weird question.. and yes, I'm an anonymous coward..

[Anonymous]

I've seen a lot of male characters walking around with no shirt, just a cloak, this seems to be fine... Thinking that there is no sexism in Zalanthas, how accepted would it be for a commomer woman to walk around half-naked like this? Or does equality only go so far?

[Dracul]

Just fine.

Somethign memorable with one char there was a tribal character who walked around like that...and some people tried commenting on it...I was one of those who tried to show by example that it was no big deal. I didn't like it when people reacted to it as something offensive.

No big deal....

[Delirium]

I've seen a lot of male characters walking around with no shirt, just a cloak, this seems to be fine... Thinking that there is no sexism in Zalanthas, how accepted would it be for a commomer woman to walk around half-naked like this? Or does equality only go so far?

Actually, I sniff a bit of possible code confusion here.  Cloaks, when worn, obscure objects worn on the torso (such as shirts), belt, and waist.  These characters may indeed be wearing shirts, you just can't see them code-wise.

Roleplay-wise: If I recall correctly, in Tuluk it is acceptable for a woman to show skin or wear more risque outfits, though going topless outside of a bar or strip show might get some remarks.  In Allanak, women do not show skin, but outfits are often form-fitting and leave little to the imagination, in contrast to Tuluk's generally looser clothing.

[Cenghiz]

[derailment]My char would be pleased.....[/derailment]
AFAIK (and I can be wrong) it's 'no no' to be half-naked in south, for both males and females. I remember folks of higher tier getting pissed seeing naked chests.
I know nothing about northern traditions or the traditions of Luir's, though.

[Dracul]

Oh really? Oops. I wasn't thinking there obviously. I'll concede to the last two posts.

[Vanth]

As far as I know, there is no differentiation within either the Allanaki or Tuluki cultures regarding gender and what's appropriate to wear.  In Allanak, it's considered risque (or tacky) for either men or women to show too much skin. In Tuluk, the clothing is both looser and more revealing, for both genders.

[Marauder Moe]

No different at all?  Somehow I doubt there are many men wearing skirts and dresses, though.

[Larrath]

Men and women have different garments, but it doesn't mean one sex can be more revealing than the other without getting odd looks.

If a man can walk around bare-chested (or wear a vest with nothing underneath) and not get any odd looks, there's no reason why a woman shouldn't be able to.
In Allanak, neither sex should be able to do that unless they were extremely poor.  Clothes in Allanak are long, tight and generally uncomfortable because they mimick the clothing worn by the nobility.  And the nobility basically just wears the most impossible clothes they can possibly find, using it to display their power.

In Tuluk, visible skin is more accepted, but that doesn't include the waist.  I doubt anyone would want to walk around in a loincloth and risk looking like a slave.

[John]

Actually, I believe I've had trouble with certain robes and shirt combinations, forcing me to decide between wearing a robe or a shirt (but not both). I mostly choose the robe and just refuse to take it off.

[Sholdyn]

I can't really see anyone getting too pissed off about someone walking around topless, but I can see some people getting a little too excited. Your character should keep that in mind too.

[Cuusardo]

Sexism is largely nonexistent on Zalanthas.

[RunningMountain]

Sexism should be existance though, and I always play my characters as looking at females "below" him, no matter how much people like to say but they are "equal" codewise blah blah, I disagree, no matter how much you say OOC concepts shouldn't be brought into an IC world with different politics, etc, it will be and I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing, such as woman taking the name of the man during marriage, and men simply being the more powerful gender, (physically and politcally).

[flurry]

Sexism should be existance though, and I always play my characters as looking at females "below" him, no matter how much people like to say but they are "equal" codewise blah blah, I disagree, no matter how much you say OOC concepts shouldn't be brought into an IC world with different politics, etc, it will be and I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing, such as woman taking the name of the man during marriage, and men simply being the more powerful gender, (physically and politcally).

The absence of sexism is part of the documentation, just as much as the fact that elves don't ride kanks.   You can disagree with that all you want, but it's like disagreeing that dwarves should be hairless.

That said, I don't think that necessarily means that Zalanthan fashion would be the same for men and women in all respects.  It's not really addressed officially, as far as I've seen.  Although the fashion doc refers to "women's dresses" and some item descriptions seem to have a particular gender in mind.

[Larrath]

Sexism does NOT exist in Zalanthas, RunningMountain.  This has nothing to do with the coded aspect.  Someone viewing females (or males) as beneath/above him is a pretty damned rare exception to the rule.
Also, Zalanthan men aren't stronger than Zalanthan women, not in theory (purely IC) and not in practice (where OOC mechanics go).

Making every single character of yours look at women as inferior is simply bad roleplay, in my eyes... Unless every single character of yours is a little crazy?
There is nothing in Zalanthas that says you should help a woman or treat her better than a man, except maybe if she's pregnant and even then, Zalanthans aren't famous for their generous spirit.

Sexism doesn't exist.  Should it?  Maybe, but it doesn't, so please don't play as though it did, or at least don't play (assuming that you do) as though these concepts are anything other than really really strange.

[RunningMountain]

I didn't tell you how to play, so don't tell me how to play, and don't judge my roleplay.

[Larrath]

I didn't tell you how to play, so don't tell me how to play, and don't judge my roleplay.

This isn't personal against you, RunningMoutain, even though I did direct my response to you.
Armageddon has documentations, and these need to be followed.  Some rules aren't as strict (people are afraid of magick and worship their Sorcerer-Kings), while others are very strict - all elves steal or want to steal, all dwarves are completely hairless, all half-elves are bipolar, and men and women are equal.

