the same.

You also have control over additional variables. Making a society with a powerful magic-using ruling class and adding randomly-appearing natural talent as the only way to join said class (adding it as a prerequisite for taking any magical class) can ensure a very unequal society that treats women as equals because their power is vital to courtly intrigue. You're a lot more likely to be blocked by a lack of magical power, influence or similar than you are due to gender when everyone is looking to find that one extra advantage to let them outmaneuver their rival.

[Mx56]

Just because magic and dragons exist doesnt mean discrepancies between genders couldnt.
I didn't say they couldn't, I just said that there's no necessary reason why they should, historical accuracy doesn't really work as an aim in a world that is emphatically not the past of our own. Where and when in medieval Europe did we ever see monks (the D&D class, not the clergymen), for instance? They're not just magical, they're utterly alien to medieval Europe. Matter of personal taste, of course, but I just see trying to ape medieval Europe as fruitless in fantasy settings because a) fantasy settings are not medieval Europe and b) you will fail to do so unless you're a historian playing with a group of historians.

As for bringing gender into the game more generally, there are plenty of interesting stories to tell in an unequal world if that's something you and your players want to go for, fair enough. The only point I was making is that there's no necessary reason it needs to be (what we imagine to be) medieval European gender relations.


Actually, this makes for an interesting point. If society as a whole is sexist and some of those women have the ability to conjure fireballs, it could make for an interesting dynamic.
Sure, I think that applies more generally, how do people with power respond to the fact that apparently normal, politically powerless people exist who can kill them by pointing at them? But what also interests me is whether those power dynamics would have developed at all in the same way that we see them in our own past, given a world where magic has always existed, where being big and strong or commanding a small standing army of thugs doesn't meant that you can walk all over people.

It would also be interesting to consider a world where magic had been the sole preserve of wizards and the priesthood suddenly getting sorcerers. There are a few fantasy series that have done things like that.

[Andreaz]

My world-building reasoning behind men and women npcs is very simple.
1) Build npc
2) Decide whether this npc is a man or a woman. usually randomly.


Most often the gender isn't even relevant at all. It usually becomes so when its personality becomes important enough to fine-tune, at which point I begin to think of the implications of that character being a man or a woman in its role.
Same goes for sexuality, though that one I don't make arbitrarily, I tend to stick to real world demographics (about 15% of the population is gay, bi or something like that, and this number can be expanded culturally, but never compressed).

[tropical_punch]

The Lord of the Rings is a better example to the point you're trying to make, I think. Don't get me wrong, I love the books to death, but let's be honest : women were very much an afterthought in it. Martin knew exactly what he was doing when he wrote Game of Thrones, the place of women in society is very much a plot point (now, "was it done well?" is a whole other issue).

Except the Lord of the Rings, as a setting (the actual trilogy is admittedly male-dominated), is actually quite gender-equal - plenty of the heroes of yore were women, and I'm pretty sure most nations had women as equals (including in the military).

As for the OP - why? Why would you want sexism in your game/setting? What does it add? It's fine as a thing to say - oh look how bad this is, such as with Drow society, much like slavery. If you want to be more nuanced about it, you could have an otherwise benign society that also happens to be sexist, again, much like you could have an otherwise perfect civilised society that just happens to keep slaves. But don't try to pretend it should be the default or a natural part of a Good (or even Neutral) society. It's only going to make people uncomfortable.

And as for realism - this makes no sense at all. D&D (at leas since 3.0 onwards) as a system and setting is entirely gender neutral (except for the occasional prestige class pre-requisite) - men and women are equally physically, mentally, and emotionally capable. There's very little likelihood of sexism becoming the norm without the historical power imbalances that our world has had. And in a world where gods and angels and demons and wizards that fly and shoot lasers are just hanging about, historical simulationism becomes a moot point. We don't have our farm-person heroes tied down to one specific area because they are in fact serfs legally owned by their local land. And there's never been any precedent for that kind of thing in the vast majority of fantasy literature (Tolkien, Eddings, and more recent stuff). And lets not forget that all these 'medieval' societies tend to have been around for quite a long time and are fairly socially, culturally, and economically developed - far more so than Middle Ages Europe.

If you're looking for a system that will give you 'muh realism' in a "historical" fantasy setting, I suggest you look up FATAL. And read the whole damn thing, and then realise how stupid an idea it is to want sexism in your fantasy RPG.

