Unsex cloaks

[Tisiphone]

I thought I was clear in the OP, but apparently not.

I'm not arguing for hidden-sex characters. We might want andro/undefined characters, but that's a different thread.

All I'm suggesting is that emote substitutions that are sex-coded (the ones that use pronouns, viz. !, #, ^, etc. but not ~, %, and =) are changed to sex-neutral pronouns in cases where the game is already hiding your sex, specifically when your sdesc follows the form of 'the so and so figure in the such and such cloak'.

Would this keep you from seeing someone's sex? No, use the look command. Or the assess command.

As for arguments that you can tell via voice, the intentional lack of sexual dimorphism in Zalanthas could very well extend to voice. If someone has a feminine voice, he can roleplay that. Or if a masculine voice, he can roleplay that. Or if he gives you no audible clues via emotes you can use the look or the assess command and then roleplay that you figured out his sex. Or hers.

One more time, for clarity: the only proposed change is to turn this

The short figure in the roughspun brown cloak adjusts her seat at the bar before looking around to see if anyone is staring at her.

into

The short figure in the roughspun brown cloak adjusts its seat at the bar before looking around to see if anyone is staring at it.

(Yes, maybe that's ugly. Thus the poll.)

[Case]

Desex cloaks.

[RogueGunslinger]

Would it be less ugly with them and their?

The short figure in the roughspun brown cloak adjusts their seat at the bar before looking around to see if anyone is staring at them.

I think I would be fine with that.

[Pale Horse]

Would it be less ugly with them and their?

The short figure in the roughspun brown cloak adjusts their seat at the bar before looking around to see if anyone is staring at them.

I think I would be fine with that.

[Tisiphone]

I strongly resent the drift of the use of the third person plural for the third person singular, but I'm a grammatical pedant, as a careful reading of my posts will reveal.

[valeria]

I strongly resent the drift of the use of the third person plural for the third person singular, but I'm a grammatical pedant, as a careful reading of my posts will reveal.

That's a very old-school grammar rule that isn't necessary to follow.  It's widely accepted now in speech and writing.  There are also some genderqueer people who prefer to identify as them/their.

Anyway, I prefer the them/their look.

[Harmless]

I like the option of the change but I don't want it forced on me. I still vote no.

[whitt]

As for arguments that you can tell via voice, the intentional lack of sexual dimorphism in Zalanthas could very well extend to voice.

I feel this lack of sexist, gender-based roles is being sorely misinterpreted when extended to imply there is no physiological difference between a male and female zalanthan.

It is arguably possible (and codedly so) for any zalanthan (female or male) to be physically as capable as any other zalanthan of the same race in the performance of coded abilities related to their physical and mental capabilities without those similarities signifying a total obliteration of gendered appearance.

It is also the case, enforced more so by GM fiat and against civilization's inherent tendencies based on who bears children and who doesn't, that there are no gender norm'd roles in society.  This does not equate to the obliteration of gendered appearance.

Finally there is the normalcy of same gender relationships, which does nothing to discount gendered appearance.  In the case of same gender relationships there is still an expectation, based on appearance, of what one is going to find "down there".  There is no premise for every relationship in the Known to be a case of Zalanthan Roulette as the clothes come off.

Long way around this?  I'm all for being able to make an androgynous character or find suitably disguising gear that masks one's gender while the gear is on such that the code alters to "You hear a voice from the east" or "the figure grabs their stuff while they run out the door", however basing that decision on the premise that male and female are arbitrary labels in Zalanthas is a poor choice of foundation for the argument.

[Desertman]

I thought I was clear in the OP, but apparently not.

I'm not arguing for hidden-sex characters. We might want andro/undefined characters, but that's a different thread.

All I'm suggesting is that emote substitutions that are sex-coded (the ones that use pronouns, viz. !, #, ^, etc. but not ~, %, and =) are changed to sex-neutral pronouns in cases where the game is already hiding your sex, specifically when your sdesc follows the form of 'the so and so figure in the such and such cloak'.

Would this keep you from seeing someone's sex? No, use the look command. Or the assess command.

As for arguments that you can tell via voice, the intentional lack of sexual dimorphism in Zalanthas could very well extend to voice. If someone has a feminine voice, he can roleplay that. Or if a masculine voice, he can roleplay that. Or if he gives you no audible clues via emotes you can use the look or the assess command and then roleplay that you figured out his sex. Or hers.

