PDA

View Full Version : IC sexism (not OOC sexism)



Kurald Galain
2007-10-08, 06:38 PM
From another thread,


I'd still like to debate my 2 cents about sexism in-character and campaigns with sexist NPC's. Your thoughts on them? Or major NPC plot-hook prostitutes (where I still don't know what's so bad about them)?

Well, I can easily imagine people being offended by the existence of prostitutes, whether in-game or out. That, from a realistic point of view, most societies have them in one form or another does not mean that people want to have them in their fantasies.

Something struck me as peculiar... I recently read the book Shaman's Crossing by Robin Hobb (I can recommend it to people, it's good!) It struck me that the setting of the book is rather sexist - by which I mean that it has the medieval attitude that men are supposed to be soldiers and go to school, and women are supposed to stay at home and are not considered worth educating.

What struck me is that this is highly unusual for a fantasy novel. With the explicit exception of Tolkien (who, frankly, isn't contemporary anyway), nearly every contemporary author (say, Feist, or Erikson, or Lackey) has medieval settings that are egalitarian and have male-female-combined armies.

So people appear to write and enjoy reading fantasies of egalitarianism. That would be a good thing, no?

TheLogman
2007-10-08, 06:41 PM
Well, this would lead to a Biased worldview, since people would only experience one side of the coin so to speak, and then when confronted with actually sexist people/literature, they would be unable to understand the other opposite view. I am not advocating Sexism, but understanding that women are different from men, (Equal but different) is a facet of sexism, and one that should be embraced.

Ulzgoroth
2007-10-08, 06:56 PM
Counterpoint Tamora Pierce. There isn't much sympathy offered for sexism, but it's a strong force in the setting. Though certainly not up to the level in Shaman's Crossing.

Saph
2007-10-08, 06:58 PM
What struck me is that this is highly unusual for a fantasy novel. With the explicit exception of Tolkien (who, frankly, isn't contemporary anyway), nearly every contemporary author (say, Feist, or Erikson, or Lackey) has medieval settings that are egalitarian and have male-female-combined armies.

So people appear to write and enjoy reading fantasies of egalitarianism. That would be a good thing, no?

I think it's not much egalitarianism as wanting to have it all. So there are lots of female adventurers and soldiers, and they can excel at whatever they want to and be just as strong as the men, and they have a healthy social life and a well-adjusted personality as well, and they're never tied down to taking care of a home or family, and they do all this adventuring and slaying demons while still looking fabulous, maintaining a perfect figure, and never getting a tangle in their waist-length hair. Since it's fantasy, you can have whatever you want, so why not? :P Obviously it's not at all realistic, but strict realism isn't the point of fantasy stories in the first place.

That said, there is one school of thought that says this isn't such a good idea, because it leads to the attitude that if a character isn't a combat fighter, they aren't 'worthwhile'. I can sort of see their point.

- Saph

Silkenfist
2007-10-08, 07:06 PM
Well, I can easily imagine people being offended by the existence of prostitutes, whether in-game or out. That, from a realistic point of view, most societies have them in one form or another does not mean that people want to have them in their fantasies.

That's part of the unwritten contract between Players and DM, I guess. As DM you shouldn't create an environment where your players are uncomfortable to act and you don't send your arachnophobic players to battle the Spider Goddess Lolth either.
That said, I will always nudge my players softly into allowing for the fact that campaign world usually aren't pretty fairytale utopias. Prostitution was just the example that came up. Corruption, Treachery, Murder, Torture, Injustice, Racial Prejudices, Oppressive Regimes, Evil going Unpunished...all of these have occured or will occur in my games sooner or later. Simply because they are aspects of being human and because they will always occur (and because I like gloomy campaigns)
The one exception is rape. Partially because it makes almost everyone uncomfortable. Secondly, because I don't want to trigger memories/fears among my players. It occurs only where inavoidable and I try not to focus there.



So people appear to write and enjoy reading fantasies of egalitarianism. That would be a good thing, no?

It certainly is a good thing, if this is our desire. But I just don't see the reason to give it to the players. I would like to see a world without racial/gender stereotypes. But I would also like to see a world without war, famine, poverty and diseases. However, my players are unlikely to ever see one.

ForzaFiori
2007-10-08, 07:14 PM
From another thread,



Well, I can easily imagine people being offended by the existence of prostitutes, whether in-game or out. That, from a realistic point of view, most societies have them in one form or another does not mean that people want to have them in their fantasies.

Something struck me as peculiar... I recently read the book Shaman's Crossing by Robin Hobb (I can recommend it to people, it's good!) It struck me that the setting of the book is rather sexist - by which I mean that it has the medieval attitude that men are supposed to be soldiers and go to school, and women are supposed to stay at home and are not considered worth educating.

What struck me is that this is highly unusual for a fantasy novel. With the explicit exception of Tolkien (who, frankly, isn't contemporary anyway), nearly every contemporary author (say, Feist, or Erikson, or Lackey) has medieval settings that are egalitarian and have male-female-combined armies.

So people appear to write and enjoy reading fantasies of egalitarianism. That would be a good thing, no?

what are you reading by Feist? In the series I've read by him (His Midkemia books), while it isn't hugely sexist, there are basic gender rolls, and very few female fighters, and no females in the actual armies.

granted, it is less sexist than it could be, but it was still there.

MartinHarper
2007-10-08, 07:16 PM
The fact that my male gnome is slightly taller than the average gnome female will seem unimportant to him given that I'm half the size of the average human. When there are huge and obvious differences between the races, smaller gender differences aren't going to stand out as much. This is especially true when, statistically, males and females are equally strong, dextrous, wise, intelligent, charismatic, and, uh, well-constituted. A sexist NPC who laughs at women for being small and weak is going to seem weird if he laughs at the female half-orc barbarian and fears the male elf bard.

I guess I can see sexism coming in by way of females giving birth. An anti-male cleric might see women as superior because they can create new life, whilst an anti-female fighter might see men as superior because they don't take breaks from their training to have kids. I'd still expect to see it as the exception rather than the rule. Your world may vary.

(by the way, does it kill catfolk to mix gender studies and D&D?)

psychoticbarber
2007-10-08, 07:26 PM
(by the way, does it kill catfolk to mix gender studies and D&D?)

Hope not.

It's funny, I came to this thread from the other thread (the WOTC Campaign of Sexism; completely unrelated but closed while I was reading it, haha), and I'm always on the fence in my homebrewed settings between medieval realism and fantasy worlds.

Often I end up with the middle-ground that female adventurers exist and are accepted (to a point), but they're strange. They're strange alright, but so is every male adventurer.

Sure, I've usually got a society or two where women aren't appreciated like they should be, but I try to balance that out in other societies who don't appreciate men like they should.