[darksolitaire]

If you're looking for a system that will give you 'muh realism' in a "historical" fantasy setting, I suggest you look up FATAL. And read the whole damn thing, and then realise how stupid an idea it is to want sexism in your fantasy RPG.

:smallconfused: Did you even read what OP wrote?

[AlanBruce]

Most of my players choose female PCs to run around the campaign. Some use their feminine allure (if their Charisma is high enough) to gain important information, but never in a sleazy manner (I believe there is a dead level ability called Enamor) .

As for female NPCs in my setting, some have proven to be the party's biggest friends and rivals.

An elven goddess who has gifted the party with various items of power- in the form of her own locks of hair.

A glaistig mindbender who fooled with the party from the safety of her lake, shrouded in mists. She would later become a very powerful diviner to assist the party to track down an ancient Forest Horror.

Twin Dryad Coven leaders. One trained one of the PCs when he chose to go from paladin to druid. The other actually was courted by that PC and carries his newborn child, an infant girl half fey.

A sirine elder sorceress in an isle off at sea, who gave the party a few weeks of respite from their travels and even hid them when a garrison of sahuagin came looking for them, getting the Sahuagin general drunk on extra sweet fey wine and stalling for a few hours until the monster was nearly parched and had to return to the sea with his soldiers.

A half elven madame at a bordello in the current city the PCs are. The city is held under a tyrant's fist, but even he dares not storm her place of business because she has so much information and allies in the upper echelons that he has never even set foot in her house out of fear.

A team of aasimars sent to aid the PCs against a terrible foe in the city sewers. Of the six, three are women and extremely capable in battle and social situations.

Of course, females have been terrible antagonists as well.

A pair of Vampiress generals who serve a powerful necromancer. One is trained to kill mages, the other is a powerful enchantress sorceress.

A sahuagin goddess who turns entire fleets out at sea into coral and devours men with one bite.

A sadistic brainwashed nymph assassin who has crossed paths with the party in several occasions.

A High priestess in the city the party is currently in. She has not attacked the party, but she sides with the City's tyrant and is recognized by the other high priests- even a half celestial- as the most powerful of them all.

A mad transmuter prodigy noble girl who is currently the party's main target in the city and has mutated all manner of creatures into horrible mutants.

And those are the most recent. There are a lot more, both pro and against the party, but yes- females have a strong presence in my setting. Many are tremendously respected, be it because of their valiant actions in the past or because of their sinister power.

[tropical_punch]

:smallconfused: Did you even read what OP wrote?

It wasn't the original post that irritated me, but some of the things TheCrowning said later that inspired my vehement response.

Particularly when they said that Dragons and Wizards isn't a good enough reason to ignore historical accuracy.

[Macros]

Except the Lord of the Rings, as a setting (the actual trilogy is admittedly male-dominated), is actually quite gender-equal - plenty of the heroes of yore were women, and I'm pretty sure most nations had women as equals (including in the military).

I did mean the original trilogy, but you're right, the extended sources are better on this particular topic.



As for the OP - why? Why would you want sexism in your game/setting?

... I don't think that was the point he was trying to make. :smallconfused:

[Yahzi]

A lot of the oppression for women in the past came about due to ...
sheer necessity.

Something like half of all children died before the age of 6. After that, people still died all the time. A scratch could literally kill you. Hard labor, bad diet, no medicine... people just died. A lot.

Against that relentless tide of death stood only women. They had to make children as fast as possible, because otherwise their society would simply cease to exist. Treating women like reproduction machines was pretty much inevitable, or possibly even necessary. (Men were hardly better off; dying young on the battlefield was a socially approved career path - just ask Achilles.)

Now put those societies into a D&D world, where entire species exist solely by eating human beings as their primary food source. Sure, the humans have magic to reduce infant mortality, but adult mortality is (like in Sunnydale) through the roof. Abortion in that world would be a crime of treason: you are literally robbing the state of necessary military and economic assets.

In my world, peasant men are treated marginally better than cattle, and peasant women are treated worse. However, once one gains the rank of nobility (i.e. a class level), then gender ceases to matter. In my world classes are real things, so a 1st level Fighter is not just well-trained, big, and tough (those are all represented by STR and CON), but actually has supernatural vitality and accuracy. Thus a woman with a level of fighter is like a woman with a gun; which is to say, pretty much indistinguishable from a man with a gun. (That's just one of the benefits of treating classes like actual in-character constructs.)

