Male/Female+Classes, Lore

[Osvir]

Paladin - Male

Priest - Female

 

Wizard or Sorceror - Male

Witch or Sorceress - Female

 

Barbarian - Male

Amazon - Female

 

Now, these would be the same in skill set and such, but it could imply lore into the classes. Meaning you could have a frenzied Male Barbarian throwing spears like an Amazon. Likewise, having a strong Female Amazon that you play like a close combat Barbarian.

 

Barbazon

Mainly about Barbarians, but I see them as stemming from some sort of Barbaric culture (bandits and vikings). Orcs are an excellent example at a "civilized" strand of Barbarians in my opinion. "Stronghold" in Heroes of Might & Magic as well. An established Barbarian society.

 

I've always viewed the women of these tribal Barbarian settlements as something less masculine, namely something more akin to Amazon. The hunters of the strong and proud male dominated Lion pack.

 

Unisex, but: Barbarian Fighter or Soldier?

The rest of the classes feel to me pretty unisex. Fighter doesn't really say "Male/Female" about it, but it could be a part of the aforementioned Barbaric culture. Unless "Fighter" gets a different title, such as "Squire" or "Soldier" or whatever else is fitting the role of the Fighter in the world. About Squire: I absolutely love the feature in the original Final Fantasy for the NES, when you meet Bahamut for the very first time and it's "Oh snap". Then you do a long quest for the Rat's Tail, which you then return and you become "Knighted" (Fighter becomes Knight). Can Factions help you grow in status among the people? Or hide from their sight?

Does different Factions provide different types of experience?

 

What's the difference between the Barbarian and the Fighter and what is it that makes the Fighter a Fighter and the Barbarian a Barbarian?

 

Wizitch

Wizard and Witch, to me, feel pretty granted as is. A female "Wizard" does, however, sound a bit odd. The skillset wouldn't differ between the two, only their titles. And whenever "Class" is mentioned it accounts gender as well in dialogue? So the result becomes "Witch" instead of "Wizard" if you have a female "Wizard". The same goes for Barbarian/Amazon, they would both have the same tools as the other in terms of character building.

 

Palaest

Paladin and Priest, would not be the same skillset (A Paladin is a Paladin, a Priest is a Priest), but only female can be Priest and only male can be Paladin. I'd like to advocate for dialogue options if you create a female Paladin, meaning it wouldn't be "off limits" at character creation, but lore-wise for your own party it could be something interesting. With few male Priests in the world, having one in your party is like having a Paladin "defect" perhaps. Trash, in their "Glorious" eyes, even if you can woop their ass right on the spot. Of course, reputation should play a big part too.

 

Thoughts?

[Ieo]

What? What's the point?

 

Priest is already a different class than Paladin so your attempt to combine/separate based on sex makes no sense. None of that matters, really, and gendered class titles... so the point of your post is just to suggest gendered class names? Leave that linguistical exercise to the endemic cultures. Oh, I see, you also want sex requirements for classes.

 

Look, having different dialogue reaction to PC sex and/or PC class is already a reasonable expectation--pinning that to some extra class-sex-title thing is completely unnecessary unless Obsidian writes it into a particular subculture. We don't need additional sex/race requirements on classes, either.

 

NO.

[Tamerlane]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umDr0mPuyQc

[Doppelschwert]

Using the same name for different classes just confuses the player at character creation, and making classes gender exclusive is kind of sexist (although I hate that word).

 

You might also consider other languages where the translation of "wizard" and the like is unisex, although that may not be the case in english.

Also, witches most certainly do not display the same skills as a wizard so that makes it even worse.

 

I see no need to link the abstract package of a class to the lore of a character concept. That's just forcing the player into using certain lore he may not even want to roleplay.

 

Also, NO

Edited January 16, 2013 by Doppelschwert

[Osvir]

Gender exclusive?

 

Read again.

[JFSOCC]

Yo Wizitch is all up in mah grill yo!

 

I suppose you could have different names for the same thing based on gender... but why?

[Amentep]

AFAIK Wizard and Witch have different roots; Witch is from wicce, the masculine equivalent concept in Old English is wicca which people translate as wizard, but wizard itself comes from Middle English wysard which is formed from wys or wise. Ergo Wizard should be acceptable as a gender neutral concept. Sorcerer / Sorceress is a better choice looking for male / female name concepts.

 

Also Female: Priestess (prêtresse in French, as Paladin is), Male Priest; not sure why you have priest listed as female. Priest ultimately derives from Latin (presbyter) which is formed from the word for "old man"...the Latin gender neutral term, IIRC was sacerdōs.

