I've gotten into a bit of an Armageddon debate on another forum, and one of the issues people seem to have is the concept of gender equality.
Personally, I like the fact that it's a part of Zalanthas, but I'd like to ask why it was incorporated? Some people have claimed that it's merely to avoid sexism, because the developers were somehow afraid of not being politically corrent. This is obviously not the reason here, but I'd quite like to know what is.
Armageddon started out as a Hack and Slash MUD with heavy Darksun influences. In the world of Athas, the two sexes are pretty much equal, physically. This probably was the basis for "gender equality" in the game.
The major reason is so it doesn't restrict roles by sex, which would force players who wanted to play a particular role to choose a particular sex. This is a fantasy environment, and there's no reason why a female player shouldn't be able to fantasize about being a badass female warrior who can dual-wield 15-stone battle-axes, etc.
Documented support for gender equality is one of the biggest reasons I give a shit about this mud. It's important.
Also, I believe Sanvean was / is a strong supporter of feminism. That could have been another reason.
However, just because there is gender equality doesn't stop female characters being regarded differently by some.
A cautionary tale about gender in RPGs:
The Background: Once upon a time, a few years back, my table-top role playing group was merged with another. I come from a high-RP background, with experiences like Armageddon and a couple of long-term GMs who went on to be writers. This was not one of those GMs.
We were playing a game in the Wierd, Wierd West. Cowboys meet the Zombie Apocalypse...maybe someone else knows the name of the game. My character was a stiff-necked, old-fashioned gentleman, a former Civil War officer who upheld traditional values. He was Christian. He was sexist. He was sans peur et sans reproche. He was internally consistent. He was an awesome character. He was so not me.
All was well, until he ran up against a player (in her mid-twenties and a new mother) who became offended at my characters sexism and took it personally.
[For clarity, the issue was that her character would act in ways appropriate for a man, not taking the setting into account. To exacerbate the situation, when the character was not lying, cheating, stealing, and killing (frowned upon in the good book), as well as trying to order men about (including my stiff-necked old former soldier), she would try to hide behind her gender. All this, was of course, fine...until she came head to head with my character, respectable representative of the Patriarchy that he was.
[The response of my character was completely in-character. He called her "unnatural." He told her she was "not a lady and should not lay claim to it." He said, "The Good Book does not countenance such acts."]
The player was so offended by my character that I ended up leaving the group.
Gender is a difficult, and complex, topic to address. Like religion, which is also not allowed on the game, gender often strikes at the core of our identities. It is easy for us to get upset, lose perspective, and lose sight of the fact that this is a game.
However, there are a few more salient points to make.
I would not want to be the staff-member who has to code "women" separately from men. Or decide whether "males" are the norm, or "females."
Or negotiate fights between characters that get out of hand the first time there is an 'honor killing' or a 'forced marriage.'
Or hold the hand of a player who just got the same sexist or homophobic berating they put up with at work all day.
It is easier to simply wave a magick wand and say, "By the Poetic License Vested in Me, We Will Not Have This Problem Here." It is a problem that is easier to address as a whole rather than on a case by case basis.
Morrolan
Quote from: Morrolan on November 20, 2010, 10:43:47 AM
We were playing a game in the Wierd, Wierd West. Cowboys meet the Zombie Apocalypse...maybe someone else knows the name of the game.
Derail - This sounds like Deadlands or Deadlands Reloaded, which is a Savage Worlds system setting.
Underail - Not being pigeonholed into specific gender roles is one of the reasons I play here. In fact, this was really important on my list of 'things I want in a game' because I really enjoy the female-badass-type
The Weird West was Deadlands, a wild-west meets magick and undead and werewolves and saltworm-sized tentacled horrors in the desert and California fell off the continent at the last great shake and now there's magickal ghost rock full of dead folks. Yummy. It is a wild-west/horror/post-apocalyptic/steam-punk rpg. It had a very unique way of doing things, including a bizarre system to manage your dice and also included being dealt cards that you'd turn into poker hands. (How you improved in things was to increase number of dice, size of dice and number of cards dealt for stats and/or skills.)
Later it got Reloaded using some generic rpg system. It would be like making a d20 version of Deadlands.
Before that, however, Deadlands had a spinoff (sorta, technically it's like the difference between d20 and d20:modern) that was more futuristic. The steam-punky guys from the earlier time-period, version... whatever. Anyway, they eventually got technologically advanced enough to create the bomb and they irradiate a whole lotta people/area and now there are irradiated mutants that do indeed have strange radiation induced abilities that run the gamut and most people don't have much because it takes lots of radiation to grant lots of abilities, and it screws you for other things. Definitely still a wild-west sort of theme, but now it's more of a wild-west/horror/post-apocalyptic/sci-fi theme.
Quote from: lordcooper on November 19, 2010, 08:33:47 PM
Personally, I like the fact that it's a part of Zalanthas, but I'd like to ask why it was incorporated?
It's a playability issue. Women play this game too. You shouldn't have to roll up a man to have access to all the fun stuff.
If I had to choose a #1 favorite thing about Armageddon, this is it, and I thank Sanvean for making it this way.
Quote from: jstorrie on November 20, 2010, 05:18:29 PM
Quote from: lordcooper on November 19, 2010, 08:33:47 PM
Personally, I like the fact that it's a part of Zalanthas, but I'd like to ask why it was incorporated?