DeathQuaker
2007-10-08, 07:35 PM
Bottom line: if you as a DM are clear about the parameters of your world and what exists in it, and your players are comfortable playing as you intend it, generally, include the racism/sexism/etc. you want to.

Always, always, always be clear that it is fantasy, and separate the fantasy from OOC inter-player interactions.

And most of all, DO NOT use of "sexism" (or any -ism) as an excuse to discriminate against your players or make them feel lousy because they and their character are constantly being mistreated. If a player is being singled out as not being able to use their abilities as they should, that's discriminatory, and the fact that you designed your world to enable that discrimination doesn't make that acceptable.

Further: Do not use "realism" as an excuse for wanting something like sexism in a game, especially when it means putting excessive and unncessary restrictions on what players can choose for their characters. In "real life" there were exceptions to all rules. Elizabeth I was Queen during a very anti-feminist era, but she still managed to be Queen and was a revered one at that. Moll Cutpurse was fighting people with swords and wearing trousers when that was an offense punishable by law (and yet the law was oddly lax with her). Don't tell someone who wants to play a female warrior pirate they can't because it's "not realistic"; go tell that to Anne Bonny and Mary Read.

Also, do not use "realism" as an excuse for wanting something like sexism in a game, when you're running a game in "Magical Fluffy Land" that has dragons and wizards and elves. The sexism and any other cultural standards are yours to control as much as the fantastical elements; don't blame your fantasy on real life. If you really want to reflect different cultures, many of which are imperfect or intolerant by our postmodern standards, own up to it that this is your world and this is what you want and why.

Done well, you can create worlds with all kinds of cultural tensions, differences, etc. and make it a world of fluff players want to interact with. But the key is to ensure players are having fun with it and not feeling put out by the GM or other players. If someone is offended, don't do it.

Avoiding a friend's hurt feelings should be more important than a game.

Silkenfist
2007-10-08, 07:40 PM
The fact that my male gnome is slightly taller than the average gnome female will seem unimportant to him given that I'm half the size of the average human. When there are huge and obvious differences between the races, smaller gender differences aren't going to stand out as much. This is especially true when, statistically, males and females are equally strong, dextrous, wise, intelligent, charismatic, and, uh, well-constituted. A sexist NPC who laughs at women for being small and weak is going to seem weird if he laughs at the female half-orc barbarian and fears the male elf bard.

This is definitely one of the better reasons against sexism in fantasy societies. There are some problems, though:

1. Males and Females don't need to have the same stats in the population. It is important to not alter the player characters because of their gender. However, it is perfectly reasonable to have a NPC society where males and females have different stats. (For example males could have higher Strength/Constitution, females higher Wisdom/Charisma).

2. It is plausible that gender differences are diminished in a world where race has a larger influence on people's roles than their gender. However, this only means that there will be more racial stereotypes. Once again, common sense doesn't win.

3. and most simple: Since when had objective differences anything to do with the amount of stereotypes? How many objective differences are there IRL between different "races"?




I guess I can see sexism coming in by way of females giving birth. An anti-male cleric might see women as superior because they can create new life, whilst an anti-female fighter might see men as superior because they don't take breaks from their training to have kids.

It's a bit different, but females getting pregnant and giving birth is one of the crucial points. It removes them from combat/hunting for some time, but this is not the most important reason. The important difference is the fact, that a man can father a lot of children in a short period. Women can't. The women who have the most children are the ones who retreat from hunting/battle entirely and dedicate their life to nurturing their children. Females who spend their life on the battlefield don't pass on heritage.
This also means that the amount of sexism in a culture depends on their life cycles. Races with a longer lifespan and less infant mortality (For example Elves compared to Orcs) should be less susceptible to misogynist tendencies. Also, reptilians (or other non-mammals) can easily be egalitarian, too.

Yes, I am resorting to Dawkins again and kill catfolk along the way.



I'd still expect to see it as the exception rather than the rule. Your world may vary.

Of course it does. Where would be the fun if it didn't. I just advocate to not remove all gender differences from the game (flavorwise) as a matter of principle.



(by the way, does it kill catfolk to mix gender studies and D&D?)

Don't care. Killing catfolk is fun.

Dausuul
2007-10-08, 07:41 PM
I think a lot depends on how closely you're sticking to historical precedent. Historically, sexism has been rampant, so a low-magic world that tries for something vaguely resembling historical accuracy will have that element.

On the other hand, in a world where magic works and is usable by members of either sex equally, where deities both male and female regularly intervene in mortal lives, it makes sense that there would be less sexism.

As far as D&D game worlds go, there is the added factor that the primary goal of a game world is to enable the players to have fun. Worlds in which women are bound by the strictures of real-world medieval society are not real conducive to fun for people who want to play female characters. So published game worlds are generally accepting of female adventurers, at least to the extent that there are no mechanical penalties levied upon them and they don't have to deal with things like being stoned to death for immodesty.

Stormcrow
2007-10-08, 07:48 PM
It basically comes down to wether the author's wish to write a psuedo-historical novel matches up against the chance that its going to get bashed in the reviews for being sexist and not sell.

In parts of the world one gender or the other _was_ treated in a subservient way, in some parts of the world they still are. Its reality. I guess I'm lucky enough to have a group that prefer's reality in its gaming. I think you'll find theres a lot of "sexism" in fantasy. Read the matriarchal monster manual entries, take the drow for example. Or is it not sexism if men are oppressed these days?

puppyavenger
2007-10-08, 07:51 PM
A song of ice and fire by George Martin has a very sexist setting, very good seris though.

Behold_the_Void
2007-10-08, 07:59 PM
One argument that could be made against sexism is the way certain abilities work. In D&D, for example, it's easily possible for a female to, say, spontaneously manifest sorcerous (or psionic) abilities, or get chosen by a god because of her particular characteristics. It's hard to keep women down when x god chooses them as a servant or they can inherently tell the laws of physics to sit down and shut up.

Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll
2007-10-08, 08:02 PM
If V was a girl, try telling V to go wash the dishes.

"I prepared explosive..."

Charles Phipps
2007-10-08, 08:03 PM
I debate sometimes whether or not my own version of a fantasy session is too sexist or not. The point of being is that I am doing it to underscore the horrible nature of some certain villains while also being somewhat realistic (my gaming group is mid-twenties to early thirties) about the fact that raiding often results in unpleasantries.

Here's a list of some of my rather controversial choices.

+ Explicitly; Goblinoids and Human Raiders pose the threat of descending on down upon villages and either indulging themselves in rapine or carrying off females as breeding stock (more an Orc thing to do rather than your typical barbarians). I help use this to explain how Orcs continue to grow population wise even when so many people are determine to wipe them out.

Though I'm debating changing it, the implication is the vast majority of half-orcs are the product of war crimes.