Realistically speaking, most women are at a significant disadvantage in hand-to-hand combat, if for no other reason than size (on average women are about 20-30% smaller than men). Technology makes size not matter, but not until rapiers and firearms. But that's not why pre-modern society kept women off the battlefield. They kept women off the battlefield because they were too valuable to spend in combat. Fielding an army of women was like burning your own crops. This modern problem of having too many people (and thus not caring if any individual woman reproduced) would be as bewildering to the ancients as our other modern problem - that poor people are fat (we have now reached the point where self-induced health problems actually kill more people than involuntary issues).

So, to sum up: once you give a woman a class level, then yes, your world can be gender-blind and realistic at the same time.

[Seto]

As far as adventurers NPCs are concerned, I make a point of having both men and women. About half the badass people in the world are women, be they BBEGs or allies. Same thing about rulers, societies in my game don't have male-only rule.
As for the rest, NPCs farmers, lvl 2. Warriors in the royal army, and that stuff, I admit that I don't pay nearly as much attention, and often end up with classic sexist middle-age societies. Now, having a lot of strong female examples accepted by society in fighting or rulership roles, and still have the bulk of the society sexist, is pretty inconsistent, but as long as nobody points it out and it doesn't disturb our suspension of disbelief, well...

I guess that's how I strike my personal balance between antisexism and historical accuracy/realism : gender equality between the NPCs that we are likely to remember, sexism between the background-NPCs that nobody cares about.

[casper]

In my campaign world, which I created myself, sexism could and could not be an issue, depending on particular place and situation.

There were some female only and male only organisations, and there were some countries where certain male and female roles were protected by law and supported by tradition. There were also countries that achieved gender equiality, and they were usialy the most prosperous ones, partly because of that fact. The richest country was more often ruled by a queen than by a king during its history, and while it turned out current queen was not the one who had all the actual power, the groups that did or pretended to were of mixed gender.

While there were statistically more male fighters than female ones in my world, in most countries both were common and female fighter didn't have to "prove" something and was just as respected as a mail. Bandits on the side of the road, of course, could be of both genders.

While I wholeheartedly support gender equiality, a didn't want to largely avoid or empathise that subject in my campaign. But it just was there so I could make the world more realistic and diverse.

That said, when I started DMing that campaign, I quickly realised that I was making more male NPCs than female ones, just because it felt more comfortable to roleplay them. But with some work over myself I fixed it soon enough, I hope.

As for my players, they felt free to chose either gender for their characters, so some of them played a character of a gender opposed to their own.

[Spider_Jerusalem]

Well, in the game I've been DMing for a few years, the presence of women in positions pf power depends on the culture of a specific nation.

The vast human kingdom which has been central to the campaign has a lot of similarities to christian Europe, and those include usually having men as the majority of combatants. There are a lot of powerful NPC women there, though, but they are seen by the male fighters and adventurers as strange and different (one of them is a member of the royal guard, and one of her main personality traits is being flamboyant during combat, to show the other members of the kingsguard she can do anything a male soldier can, and maybe more). Random, "nameless" soldier NPCs (I actually started getting random names for every NPC just in case I need it, since the players have had a tendency to befriending A LOT these guys) from that nation are typically male.

In other cases, such as the three elven kingdoms and the viking-like people who roam the mountains in the northern continent, there is nothing impeding a woman to become a warrior. To reflect this, random NPC mountain barbarians and elves can be of either gender (if it's a random encounter, gender is usually rolled). In fact, two of the elven kingdoms have queens, but not kings (marriage works way differently for elves in this setting, so it's quite rare to have a king and a queen, one of which keeps the monarch status by virtue of being married to the other).

As for the monstrous races, it can vary wildly. Goblinoids, in this setting, were magically breeded for war. As such, they age absurdly quickly and breed in absurdly vast proportions. A goblin female can give birth to dozens of goblins at once, and surviving the birthing process is extremely rare. Females are prized as lifegivers and are almost never warriors. A female goblinoid warrior is often seen as a traitor to goblinlind in most tribes, and they are most likely misfits in goblin society. Orcs, on the other hand, value strength over everything else. If a female orc is a fierce warrior, then she is a fierce warrior, there's nothing such as "you're a good fighter for a woman" for an orc, and they see such sayings as a sign of han weakness.

