Bit of Mysogyny?

[Alias]

Ran into this in another thread..

It's been alluded to already, but I'll cal out 1e's restrictions on what classes (or highest level in a class) you are allowed to have by race. And, for misogyny's sake, the rule limiting females to a higher max STR score than males. (IIRC, aren't there also racial minimums/maximums for ability scores, too?)

Never followed those rules myself, because they aren't really that fun and besides, what's the point other than (usually) punishing female players and characters.

Still, my setting does have one moment of gender split in a race - among halflings. Taking a note from The Dark Crystal, the female halflings of my world, Oyasini, have wings. Males do not. As I'm currently adjusting the race to Pathfinder norms I've decided to let the two diverge a little further.

Oyasoi (Males)
+2 DEX, +2 CHA, -2 STR
Fearless: Oyasoi receive a +2 racial bonus on all saving throws against fear. This bonus stacks with the bonus granted by halfling luck.

Halfling Luck: Halflings receive a +1 racial bonus on all saving throws.


Oyasi (Females)
+2 DEX, +2 WIS, -2 STR
Flight: Oyasi are winged and Fly is always a class skill for them. While unable to take off from a stand, they can safe fall any distance on a DC 15 check. In high favorable winds they can glide long distances.


Both Sexes:
Size: Oyasini are Small creatures and gain a +1 size bonus to their AC, a +1 size bonus on attack rolls, a –1 penalty to their CMB and CMD, and a +4 size bonus on Stealth checks.

Sure-Footed: Oyasini receive a +2 racial bonus on Acrobatics and Climb checks.

Keen Senses: Oyasini receive a +2 racial bonus on Perception checks.

Weapon Familiarity: Oyasini are proficient with spears and treat any weapon with the word “oyasin” in its name as a martial weapon.

Base Speed (Slow Speed): Oyasini have a base speed of 20 feet.

Languages: Oyasini begin play speaking Common and Oyari. Oyasini with high Intelligence scores can choose from the following: Dwarven, Elven, Gnome, and Goblin. See the Linguistics skill page for more information about these languages.

The main change from 3.5 is that the PF decided to give the all the base races +2 in something, and in the case of halflings it was charisma. I chose to let this be the split point, the males get that +2 charisma boost, but the females get a +2 wisdom boost instead.

What girls I've had in the group have never complained about the split, but none have wanted to play a halfling in the first place so I haven't been able to see one of these in the hands of a PC yet. Even when one of the guys has played a halfling no one has wanted to play across gender to pick up the glide ability. Then again, I've only got one power gamer and halflings aren't that great for hack and slash with their smaller weapons and strength penalty.

[Spuddles]

It's not sexism if they're not human.

[molten_dragon]

Personally, I just don't think making differences between sexes in any race is worth it. You always run the risk that someone will be offended.

However, as long as your party is okay with it, I don't see a big deal with it. The females' wings seem a little more powerful than the males' saving throw bonuses. But not enough so that it's going to break the game or anything.

[Duke of URL]

Even core 3.5 has a gender split -- favored classes for Drow vary by male/female.

Favored Class: Wizard (male) or cleric (female). This trait replaces the high elf’s favored class.

Gender splits are not misogynistic in and of themselves, as long as both genders gain/lose things roughly equally; it's only when one gender is specifically denied something the other can have that you get into sexism -- in 3.5, there are still some examples of this (e.g., Swanmay [BoED] is restricted to females, despite having no actual mechanics that depend on gender).

[KillianHawkeye]

It's not sexism if they're not human.

Say what??

That makes no sense. Most non-human creatures are bi-gendered just like we are. Being human has nothing to do with it (provided the species is intelligent enough to be capable of choosing between discriminatory and non-discriminatory behavior).

[Alias]

Well, there are people with such paper thin skin everything offends them - they aren't the ones I'm concerned with. This race is the only one I do this with because, well, the line from the movie sold it..

Jen - "Wings!? Where.. uh... I don't have wings!!"
Kira - "Of course not silly - you're a boy."

Society-wise I did get the pleasure of creating a culture. For all of the Dark Crystal, we see two individuals, not a culture. And oyasini culture itself is decidedly reverse sexist.