+ Likewise, women are little more than chattle in Orc society and treated as such unless they're Crones. They're traded and property for the men to be exchanged or used as seen fit.

+ I encouraged one of our PCs to expand on the background of a Bard that came from a harem. The situation was one of implied terrible abuse to create mindlessly subservient and chipper women for sale to the merchant lords of Calisham.

Basically, I find it works well to have player characters struggle against societies that are "evil" given the Faerun folk are much more enlightened with no barrier to most professions or attempts to keep women down sexually.

Ulzgoroth
2007-10-08, 08:05 PM
One argument that could be made against sexism is the way certain abilities work. In D&D, for example, it's easily possible for a female to, say, spontaneously manifest sorcerous (or psionic) abilities, or get chosen by a god because of her particular characteristics. It's hard to keep women down when x god chooses them as a servant or they can inherently tell the laws of physics to sit down and shut up.
Fantasy sexism often (though not always) makes exception for those who manifest or have potential for phenomenal cosmic powers. This can range from the mage guild being the only gender-neutral group in the world to the simple principle of no one being dumb enough to tell the scary witch lady what she can and can't do.

SurlySeraph
2007-10-08, 08:09 PM
It's always kind of annoyed me that the Drow and Githyanki, perhaps the most alien and evil societies in the DnD cosmology, are matriarchal. It's presenting women ruling as aberrant and freakish, and it annoys the hell out of me. Not that Drow culture doesn't have really cool fluff, but it just annoys me.

Silkenfist
2007-10-08, 08:14 PM
Also, do not use "realism" as an excuse for wanting something like sexism in a game, when you're running a game in "Magical Fluffy Land" that has dragons and wizards and elves. The sexism and any other cultural standards are yours to control as much as the fantastical elements; don't blame your fantasy on real life.

Full agreement on the rest of your post. There are some lines, even ruthless me wouldn't cross:

- Making other players uncomfortable
- Isolating players from the rest of the party
- Treating players differently because of their gender (IC or OOC)
- Limiting their character choices because of their gender
- Limiting the use of their abilities because of their gender
- Give one player a significant advantage overr another because of their gender
- any other limits decreed by comon sense.

However...if I am to create "Magical Fluffy Land" and I am to control its cultural standards entirely? Why am I supposed to make it an egalitarian society? Of course it would be the easiest environment for players and DM, but stereotypes are a typical human flaw and why shouldn't they be implemented? They can add flavor, provide plot hooks or be a surprising hindrance for the party.

If you are concerned that stereotypes could make the game unfair or less fun for certain players, you should make sure that:

- the whole world hasn't the same stereotypes. If you throw in a few misogynist societies (Orcs, Goblins and - maybe - Humans recommended), you can add matriarchal systems to balance it out (Reptilians, Drow and - maybe - Elves recommended).
- stereotypes are not purely negative. Something can be said about being underestimated. If you are a part of the stereotypical weaker gender, you might not be attacked with full force immediately, people turn the back to you quicker or allow you a bit further towards the guy you want to kill.
- gender is not the only trait open for stereotypes. There may be sexist groups, but there can be racist ones just as well. Or a cult that believes red-haired people are sent by the devil.
- the stereotypes, whatever they are, are not omnipresent. The main part of the game should still be the good ol' Sword-and-Sorcery adventuring fun and getting your party member out of city prison because he dared to look at the High Priest isn't fun more than once. Keep it in mind and throw it at the players when it is reasonable.

Silkenfist
2007-10-08, 08:25 PM
One argument that could be made against sexism is the way certain abilities work. In D&D, for example, it's easily possible for a female to, say, spontaneously manifest sorcerous (or psionic) abilities, or get chosen by a god because of her particular characteristics. It's hard to keep women down when x god chooses them as a servant or they can inherently tell the laws of physics to sit down and shut up.

It is an argument against sexism, but - sadly - it doesn't hold truth in how our society works. The most powerful people in our society today don't rely on their strength. Our leaders in politics, business, media and law don't need physical ability - it's purely mental or social ability what counts. However...even in these positions, women are still underrepresented and/or denied from advancing.



I debate sometimes whether or not my own version of a fantasy session is too sexist or not. The point of being is that I am doing it to underscore the horrible nature of some certain villains while also being somewhat realistic (my gaming group is mid-twenties to early thirties) about the fact that raiding often results in unpleasantries.

Here's a list of some of my rather controversial choices.

+ Explicitly; Goblinoids and Human Raiders pose the threat of descending on down upon villages and either indulging themselves in rapine or carrying off females as breeding stock (more an Orc thing to do rather than your typical barbarians). I help use this to explain how Orcs continue to grow population wise even when so many people are determine to wipe them out.

Though I'm debating changing it, the implication is the vast majority of half-orcs are the product of war crimes.

+ Likewise, women are little more than chattle in Orc society and treated as such unless they're Crones. They're traded and property for the men to be exchanged or used as seen fit.

+ I encouraged one of our PCs to expand on the background of a Bard that came from a harem. The situation was one of implied terrible abuse to create mindlessly subservient and chipper women for sale to the merchant lords of Calisham.

I don't see too much problems with that if these are the antagonists. However, if it is the society in which the playerse travel most of the time, I think it would become too disencouraging to play a female character - something which I would avoid at all costs.



It's always kind of annoyed me that the Drow and Githyanki, perhaps the most alien and evil societies in the DnD cosmology, are matriarchal. It's presenting women ruling as aberrant and freakish, and it annoys the hell out of me. Not that Drow culture doesn't have really cool fluff, but it just annoys me.

The races I portray as typical patriarchs are Orcs and Goblins. Not the most pretty ones either :smallsmile:

You would like Earthdawn though. They have patriarchal Trolls and matriarchal Lizardfolk, each one not being completely freaky and it is reasonable for them to be created in that manner (I already advertised somewhere else the concept of matriarchal Lizardfolk)

MartinHarper
2007-10-08, 08:33 PM
It is plausible that gender differences are diminished in a world where race has a larger influence on people's roles than their gender. However, this only means that there will be more racial stereotypes. Once again, common sense doesn't win.

I completely agree here. Less sexism, but a shedload of "racism" (or species-ism, whatever). Thus, many PCs get +1 to hit goblins, but no PCs get +1 to hit men. D&D might be lower on sexism than the real world, but judging folks on the way they look would be very common. A human with even a slight trace of orcish blood affecting his appearance would probably suffer a lot of prejudice.

(yes, I'm focusing on this point because your other points are hard to argue against...)

Dairun Cates
2007-10-08, 08:36 PM
That said, there is one school of thought that says this isn't such a good idea, because it leads to the attitude that if a character isn't a combat fighter, they aren't 'worthwhile'. I can sort of see their point.