[Doppelschwert]

Gender exclusive?

 

Read again.

 

Well, it is lorewise. You gave that very definition yourself:

 

Palaest

Paladin and Priest, would not be the same skillset (A Paladin is a Paladin, a Priest is a Priest), but only female can be Priest and only male can be Paladin. I'd like to advocate for dialogue options if you create a female Paladin, meaning it wouldn't be "off limits" at character creation, but lore-wise for your own party it could be something interesting. With few male Priests in the world, having one in your party is like having a Paladin "defect" perhaps. Trash, in their "Glorious" eyes, even if you can woop their ass right on the spot. Of course, reputation should play a big part too.

 

Thats basically saying they are exclusive in the game world and don't you dare to play them otherwise!

You say paladin and priest are distinct classes and if you happen to want to play that skillset with the "wrong" gender people consider your character as trash. I don't see how that's an incentive to choose freely what I consider to be the most fun.

Thats like saying: "Sure, you can have your swords all you want, but don't forget the -10 to hit. That'll teach you to pick the axe next time, sucker."

 

Don't get me wrong, you could certainly have an interesting story with such things in mind, but make that an choice itself and don't link it to the skillset I want to play.

Edited January 16, 2013 by Doppelschwert

[Osvir]

How is that saying exclusive?

I'd like to advocate for dialogue options if you create a female Paladin, meaning it wouldn't be "off limits" at character creation, but lore-wise for your own party it could be something interesting.

Thats basically saying they are exclusive in the game world and don't you dare to play them otherwise!

 

?

 

Amentep correct xD my bad. Thanks

Edited January 16, 2013 by Osvir

[Doppelschwert]

How is that saying exclusive?

I'd like to advocate for dialogue options if you create a female Paladin, meaning it wouldn't be "off limits" at character creation, but lore-wise for your own party it could be something interesting.

Thats basically saying they are exclusive in the game world and don't you dare to play them otherwise!

 

?

 

Amentep correct xD my bad. Thanks

 

Paladin and Priest, would not be the same skillset (A Paladin is a Paladin, a Priest is a Priest), but only female can be Priest and only male can be Paladin. I'd like to advocate for dialogue options if you create a female Paladin, meaning it wouldn't be "off limits" at character creation, but lore-wise for your own party it could be something interesting. With few male Priests in the world, having one in your party is like having a Paladin "defect" perhaps. Trash, in their "Glorious" eyes, even if you can woop their ass right on the spot. Of course, reputation should play a big part too.

 

Again, this is like saying:

"No way are axes the only weapons in the game - everyone has the choice to use a sword! However, don't mind the -10 to hit on the swords."

Why should anyone choose swords over axes if it makes the game harder without any justification? Its just a penalty.

 

So no, they are not exclusive per se. But there is a "lore penalty" attributed to playing them with the "wrong" gender, which effectively is the same as saying:

"Play them with their respective gender or suffer the consequences!"

Your compensation is an interesting lore, but if I want to play my character differently, I just have to suffer the consequences without any benefits. Which sucks.

 

My point is that this is a restriction in having a choice about how I want to play that class and that I don't see how this adds anything to the game which couldn't be accomplished in a better way by having a background feat at character creation - which at the same time could benefit a much broader class of characters.

Edited January 16, 2013 by Doppelschwert

[NOK222]

No.

 

Wizard doesn't mean exclusively male anymore.

Barbarian means the type of culture. Amazon is a pseudo-legendary culture of dominant woman. It's not the female version of barbarain

Priest = Priestess

Paladin = Paladin

[TRX850]

Gladiator = Gladiatrix. <-- I just wanted to say that word.

[Remmirath]

It only has anything to do with the lore if the lore is such that it would make sense to have those different names, and so far at least, that doesn't seem to be the case.

 

Wizard/Witch and Barbarian/Amazon at least are similar (though not identical), but Paladin and Priest typically at least end up being rather different -- a case of fighter and spellcaster. Of all of those, Amazon is the only one that stands out to me as being a gendered word in the usage it sees today.

 

I don't see the need for different class names between the genders, and I think many (myself included) would find it a bit annoying. For one thing, even if they were actually identical, to begin with it would seem to imply that they aren't, which would cause initial frustration. Then, if they are identical, why differentiate them?

 

[Osvir]

How is that saying exclusive?

I'd like to advocate for dialogue options if you create a female Paladin, meaning it wouldn't be "off limits" at character creation, but lore-wise for your own party it could be something interesting.

Thats basically saying they are exclusive in the game world and don't you dare to play them otherwise!

 

?

