The 'Sidian Tyranny thread

[ManifestedISO]

They removed the starting strength limit from early editions of D&D because it was silly: male half-orcs were limited to 18/99 ... male humans could roll 18/00. 

[Elerond]

 

 

 

 

Nothing about it in Middle Earth, D&D or even Hyboria.  As I already said, the whole Amazonian myth dates back to Greek Mythology.  

 

Well, female fighting characters (either ones you fight as, with, or against) are certainly treated the same as male fighting characters in D&D - at least, I think so. Fighting characters are not the only type of characters in D&D, though, and on a wider overview, I don't think you could really consider that principle to stand up to any great degree...

 

Yup. You're character is created, not randomly sampled, so she doesn't need to represent a typical member of society. You can play a Nikki Fuller-type character if you want.

 

 

Revan is stating that in the typical fantasy universe, females are weaker than males.  I don't see any evidence of that in D&D, at least that I've seen.  

 

I was thinking about games, movies or books, not p&p rulesets (by the way, the older D&D versions had inferior strenght cap for females - they removed them in the newer versions just to allow players to create every character they want, I guess -, and also I've not read stories based on D&D settings but I do think that most of the regular soldiers are men, as it is in games such as BG, IWD and NWN). For example, in The Wheel of Time women usually hold more power than men, but that is because they can use magic while men go mad after using saidin for a while (and so are forbidden to use it or hunted down). Regular soldiers are men, there are women that go to war with them but they are sorceresses. There's pretty much the same situation in The Witcher series (Triss, Yennefer, Philippa and the Lodge are arguably more powerful than Geralt, but their source of power is magic, not their combat prowess and the regular fighters/soldiers are men).

Then again, there are women who rise up to become good fighters in many fantasy stories (Eowin in LOTR, Brienne in ASOIAF, etc.) but they are not common and don't represent the average woman (who shares the pros and cons and the traits of real world's women).

 

 

In LOTR women were forbidden to take arms, and Éowyn just decided **** such nonsense and not just prove that she was capable warrior but that she was able to defeat Witch King immortal entity that had blighted Middle Earth for time of first war of the Rings (several thousands of years). Book don't give any information of prowess of other women in battle field. Although Galadriel is told to be one of the most powerful beings in the Middle Earth and that if she takes the One ring, then Sauron's rule would have been just cakewalk. And whole books point from start to beginning is not underestimate people and what they are capable to do.

 

The Witcher series also has Ciri, who is as just capable in fighting as Geralt, of course magic from her elven heritage helps, but Geralt is magically mutated creature that also wields magic. But again Witcher's world is one where women's role isn't to be warriors, but in Skellige people don't seem to even bat an eye for idea of warrior woman, so they aren't some strange unicorns that pop-up once in the millennium. 

 

And if we look other fantasy worlds like for example Celano series' world there isn't any men because they all died in past because they weren't good enough (because of genetic tinkering of one person that really hated men). Lyremouth Chronicles' world where women are strongest people that exists (although it is only true in one part of the world other parts are controlled by wizards that don't care about person' gender)

 

Meaning that they are fantasy worlds and their authors can make any changes to rules that they want to make, and if you only look fantasy world made men then you most likely find results that reflect ideas that men stronger, more capable, actual heroes, etc. just because nature of people.

[Hurlshort]

I was thinking about games, movies or books, not p&p rulesets (by the way, the older D&D versions had inferior strenght cap for females - they removed them in the newer versions just to allow players to create every character they want, I guess -, and also I've not read stories based on D&D settings but I do think that most of the regular soldiers are men, as it is in games such as BG, IWD and NWN). For example, in The Wheel of Time women usually hold more power than men, but that is because they can use magic while men go mad after using saidin for a while (and so are forbidden to use it or hunted down). Regular soldiers are men, there are women that go to war with them but they are sorceresses. There's pretty much the same situation in The Witcher series (Triss, Yennefer, Philippa and the Lodge are arguably more powerful than Geralt, but their source of power is magic, not their combat prowess and the regular fighters/soldiers are men).

 

Then again, there are women who rise up to become good fighters in many fantasy stories (Eowin in LOTR, Brienne in ASOIAF, etc.) but they are not common and don't represent the average woman (who shares the pros and cons and the traits of real world's women).

 

 

Ok, that's some good reflection.  Now what about the Amazons?

[Revan91]

 

 

 

Revan is stating that in the typical fantasy universe, females are weaker than males.  I don't see any evidence of that in D&D, at least that I've seen.  