They've obviously never met Lesser Used Fantasy Trope #42: The "Smarter than the Wizard, BBEG, and Librarian Combined Housewife"

It's always pretty fun dropping that one on the players and letting them figure it out over time.

On a more serious note, it really comes down to your group and how its handled. Exalted is actually a pretty damn sexist campaign setting. Women are often thrown into brothels, can't sail without disguising themselves or mutilating their bodies, treated as nothing but escorts, and sought after commonly for horrible things by other deviants. Still, it's a pretty interesting campaign setting, that's played by a lot of varied groups, and it's not like its impossible to be a female character. In reality, it gives the players something to rebel against. It gives female players an automatic character hook and attachment to the setting. It inspires players to change. In a perfect fantasy world, there's nothing to fight against except maybe monsters and that gets tiring.

It all comes down to this...
PARADISE IS BORING!

That being said, it's a bad idea to overdo it. Fatal is THE prime example of this. Still, I think as long as you don't do it out of malice, society being bias against females is not really different from society being bias against tieflings or drows (I AM NOT encouraging you to make another Drizz't clone).

Still, whatever you do, don't start making rules for pregnancy. That's too far and has led to some pretty bad flame wars.

Side Note: At one point, I actually programmed a game that had a Housewife with a magical pendant that did nothing and a Wooden Spoon as her main weapon. It was a rather interesting experiment in abandoning as many RPG cliches as I could.

BardicDuelist
2007-10-08, 08:59 PM
If V was a girl, try telling V to go wash the dishes.

"I prepared explosive..."

Read the end of the graphic novel.

Evey becomes V, so V is a girl.

MartinHarper
2007-10-08, 09:01 PM
Since when had objective differences anything to do with the amount of stereotypes? How many objective differences are there IRL between different "races"?

Eh, I reckon objective differences form the starting point for most stereotypes, though they are often exaggerated or out-of-date.
* The stereotype about Jews being tight with money comes to us from Jewish moneylenders in the medieval period.
* The stereotype of women buying lots of shoes arises because women spend more on shoes than men.
(apologies if either of these are untrue - I'm not intending to encourage prejudice)

We've talked about racial prejudice, and how it'd crowd out sexism in a D&D world. Another prejudice that will reduce the space for sexism is religious prejudice. Religious differences are much bigger in D&D, and that's going to make sexual differences in priorities seem minor.

Dark Knight Renee
2007-10-08, 09:02 PM
Although both of the main settings I play in are pretty light on sexism generally, it's interesting to spice things up occasionally by including it. While I do not dispute that it's a serious, real world problem and that some people are uncomfortable dealing with it (or just don't find it to be their cup of tea), I usually encounter no problem with it in gaming so long as it isn't OOC or too restrictive. Racism, too, even among humans in multi-species fantasy worlds, but especially between species. Overly haughty and superior elves; brutish and evil orcs; shifty and thieving halflings; annoying and silly gnomes... all racist stereotypes that characters in my FR game have had to deal with, sometimes within the party itself.

I consider ignoring the presence of sexism to be missing out on perfectly good roleplaying experiences. I do lots of crossover games, and in some places there will be no sexism present at all (these are almost exclusively sci-fi settings, however), while in other places, we'll have difficulty with sexism being a major issue and either a driving force of the plot or an obstacle that must be overcome. Either extreme can bring sexism to the table, since the lack of sexism is odd to some characters. Usually there's at least a little bit on the side, much like in real life. When it comes up, it can be either seriously or humorous (though the characters themselves usually don't think so).

For example, many (1/4 maybe?) of the PCs in these crossover games are men who come from settings where some level of sexism towards women exists. The mindset often manages to survive for quite a while even when the crossover environment means spending vast amounts of time in places where gender differences are moot. The "protect the helpless womenfolk" mentality is remarkably prevalent still even in mixed-gender "adventuring parties", and inexperienced characters are often treated quite differently due to their gender, with females being protected more and assumed to be weaker or at least more fragile. A handful of characters have, instead, determined that females are especially lethal and competent. Even among characters native to mostly non-racist settings, some level of sexism along these lines is still expected.

On the other hand, in one memorable game we had a male character from a society which practiced sexism and female warriors were either exceptionally rare or non-existence, alongside a warrior woman from an extremely sexist tribe in which only women were warriors, honor was vitally important, and other quirks and taboos I can't recall (except that deer were sacred, unfortunate when the party was hunting for food). And another character was a woman from a setting where sexism was basically non-existent and people were rather open-minded, so that the other two both looked extremely backwards culturally. She also wore tight pants and was not particularly modest, which bugged the guy. That was a fun game, too bad it died due to plot issues.

On an even more comic note, I have this one recurring villain who has the notion in his head that women (and halflings, and children) are helpless and/or harmless. He's also been remarkably slow to adjust his attitude after being pwned by women (and halflings, and even children) far more often than by anyone else. He is, however, an idiot and something of a stooge.

Another game, set in a world where sexism is rampant, one of the main characters is a female knight; favored and respected by the king of her land, but largely scorned otherwise, both within her nation and outside of it. The game begun, however, with her rescuing a prince from the tallest tower of a castle guarded by a dragon. Most of the sexism in that game is more serious, however: the knight deals with scorn wherever she goes, and another female character pretends to be a man to avoid the same reactions.



Full agreement on the rest of your post. There are some lines, even ruthless me wouldn't cross:

- Making other players uncomfortable
- Isolating players from the rest of the party
- Treating players differently because of their gender (IC or OOC)
- Limiting their character choices because of their gender
- Limiting the use of their abilities because of their gender
- Give one player a significant advantage over another because of their gender
- any other limits decreed by common sense.

And to that, I totally have to agree. If I ever ran into those things in a game (temporary plot/setting incidents aside), I would be quite annoyed - at best.

Eldritch_Ent
2007-10-08, 09:02 PM
I agree that it's easy to overdo things, but used properly sexism can be a great tool for making plot hooks, and can make players of female characters feel good about changing things. It's best used if you never outright say it's sexism, but rather you have the occasional NPC snub the female character(s) and let the players draw their own conclusions. (Or the same happen for your Half-Orcs and Tieflings.)

Really the only situation that calls for you outright stating that the NPC is reacting poorly to someone due to their age/race/gender, is if it's a Ranger who has that group as their favored enemy or if you want the female players to REALLY hate that character.

Draz74
2007-10-08, 09:54 PM
there are lots of female adventurers and soldiers, and they can excel at whatever they want to and be just as strong as the men, and they have a healthy social life and a well-adjusted personality as well, and they're never tied down to taking care of a home or family, and they do all this adventuring and slaying demons while still looking fabulous, maintaining a perfect figure, and never getting a tangle in their waist-length hair.