Part of this stems from birthrates - only 1/3rd of oyasini are female to begin with. Being in the minority, they nevertheless control much of the political system. Their society practices polyandry (one wife will usually have multiple husbands).

[Spuddles]

Why the skewed birth rate? Typically gender ratios move to 50:50 due to the advantage conveyed to minority genders. A gene that increased the chance of female offspring in your halfling population would rapidly spread. Eventually, the gender ratio would equilibrize close to half & half.

In humans, there tend to be slightly more males born than females (107 to 100, respectively), as males tend to suffer slightly higher rates of mortality than females.

Assuming natural selection acts on the halfling population, males must be dying at a rate of 3:1 compared to females.

[Andorax]

I don't have all the details in front of me, but FWIW I did a d20 conversion of my own of WoW's Naga...the females are four-armed and favor casting classes, the males are Large and favor melee builds.


I think the key point is finding out the comfort level of your gaming group. If nobody is bothered by it, then by all means diversify away, but be willing to let go of that if it's causing someone an issue (and be willing to talk privately one on one with each player to find out if that's the case).

[prufock]

Sexual dimorphism is a real thing; it isn't misogynist or sexism to point out that, for instance, human women have a higher average body fat percentage than men. If one member of a species has wings, or red stripes, or is much larger, this isn't sexism. Speculating on unproven differences is a different matter.

But since we're dealing with fantasy races, there's nothing particularly sexist about having them be sexually dimorphic. There is no speculation, because you define how your races work. One sex has wings and the other doesn't? There are moths like that.

The differences should be balanced, of course. If one sex is significantly more or less powerful, a level adjustment should reflect that.

None of this is to suggest that it is a good idea, though. There are reasons not to do this:
- Player wants to play x race with y gender, but that gender doesn't get the mechanical benefits desired. Of course, you could say that racial differences pose the same issue anyway, which is true, but now you're adding an additional restriction.
- Increased complexity in the system.
- Doing this with humans might make others suspect you believe these differences apply to real humans, not just the fantasy ones, which is probably what would get you "sexism" complaints.

[Yuukale]

Even core 3.5 has a gender split -- favored classes for Drow vary by male/female.

This isn't bad mechanics considering drow cities that worship Lolth, where gender roles are seriously enforced and respected.

That said, designers should bear in mind that any other kind of drow society this isn't true (surface drows, vhaeraunite drows, etc...). I believe this shows lack of designer attention instead of purposeful gender-bias. Of course, only in this case.

[Kaeso]

If anything those stats are more misandrist than misogynic. The females get a bonus to a better stat (wis as opposed to cha) and flight. Even if it's only gliding, it allows them (sometimes literally) to give the finger to anything that's limited to melee combat.

[Akisa]

Why the skewed birth rate? Typically gender ratios move to 50:50 due to the advantage conveyed to minority genders. A gene that increased the chance of female offspring in your halfling population would rapidly spread. Eventually, the gender ratio would equilibrize close to half & half.

In humans, there tend to be slightly more males born than females (107 to 100, respectively), as males tend to suffer slightly higher rates of mortality than females.

Assuming natural selection acts on the halfling population, males must be dying at a rate of 3:1 compared to females.

Not always the case, it is possible that for females to grossly out populate males. For example in Short Finned pilot whales the ratio is 8 females to 1 male.

[shimmercat]

I think this is a really fun idea. Yeah, it doesn't make 100% sense from a biological perspective for a 3:1 gender split, but this is a fantasy world so 100% sense isn't always necessary. As long as your players think it's a neat idea, go for it.

The female IS quiet a bit more powerful than the male as written, so I can see possible conflict there... But I don't play PF so I'm not sure how to balance it.

[NerfTW]

Say what??

That makes no sense. Most non-human creatures are bi-gendered just like we are. Being human has nothing to do with it (provided the species is intelligent enough to be capable of choosing between discriminatory and non-discriminatory behavior).

It makes perfect sense. Why would a non human race follow human evolution norms? Just look around you and you'll see plenty of species on our own planet in reality where the male and females are distinctly different, even in size and natural abilities.