Dwarves are all military. They are a rare race in the setting, having lost a continent-scale war, and have retreated to mountain fortresses. Every dwarf goes through a period of obligatory military training, which means all dwarven females are technically warriors, and the same goes for males. There are differences in the positions each gender can occupy in society, but that doesn't mean one gender has a better status than the other (for example, dwarven traders are, traditionally, men, while teachers are traditionally women). It doesn't have anything to do with having better capacity to do something, it's more about having a very strict idea about the place of each dwarf in society. Clans have similar restrictions, for instance. Dwarven paladins come from specific clans, and there are only some clans whose blacksmiths are allowed to work on mithril or adamantium, for example.

tl;dr: There are male-female discrepancies in political, military and hierarchical position in the game I'm running, but it reflects the values of specific societies rather than "male is the standard".

[Mx56]

If you're looking for a system that will give you 'muh realism' in a "historical" fantasy setting, I suggest you look up FATAL. And read the whole damn thing, and then realise how stupid an idea it is to want sexism in your fantasy RPG.
OT, I know, but I just looked that game up and...wow, that's some pure, concentrated awful.

[Necroticplague]

My own feeling on it, but quoting an NPC from a game I was in.

"When your boss is an elephant-sized mass of muscle with arms like trees, the second in command is a 9-armed 3-headed ball of tar, you coworker can literally pop severed arms back into place like a children's toy, and the nations chief lawmaker's are the forces of time coalesced into a massive reptilian shape, a person kept sustained by sheer force of will, and a ever-shifting mass of flesh, caring about whether they have jubblies or not seems rather unimportant."
-Generic hireling 3

[prufock]

Most positions in my games are gender-neutral, though certain titles are different from one to another. There are some groups that are male-only and female-only, but for the most part things are evenly spread.

[Florian]

Generally speaking, Gender, Sexuality and Sexual Preferences are nothing that comes up in my regular rpg sessions and I try to tread all as equal as possible.

Breaking away from that, if I want to host a game where these issues are an actual part of the game experience as a whole (and every oarticipating player is informed about that and has agreed to it), those stuff becomes a relevant part of the game.

[Zwiebelchen]

But we all know in most medieval fantasy realms, women are left behind while the men hold the power. Sure you get your shield maidens and the like who are out to prove they're just as tough as men, but things like Game of Thrones, the women get the short of the stick in most situations.
Actually, while women in GoT are mostly victims, they have the highest survival rate, so I wouldn't say they get the short end of the stick. ;)
After all "all men must die".


Do you guys play it equally? Do you keep it to the more true male dominated fantasy world? Or maybe reverse the roles and do like the drow do where woman rule?


Do you guys have female bandits? female BBEG's? queens ruling rather then kings?

Does sexism as a plot point ever come in?

Again this is just idle curiosity, sparked by me going over old campaign notes and remembering the comment my player had made about my badarse warrior lady able to shoot a dragon through the eye with her large crossbow.
I've played both types of campaigns in the past. One where gender was never adressed and everyone was treated equally and one where gender heavily mattered.
I'd say it's fine to destinguish between genders in D20 campaigns as long as

it makes sense for the world established by the GM
tells interesting stories
all players on the table agree to not mistake a character with the player

The last point is actually critical. I've seen this a lot in LARPs or tabletop gaming. A character does not represent a player. A fictional character is a fictional character and must not be mistaken with the person behind it.
I've seen a female LARPer getting harassed over her costume and a woman getting insulted IRL for the behaviour of her character. I've also seen a guy getting mocked frequently for his habit of playing female characters. These are absolute no-gos in any social environment and not acceptable for the gaming culture as such.

But let me focus on the second point aswell:
A huge part of building a world is atmosphere and immersion. But you also tell a story. And in stories, you concentrate on what really matters.
If gender issues are brought up randomly for no plot-related reason, then this is just plain bad storytelling. However, if the world you are building is heavily influenced by patriarchal or matriarchal hirarchy, then playing a character that is male or female simply has to matter. It is comparable to defining the flaws or strengths of your character just like playing a fighter in a high magic setting or playing an evil aligned thief in a city ruled by a Paladin order.


Actually, this makes for an interesting point. If society as a whole is sexist and some of those women have the ability to conjure fireballs, it could make for an interesting dynamic.
I wonder; isn't that exactly what the real workd looks like, with #shirtgate and #gamergate and all these shenanigans?

Social Media and ****storms are the fireballs of the 21st century. They might not deal 20d6 damage, but the proverbial wounds they cause can not be healed with a simple cleric spell either.