On Thud and Blunder (http://www.sfwa.org/writing/thud.htm) seems relevant.

Charles Phipps
2007-10-08, 10:00 PM
I do admit, there's one setting that overt Chauvinism in my games triumphs and thats Hyborea. I can't really imagine doing a Conan game that wasn't littered with ridiculous machismo male-fantasy elements that make a Duke Nukem game look like the Lifetime Channel.

:smallsmile:

Raistlin1040
2007-10-08, 10:09 PM
Personally, I see it as a neccessary evil in my campaigns. There's always IC racism. People don't like half-orcs because they are half orc. I once played an elf in an all-human party adventuring in a human town. I was subjected to severe elf racism. My name, my ears, my way of speaking, my magic, all of it was mocked. But, you have to take it in good humor and show them later.

If there's racism in the game (And there will be, to some extent) then showing sexism isn't all that bad. Womanizing bards and strict commanders for example. Both might not have entirely neutral feelings towards women warriors. And as long as the player doesn't take it as a personal attack (Which brings up the question of why you'd want a player like that playing with you) it's really not that bad. It could lead to interesting dialogue, or force a player to roleplay better. I don't really have a problem with it when I DM.

SpiderKoopa
2007-10-08, 10:26 PM
Funny, I just remembered I'm playing in a campaign where the npc party fighter (soloing this campaign for now, wizard of course:smalltongue:) is very sexist, especially to his younger ('roung my character's age) daughter. Says she won't be able to do anything because she's a woman. Well... my character is teaching her magic behind the father's back. I can't wait to see the look on his face when she casts her first fireball. Heheheh.:smallwink:

The Neoclassic
2007-10-08, 10:36 PM
It's all in what your players are comfortable with. The world has been sexist in favor of men in most societies for most of the past few thousand years. A few instances of current discrimination against men don't obliterate that. However, that said, I don't care to get into a RL debate (heck, I want to be a housewife- my views on this are complex).

On topic! My campaigns have extensive IC sexism, albeit most of it mild. Egalitarianism is far too optimistic for my tastes, just as a world without racism, plague, notable rates of child mortality, or essentially a life for commoners which is much above "nasty, brutish, & short" would be. I like my setting to have great beauty but also a regular taste of gritty reality.

However, I realize that level of sexism may not be good for everyone. With new players, I keep it fairly toned down (fewer women as shopkeepers, for example, or represented on the town council). The DMG II, I believe, pointed out that PCs usually don't mind benign gender roles or sexism applied to NPCs, but don't like anything which would restrict them.

Can anyone find me a core race that's GOOD and female-dominated? Yeah, drow are matriarchal, but they're also a quintissential evil force (except when everyone plays them as CG rebels :smallsmile: ).

As several people before me have said, sexism can lead to good roleplaying opportunities. I further think it's an excellent way of adding cultural depth (particularly in relation to accepted gender roles).

As Deathquaker says, of course you should seperate IC sexism from how one acts OOC. Perhaps you've had a bad experience, but I haven't seen any instances yet where sexism was used to ridicule PCs (maybe I just have awesome DMs). I'd also like to point out that just because there's wizards and dragons doesn't mean everything that resembles the real world should be flushed away- the laws of physics still apply, for one. It all depends on your playing style, and if you like fluffy worlds with equality for all genders (what about intersexed individuals? or do they not exist in an idealized world? that just occured to me), then power to you. To be honest, I get bored of that so... Each to their own!

DeathQuaker
2007-10-08, 10:40 PM
However...if I am to create "Magical Fluffy Land" and I am to control its cultural standards entirely? Why am I supposed to make it an egalitarian society?

Where did I say you were?

All I'm saying is this:

1. Don't make your players uncomfortable with the world you create. We agree on this.

2. If you (and by "you" I mean anybody trying to world build) introduce any "-ism" to your world (and I did mention a few), and someone rags on you for making a "sexist" gameworld, don't "cop out" by saying it's "realistic," i.e., inspired by our own history when you are working with a typical fantasy setting. Our own cultural evolution is influenced by things that probably never would happen in a typical D&D world, and vice versa. You can have very interesting and reasonable motives for adding sexism, racism, classism, etc. into your world. I'm just sayin' take responsibility for your decisions in your world-building and have good reasons beyond "historical accuracy"--e.g., what is appropriate for your world with what it has in it, not what ours does--for what you are doing (which it sounds like you do).

I'll add that I bring much of this up based on past discussions here and elsewhere about "sexism" in D&D sessions. My comments were meant to be general at the topic at hand.

In my own homebrew gameworld, I have racist cultures, sexist cultures, etc. And as you say (I agree with the rest of your post) one key is to not make everything the same anywhere. The sexism hasn't played much into the game, but some of the race and class tensions in the party based on setting fluff has been quite interesting and well role-played (with the party moving towards overcoming their own differences to work together).

I am sleepy and rambling so it's best I end this now before I make any less sense.

Hawriel
2007-10-08, 10:40 PM
Sexism is a real life consept in western society. Im reading the three muskateers right now and well sexist is a very tame word to discribe the characters. Sexism is are cultural point of veiw. Its not just about keeping wemon in the kitchen bare foot and pregnant. Its also about denigrating men as only being capable of being a pig or the man who is a chef is some how less of a man. Unfortunalty the walk on eggshells PC mentality we have in the U.S. worped any thing that offends any women to be sexist. Japanies and Arab men are considered sexist by are standards when to them its the way things are. That is a generalisation I know. Having defined gender rolls is not inharently sexist. Having a gender trapped in thoughs rolls is sexist.

So to topic about fanticy and gender rolls.

I find reading about a world whare defined gender rolls nonexistent rather odd. To me its just feels to much like PC fear intruding in on american writing. Why does the fanticy or sci fi novel have to be gender neutral? When there is "sexism" in these books other than the rolls of mom and dad its almost always assosiated with the antagonist individual, society or orgonization. Its a bad guy quality. Its a sign of opresion not a product of how a society developed.

The wheel of time has heavy gender rolls. However most sexist context is against the man. Most of the societies are heavily matriarichal in some way or another. This is because of how he set up his world. In a context of what if Adam made Eve eat the apple. The few wemon that do not fit what is normal for a lady (Min) are often looked down appon by the rest of the wemon in their society for not acting like a propper lady.

Gender roll is part of society, any good auther who has, or has no set gender rolls will give a reason why not. In my opinion technolegy is one of the determining factores. Just look at the US civil war. Mechinery allowed wemon and children in the north to run farms or work in factories with out the labor of men. Magic in fantacy has the same function. The sexist idea of wemon being week seldom hinders the woman that can make the laws of physics roll over and beg. I guess thats why if its a modernish setting or a futur setting its alot more believable to me if there are wemon in very masculen rolls, like the infintry. If its a medieval setting it makes the haroine stand out from the eccepted norm.

horseboy
2007-10-08, 11:11 PM
I do admit, there's one setting that overt Chauvinism in my games triumphs and thats Hyborea. I can't really imagine doing a Conan game that wasn't littered with ridiculous machismo male-fantasy elements that make a Duke Nukem game look like the Lifetime Channel.