For humans, you'd want to be equal, because we basically are. There's no massive difference between genders other than sexual organs/characteristics and a few minor psychological differences. If you make a major difference, you shouldn't call them human anymore.

But once you start making imaginary fantasy species, why do they have to be entirely based off humans?

[Spuddles]

Not always the case, it is possible that for females to grossly out populate males. For example in Short Finned pilot whales the ratio is 8 females to 1 male.

"They are polygynous (males have more than one mate) and are often found in groups with a ratio of one mature male to about every eight mature females. Males generally leave their birth school, while females may remain in theirs for their entire lifetime."

That merely describes polygonous behavior. It doesn't actually say anything about sex ratios at birth. The association of animals in space (demographics) is a very different thing than the relationship between the sexes at birth.

[Eldan]

It makes perfect sense. Why would a non human race follow human evolution norms? Just look around you and you'll see plenty of species on our own planet in reality where the male and females are distinctly different, even in size and natural abilities.

For humans, you'd want to be equal, because we basically are. There's no massive difference between genders other than sexual organs/characteristics and a few minor psychological differences. If you make a major difference, you shouldn't call them human anymore.

But once you start making imaginary fantasy species, why do they have to be entirely based off humans?

You can, however, still be sexist about non-humans. Both male and female elves have the same intelligence score on average. If I claim that female elves are less intelligent than male elves, that is still sexist.

[Synovia]

Never followed those rules myself, because they aren't really that fun and besides, what's the point other than (usually) punishing female players and characters.

If you're trying to play a simulationist game, then these sorts of restrictions make sense. There are things that men do better than women, and things women do better than men. In real life, the human limits of strength and speed are higher for men than women.

(for instance, men had run a 4 minute mile before women ran a 5 minute one. Right now the record is 3:43 for men and 4:12 for women. Similar differences exist in most race lengths)

Now, in the case of superheros, which higher level D&D characters basically are, it probably doesn't have meaning. Is Wonder woman less strong than some arbitrary male superstrength human because shes a woman? Who knows.

[Boci]

In another thread someone came up with an optimal trait something like this::

Male Physic:
You take a -2 penalty to all dex based skills, but gain a +2 bonus to all strength based skills.

Female Physic:
You take a -2 penalty all strength based skills, but gan a +2 to bonus to concentration checks and saves against pain.

[lunar2]

well, women's greater pain tolerance is a matter of debate, so i don't think that's such a great measure. also, you shouldn't take penalties due to gender. saying that men have a +1 bonus to strength based checks, while women have a +1 bonus to dexterity based checks would be more fair. you have a clear, minor difference between genders that carries the flavor of the gender difference, but doesn't have a major gameplay effect. also, you don't penalize certain genders taking cetain career choices. why should a male have a penalty to open lock checks, for example? or why should a female be a bad climber?

[Boci]

well, women's greater pain tolerance is a matter of debate, so i don't think that's such a great measure. also, you shouldn't take penalties due to gender. saying that men have a +1 bonus to strength based checks, while women have a +1 bonus to dexterity based checks would be more fair. you have a clear, minor difference between genders that carries the flavor of the gender difference, but doesn't have a major gameplay effect. also, you don't penalize certain genders taking cetain career choices. why should a male have a penalty to open lock checks, for example? or why should a female be a bad climber?

If they are optional traits, then why not?

[Andorax]

well, women's greater pain tolerance is a matter of debate, so i don't think that's such a great measure. also, you shouldn't take penalties due to gender. saying that men have a +1 bonus to strength based checks, while women have a +1 bonus to dexterity based checks would be more fair. you have a clear, minor difference between genders that carries the flavor of the gender difference, but doesn't have a major gameplay effect. also, you don't penalize certain genders taking cetain career choices. why should a male have a penalty to open lock checks, for example? or why should a female be a bad climber?

Without commenting on the gender issue, I can clarify part of this. Traits, as introduced in Unearthed Arcana, are a paired minor bonus and penalty. These are correctly formatted as traits.

Presumably, you wouldn't be REQUIRED to take your gender trait, you'd just have gender-exclusive access to it as an additional available choice.