It's a playability issue. Women play this game too. You shouldn't have to roll up a man to have access to all the fun stuff.
Thank you! Exactly!
Quote from: jstorrie on November 20, 2010, 05:18:29 PM
Quote from: lordcooper on November 19, 2010, 08:33:47 PM
Personally, I like the fact that it's a part of Zalanthas, but I'd like to ask why it was incorporated?
It's a playability issue. Women play this game too. You shouldn't have to roll up a man to have access to all the fun stuff penis.
Quote from: Drayab on November 20, 2010, 06:56:06 PM
If I had to choose a #1 favorite thing about Armageddon, this is it, and I thank Sanvean for making it this way.
I believe Sanvean more or less enforced this policy, rather than 'made it this way', much the way we (the gamers and staff) enforce that magickers are scum, half-breeds are yucky and Nobles are better than us. This game was based off of Dark Sun, as explained in above posts, and reflected gender equality before Sanvean became an administrator (correct me if I'm wrong). I understand that there have been a LOT of changes over the years, but I don't believe this is one of them.
In the real-world aspect, I think gender equality is very important. However, I get the feeling that some players are praising Armageddon's gender equality out of context and if this is true, I think it's wrong. Don't forget that in our documentation we promote racism between races, regions, and castes all across the game world. Corruption, murder and betrayl is our theme. I hope nobody is confused that this game promotes super-awesome values. It doesn't. It is a fantasy realm that just happens to reflect the fact that men and woman can be, and are, equals on the socio-political level. In the case of the game, this extends to the physical aspect as well. If gender bias was in the Dark Sun background, it probably would have translated into the game too. I'm not sure many women would play the game (and I don't blame them). In fact, I'm not sure ArmageddonMUD would even exist...but that's beside the point here.
I feel like some people might be praising this topic as a victory over a sign that real-life problems in our society are finally being overcome, when that shouldn't be the case. The two are 100% separate. Sometimes it's best to keep reality and fantasy separate.
I do support gender equality IRL, if there is any question about it.
The genders are not equal.
You start with way more free stuff/protection/importance as a female. Males don't get free stuff.
Quote from: Is Friday on November 21, 2010, 01:09:59 AM
The genders are not equal.
You start with way more free stuff/protection/importance as a female. Males don't get free stuff.
Hey now, let's not generalize here. Not every female gets free stuff. I only get free stuff on half of my females.
The other half are dwarves.
Quote from: jstorrie on November 20, 2010, 05:18:29 PM
Quote from: lordcooper on November 19, 2010, 08:33:47 PM
Personally, I like the fact that it's a part of Zalanthas, but I'd like to ask why it was incorporated?
It's a playability issue. Women play this game too. You shouldn't have to roll up a man to have access to all the fun stuff.
I agree with this. If our playerbase is currently roughly split down the middle, our playerbase would be halved if either gender was specifically tailored for certain roles.
If you want a possible IC reason, I would say that there is already so much hate and fear (for other races, for magickers, for scary animals, disasters, war, famine, etc) that conflicts between genders would seriously impact the ability to create future generations.
Quote from: Cutthroat on November 21, 2010, 08:04:46 AM
If you want a possible IC reason, I would say that there is already so much hate and fear (for other races, for magickers, for scary animals, disasters, war, famine, etc) that conflicts between genders would seriously impact the ability to create future generations.
I tend to agree with this point of view. It makes sense -and- eliminates all the problems Morrolan emphasized.
There is certainly equality in ability between the genders, but you'll always see genders being treated differently by people.
Quote from: Is Friday on November 21, 2010, 01:09:59 AM
The genders are not equal.
You start with way more free stuff/protection/importance as a female. Males don't get free stuff.
Stay on topic or I'll lock the thread down. The question was "Why is this the policy?" not "Please whine at me about <gender>."
Quote from: Drayab on November 20, 2010, 06:56:06 PM
If I had to choose a #1 favorite thing about Armageddon, this is it, and I thank Sanvean for making it this way.
I'm torn between gender equality and permadeath being my favorite features. And yes, to my knowledge we largely have Sanvean to thank for it, but also many other staffers (both male and female) for being just as vehemently in favor of gender equality in game.
Actually, folks, in game there isn't gender equality. Sure, there are no stat differences and most of the cultures around are egalitarian when it comes to male/female roles, but there are other cultures or micro-cultures within the game that are decidedly non-egalitarian. One noble house of Tuluk is strictly matriarchal, for example, and only a female can hope to make it to the highest ranks (granted nobody will attain that rank while still a PC anyway, but that's beside the point).
It's equal enough from our standpoint, however. Stats and normal opportunities for our normal characters, as in non-sponsored roles, aren't segregated by gender for most jobs.
Oh, and this isn't just a hand-me-down from Dark Sun. This is something that is a holdover from D&D for years and years, actually, prior to Dark Sun existing. Very few RPG systems, in fact, have had different stats for different genders, except as an exception. In the Palladium game Manhunter there was an alien race that was matriarchal (again), and the females of the species had much better stats than the males.
What's more interesting to me is this: where equality is usually fostered in the system by most games, why are the exceptions more often than not matriarchal or biased in other ways towards the female characters?
Quote from: Is Friday on November 21, 2010, 01:09:59 AM
The genders are not equal.
You start with way more free stuff/protection/importance as a female. Males don't get free stuff.
Yeah.