:smallsmile:
Ironically enough, Conan wasn't sexist himself. But was a metaphor about how society keeps women down.

Silkenfist
2007-10-09, 12:55 AM
You can have very interesting and reasonable motives for adding sexism, racism, classism, etc. into your world. I'm just sayin' take responsibility for your decisions in your world-building and have good reasons beyond "historical accuracy"--e.g., what is appropriate for your world with what it has in it, not what ours does--for what you are doing (which it sounds like you do).


You are missing the point. I don't have sexism, racism, corruption, etc. in my games because I try to replicate a certain time of human history. I have sexism, racism, corruption, etc. in my games because I consider them to be principal flaws of humanity that will always occur in any given environment, in any given time.
When I say, I add these elements for realism, I don't mean "historical accuracy", I mean "accuracy in portraying humanity". A world in which humans/humanoids have completely unbiased views on each other without exception...to me it would just feel like I gave Humans gills or darkvision. I know that this is fantasy and I could create them like this, but I think it would estrange them too much from what they really are.

Paragon Badger
2007-10-09, 01:49 AM
Sexism and racism may work for a novel, but not a game...

Nobody can realistically play a good drow on the surface because, if any DM concerned with ingame realism was there, he would have 20 level 1-8 commoners with pitchforks after him, or worse; a good-aligned party of adventurers, doing the good deed of killing a horrible, evil, deceiving drow.

Charles Phipps
2007-10-09, 02:05 AM
Ironically enough, Conan wasn't sexist himself. But was a metaphor about how society keeps women down.

Funny, I just thought he was Robert Howard's Gary Stu and way of making ends meet while indulging his love of history/naked ladies.

WhiteHarness
2007-10-09, 02:53 AM
Silkenfist speaks wisdom here.

Charles Phipps is a philistine who can't appreciate early 20th-century American pulp literature for what it is. ;)

Dervag
2007-10-09, 04:37 AM
I think it's not much egalitarianism as wanting to have it all. So there are lots of female adventurers and soldiers, and they can excel at whatever they want to and be just as strong as the men, and they have a healthy social life and a well-adjusted personality as well, and they're never tied down to taking care of a home or family, and they do all this adventuring and slaying demons while still looking fabulous, maintaining a perfect figure, and never getting a tangle in their waist-length hair. Since it's fantasy, you can have whatever you want, so why not? :P Obviously it's not at all realistic, but strict realism isn't the point of fantasy stories in the first place.Of course, everyone wants male heroes to 'have it all' just as the want female heroines to 'have it all'; the only difference is that we're used to the idea of male heroes who get to be strong, happy, well-adjusted, adventurous, victorious, and attractive all at once. Female heroines who get to be all those things are a relatively new idea in Western civilization, and are hard to find at all in many others.


It's a bit different, but females getting pregnant and giving birth is one of the crucial points. It removes them from combat/hunting for some time, but this is not the most important reason. The important difference is the fact, that a man can father a lot of children in a short period. Women can't. The women who have the most children are the ones who retreat from hunting/battle entirely and dedicate their life to nurturing their children. Females who spend their life on the battlefield don't pass on heritage.
This also means that the amount of sexism in a culture depends on their life cycles. Races with a longer lifespan and less infant mortality (For example Elves compared to Orcs) should be less susceptible to misogynist tendencies. Also, reptilians (or other non-mammals) can easily be egalitarian, too.

Yes, I am resorting to Dawkins again and kill catfolk along the way.Dawkins' analysis breaks down for a society where health care is advanced and where there are many routes to prominent success that have nothing to do with upper-body strength, such as a technological society or what logic expects the average D&D world to be. This is one of the problems with creating a world that has both gender equality and magic, but somehow retains a normal medieval social structure in other ways.


+ Explicitly; Goblinoids and Human Raiders pose the threat of descending on down upon villages and either indulging themselves in rapine or carrying off females as breeding stock (more an Orc thing to do rather than your typical barbarians). I help use this to explain how Orcs continue to grow population wise even when so many people are determine to wipe them out.

Though I'm debating changing it, the implication is the vast majority of half-orcs are the product of war crimes.

+ Likewise, women are little more than chattle in Orc society and treated as such unless they're Crones. They're traded and property for the men to be exchanged or used as seen fit.Well, since it's widely regarded as OK to hate orcs, that's fine; the only thing you've done is replace Tolkein's "The orcs are a bunch of murdering barbarians who are slaves to evil!" with "the orcs are a bunch of murdering barbarians who treat their women like cattle!"


Ironically enough, Conan wasn't sexist himself. But was a metaphor about how society keeps women down.On the other hand, he swam through sexist societies and caused no ripples (at least, not in the sexism), and he fitted very naturally into a sexist paradigm of manly hero and fainting heroine because he was manlier than anybody else around.


Funny, I just thought he was Robert Howard's Gary Stu and way of making ends meet while indulging his love of history/naked ladies.Both.

However, Conan became an iconic character not least because other people started writing Conan novels (and, to my knowledge, still are) long after Howard's death. So the character Conan isn't entirely Howard's creation.

Serpentine
2007-10-09, 05:05 AM
Counterpoint Tamora Pierce. There isn't much sympathy offered for sexism, but it's a strong force in the setting. Though certainly not up to the level in Shaman's Crossing.
This was the first thing I thought of when I read the first post. With the first series, it's a very racist society. In the second, things start to change, and that gains momentum in the world of the later series. Of course, all through these, you catch glimpses of purely misogynistic societies and entirely agalitarian ones, as well. Actually, I think this probably isn't a bad way to put it in a game: One society might be excessively misogynistic, another mildly so, one strictly egalitarian, and yet another Amazonian in their treatment of men.

Saph
2007-10-09, 05:12 AM
Of course, everyone wants male heroes to 'have it all' just as the want female heroines to 'have it all'; the only difference is that we're used to the idea of male heroes who get to be strong, happy, well-adjusted, adventurous, victorious, and attractive all at once.

Who's 'we'? Are you speaking for me, or yourself? :P

Anyway, I should have explained better. The point I was trying to make was that in the real world, there are various practical reasons why women (and men, for that matter) don't do the kinds of things adventurers do. Since it's a fantasy setting, you can ignore whether something's practical or not, so there's no reason not to have characters in all positions be whatever gender you want them to be. (Although admittedly it can start to strain suspension of disbelief after a while.)