[HunterOfJello]

First of all, I'm kind of glad that I'm not an Oyasi. A society of highly wise women who are all uglier than the men doesn't sound like much fun. (Not to mention the women have max charisma of 16. )

Okay, joking aside, I think the original versions of D&D have to be viewed through the lens of a group of gentlemen who were trying to create a fantasy game that had a foundation rule set that was as realistic as possible. If you want to be as realistic as possible, then humans do have a trend of women who are less strong than men. The average human male has stronger arm muscles than the average female human.

HOWEVER, I think it is worth examining the world at large and noting that the Player Characters in D&D are not normal adventures in the slightest. (At least not normally.) When a female human Strongwoman adventurer with levels in Barbarian joins a party, she isn't likely to resemble anything like a normal female human. She's more likely to look like a linebacker herself than a dainty princess. That single reason is why I disagree with adding in female versus male ability differences for races.

If the game allowed for giving +1 bonuses and -1 minuses, then I might have a different idea for how things should be arranged, but how things are right now discourages that (because of point buy abuse, etc.).

~

It's also worth noting that D&D is by far not the only game to set up differences between males and females. I remember playing many many RPGs on the playstation that gave men and women different stats. Men would get boosts to physical things like strength and women would get boosts to magic or mental type stats.

~

As a side note, I'm surprised that male and female drow don't have different stat bonuses since women are supposed to be stronger than almost all males.

~

*edit*

Another thought occurs to me. Stat differences should only exist if it's impossible for one gender to be as strong or dexterous or wise as the other. I don't think any sort of stat difference should be implemented otherwise. Also, if the possible end difference leans far one way or the other because of training, then classes or PrCs would be in effect. A STRONGMAN PrC could take a human male into a strength zone that isn't attainable by women, but that zone is nowhere near what is normal for a human who doesn't go through years of training for it.

[Reluctance]

It's sexist if you imply that the difference is due to inherent masculinity/femininity. (Which, while they do exist in the real world, should matter in D&D about as much as real weapon trauma and real inability to cast fireballs do.) You're saying that this is a quirk of one race, not a statement on men/women in general.

[Boci]

It's sexist if you imply that the difference is due to inherent masculinity/femininity. (Which, while they do exist in the real world, should matter in D&D about as much as real weapon trauma and real inability to cast fireballs do.) You're saying that this is a quirk of one race, not a statement on men/women in general.

But then you have to come up male and females traits for every race. Its easily to just make 1 and try and make the differences equal.

[lunar2]

If they are optional traits, then why not?

whoops, sorry. you didn't say optional, you said optimal (as in, this is how it should be). i wasn't thinking about UA traits, i was thinking about racial traits.

[KillianHawkeye]

It makes perfect sense. Why would a non human race follow human evolution norms? Just look around you and you'll see plenty of species on our own planet in reality where the male and females are distinctly different, even in size and natural abilities.

For humans, you'd want to be equal, because we basically are. There's no massive difference between genders other than sexual organs/characteristics and a few minor psychological differences. If you make a major difference, you shouldn't call them human anymore.

But once you start making imaginary fantasy species, why do they have to be entirely based off humans?

You entirely missed my point, which was that Spuddles' comment about sexism being limited to humans was absurd. My post also had nothing to do with evolution or about difference or equality of the genders in humans or other fantasy races.

[Wyntonian]

But then you have to come up male and females traits for every race. Its easily to just make 1 and try and make the differences equal.

Female dwarves should have a bonus to disguise checks to appear as a male dwarf.

Because, y'know, beards.

[King Atticus]

I'm not sure if Charisma has the same physical connotations in PF that 3.5 applies, but shouldn't the gender with the pretty Faery-esque wings get the higher Charisma bonus? They are bound to make them more appealing especially when compared to their wingless male counterparts.

[Zale]

I'm not sure if Charisma has the same physical connotations in PF that 3.5 applies, but shouldn't the gender with the pretty Faery-esque wings get the higher Charisma bonus? They are bound to make them more appealing especially when compared to their wingless male counterparts.

Like reverse Peacocks?

[King Atticus]

Like reverse Peacocks?

EXACTLY!