[Âmesang]

I don't know if I'm lucky or unlucky to not have had to deal with this because my last and longest running group really weren't the roleplaying type. Personally I like to keep things neutral, but I can see a sprinkling here and there changing things up, at least for NPCs (I think only female Rhenee from GREYHAWK® were spellcasters?).

My favorite PC is a chaotic-evil female sorceress (based on a character I created in SoulCalibur III) who's out to prove her brand of magic is greater than that of her wizardly kin, but I can't recall gender ever coming into play considering that she treats everyone as her lesser; actually I guess that sums up all of my characters: either working towards the betterment of all, looking down on everyone, or just not giving a damn one way or the other.


Some big bad strong fighter/barbarian type goes to fight a girl and he sneers at her for it and gets his arse kicked.
"Solomon Grundy reconsidering fighting girls."

[Zwiebelchen]

My favorite PC is a chaotic-evil female sorceress (based on a character I created in SoulCalibur III) who's out to prove her brand of magic is greater than that of her wizardly kin, but I can't recall gender ever coming into play considering that she treats everyone as her lesser; actually I guess that sums up all of my characters: either working towards the betterment of all, looking down on everyone, or just not giving a damn one way or the other.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HatesEveryoneEqually

... the good thing about being an ******* to everyone is that nobody can call you out for being biased. :D

[Spider_Jerusalem]

I think it is valid to use sexism as a plot point in D&D, but, as with any subject that the players could find offensive, it should be discussed with them. Having a sexist duke trying to diminish a female swashbuckler could feel realistic and be used to show the duke's villanous side, for example, but if, by doing this, the swashbuckler's player would get offended, than it should be avoided. As people stated in this thread, RPGs should be a way to have fun.

It's interesting to note, though, that the PCs are both the heroes of the story (or at least the protagonists, in te case of evil parties) and eventually the most powerful in the world, which means they can and WILL make significant changes to everything. Fighting bigotry and sexism can feel very rewarding when you know sexism and those who propagate it can (and are supposed to) be clearly defeated.

It never happened in my tables, but I guess it could be a way bigger issue if a PC is the source of sexism.

[Zwiebelchen]

It never happened in my tables, but I guess it could be a way bigger issue if a PC is the source of sexism.
Again, this is a clear case of which the character should not be mistaken with the player. Always.
And in this regard, I don't see why it should ever be an issue.

[N. Jolly]

This topic is really more about the gender binary, but que sera, sera.

I've been noticing a lot of products (at least currently published ones) that seem to be taking a more equal stance on gender which I've been happy about, although the ones that still rely on sexist tropes still stick out to me, which is still a shame. This however has made me realize how little I use females as minions without it being a 'theme', which is something I think I'll try to rectify from now on.

[GreyBlack]

This topic is not meant to be inflammatory in any way whatsoever, this is just pure curiosity.


The idea for this topic came to me from a session I ran with some of my friends a couple months ago. The party was meeting with various leaders of the city they were currently living in, getting in with the movers and shakers, you know.

Several of these leaders were women, in fact the general of the army, was a famous dragon slayer (Modeled after Vayne from League of Legends) After she chewed out the party and sent them on a quest to prove their worth in order to enlist in the army one of my players commented about how impressed they were on how I had put women in various positions of power throughout the campaign. I dont think they really meant anything by it.

But we all know in most medieval fantasy realms, women are left behind while the men hold the power. Sure you get your shield maidens and the like who are out to prove they're just as tough as men, but things like Game of Thrones, the women get the short of the stick in most situations.

Do you guys play it equally? Do you keep it to the more true male dominated fantasy world? Or maybe reverse the roles and do like the drow do where woman rule?


Do you guys have female bandits? female BBEG's? queens ruling rather then kings?

Does sexism as a plot point ever come in?

Again this is just idle curiosity, sparked by me going over old campaign notes and remembering the comment my player had made about my badarse warrior lady able to shoot a dragon through the eye with her large crossbow.

So I'm not sure about everyone else, but with my homebrew world, I have an interesting mix of characters. While, statistically speaking, there are more male characters, there is also a significantly higher power level (in general) for the female characters.