Sigh, sadly, this is true. I've tested it. It's true.
I wish it weren't. This isn't bitching about gender x or y. This is commentary that people IG often don't RP true gender equality.
I do what I can to break the trend by making female characters that people wouldn't be inclined to treat preferentially. Often even that fails, probably because of male chauvinism in the playerbase.
tldr:
everyone please stop giving me free shit for no apparent reason when I roll up females. Come up with a reason for it. Imagine to yourself, "would I do this if they were male?"
Really? I see nothing wrong with giving things to someone I want the attention of, male or female. Men are horn dogs, so more often than not in the male to female situation the male is competing for attention. I'm not sure I see how this has anything to do with equality. People do things/give things to those they're attracted to. Anyone always has the right to refuse, or even question why someone is giving you free stuff.
Quote from: Marshmellow on November 21, 2010, 12:14:05 PM
What's more interesting to me is this: where equality is usually fostered in the system by most games, why are the exceptions more often than not matriarchal or biased in other ways towards the female characters?
If I had to venture a guess, I'd say it's because a true matriarchy is much more "fantastical" than a true patriarchy, and thus more interesting as a thought-exercise. Total domination by men isn't that hard for most of us on this forum to imagine, whereas the opposite would likely strike most as more unusual.
As to female characters being given more resources, that makes a lot of sense from an evolutionary/reproductive stand-point. To grossly over-simplify, as I understand the current state of evolutionary mating strategies, in many cultures men bring/display resources to women in order to demonstrate what a good selection they would be. At the same time, I -totally- get the "But I want to do it myself!" urge; one of my favorite and most successful characters died upholding this.
To augment what Sephiroto wrote, there are typically more male characters in the game than female at any given time. This creates a relative scarcity of potential female mates for many male characters, further driving up the relative "value" of females on the relationship/mating market.
To address the OP's question, from what I've read Sanvean was a driving force in initially implementing and then
sustaining an absolute gender equality in the game-world. However, as others (both in this thread and out) have pointed out, "equality" does not mean "no difference", just as 2+2 and 3+1 both = 4, but they don't use the same numbers to get there. From my worm's eye view as a player, I'll say that even in the last six years, I've seen a noticeable increase in portrayals of physically powerful women. Just as importantly, I've also witnessed an ever-increasing ease in other characters accepting said powerful women as full comrades.
In short,
Vive la différence! and
Vive l'égalité! aren't mutually exclusive. :)
Adding: It is rare if a female character of mine is given something, that I feel she is given it because 'she can't get it on her own'. Moreso that the giver is trying to seek out her attention or gain her trust or pull one over on her or possibly impress her. As to whether she accepts it, for whatever reason, is up to the character. Sometimes they'll accept it and like the person a little more, sometimes they'll accept it in a counter-bid to gain someone's trust to lull them into a false sense of security to enable screwing them totally over later on. Sometimes they won't accept it because it implies a debt. Sometimes they won't accept it because they're paranoid. And playing female characters, I've also given plenty of stuff both to other female characters and male characters, many times for free, but for many specific reasons and intents. None of those things were oriented in gender-stereotyping (because females need to be taken care of). So while I understand that there are, unfortunately, some players who can't wrap the concept of social/physical gender equality around their minds, it is rare I see this displayed in people giving other people stuff.
"Chicks get free stuff" is an ooc phenomenon and it isn't exactly chivalry. It's more like:
More dudes play the game. Dudes wanna impress the ladies. Sugar daddies are born.
Personally, when playing a generous character, I've come up against a very strong "make it on your own or die trying" mentality, which makes sense.
Just as a note:
Tuluk is not gender equal!
Lirathan are above Jihaen, at the moment - I believe
There for women are better than men in Tuluk...
Also, the sexism fits the two orders. The men are the warriors, and the women are the keepers.
Other than that, and the fact that all the Kings in the game are males (obviously, or they'd be queens). Such as Tuluk Muk Utep, Allanak with Tek.
Moreover, I don't think I added anything significant to this conversation, but food for thought.
I'm not sure if I'm spoiling IC information, but when nobles marry, do they all take the woman's name?
Quote from: Shepard on November 22, 2010, 12:04:50 AM
Just as a note:
Tuluk is not gender equal!
Lirathan are above Jihaen, at the moment - I believe
There for women are better than men in Tuluk...
Also, the sexism fits the two orders. The men are the warriors, and the women are the keepers.
Other than that, and the fact that all the Kings in the game are males (obviously, or they'd be queens). Such as Tuluk Muk Utep, Allanak with Tek.
Moreover, I don't think I added anything significant to this conversation, but food for thought.
Recently the Order's have changed places with a Jihaen taking the role of... Grand Supreme poobah Precentor. But you're right, there has got to be a lot of pent up sexual tensions there.
There is one group of people who's "Queen" type figure is a female. It isn't a big secret but it isn't documented publicly so I'll leave it at that.
Regarding free stuff, if you don't want it, don't roll up baby doll **** me PCs; you know, the type who are described as absolutely beautiful. You see them around much more than the perfect male Adonis. Typically, they will trot around being all cute and wearing stunning outfits.
My guess is that Armageddon has a stated gender-equal policy because of an influential feminist staff member. However, since most RPGs, MUDs, and Diku specifically do not differentiate between males and females state-wise (though there have been exceptions, gold-box CRPGs (not really a RPG) for instance differentiated between males and females on the strength stat), so in the coded-equality was there by default.