This is why the documents are there.  If my concept of a Preserver was a holy saviour loved by the masses while another player thought a Preserver was actually just Tektolnes putting on a mask whenever he felt he was getting too close to annoying the True Higher Power That Rules Zalanthas, we'd just have a lot of chaos.

I'm not trying to be the roleplay police here, but some things do have to be followed.  It's part of the game's rules, just like you're not allowed to beat people up with clubs when you play Basketball.

[Cenghiz]

Nope, Running Mountain. We will tell you to make your dwarves hairless and focused all his life for one goal, your elves always on foot and filled with distrust against anyone but his tribe, and your characters having no idea of sexism. These are the rules of the game.

[RunningMountain]

The fact that it is in the documentation means it is followed by the masses, like you stated dwarves are always hairless, half-elves are bipolar, and elves always want to steal from people.  

This is all in the documentation, yes, but it's all racial documentation, when it comes to social, political structures, such as men and woman being equal, I tend to sway away from it, because I feel that woman are not represented as equal, so why should I play as if they are?

Rarely do you see a female PC that is anywhere near the level of power as male PCs, same goes for the NPCs, take a look at the history page and there are -very- few instances where a female is cited to have done something to the caliber as the males, so tell me why they are so equal?

The documentation can state it all it wants, I refuse to play my characters like they're going to be liberal in a world with absolutely no liberty.  Where's the sense in that?  The two city-states are run by dictators that set harsh laws, and have harsher consequences for breaking those laws, they have an iron-fist over the populace and they are both males,(hence the use of King) and you expect my characters to think that the very few females that he does encounter (which are always dainty fair maidens) are equal to him? Hardly.  

-RM

[RunningMountain]

Nope, Running Mountain. We will tell you to make your dwarves hairless and focused all his life for one goal, your elves always on foot and filled with distrust against anyone but his tribe, and your characters having no idea of sexism. These are the rules of the game.

Heh you can tell me to play anyway you like, I'll still play realistically.

-RM

[RunningMountain]

I don't want anyone to get the wrong impression here, I'm not talking about nobility or anything like that, I am talking about commoner and commoner.  If my characters run into a female noble, he knows she is better then him, in every way possible, because that is a caste system social structure that he would have been raised and beaten into believing.  

However when it comes to the same social level, very rarely would one of my PCs look up to a female, hasn't happened yet, and I don't believe it ever will, females just aren't played equally.

-RM

[sacac]

Rarely do you see a female PC that is anywhere near the level of power as male PCs, same goes for the NPCs, take a look at the history page and there are -very- few instances where a female is cited to have done something to the caliber as the males, so tell me why they are so equal?

The documentation can state it all it wants, I refuse to play my characters like they're going to be liberal in a world with absolutely no liberty.  Where's the sense in that?  The two city-states are run by dictators that set harsh laws, and have harsher consequences for breaking those laws, they have an iron-fist over the populace and they are both males,(hence the use of King) and you expect my characters to think that the very few females that he does encounter (which are always dainty fair maidens) are equal to him? Hardly.  

-RM

I agree there, but those are examples of ooc thoughts going IG.
Men can be dainty too, but most men OOcly think "oh, if I do that, it means I'm gay! And homie don't swing that way." Or whatever.

But Ig, there should be no sexism.
There are more male hero's because more males play the game and insist on being that fore front hero. And then I play wanting to be the backstreet hero.

Does that make sense to you?

[joyofdiscord]

Rarely do you see a female PC that is anywhere near the level of power as male PCs, same goes for the NPCs, take a look at the history page and there are -very- few instances where a female is cited to have done something to the caliber as the males, so tell me why they are so equal?

I'd guess this is a sort of legacy of real life slipping in.  That doesn't mean things -have- to be that way, but if RL attitudes continue to dominate IG roleplay, you will see this trnd continue.

The documentation can state it all it wants, I refuse to play my characters like they're going to be liberal in a world with absolutely no liberty.  

"Liberal" depends on context.  Gender equality (or equality for gays, or equality of skin color) is not a liberal concept in Zalanthas because that's just the way it is.  "Liberal" would be "elves and half-elves are equal to us, and magickers are just regular people who happen to have special powers."  THAT doesn't fit into the Zalanthan context, and shouldn't.

very few females that he does encounter (which are always dainty fair maidens)

First of all, I definitely would not say that female chars are always fair maidens, although I'll grudgingly admit there's probably WAY more than there should be.  But once again, this is RL attitudes seeping into the play,  and it's a problem, not something we should take as the ways things ought to be.

[sacac]

Just because they are dainty, doesn't mean they can't get you killed.
Noble or not.

[RunningMountain]

Getting me killed isn't the point, sacac.  There's plenty of female PCs that could probably beat my character's ass in combat, or by use of magick, whatnot, it's the belief factor that matters, and the use of a realistic output to make my character believe that he shouldn't cross her.  Nevertheless I've yet to encounter someone like that, and I've been playing a long time.

[joyofdiscord]

There are more male hero's because more males play the game and insist on being that fore front hero. And then I play wanting to be the backstreet hero.

Does that make sense to you?

It's definitely true that more males play the game, and most players probably prefer playing their own RL gender.  That alone would be enough to skew the hero quotient toward males.  Male players probably are disproportionately inclined to want to be the macho hero, but my own male pride doesn't want to believe that most of us fall into that trap, instead of just wanting to play a realistic character of our preferred type.  Myself, I almost universally play scumbags and outcasts, and usually not very successful ones or heroic even within their own context.  Just doesn't float my boat.  I often enjoy playing the loser.