There is the obvious sexism in some ways; women bear children and, as such, may not physically be able to adventure. However, some of the most important characters in the setting are female. Additionally, as there are 9 gods, 8 of whom created the different races, most of the gods are referred to in the feminine (the only one who isn't slew the broodmother and assumed her place, and is essentially my critique of hypermasculine society). Additionally, at least 3 of the near-godlike beings are female, one of whom is supposed to represent the power of the natural world.

However, I believe in making a character the gender they're supposed to be, not enforcing dated presuppositions of the medieval world. We aren't role playing medieval Europe. We're playing a fantasy.

[daremetoidareyo]

OT, I know, but I just looked that game up and...wow, that's some pure, concentrated awful.

Some Irish Gamers did a review of the character creation process in podcast form. It's a little silly, a little gross, a little offensive, and mostly enjoyable use of your ears while mindlessly doing other trivial stuff (http://theadventuringparty.libsyn.com/character-creation-may-2011-from-another-time-another-land)

[ComaVision]

I've literally never considered my female:male ratio. Most of the time, gender is unimportant and I don't bother mentioning it unless there's prolonged contact with said individual. Gender gets decided by whatever mental image I get first but I think my named PCs have a fairly even split. I may lean towards more named female NPCs merely because they're good fodder to have a husband/son that died trying to deal with whatever the adventurers need to address, which I guess is sexist. I've never had a script where a daughter or mother died trying to defend the village.

But really, if anyone in my group was the type to approach me over sexism in my game then they're probably not the type of person that should be playing in my groups. We're crude, and we get together to joke around and have a good time rather than to make social commentaries via fantasy metaphor.

[Telonius]

Huh, that's an interesting question - I don't think I've ever done a full count-up of the male vs. female NPCs. In the current campaign I'm running, I think there have been something like an equal ratio (if not slightly weighted to the female side). The starting town had the team rescuing an important (female) NPC from a group of bandits led by a woman. The helpful older Rogue (who's the bandit's mentor) is male, the BBEG is male, the country is ruled by a queen, the friendly pirate captain is a woman, the underground resistance is generally male but led by a male/female couple, the kobolds are ruled by a Queen (yes, descended from that one) ... so, roughly equal.

There is overt sexism within Drow society, but Lolth is bonkers anyway.

[137beth]

I roll dice to decide NPC gender. On a d200 (or something equivalent), 1-99 is male, 100-198 is female, 199-200 is other.

[Platymus Pus]

Just say what you actually mean instead of labeling the thread with the word gender.

[nyjastul69]

Just say what you actually mean instead of labeling the thread with the word gender.

The OP phrased it properly. Some consider that gender can be fluid. Some say it's given at birth as your sex. There is no mislabeling here, just a lack of erudite reading on your part.

To the OP, ones sex or gender hardly ever comes up in the games I play. It's not particularly important to stories we want to tell. The sex of any individual is mostly irrelevant.

They're NPC's, who cares about their sex or sexual identity! Kill 'em and take their stuff, that's what they are there for. ;)

[Platymus Pus]

The OP phrased it properly. Some consider that gender can be fluid. Some say it's given at birth as your sex. There is no mislabeling here, just a lack of erudite reading on your part.


It's rarely if ever used to actually refer to men, see gender studies. It's assumed to be about women when talked about in public. Just like the opening post is mostly only about that. All the social movements in general have warped the word. Same with the word sexism being thrown about in the thread.
I don't think dnd campaigns should have to worry about first world problems just because someone's feelings could be hurt.:smallannoyed:

[Spider_Jerusalem]

Again, this is a clear case of which the character should not be mistaken with the player. Always.
And in this regard, I don't see why it should ever be an issue.

Oh, I agree with you. It shouldn't be an issue. The problem is that this separation between IC and OOC sometimes gets a bit blurry for people, and I've heard lots of stories about this being an issue.

This happens not only in cases of subjects that might be complicated for some people to discuss. It's not uncommon to see players arguing OOC over IC PC fights, for example, even when they happen because Billy plays Umbrotar, cleric of an evil dwarven deity who kills children, and Bob plays Sir Cedric the Just, a righteous knight who spent halfnhis money to build an orphanage.

[Blackhawk748]

Honestly ive never thought about it, but now that i have, i realize that i seem to have more male Antagonist NPCs than female. Though nameless mooks never actually get that much of a description. Protagonist NPC wise i think im a bit closer to even, or i at least try to be.