Quote from: boog on November 22, 2010, 12:13:22 AM
I'm not sure if I'm spoiling IC information, but when nobles marry, do they all take the woman's name?
No. When nobles marry, the one whom switches houses changes names, male or female.
Quote from: boog on November 22, 2010, 12:13:22 AM
I'm not sure if I'm spoiling IC information, but when nobles marry, do they all take the woman's name?
Nope. This is from the docs on playing an Allanak noble but it applies to Tuluk as well. It details what happens when two nobles marry:
QuoteOne partner, which can be either the male or female member, is assumed to have been subsumed by the other's House, and loses all legal and financial ties to their former House.
Men have more STR, Women have more DEX.
I had reach, she had flexability.
It's worth mentioning that sexism does exist in Zalanthas, but unlike in the irl it's not the norm. If you really want to play in a sexist culture, Arm has several, but they're off the beaten path.
One thing I've noticed in this thread is that people tend to be thinking of one of three different things when they are posting:
- Coded Gender Equality
- IC/RP Gender Equality
- OOC/RL Gender Equality
The last of which has little if any bearing on this thread.
When people say that the gender equality is one of the reasons they play Arm, I have to wonder which gender equality they are speaking of?
If it's coded GE, that's true of most muds and RPGS, in my experience.
If it's IC/RP GE, I can see it as a "hey, a gender-neutral setting, that's different", but I still don't see what it has to do with the price of spice in Red Storm.
If it's OOC/RL GE, which I fear it is for some people, good for them, and I'm glad to have you playing, but Real Life notions of morality should have little to nothing to do with why you play a game, unless you are just looking to play something you are either a) comfortable with, or b) you find ideal, depending on what those OOC values are that you are looking for.
Codedly, the game is gender neutral for most, if not all races - it's just codedly easier (but only slightly so) - for all I know there could be non-standard races with balanced gender differences (wouldn't be surprised if there was a race with physically stronger female, but mentally/psionically stronger males, or perhaps with the reverse).
ICly, It doesn't matter to me one lick if the setting is gender neutral, or if there is a dominant gender (regardless of which) as there are fantastic RP opportunities all around.
OOCly: RL notions and morality, as I stated before, should not have any effect what-so-ever on what your character feels or does inside the game. Your PCs live in a setting with certain moral averages, in the average case: gender matters little, magick is feared, elves are distrusted, and slavery is not just an every day part of life, but is crucial to the survival of the society. No matter how you personally feel, these are the social norms. Straying from them is fine, but don't stray too far, and if your vocal about how you've strayed, be prepared to be treated as anyone who strays from their society's norms.
As for why the policy of Gender Equality, I never really thought about it or cared, it was just a part of the setting (like fearing magick, but not like hairless dwarves).
I enjoy the gender-equality of Arm's dominant races and societies because it's an interesting and foreign setting. I would also enjoy playing out serious social gender biases...because it'd be an interesting and foreign setting. Real life, for most of us, is somewhere in the middle.
Quote from: lordcooper on November 19, 2010, 08:33:47 PM
I've gotten into a bit of an Armageddon debate on another forum, and one of the issues people seem to have is the concept of gender equality.
Personally, I like the fact that it's a part of Zalanthas, but I'd like to ask why it was incorporated? Some people have claimed that it's merely to avoid sexism, because the developers were somehow afraid of not being politically corrent. This is obviously not the reason here, but I'd quite like to know what is.
Quote from: DrunkenSalarr on November 22, 2010, 09:55:40 AM
One thing I've noticed in this thread is that people tend to be thinking of one of three different things when they are posting:
- Coded Gender Equality
- IC/RP Gender Equality
- OOC/RL Gender Equality
The last of which has little if any bearing on this thread.
...
As for why the policy of Gender Equality, I never really thought about it or cared, it was just a part of the setting (like fearing magick, but not like hairless dwarves).
I don't want to be rude, but please allow me to be blunt. I suspect that the reason that you don't think OOC/RL Gender Equality differences has anything to do with OP's question because you never really thought about it. The reason is very simple. It contributes to your sense of
escapism, and it makes the game more fun to play. People don't come here to play real life, they want to play something different. Yes, chopping up mofos with bone swords, but also playing a rude warrior woman who wields the bone swords, and everybody agrees she's still a woman.
Quote from: Shepard on November 22, 2010, 12:04:50 AMJust as a note:
Tuluk is not gender equal!
Lirathan are above Jihaen, at the moment - I believe
There for women are better than men in Tuluk...
No. Just, no. Just because Lirathans are currently ranked higher than the Jihaens does not mean all women in Tuluk are better than men. You also don't know what's going on behind the scenes and can only comment on things that are public. Also, they switch back and forth so are you saying that sexism switches when they switch?
It's equal in the world of Arm.
I agree with gender neutrality because I believe that people should not be restricted from roles based off of gender alone. However, I don't agree with the blanket policy in which everyone appears to be lacking sexism of any kind, and as a result can at times break immersion for me. It'd be like god's voice coming forth and saying "You are all christian now, deal with it." it just doesn't happen, I want the choice not to have my character's personality overruled.
At least that is what I am pulling together based on the current thread.
Quote from: Reiteration on November 22, 2010, 12:28:51 PM
It'd be like god's voice coming forth and saying "You are all christian now, deal with it." it just doesn't happen, I want the choice not to have my character's personality overruled.