One more time, for clarity: the only proposed change is to turn this

The short figure in the roughspun brown cloak adjusts her seat at the bar before looking around to see if anyone is staring at her.

into

The short figure in the roughspun brown cloak adjusts its seat at the bar before looking around to see if anyone is staring at it.

(Yes, maybe that's ugly. Thus the poll.)

It wouldn't break my game.

But it's also not breaking my game now, nor anyone else's.

If some staffer has a lot of free time and wants to champion the cause, more power to them, it won't break my dick if it gets put in.

But, in general, I don't see any actual value in the change.

[Desertman]

As for arguments that you can tell via voice, the intentional lack of sexual dimorphism in Zalanthas could very well extend to voice.

I feel this lack of sexist, gender-based roles is being sorely misinterpreted when extended to imply there is no physiological difference between a male and female zalanthan.

It is arguably possible (and codedly so) for any zalanthan (female or male) to be physically as capable as any other zalanthan of the same race in the performance of coded abilities related to their physical and mental capabilities without those similarities signifying a total obliteration of gendered appearance.

It is also the case, enforced more so by GM fiat and against civilization's inherent tendencies based on who bears children and who doesn't, that there are no gender norm'd roles in society.  This does not equate to the obliteration of gendered appearance.

Finally there is the normalcy of same gender relationships, which does nothing to discount gendered appearance.  In the case of same gender relationships there is still an expectation, based on appearance, of what one is going to find "down there".  There is no premise for every relationship in the Known to be a case of Zalanthan Roulette as the clothes come off.

Long way around this?  I'm all for being able to make an androgynous character or find suitably disguising gear that masks one's gender while the gear is on such that the code alters to "You hear a voice from the east" or "the figure grabs their stuff while they run out the door", however basing that decision on the premise that male and female are arbitrary labels in Zalanthas is a poor choice of foundation for the argument.

You have to keep in mind that the premise behind the genders being equal in Zalanthas has nothing to do with the lore in reality.

It exists for one reason. OOC sensibilities.

That's fine, but trying to explain actual physiological differences and similarities between the genders by rationalizing the lore and the genetics of the beings of the game world is folly.

It won't ever make any sense because there is no IC reason for it, it exists in its entirety for OOC reasons.

It's one of those things that you just kind of have to gloss over.

MOST people are going to play characters that fit traditional gender roles in terms of physical appearance/voice etc.

The stipulation that if someone doesn't you have to "pretend to not notice", is really just there as an OOC rule and consideration.

I'm glad the rule exists, but, I think trying to rationalize it into the IC world is just always going to be sort of "meh". It exists for OOC reasons, always has, always will.

[Jihelu]

This doesn't extend to clothing though, because you will get looks for wearing dresses.
Those sexist bastards.

[Desertman]

This doesn't extend to clothing though, because you will get looks for wearing dresses.
Those sexist bastards.

It's just kind of funny to see a guy wearing a dress.

I have seen it happen a couple of times in-game and yes, every time, the guy got some extra attention for it.

I don't recall ever seeing anyone go all out with a, "WEAR PANTS FAG-BOY!", or anything like that. (Which would have got a report from me on the spot, and most anyone else, mind you.)

It was always just sort of jokingly noticed as if to say, "Well, you don't see that every day.".

Sure, it was probably something that should have been reported, but then again, I don't think it deserves anything more than a slap on the wrist and a, "Hey, just keep in mind this is normal and shouldn't really get any chuckles.".

[evilcabbage]

This doesn't extend to clothing though, because you will get looks for wearing dresses.
Those sexist bastards.

It's just kind of funny to see a guy wearing a dress.

I have seen it happen a couple of times in-game and yes, every time, the guy got some extra attention for it.

I don't recall ever seeing anyone go all out with a, "WEAR PANTS FAG-BOY!", or anything like that. (Which would have got a report from me on the spot, and most anyone else, mind you.)

It was always just sort of jokingly noticed as if to say, "Well, you don't see that every day.".

Sure, it was probably something that should have been reported, but then again, I don't think it deserves anything more than a slap on the wrist and a, "Hey, just keep in mind this is normal and shouldn't really get any chuckles.".

i wore dresses as a corporal in salarr once.

nobody uttered a fucking word.

nobody.

[SuchDragonWow]

I voted no. I can generally tell at a glance irl (even when wearing a hoodie and other gender neutral clothing) that someone is a male or female. Tits or not, it's a pretty easy read usually.

I voted yes because my interpretation of Zalanthas is that the genders have a far less pronounced secondary sexual dimorphism, no matter what the f-me sitting next to you at the bar wants you to think.