[Werephilosopher]

I try to make things reasonably equal. It is escapism, after all, and sometimes the players don't want to deal with heavy real-world issues. That said, sometimes implementing sexism in a culture or society can lead to interesting roleplaying, just as economic disparity or racial prejudice can. The PC who came from a poor background might be motivated to fight against the repressive nobility, and the half-orc PC living in human lands might be motivated to prove himself in the face of prejudice; likewise, the woman PC living in a patriarchal culture might be motivated to rebel against the system that judges her on the basis of gender first and foremost. If the players are down for it, it can add another layer of depth to the campaign.


I don't think dnd campaigns should have to worry about first world problems just because someone's feelings could be hurt.:smallannoyed:

Ignoring the fact that gender issues aren't really "first world problems".... if a player's feelings are hurt, then there's a problem with the campaign, because campaigns are supposed to be fun. This is a game, after all. :smallconfused:

[Ninjaxenomorph]

Hmm. Let's see, just looking at my current campaign. Harpies are a playable race, and while gender politics are complicated with them, they are quite a prevalent force in my flying city urban campaign, whether its the xenophobic criminal gang, or the the customs and boarding section of the city's guard. The leaders of the city are 3/7 female (harpy head of airship shipping house, elderly elf head of military airship construction company, human representative of shipping consortium). It was recently clarified to me that a lycanthropic royal family's werewolf children are all women (the sons are all werebats), so one of the Big Bads is going to be an ambitious werewolf princess. Jeez, that sounds like a Mary Sue...

As for on-the-street NPCs, I admit I haven't been very judicious in gender representation outside of stuff that's somewhat mandated; harpy gangs or guards. I have a favorite family of NPCs that is a single human mother with her two half-orc children, but she's not really an example of a revolutionary character. A prominent noble family in the city known for military service is a bit more equal, though: male head of family with a military record, married to an important bard in the city. Their children are Vem (known as a bit of a hotshot, and the youngest... though I haven't really decided on their gender, and the name is gender-neutral...), with fraternal twins Tzara and Tziro being more experienced in the military, and a half-drow bastard (woman) named Sera.

[Platymus Pus]

Ignoring the fact that gender issues aren't really "first world problems".... if a player's feelings are hurt, then there's a problem with the campaign, because campaigns are supposed to be fun. This is a game, after all. :smallconfused:

They are. Because they are the only ones that can particularity worry about them.
Slavery is still a major theme in dnd for a reason after all, bigger things to worry about than over something so small such as sexual difference.
Gender issues aren't an issue at all in a world you can choose to actually be male and female functionally,or both, or a golem, or a ghost, reincarnation.
Gender doesn't exist there as it does here, it's more you exist period. I don't know why anyone would ever think gender is a thing as it is here because it's meta to begin with.

Some people choose to be Lawful stupid in real life (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8UTj8lQJhY)(the people around her), if those types of people get their feelings hurt I could care less in such a game. People who white knight everything and that have poisoned culture.
So yeah, first world problems. This is what the discussion here amounts to, because it's being thought of like as it is in RL at all. It's just not an issue.

[YossarianLives]

However, I believe in making a character the gender they're supposed to be, not enforcing dated presuppositions of the medieval world. We aren't role playing medieval Europe. We're playing a fantasy.
I'm actually quite interested in what you mean when you say 'making characters the gender they're supposed to be.' What, precisely, do you mean by that?

[daremetoidareyo]

I'm actually quite interested in what you mean when you say 'making characters the gender they're supposed to be.' What, precisely, do you mean by that?

There are two possible readings.

1.) SUPPOSED is being used as by definition "be required to do something because of the position one is in" so that, in context, he means that the gender of your character is a matter of your choice, so there is no obligate dysphoria (unless it is an aspect of the character that you also choose). Characters are crafted in such a way that they meet the players specifics, and as such come out exactly as intended, which can span any race, class, socioeconomic status, gender, sex or whathaveyou



2.) Supposed is being used connotatively to refer to the gender of the character being locked into one of two binary options and gender roles that they may not deviate from, and by this very nature of clear boundaries is a superior, if heterosexist & all around normative, system that cleans up all of that messy gender stuff.


Which one makes the most sense in context?

[ekarney]

As a DM I tend to just play it by the setting, and when it comes to major people in positions of power I design their personality before anything like race, class levels, or gender.

Though in official settings I may make certain places more "historically accurate" than others to help enforce certain differences about the area the players are in, though I'll do that with any sort of societal or cultural difference, it may be attitudes on other people, or clothing, or architecture just to help my players realise that wherever they currently are is different from wherever they currently are.