I'd become Christian if that happened.
Quote from: Reiteration on November 22, 2010, 12:28:51 PM
I agree with gender neutrality because I believe that people should not be restricted from roles based off of gender alone. However, I don't agree with the blanket policy in which everyone appears to be lacking sexism of any kind, and as a result can at times break immersion for me. It'd be like god's voice coming forth and saying "You are all christian now, deal with it." it just doesn't happen, I want the choice not to have my character's personality overruled.
At least that is what I am pulling together based on the current thread.
The documentation tells you what are the societal norms, but you are still allowed to play a sexist character. This thread is about the policy that tells us about the norms. Don't confuse this thread with one about whether your character is allowed to stray outside of the norms.
Quote from: Drayab on November 22, 2010, 12:47:47 PM
Quote from: Reiteration on November 22, 2010, 12:28:51 PM
I agree with gender neutrality because I believe that people should not be restricted from roles based off of gender alone. However, I don't agree with the blanket policy in which everyone appears to be lacking sexism of any kind, and as a result can at times break immersion for me. It'd be like god's voice coming forth and saying "You are all christian now, deal with it." it just doesn't happen, I want the choice not to have my character's personality overruled.
At least that is what I am pulling together based on the current thread.
The documentation tells you what are the societal norms, but you are still allowed to play a sexist character. This thread is about the policy that tells us about the norms. Don't confuse this thread with one about whether your character is allowed to stray outside of the norms.
This is exactly correct. We're used to a lot of these things BECAUSE they are societal norms, but you have to think of them in the completely different context. Like for example, you can have a deep seeded hatred of the Irish today in modern America, but a lot of people are going to think you're really strange if you keep bitching about it at the bar. You are free to RP any personality you like, but what I'd like to see more are people who are AWARE that their attitudes are not normal. Like here's a list of things that really get under my skin:
elves/magickers/half-elves acting shocked/hurt when people treat them poorly. YOU SHOULD EXPECT MISTREATMENT and if you've made it to a certain age you've most likely developed a tolerance and acceptance to it one way or another.- Additionally people who are quick to defend elves/magickers/breeds from mistreatment, even if they're your best buddy, you should still expect them to be constantly mistreated.
- People freaking out about/having problems with slavery openly. Regardless of what your liberal minded character thinks about slavery, you've made it to adulthood by most likely learning to keep your trap shut about it, because nobody wants to hear your weird beliefs.
- Casual sexism. This is not the norm, if you say something like "well, I won't want her for this mission because she's a woman." expect to be ready for a confused response of "What in Krath does that have anything to do with it?".
An example I can think of is say a group of Byners are at a table, three humans and one breed. Someone in the bar says something bad about the halfbreed. What should be the normal response from his fellow Byners?
A. "How dare you insult our comrade, he's fought valiantly by our side for years and saved my life more times than I can count. I DEMAND SATISFACTION RAWR!"
B. "Well, you may have saved my life countless times, but he is right, you are a dirty breed, and if I flipped out every time someone pointed that out I'd never have a moment's rest. Ain't my fault a filthy elf raped your ma."
QuoteA. "How dare you insult our comrade, he's fought valiantly by our side for years and saved my life more times than I can count. I DEMAND SATISFACTION RAWR!"
Lulz.
Prefacing this to let it be known that I like the gender equality of Armageddon. Any combative character, past or present, has beat up (or been beaten up by) women with absolutely no regard to gender.
Now, branching off to say that I feel like some OOC perceptions influence the IC actions of some characters, and it is gender related, and it is an inherent flaw in having too much OOC information available. Like, for instance, a male PC treating female PCs with preferential treatment, -except- the female PC known to be played by a male. Alternately, I think you can flip the script on this (ha, gender equality), and it has been also true. This has and does happen, I think. Thankfully, I don't think it's very common.
Edit: I should add, that if my post has derailed, it's because previous posts have stimulated the thought process.
Everything Ender said, a thousand times over.
Quote
An example I can think of is say a group of Byners are at a table, three humans and one breed. Someone in the bar says something bad about the halfbreed. What should be the normal response from his fellow Byners?
A. "How dare you insult our comrade, he's fought valiantly by our side for years and saved my life more times than I can count. I DEMAND SATISFACTION RAWR!"
B. "Well, you may have saved my life countless times, but he is right, you are a dirty breed, and if I flipped out every time someone pointed that out I'd never have a moment's rest. Ain't my fault a filthy elf raped your ma."
I want to point out that there really isn't a wrong answer here. Racism isn't explicitly stated in any of the web documents. Whereas gender equality is.
Quote from: Jingo on November 22, 2010, 03:24:15 PM
Quote
An example I can think of is say a group of Byners are at a table, three humans and one breed. Someone in the bar says something bad about the halfbreed. What should be the normal response from his fellow Byners?
A. "How dare you insult our comrade, he's fought valiantly by our side for years and saved my life more times than I can count. I DEMAND SATISFACTION RAWR!"
B. "Well, you may have saved my life countless times, but he is right, you are a dirty breed, and if I flipped out every time someone pointed that out I'd never have a moment's rest. Ain't my fault a filthy elf raped your ma."
I want to point out that there really isn't a wrong answer here. Racism isn't explicitly stated in any of the web documents. Whereas gender equality is.