Of course, some authors, like George R. R. Martin, don't do this and instead tie their setting more closely to how things really were in medieval Europe. Those books tend to be more realistic, but also a lot more brutal. I'm not sure if the tradeoff suits me or not.

- Saph

Khanderas
2007-10-09, 05:15 AM
Ironically enough, Conan wasn't sexist himself. But was a metaphor about how society keeps women down.
He did kill men by the heaps, but never a woman if he could avoid it. So while Bélit and Red Sonia and many more powerful women passed him by, he did not think women and men were the same. But he did treat women well though, especially for the settings.

I wonder why noone (or I missed it) mentions the Wheel of Time setting.
Female casters were respected (somewhat mistrusted true) while the male ones were basically "gentled" as soon as possible. Even after the male magic powersource was cleansed of the taint there was alot more trust in the females, as far as the populace was concerned.
The Men ran the Village Council and the women the Women's Circle, together they ran the village, but each with a clear definition of what they were expected to take care of (not all of the world though, but two rivers and kinda the Aiel).
I noted how little lip women in that series of books take from any man so even though the duties are seperated, they sure as heck ain't cowed.

Hawriel
2007-10-09, 05:43 AM
I mentioned the Wheel of Time.

I equated with the soccial standing of men being slightly inferior because of the actions of the Kinslayer and men going mad and breaking the world. Adam making Eve eat the apple. Even when there is a King in that world the underlying power is with the wemon. The Aiside (or how ever its spelled) being the promonent power to give wait to that. basicly the Kinslayers sin has not just tainted men who use the power but have lowered all men in the eyes of wemon.

The Neoclassic
2007-10-09, 06:11 AM
You are missing the point. I don't have sexism, racism, corruption, etc. in my games because I try to replicate a certain time of human history. I have sexism, racism, corruption, etc. in my games because I consider them to be principal flaws of humanity that will always occur in any given environment, in any given time.
When I say, I add these elements for realism, I don't mean "historical accuracy", I mean "accuracy in portraying humanity". A world in which humans/humanoids have completely unbiased views on each other without exception...to me it would just feel like I gave Humans gills or darkvision. I know that this is fantasy and I could create them like this, but I think it would estrange them too much from what they really are.

I completely agree with this. Looking at history is a good way to get ideas of human flaws such as sexism & racism, but because it happened in history is not why most DMs (myself included) put these elements into a setting.

Silkenfist
2007-10-09, 06:39 AM
Dawkins' analysis breaks down for a society where health care is advanced and where there are many routes to prominent success that have nothing to do with upper-body strength, such as a technological society or what logic expects the average D&D world to be. This is one of the problems with creating a world that has both gender equality and magic, but somehow retains a normal medieval social structure in other ways.

(Mostly) True. That's why I advocate for making the brutish Orc/Goblin tribes severely misogynist, backwards farming villagers mildly misogynist and large-scale societies with diverse backgrounds, races and choice of careers neigh-egalitarian (Plot NPCs still can be biased, though).


However, I still have to stress that it isn't that easy. Today, we have
many routes to prominent success that have nothing to do with upper-body strength and a very technological society. However, our culture still seems not to be completely egalitarian. (Although I accept the notion that a complex technology-based society clearly favors it)

DeathQuaker
2007-10-09, 06:40 AM
You are missing the point. I don't have sexism, racism, corruption, etc. in my games because I try to replicate a certain time of human history. I have sexism, racism, corruption, etc. in my games because I consider them to be principal flaws of humanity that will always occur in any given environment, in any given time.
When I say, I add these elements for realism, I don't mean "historical accuracy", I mean "accuracy in portraying humanity". A world in which humans/humanoids have completely unbiased views on each other without exception...to me it would just feel like I gave Humans gills or darkvision. I know that this is fantasy and I could create them like this, but I think it would estrange them too much from what they really are.

Sweetheart, you're trying to pick an argument with me when I'm mostly in agreement with you.

Regarding the concept of defending the "historical case," you clipped out the context where I said


If you (and by "you" I mean anybody trying to world build)

So stop taking that personally, because it wasn't directed towards you specifically. Any thing I said towards you was to acknowledge that I thought you were already taking a sensible approach to things. Continue to make up arguments where there were none, and I may change my mind.

bosssmiley
2007-10-09, 08:48 AM
Funny, I just thought he was Robert Howard's Gary Stu and way of making ends meet while indulging his love of history/naked ladies.

Naaah, Kull the Conqueror (his earlier Conan-a-like) was Robert E. Howards authorial self-insertion character. This was by his own admission. Conan was the "editor wants you to do another Kull series" character that made the breakthrough to the pop-culture mainstream. :smallwink:

As for sexism in fantasy gaming: like any other evil; it's something for the heroic characters to fight and overcome, but only so long as the players are cool with the campaign going that way. A couple of the girls I game with are closet Tamora Pierce fans and actually seem to *want* the occasional male chauvinist pig around to beat down and humiliate. I'm not going to speculate on their motives, it's just something else (along with the dragon-slaying) that's fun for them after a hard week at work.

Telonius
2007-10-09, 09:16 AM
I would think that resource-abundant societies, as well as societies that are capital-, knowledge-, or magic-intensive, would be the socieites that tend to be most egalitarian.

As far as the campaign goes, there should be as much racism, sexism, or any other ism, as the plot demands. No more, no less. If the level is making the players uncomfortable in either direction (too much or too little) it should be adjusted.

Middle Snu
2007-10-09, 09:22 AM
Best Avoided.

Knight_Of_Twilight
2007-10-09, 10:03 AM
I do admit, there's one setting that overt Chauvinism in my games triumphs and thats Hyborea. I can't really imagine doing a Conan game that wasn't littered with ridiculous machismo male-fantasy elements that make a Duke Nukem game look like the Lifetime Channel.

:smallsmile:

Eh, there are exceptions there, too. Belit is a more ruthless person then Conan, and she's the captain of a pirate crew. Valaria of the Red Brotherhood is a good fighter, and doesn't take crap from anyone ( including Conan )

Knight_Of_Twilight
2007-10-09, 10:06 AM
Funny, I just thought he was Robert Howard's Gary Stu and way of making ends meet while indulging his love of history/naked ladies.

Actually, Balthus, in Beyond the Black River is REH's Conan self insertion character. (Kull is closer to him, as someone stated) And things don't go terribly well for him.

Gilead
2007-10-09, 11:36 AM
you don't send your arachnophobic players to battle the Spider Goddess Lolth either.
You don't?

horseboy
2007-10-09, 02:59 PM
Funny, I just thought he was Robert Howard's Gary Stu and way of making ends meet while indulging his love of history/naked ladies.

What? he can't multitask? :smallwink:

That was also the first time I've ever heard anyone refer to Conan as a "Gary Stu". Interesting.