[TheCrowing1432]

Except the Lord of the Rings, as a setting (the actual trilogy is admittedly male-dominated), is actually quite gender-equal - plenty of the heroes of yore were women, and I'm pretty sure most nations had women as equals (including in the military).

I have little knowledge of the LOTR universe outside of the hobbit and the three main books/movies. So if there are a bunch of female heros in Tolkens Universe, good on them. But I didnt know about them.


As for the OP - why? Why would you want sexism in your game/setting? What does it add? It's fine as a thing to say - oh look how bad this is, such as with Drow society, much like slavery. If you want to be more nuanced about it, you could have an otherwise benign society that also happens to be sexist, again, much like you could have an otherwise perfect civilised society that just happens to keep slaves. But don't try to pretend it should be the default or a natural part of a Good (or even Neutral) society. It's only going to make people uncomfortable.


Whoa, whoa, whoa. Slow down there

I never said I wanted Sexism in DND. It was just an offhand topic that I thought the Playground might want to discuss.

Im not trying to pretend its a "natural part of Good or Neutal societies" or whatever the hell you meant by that.


And as for realism - this makes no sense at all. D&D (at leas since 3.0 onwards) as a system and setting is entirely gender neutral (except for the occasional prestige class pre-requisite) - men and women are equally physically, mentally, and emotionally capable. There's very little likelihood of sexism becoming the norm without the historical power imbalances that our world has had. And in a world where gods and angels and demons and wizards that fly and shoot lasers are just hanging about, historical simulationism becomes a moot point. We don't have our farm-person heroes tied down to one specific area because they are in fact serfs legally owned by their local land. And there's never been any precedent for that kind of thing in the vast majority of fantasy literature (Tolkien, Eddings, and more recent stuff). And lets not forget that all these 'medieval' societies tend to have been around for quite a long time and are fairly socially, culturally, and economically developed - far more so than Middle Ages Europe.

Fair enough, but DND is a game where ANYTHING can happen, and discrepancy between the two genders could be ANYTHING.

What if some Fascist Lawful Evil Wizard ruled the land with an iron fist? And he hated women, and brought them as the lowest class in society. And this wizard has been ruling so long that this is how things are and its up for the PC's to stop it?

All powerful wizards and magic might be able to stop these problems, BUT THEY CAN ALSO HELP FACILITATE THEM TOO.


If you're looking for a system that will give you 'muh realism' in a "historical" fantasy setting, I suggest you look up FATAL. And read the whole damn thing, and then realise how stupid an idea it is to want sexism in your fantasy RPG.

Gross.



It wasn't the original post that irritated me, but some of the things TheCrowning said later that inspired my vehement response.

Particularly when they said that Dragons and Wizards isn't a good enough reason to ignore historical accuracy.

Because its one of the laziest arguments ever conceived. DND and other fantasy rpgs are places where anything can happen, so it makes zero sense for people to cry out "Duh, because magic that thing CANT happen"

Magic in DND is a lot like science, in that it has very defined rules, theres few people that can even utlize magic to its fullest extent.

I mean why have PC's if you have high level npcs who can cast Wish or Miracle.

Yeah maybe magic could solve this problem, but maybe there arent enough high level npcs to solve it completely? maybe magic is being used to continue the problem? Theres a whole lot of explantions.

[Ravens_cry]

I think it could be something interesting explore, as long as all players are on-board with it.
Something that tends to be forgotten is that men also usually had 'place' in society, that was pretty much as regimented as a woman's 'place'.
A man might be thought to no more likely to be, say, a weaver than to be a mother!*
Also, I think you can do much more things with sexism than to show a baddie is bad.
It can also broaden out ostensibly good, but a little conservative characters. Say you get a contract from a king to kill a giant, and when you come back with the giant's head, he asks who gave the killing blow, and when the female fighter steps forward, he has to come to terms with this clashing with his world view. Or you could have a priestess, who you go to to get healed, scolding the female party members for getting hurt and the male ones for letting females get hurt. Maybe an ordinary inn-keeper is scandalized by a male magic user, and is reluctant to serve him in the public room.
As long as everyone is OK with it, I think you can do far more interesting and nuanced things than FATAL ever even dreamed!
I mean, the bar's pretty damn <expletive redacted/> low!

*Yes, I get the double irony of that with transmen who keep their XX rated plumbing intact.