The most resilient gender conventions in roleplaying games?

[The Fury]

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

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

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

[Ralanr]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

[Sith_Happens]

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

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

[Yukitsu]

This is NPCs in general.

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

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

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

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

[Frozen_Feet]

It seems logical, but it's really a bad idea...

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

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

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

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

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

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

[SpectralDerp]

Since gender is supposed to be about social constructs and roles anywa

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

[Frozen_Feet]

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

[Steampunkette]

Spectral, it's transgender. Not transgendered.

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

[SpectralDerp]

SpectralDerp, you're still not arguing against anything I've said.

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

[Frozen_Feet]

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

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

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

[SpectralDerp]

A condition is physical if it primarily affects the state of the affected, not just any condition with physical causes such ad the brain and genetics.

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

[Frozen_Feet]

A condition is physical if it primarily affects the state of the affected

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

[SpectralDerp]

The missing word is obviously physical.

But yeah, phone.

[Frozen_Feet]

The division between mental and physical is somewhat obsolete, as modern science is not dualistic. But okay, let's agree transsexualism isn't a physical condition.

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

It still has roots in genetics and biochemistry.

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

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

[Segev]

Ah, the can of worms that is special privilege based on race.

Is this really the thread for it?

[SpectralDerp]

Frozen Feet, I kinda doubt you even understood what I was actually disagreeing with.

[Ralanr]

Ah, the can of worms that is special privilege based on race.

Is this really the thread for it?

It is slowly becoming it.

[Frozen_Feet]

Frozen Feet, I kinda doubt you even understood what I was actually disagreeing with.

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

[Karl Aegis]

Wait, are we treating Holy Race War like it is a legitimate game now? Please don't. It doesn't even have combat mechanics.

[The Grue]

Myself, I'm intensely curious how this discussion does not fall under Politics.

[Steampunkette]

Because it has nothing to do with governance or people trying to achieve power and the thread's topic is instead about story tropes.

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

[Tiktik Ironclaw]

Last-ditch effort to find some rails!

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

[Segev]

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

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

[Steampunkette]

That's part of it, Segev.

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

[Sith_Happens]

It's also why Kings are men and female rulers are Queens who have one or more consorts as their husbands rather than having Kings taking the political place of queens within society.

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

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

[goto124]

But does he hold the power of a King? Doesn't seem so in this case.

[Sith_Happens]

But does he hold the power of a King? Doesn't seem so in this case.

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

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

[Segev]

It's also why Kings are men and female rulers are Queens who have one or more consorts as their husbands rather than having Kings taking the political place of queens within society.

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

[Sith_Happens]

You can have ruling Queens, and non-ruling Kings (see many Constitutional Monarchies wherein the royal family are figureheads).

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

[Steampunkette]

In one of the best 5e games I've played in so far, my character is a Princess.

The Princess Venyra Salitzar of the Immortal Principality of Hult.

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

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

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

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