From the half-elf docs:
Quote
Roleplaying:
Accepted by neither humans nor elves,
I thought that was pretty clear. Lack of acceptance is not only a pretty strong indicator of racism, it is the core symptom of it.
We're getting off topic here, but I'll also point out that you can derive some conclusions about how half-elves and other non-humans are viewed by society by considering the hiring practices of the various noble and merchant houses. Ask yourself: why would they have a policy like this?
In an attempt to re-rail the thread, I'll also point out that for entry level jobs for your standard Zalanthan commoner, there is no preference for males or females, explicit or implied. However, some of the higher echelon roles are male or female only, like the Tuluki templar orders.
The only issue I've ever had with this rule is that it creates an unrealistic aspect of the gameworld. Realistically, sexism would exist/or not in different cultures throughout the game. Each different culture in the gameworld would have varying views. I would love for it not to exist in -some- cultures, but also for other cultures to have it in different ways to different degrees. Patriarchal societies and matriarchal societies, etc. I think it would add alot to realism and depth. Unfortunately, the RL feminazis and their minions won't have it, in my opinion furthering RL gender issues, but that's another story.
Your concept of realism seems to be based off the real world though. If we take it that for the most part, gender is utterly irrelevant in Zalanthas, why would it be unrealistic to that setting for there to be a lack of sexism?
Quote from: jhunter on November 22, 2010, 07:00:18 PM
The only issue I've ever had with this rule is that it creates an unrealistic aspect of the gameworld. Realistically, sexism would exist/or not in different cultures throughout the game. Each different culture in the gameworld would have varying views. I would love for it not to exist in -some- cultures, but also for other cultures to have it in different ways to different degrees. Patriarchal societies and matriarchal societies, etc. I think it would add alot to realism and depth. Unfortunately, the RL feminazis and their minions won't have it, in my opinion furthering RL gender issues, but that's another story.
I am a feminazi, but I like you. And I think you often have interesting ideas. What forms would this sexism take?
Quote from: HavokBlue on November 22, 2010, 07:05:02 PM
Your concept of realism seems to be based off the real world though. If we take it that for the most part, gender is utterly irrelevant in Zalanthas, why would it be unrealistic to that setting for there to be a lack of sexism?
Gender is not irrelevant. Males in Zalanthas are not capable of pregnancy and childbirth. Males in Zalanthas are not capable of *reguilarly* lactating to the extent that they would make useful wetnurses (yes I know about male lactation).
I'd say gender is a lot more relevant than some players would like it to be. When males get "light duty" in combat-based clan roles in their last couple weeks of pregnancy and the couple weeks following childbirth, it'll be "equal."
I don't buy the whole gender equality thing in Zalanthas. The docs say it's so, but the docs are wrong. The genders are not equal. Their *potentials" are equal. Their *opportunities* are equal. They're capable of equal coded stats (except height, I believe). But males cannot die in childbirth. So no. They're not equal.
There is indeed sexism in the game in small pockets here and there. Some of it is surprising. As I mentioned, there are families/tribes/micro-cultures with quirks that I could only call sexist behaviour.
Quote from: Barzalene on November 22, 2010, 07:54:17 PM
Quote from: jhunter on November 22, 2010, 07:00:18 PM
The only issue I've ever had with this rule is that it creates an unrealistic aspect of the gameworld. Realistically, sexism would exist/or not in different cultures throughout the game. Each different culture in the gameworld would have varying views. I would love for it not to exist in -some- cultures, but also for other cultures to have it in different ways to different degrees. Patriarchal societies and matriarchal societies, etc. I think it would add alot to realism and depth. Unfortunately, the RL feminazis and their minions won't have it, in my opinion furthering RL gender issues, but that's another story.
I am a feminazi, but I like you. And I think you often have interesting ideas. What forms would this sexism take?
You're my favorite feminazi. ;P Some of the tribal societies could be like a lion pride where the males are mostly a useless spermbag while the females do all the hunting, etc. Males are considered only good for what's between their legs and aren't allowed to touch weapons, etc. Or like some tribes here on earth, the females take on several mates and generally run the tribe while males are mated to their one female for life. The higher standing in the tribe the female has, the more mates she has as well. The interaction when these types encounter other cultures would be interesting. I also think there should be a "sorceror queen" ruling one of the major cities isntead of a king.
I'm happy with the official policies and find it creates an interesting environment in which to roleplay.
Quote from: Is Friday on November 21, 2010, 01:09:59 AM
The genders are not equal.
You start with way more free stuff/protection/importance as a female. Males don't get free stuff.
There's no doubt that some real-world sexist attitudes/behavior carry over into the game, often from newer players. The "free stuff" phenomenon, although perhaps overstated, happens sometimes. I find it more of an unwelcome annoyance rather than an advantage of any kind.
The thing is with lions, the male is indeed just a carrier of valuable genetic material and the women do all the work, but there are very few males and lots of females. The alpha male drives off or kills any adult contender for his title. Finally one that is strong enough supplants him and is the new alpha who promptly kills off all cubs of the newly defeated ex-alpha. His is the valuable seed and others are no longer allowed. Is this the females dominating and it's a matriarchy? I don't think so.
In other cultures where males are the hunters, females can still dominate. In species where there are low rates of female births, or low rates of fertile female births, males or infertile females are the go to for the disposable work-force, since the species only needs breeders to survive.