 

Amentep correct xD my bad. Thanks

 

Paladin and Priest, would not be the same skillset (A Paladin is a Paladin, a Priest is a Priest), but only female can be Priest and only male can be Paladin. I'd like to advocate for dialogue options if you create a female Paladin, meaning it wouldn't be "off limits" at character creation, but lore-wise for your own party it could be something interesting. With few male Priests in the world, having one in your party is like having a Paladin "defect" perhaps. Trash, in their "Glorious" eyes, even if you can woop their ass right on the spot. Of course, reputation should play a big part too.

 

Again, this is like saying:

"No way are axes the only weapons in the game - everyone has the choice to use a sword! However, don't mind the -10 to hit on the swords."

Why should anyone choose swords over axes if it makes the game harder without any justification? Its just a penalty.

 

So no, they are not exclusive per se. But there is a "lore penalty" attributed to playing them with the "wrong" gender, which effectively is the same as saying:

"Play them with their respective gender or suffer the consequences!"

Your compensation is an interesting lore, but if I want to play my character differently, I just have to suffer the consequences without any benefits. Which sucks.

 

My point is that this is a restriction in having a choice about how I want to play that class and that I don't see how this adds anything to the game which couldn't be accomplished in a better way by having a background feat at character creation - which at the same time could benefit a much broader class of characters.

 

No. -10?

 

More like, in the world, Paladin are mostly men, Priests (Priestess) are mostly women. You wouldn't get any penalties, why should you get penalties? A Male Priest is a Male Priest, a female Paladin is a female Paladin. All I'm advocating for is that it could be "rare" in the actual world.

 

In my opinion it makes making a female Paladin or a male Priest interesting, because it is "taboo" in the world, making the female Paladin or male Priest actually (in my opinion) a little bit more significant. Male Paladins looking down on and laughing at Male Priests, Female Priestesses who shake their heads in distrust or distaste because of your Female Paladin.

 

How would the world, in turn, see and know what class you are?

 

How does Reputation work?

[Doppelschwert]

No. -10?

 

More like, in the world, Paladin are mostly men, Priests (Priestess) are mostly women. You wouldn't get any penalties, why should you get penalties? A Male Priest is a Male Priest, a female Paladin is a female Paladin. All I'm advocating for is that it could be "rare" in the actual world.

 

And this is totally fine, but that is a different statement than saying only men can be paladin or only women can be priests, while the player is in the special position to create just that one character which defies the rules.

 

In my opinion it makes making a female Paladin or a male Priest interesting, because it is "taboo" in the world, making the female Paladin or male Priest actually (in my opinion) a little bit more significant. Male Paladins looking down on and laughing at Male Priests, Female Priestesses who shake their heads in distrust or distaste because of your Female Paladin.

 

How would the world, in turn, see and know what class you are?

 

How does Reputation work?

 

Thats fine too, theoretically, but how would you want to achieve this?

If the npc just called you out on your class, that makes no sense. Just as you're asking, how would they know?

If you have to give that information yourself to the npc, why shouldn't everyone be able to? Why wouldn't a rogue be able to pretend to be a priest or the like?

You could as well link it to a background feat and / or being member in a faction, which makes much more sense from a roleplaying point of view. So I still don't see the benefit in having this.

 

And I may have misunderstood you, but your suggestion sounded heavily like the former to me, and being called out on your class without having a choice would not fit a rpg with generic characters imo (while it works fine in stories where the protagonist has a given class and personality).

 

Also, I don't see how this should be a "global" feature (again, you make it sound like that): Certain cultures liking / disliking certain gender/class combos is perfectly fine, but the whole world treating you differently for what you do seems way too biased to me.

Edited January 17, 2013 by Doppelschwert

[Osvir]

There could be certain faction banners that give you away, which should be able to work both ways (Either to disguise yourself, or to show off your honor for the faction).

 

So when the NPC's see your female Paladin wearing the colors proudly they go *GASP!* or you hide your Paladin in a warriors garments in some cities. Then, if a fight breaks out in the city somehow and your female Paladin uses a Paladin ability = *GASP!* regardless of how they felt about you.

 

Kind of "Necromancy" dealio, heresy. How does people react to Necromancy in a village/city where it isn't favored? Dropping the male/female in this sentence but, how does the world react to you and how can you hide or enhance that reaction?

 

Oh my suggestion is not about being called out on your class. But how could someone see your class? When you see someone strolling down the street wearing a tuxedo, you assume the guy is a businessman or "The Office" worker in some way? Wrong? Anyways, there could be some key-elements to a Class that is noticeable at either first glance or it has to be hidden away somehow. Suppressed aura or something.