[Harmless]

The potential for males and females is equal, yes. Females can be born muscular and tall and males can be born tiny, curvy, weak, or otherwise non masculine. That is how the docs describe it.  Potential.

Nowhere in the docs state that there is less dimorphism overall.

The point of this documentation is to allow players to play the concept they want to play. The point of this is not to force a lack of dimorphism on those who do not want to play a buff, tall, ripped female or a dainty male.

It should be an option that someone not have a "female voice" or to not be a "her" automatically with a hood up, but by no means should the range of potential be interpreted as blanket reduced dimorphism. A lack of sexual differentiation should not be a forced factor for all characters.

This is a big deal because many roles and playing styles requires hoods to be up often and if everyone were required to be genderless when so then this will be a jarring change. I would much rather it be an option, which would be a beneficial change since then some people will become gender neutral and be differentiated in storms or when hooded.

The option of "being genderless when the face is hidden" would be awesome. Forcing it because of a misinterpretation of the docs on everyone would be awful, in contrast.

[SuchDragonWow]

Yeah.

Unsex cloaks, please.  Does not fit game.

[BadSkeelz]

Unsexing cloaks would be a good first step towards making it difficult to distinguish individuals within a group 3 miles away, as well. (I'll get around to making that thread one of these, SuchDragonWow.)

[SuchDragonWow]

Indeed.  I knew it was you all along!  I saw your supple figure and sparkling blue eyes from a mile away.  You know, literally.

[nauta]

The raven himself is hoarse
That croaks the fatal entrance of Duncan
Under my battlements. Come, you spirits
That tend on mortal thoughts, unsex me here,
And fill me from the crown to the toe topful
Of direst cruelty!

Code Select Expand


The raven-haired svelte woman raises the hood of her hooded, black cloak.
The figure in the hooded, black cloak tugs [b]their[/b] lips into a tight frown.


I'm +1 on the idea -- to unsex the pronouns whenever the code already masks the form of the person.

I'd go with the plural over singular neuter.

[Harmless]

Unsexing cloaks would be a good first step towards making it difficult to distinguish individuals within a group 3 miles away, as well. (I'll get around to making that thread one of these, SuchDragonWow.)

This already happens.

[IAmJacksOpinion]

I voted "Yes" because why the hell not?
Nerf look 2016.

Unsexing cloaks would be a good first step towards making it difficult to distinguish individuals within a group 3 miles away, as well.

Code Select Expand


->look e
[Near by]
A tall, green-eyed man.
A short, blond-haired woman.
[Far to the East]
A humanoid figure.
An tall elven figure.
A short dwarfish figure.
[Very Far to the East]
A few humanoid figures. (Could be dwarf, human, elf - you can't tell from here.)
A half-giant figure.

Or something similar. I could fux with this.

[nauta]

Yes, yes, yes, on the far-away thing.

I've always found it a bit odd that you can do a bit of a meta thing with how the code works with facewraps, hoods, and masks.  So, say you are wearing a bright green cloak, you can (a) lower the hood and confuse your opponent or (b) put on a mask/facewrap and confuse your opponent.  But really, would the mask/facewrap do that?

I like the idea suggested above: change sdesc to more and more vaguer wording the further away someone is.

[Delirium]

Code Select Expand


->look e
[Near]
A tall, green-eyed man
A short, blond-haired woman
[Far]
A humanoid male
A short humanoid male
A tall and thick humanoid female
A very tall elven male
A short dwarven male
A gigantic and obese half-giant female
[Very Far]
A tall humanoid figure
A short humanoid figure
A tall and thin humanoid figure
A very short and thin humanoid figure
A gigantic and obese humanoid figure


If they're cloaked and hooded, then you don't see gender.

[IAmJacksOpinion]

Code Select Expand


->look e
[Near]
A tall, green-eyed man
A short, blond-haired woman
[Far]
A humanoid male
A short humanoid male
A tall and thick humanoid female
A very tall elven male
A short dwarven male
A gigantic and obese half-giant female
[Very Far]
A tall humanoid figure
A short humanoid figure
A tall and thin humanoid figure
A very short and thin humanoid figure
A gigantic and obese humanoid figure


If they're cloaked and hooded, then you don't see gender.

Yeah. Follows the size-relative height/weight descriptors. Perfect. Ship it!

[Harmless]

Okay, let's take a game where the ability to see long distances is severely impaired, information gathering is a struggle involving multiple typed commands, and telling cloaked people apart in groups is a fucking nightmare, and let's make all of that worse.

My no vote x 9000, thanks