Edit:
He did kill men by the heaps, but never a woman if he could avoid it. So while Bélit and Red Sonia and many more powerful women passed him by, he did not think women and men were the same. But he did treat women well though, especially for the settings.

He married Belit, partly because she was his equal. Honestly I don't remember Red in Howard era Conan, I always thought she was Marvel inspired.

Ulzgoroth
2007-10-09, 03:17 PM
Dawkins' analysis breaks down for a society where health care is advanced and where there are many routes to prominent success that have nothing to do with upper-body strength, such as a technological society or what logic expects the average D&D world to be. This is one of the problems with creating a world that has both gender equality and magic, but somehow retains a normal medieval social structure in other ways.
Well, it depends on how prevalent and available you make the magic. If every village has a cleric or adept, you wouldn't expect anyone to die in childbirth, or for that matter in many of the other ways that people did in the real world, which will have quite a lot of impact. If people who can cast CmW are one in a thousand or less, not so much, though leaders not dying of infected wounds would make a difference.

And, um, magic is only a path to success for people with:
-Some kind of magical heritage and high charisma.
-An exceptional mind and substantial training.
-Whatever requirements you attach to divine casters...
These are kind of limited. At least, if you want them to be. Most people do work with their hands. For that matter, most people are occupied with the mostly unchanged process of agriculture, using the less-optimized crops and livestock and unsophisticated machinery of the medieval period. Because magic doesn't give you anything better, and you need to eat.

Knight_Of_Twilight
2007-10-09, 03:20 PM
Edit:
He married Belit, partly because she was his equal. Honestly I don't remember Red in Howard era Conan, I always thought she was Marvel inspired.

Conan thinks of Women as valuable as men- just cause he doesn't want to stab them doesn't make him think less of Female warriors. Besides, he even expects barbarian women to fight along the men- he just thinks civilized women are soft.

Also yeah, Red wasn't in any REH stories- unless you count her influence, Red Sonia, who was in a historical fiction story that took place in the 16th century. She was a prussian woman who was tough as nails with a chip on her shoulder, if I recall.

kamikasei
2007-10-10, 08:31 PM
Read the end of the graphic novel.

Evey becomes V, so V is a girl.

V as in Vaarsuvius... not the V you're thinking of.

Nowhere Girl
2007-10-10, 08:50 PM
It's always kind of annoyed me that the Drow and Githyanki, perhaps the most alien and evil societies in the DnD cosmology, are matriarchal. It's presenting women ruling as aberrant and freakish, and it annoys the hell out of me. Not that Drow culture doesn't have really cool fluff, but it just annoys me.

You know what? Me too. And this is actually the only (arguably) sexist thing that ever annoyed me in fantasy. I'm not bothered by the idea that there's sexism and that there are gender differences -- sexism and gender differences are both very real things, and I'm adult enough to accept that. I can even deal, emotionally, with the existence of the darker violent acts, such as torture and, yes, rape. (Although I might feel differently if I'd ever personally experienced either.)

But why is it that the moment any matriarchal society appears, it always has to be twisted and deranged somehow? Why can't there ever be a healthy, functional one?

psychoticbarber
2007-10-10, 08:52 PM
One of my societies in my homebrew world is jointly ruled by the Assassins' guild and the Mothers' Council. The mothers are there to reign in the Assassins' guild...I'm rather proud of that one, actually haha.

Starsinger
2007-10-10, 08:55 PM
But why is it that the moment any matriarchal society appears, it always has to be twisted and deranged somehow? Why can't there ever be a healthy, functional one?

I think, the Drow are that way because spiders have a tendency to eat their husbands.. Although now I'm racking my brain trying to think of a healthy, functional matriarchal society in fantasy.. Nightelves in WoW are semi-matriarchal, and they're rather healthy and functional...

P.S. Deathquaker, I love your new avatar.

horseboy
2007-10-10, 10:35 PM
I think, the Drow are that way because spiders have a tendency to eat their husbands.. Although now I'm racking my brain trying to think of a healthy, functional matriarchal society in fantasy.. Nightelves in WoW are semi-matriarchal, and they're rather healthy and functional...

P.S. Deathquaker, I love your new avatar.

Wow, that is hard. I mean, there's t'skrang and uh.....um....... Gez, you'd think that would be a common token trope nowadays. :smallconfused:

Dhavaer
2007-10-10, 10:41 PM
Are there any patriachal societies that aren't evil? The only one I can think of is orcs, and they're evil.

And are githyanki really matriachal?

Serpentine
2007-10-10, 11:24 PM
Well... Arguably, almost every human society in fantasy is patriarchal. Which is kinda sorta the point of the thread maybe... So yes.

You know, I think the impression I got from Races of the Dragon was that kobolds are almost completely egalitarian... And they're evil. Just thought that was kinda interesting.

Dhavaer
2007-10-10, 11:45 PM
I meant explicitly patriachal. With orcs, it says they are in the description, just like it does with drow.

quick_comment
2007-10-11, 11:48 AM
I meant explicitly patriachal. With orcs, it says they are in the description, just like it does with drow.

Perhaps this is because the case of matriarchal societies is the rarer case by far from the reader's perspective?

I expect that the entries for, say, creatures with four arms, take some care to mention this anatomical feature. Even if the fact that humans have only two arms is not mentioned as explicitly, I'm still of the opinion that they should fall pretty firmly into the "two-armed" camp.

Dhavaer
2007-10-11, 04:04 PM
Perhaps this is because the case of matriarchal societies is the rarer case by far from the reader's perspective?

Then why would it comment on orcs being patriarchal?

AKA_Bait
2007-10-11, 04:15 PM
I think, the Drow are that way because spiders have a tendency to eat their husbands.. Although now I'm racking my brain trying to think of a healthy, functional matriarchal society in fantasy..

Technically Formian's are matriarcial and healty of a sort... of course... they are giant outsider bugs...

Dhavaer
2007-10-11, 04:25 PM
Technically Formian's are matriarcial and healty of a sort... of course... they are giant outsider bugs...

Abiels (Abliels? The bee people) are also matriarchal and less antagonistic than formians.

puppyavenger
2007-10-11, 07:07 PM
Nightelves in WoW are semi-matriarchal, and they're rather healthy and functional

realy I thought the arcdruid was the head of state?

note I have never touched WOW so excuse my possible ignorence

Starsinger
2007-10-11, 07:51 PM
realy I thought the arcdruid was the head of state?

note I have never touched WOW so excuse my possible ignorence

Nah, the Arch-Druid is in charge of the Druids, which were an (until recently) almost exclusively male sect. However, the non-druidic populace was ruled by the Sentinels and Priestesses of the Moon, both of which were (until recently) almost exclusively female.