Quote from: Marshmellow on November 22, 2010, 08:57:50 PM
The thing is with lions, the male is indeed just a carrier of valuable genetic material and the women do all the work, but there are very few males and lots of females. The alpha male drives off or kills any adult contender for his title. Finally one that is strong enough supplants him and is the new alpha who promptly kills off all cubs of the newly defeated ex-alpha. His is the valuable seed and others are no longer allowed. Is this the females dominating and it's a matriarchy? I don't think so.
I don't think I stated that it was. I just said one that was similar in -that particular- aspect.
Just because the genders are equal doesn't mean they are the same.
To treat the other gender equally doesn't imply that you ignore their gender. The woman with the bone swords wants to be a woman and a warrior, not just a warrior. However, for this to work you'll have to put aside real life notions of gender and adopt something Zalanthan to replace it. To do this doesn't require you to ignore that women pop out babies and men plant the seeds. That's sexual function. Sexual function and gender are inexorably entwined, but they don't necessarily have to be the way they are in real life.
Quote from: jhunter on November 22, 2010, 07:00:18 PMfeminazis
Using this word is like making yourself a big "I'm a moron" sign in Comic Sans. Careful, man.
Gender equality in Zalanthas would realistically bring up all kinds of social issues in reality.
Here's one to think about. How would the cities maintain such a large population unless every woman of age was producing children? Free and equal women arn't usually too keen on having more than one or two, just like in our own society. So unless they are shackled down via the institution of marriage, they wouldn't be the baby factories they have been for several hundreads of years. So therefore, I don't see how non-modern, militirized state society could have equality of the sexes anyways.
The current setup isn't realistic at all. But I'm fine with throwing that out the window for what we got going here.
Do infants fetch a good enough price to justify making them for that sake?
Quote from: Kalai on November 25, 2010, 07:23:30 PM
Do infants fetch a good enough price to justify making them for that sake?
No, but they're worth stealing.
Quote from: Kalai on November 25, 2010, 07:23:30 PM
Do infants fetch a good enough price to justify making them for that sake?
Probably the biggest payoff here is that if group A employs this strategy, it will be bigger than any group that doesn't.
Quote from: Kalai on November 25, 2010, 07:23:30 PM
Do infants fetch a good enough price to justify making them for that sake?
I shall now make a dwarf with the focus to create a infant farm.
Quote from: BlackMagic0 on November 25, 2010, 08:47:34 PM
Quote from: Kalai on November 25, 2010, 07:23:30 PM
Do infants fetch a good enough price to justify making them for that sake?
I shall now make a dwarf with the focus to create a infant farm.
Mudsexxor Industries: FTB or all the way, we deliver!
Quote from: jstorrie on November 25, 2010, 04:29:14 AM
Quote from: jhunter on November 22, 2010, 07:00:18 PMfeminazis
Using this word is like making yourself a big "I'm a moron" sign in Comic Sans. Careful, man.
That's a matter of opinion. I don't believe so. I happen to believe that alot of feminists are very hypocritical and sexist themselves. I also believe that alot of the things that "feminazis" complain about actually create more division and gender-bias than actually help solve anything. You would be a male feminazi if you think "using the term is like making yourself a big "I'm a moron" sign". What I use a term that describes a hypocritical feminist and suddenly I'm a moron? I can't point out that I believe many of them are "wrong" about how they go about their -supposed- desire for equality without being called a moron?
feminazi
noun.
1) a feminist who refuses to subscribe to logic
2) a manhater
3) dislikes all men because of the societal pressures women face, but is unwilling to concede to the fact that the sentiment is perpetuated by both sexes
4) aggressive towards men because of their sex
5) promoter of reverse sexual discrimination; often feels her sexism is justified because of the "attrocities endured by women"
6) does not adhere to the philosophy of feminism, but instead promotes a simplified, inaccurate, uniformed view
To clarify, I'm not calling all feminists feminazis. I have no problem with true feminists although personally I think they should be called equalists if the set goal is true.
Let me remind you of another definition: nazi, n. A member of a horrific fascist movement which actively engaged in wholesale slaughter, genocide, and evil nearly unmatched in all of human history.
If you seriously think that feminists and nazis should actually be equated, I don't think there's any point in further discourse. But maybe when you're done getting defensive you'll spare some time to think on how offensive and shameful the word feminazi really is.
Quote from: jstorrie on November 26, 2010, 02:37:58 AM
Let me remind you of another definition: nazi, n. A member of a horrific fascist movement which actively engaged in wholesale slaughter, genocide, and evil nearly unmatched in all of human history.
If you seriously think that feminists and nazis should actually be equated, I don't think there's any point in further discourse. But maybe when you're done getting defensive you'll spare some time to think on how offensive and shameful the word feminazi really is.
I think you're overanalyzing it and taking it far too literally. Get a grip. I disagree that it is shameful but agree that it might be offensive primarily to those that I would classify as feminazis and that is, as intended.
QuoteTo clarify, I'm not calling all feminists feminazis. I have no problem with true feminists although personally I think they should be called equalists if the set goal is true.
Just to point this out, since you seem not to have read it or to have disregarded it entirely.
Quote from: jhunter on November 22, 2010, 07:00:18 PM
Unfortunately, the RL feminazis and their minions won't have it, in my opinion furthering RL gender issues, but that's another story.
There you're calling people who want to keep the status quo feminazis, I think that's the problem.