 

Project: Eternity: Magic is common, souls has something to do with it and it exists in many places. Can people "feel" aura's? "Ah that's a Paladin, I can sense it in their aura" or whatever, of course that'd have to be in some way limited to some few applicable Classes, and not have every bloke in a city know it. "Detect Soul".

 

Then there's the question of the Cipher. "Erase memory" or whatnot.

 

^That is pretty messy brainstorming but I think it's a start of some structured way to achieve some form. I am totally in favor of hiding your identity! Perhaps even wanted posters appearing, Dishonored has this, the wanted posters are simply texture (High Chaos you'll see em everywhere, Low Chaos you won't see em anywhere).

 

Barbarian+Amazon, why Amazon? I tucked it into there because I just thought it'd be cool to be able to build your Barbarian into something Amazon-esque. Strong hulking spear throwing berserkers, just sounds fun imo

 

Wizard, Witch, Sorcerer, Sorceress as well. It could imply different types of "Kits". Initially I thought like this:

* Wizard Male

* Sorceress Female

 

That'd imply that you could build your Male Wizard into a Sorcerer, and your female Wizard into a "Witch". I understand it is unisex now, but this is my train of thought and what damaged me since childhood, Disney's "The Sword in the Stone"

 

I'm sorry about the misunderstanding, not "Globally" of course. Faction-based, of course.

Edited January 17, 2013 by Osvir

[Alexjh]

Not a fan of this at all in regards to overarching classes, however, what might work is if certain divisions within a class were only open to a specific gender. It's not unlikely that a certain, say, wizard school only accepts men, either as a character creation option or a joinable faction within the game. The former is preferable because otherwise you'd either have unbalanced genders and everyone would play a male wizard, or, you'd have to include a rather artificial female equivalent to keep them balanced.

 

If you are going to go that route though you would want to go and have orders for just dwarves or just humans too, or even just arctic dwarves say. Not specifically more powerful that other origins but just with different spells or abilities to make them different and worth consideration.

 

This would make most sense for members of "order" based classes eg. Monk, paladin, wizard, druid, priest etc, but you could stretch it to barbarians in the former of clans or fighters and rogues in guilds or something. You'd want at least 70% non exclusive orders but a couple thrown into the mix might add a bit of flavour...

[Sacred_Path]

I liked Divine Divinity's gender based classes at first glance until I realized it doesn't really matter what skills they start with.

 

But I think I'm when I say that it's better for the game to react to whatever class you have and what gender you are than restricting class abilities based on gender.

[Tsuga C]

Thanks, but no thanks, Osvir. This is just a huge bag of fail. If we're not going to recognize basic physiological differences (e.g. strength) between the sexes, then this sort of thing won't fly at all.

[PrimeJunta]

Waiter? I'll have two of whatever Osvir's having. With extra bitters. Thanks.

[JFSOCC]

It's not that ridiculous. You don't have to be mocking about it. Plenty orders DO have different names for their followers based on gender. like the Catholic church.

[Tauron]

If you say Wizard, for some reason I dont picture a woman. Is Wizardess correct for female in english? It kind of makes sense to have gender specifics or better yet unisex title like Mage.

 

As for barbarian and fighters, I agree. There was discussion about that before. It is supposed to be difference in fighting style. But than, fighter should be called soldier. It is not fair calling barabrians, barbarians in context the word has, knowing today how those cultures were acually. But lets stick to predefined stereotypes we know, it will be just easier.

 

So whn we say barbarian we think of Conan. Fighting bit less armored, huge weapons, more wild fighter.

[PrimeJunta]

It's not that ridiculous. You don't have to be mocking about it. Plenty orders DO have different names for their followers based on gender. like the Catholic church.

I didn't intend to mock. I just thought Barbazon, Wizitch, and Palaest sounded wonderfully like something you'd think up in a certain very particular state of mind. :cheers:

[Osvir]

There's no good rolls eyes smiley! But whatever, because those titles are what I'm suggesting? Those are just titles in the post and I don't think you're dumb.

But just in case that you are:

Barba-rian+Ama-zon (and yes, I thought it funny as well as a good way to create a shorter title in the post)~

It's not what I am proposing.

Edited January 18, 2013 by Osvir

[PrimeJunta]

Osvir, it was funny. And I did get the references. I'm sorry my attempt at humor in response fell flat. I honestly didn't intend to mock. It's an amusing idea in general (in a good way), but I don't really have much else to say about it, as things like titles depend so much on the cultures that give them, and we don't know a whole lot about those.

 

Once again, I apologize for causing offense. I tried to make a joke and failed. I'll try to do better next time.