Quote from: Nao on November 26, 2010, 06:56:56 AM
Quote from: jhunter on November 22, 2010, 07:00:18 PM
Unfortunately, the RL feminazis and their minions won't have it, in my opinion furthering RL gender issues, but that's another story.
There you're calling people who want to keep the status quo feminazis, I think that's the problem.
No he didn't.
Let's stop pickering over semantics and word usage and get back to the topic, guys.
Nobody gets this offended over the term Grammar Nazi.
Why are you calling my Grandma a nazi? My grandma was a Jew. And an opera singer. And a nice person. Take it back.
And stop picking on Jhunter. We like him. Come play with me, you big dookiehead! It's been 7 years. You're due!
Quote from: jhunter on November 26, 2010, 12:04:06 AM
Quote from: jstorrie on November 25, 2010, 04:29:14 AM
Quote from: jhunter on November 22, 2010, 07:00:18 PMfeminazis
Using this word is like making yourself a big "I'm a moron" sign in Comic Sans. Careful, man.
You would be a male feminazi mangina if you think "using the term is like making yourself a big "I'm a moron" sign".
FTFY.
(http://www.essayscam.org/Forum/shared_files/storage/main/never_go_full_retard.jpg)
Thanks Synthesis. I was about to post something pithy like "JEEZ..." but Picard captured my feelings about this thread so much more eloquently.
Edit: What?? I thanked you for Picard not the other pic that is there now.
Hmm...this is the first time I've noticed it, but why is Ben Stiller wielding an M16A4, when it's supposed to be set in Vietnam? Flash suppressor and hand guards are all wrong. And that ruck has plastic buckles instead of metal snaps.
*shrug*
For Medena:
(http://i263.photobucket.com/albums/ii135/Sophophile/picard_facepalm.jpg)
Quote from: Barzalene on November 26, 2010, 04:13:46 PM
And stop picking on Jhunter. We like him. Come play with me, you big dookiehead! It's been 7 years. You're due!
Working on getting something going actually. ;)
Okay, back on topic...
Quote from: Jingo on November 25, 2010, 05:29:45 PM
Gender equality in Zalanthas would realistically bring up all kinds of social issues in reality.
Here's one to think about. How would the cities maintain such a large population unless every woman of age was producing children? Free and equal women arn't usually too keen on having more than one or two, just like in our own society. So unless they are shackled down via the institution of marriage, they wouldn't be the baby factories they have been for several hundreads of years. So therefore, I don't see how non-modern, militirized state society could have equality of the sexes anyways.
The current setup isn't realistic at all. But I'm fine with throwing that out the window for what we got going here.
I think you make a good point, but I disagree that it necessarily implies something unrealistic. Actually, scratch that, it
is unrealistic, i.e. - not like real life. However, it doesn't mean that Zalanthas can't still be believable. See, I think that this is an opportunity to make some speculations about how Zalanthan society works. What I'd argue is that we want to come up with a working model of how Zalanthans perpetuate themselves starting with the assumption that the genders are equal (but not the same) and, of course, everything else the docs tell us about how the world works, and also including biological realities such as women still have babies and men plant the seeds.
Clearly, the main cities are teeming with people, despite the difficulties of survival on Zalanthas. Untimely death is commonplace, so a good many children probably never have children of their own. Therefore, I conclude that there must be some segment of the population that is producing plenty of babies to make up for the rest in a kind of ultimate survival of the fittest. Why would they do that? There must be a reason, so here's one I made up: maybe on Zalanthas, it can be a sign of wealth to have lots of babies, so that when a pair of people have the resources to do it, they have lots of babies to flaunt their wealth. A real life analogue might be how obesity can be considered beautiful in a society with food scarcity, or pale skin might be beautiful because in an agricultural society everybody has to work in the hot sun. On Zalanthas, perhaps babies are trophies for the relatively wealthy commoners because for a poor, socially isolated woman it could be a death sentence.
Quote from: Drayab on November 26, 2010, 10:14:53 PM
... I conclude that there must be some segment of the population that is producing plenty of babies to make up for the rest in a kind of ultimate survival of the fittest. Why would they do that? ...
While we're back on topic, some thoughts -
Children are cheap labor.
If a lot of your kids are likely to die before they reproduce, obviously you need to have more kids. If half of 2 kids dies, you've only got 1 kid to take care of you in your old age. If half of 10 kids die, you've got 5.
Also, to respond to the previous quote, plenty of free and equal women choose to have more than one or two kids. I know a pretty free and equal woman that has 9, because that's how many babies she wanted, that's how many she could support financially, and that's how many she chose to have. Finally, women in Zalanthas have access to mul mix and have more control over how many babies they have and when.
As for gender equality, it's not about saying everyone is completely equal at everything, it's about being able to play what you want to play, when you want to play it, instead of getting told (for instance) that the state militia doesn't take females. The point of gender equality is that you aren't pigeonholed into a specific role because of your sex or gender. So if you want to play a pretty woman who wants to have a lot of babies, fine. If you want to play a warrior woman that collects gith heads, fine. If you want to play a pretty man who wants to buy/steal a lot of babies, fine. If you want to play a buff man who collects gith heads, fine.
"Fantastic quote from valeria about gender equality that I fucked up the quote for, but it is a really good quote. I'm kind of pissed that I messed it up. It would have looked pretty good...back to back like that. Shit."
+1
Beautifully put. Thank you.