 

I was thinking about games, movies or books, not p&p rulesets (by the way, the older D&D versions had inferior strenght cap for females - they removed them in the newer versions just to allow players to create every character they want, I guess -, and also I've not read stories based on D&D settings but I do think that most of the regular soldiers are men, as it is in games such as BG, IWD and NWN). For example, in The Wheel of Time women usually hold more power than men, but that is because they can use magic while men go mad after using saidin for a while (and so are forbidden to use it or hunted down). Regular soldiers are men, there are women that go to war with them but they are sorceresses. There's pretty much the same situation in The Witcher series (Triss, Yennefer, Philippa and the Lodge are arguably more powerful than Geralt, but their source of power is magic, not their combat prowess and the regular fighters/soldiers are men).

Then again, there are women who rise up to become good fighters in many fantasy stories (Eowin in LOTR, Brienne in ASOIAF, etc.) but they are not common and don't represent the average woman (who shares the pros and cons and the traits of real world's women).

 

 

In LOTR women were forbidden to take arms, and Éowyn just decided **** such nonsense and not just prove that she was capable warrior but that she was able to defeat Witch King immortal entity that had blighted Middle Earth for time of first war of the Rings (several thousands of years). Book don't give any information of prowess of other women in battle field. Although Galadriel is told to be one of the most powerful beings in the Middle Earth and that if she takes the One ring, then Sauron's rule would have been just cakewalk. And whole books point from start to beginning is not underestimate people and what they are capable to do.

 

The Witcher series also has Ciri, who is as just capable in fighting as Geralt, of course magic from her elven heritage helps, but Geralt is magically mutated creature that also wields magic. But again Witcher's world is one where women's role isn't to be warriors, but in Skellige people don't seem to even bat an eye for idea of warrior woman, so they aren't some strange unicorns that pop-up once in the millennium. 

 

And if we look other fantasy worlds like for example Celano series' world there isn't any men because they all died in past because they weren't good enough (because of genetic tinkering of one person that really hated men). Lyremouth Chronicles' world where women are strongest people that exists (although it is only true in one part of the world other parts are controlled by wizards that don't care about person' gender)

 

Meaning that they are fantasy worlds and their authors can make any changes to rules that they want to make, and if you only look fantasy world made men then you most likely find results that reflect ideas that men stronger, more capable, actual heroes, etc. just because nature of people.

 

Eowin defeats the King of the Nazguls, yes, but she's aided by Merry who stabs him in the back, giving her the chance to finish him. She's as strong as most men by the way, but she's not by any means the typical woman in the LOTR setting.

Galadriel is more powerful than Aragorn, Gimli, Boromir or Legolas, but that's because of her magic powers (and also she has one of the three elven rings).

You're right about the point of the book being that even the most (apparently) unimportant people (--> hobbits) are capable of achieving the most heroic deeds, though.

 

In TW, Ciri is good with a sword but definetely not in league with Geralt or the other witchers, if only because she hasn't endured the mutations and so she hasn't superhuman strenght and agility like them. Still, she's the most powerful being in the universe because of her blood and her magic.

 

I don't know the other examples you've provided, honestly. But actually I think is a given that the average man is larger and stronger than the average woman, that doesn't mean that he'll be more powerful, rich or anything because there are plenty of possibilities to achieve power (that doesn't revolve around mere strenght or military training) especially in a fantasy world, it's just that it'll be easier for him to be a competetent soldier.

It's possible to make a story where that is subversed and women are stronger, taller and larger because of whatever reason, and in that case they would be more inclined to the military life than men. But when it's not clearly stated in the premise, it's clear that men and women are modeled after their real life's counterparts and share their basic traits, although the cultural values may change significantly.

 

 

 

I was thinking about games, movies or books, not p&p rulesets (by the way, the older D&D versions had inferior strenght cap for females - they removed them in the newer versions just to allow players to create every character they want, I guess -, and also I've not read stories based on D&D settings but I do think that most of the regular soldiers are men, as it is in games such as BG, IWD and NWN). For example, in The Wheel of Time women usually hold more power than men, but that is because they can use magic while men go mad after using saidin for a while (and so are forbidden to use it or hunted down). Regular soldiers are men, there are women that go to war with them but they are sorceresses. There's pretty much the same situation in The Witcher series (Triss, Yennefer, Philippa and the Lodge are arguably more powerful than Geralt, but their source of power is magic, not their combat prowess and the regular fighters/soldiers are men).

 

Then again, there are women who rise up to become good fighters in many fantasy stories (Eowin in LOTR, Brienne in ASOIAF, etc.) but they are not common and don't represent the average woman (who shares the pros and cons and the traits of real world's women).

 

 

Ok, that's some good reflection.  Now what about the Amazons?

 

I'm no expert about them, actually. I only know they practiced self-mutilation (the removal of one breast) to increase their combat effectiveness.

Edited June 6, 2016 by Revan91

[Gromnir]

 

 

 

 

Nothing about it in Middle Earth, D&D or even Hyboria.  As I already said, the whole Amazonian myth dates back to Greek Mythology.  

 

Well, female fighting characters (either ones you fight as, with, or against) are certainly treated the same as male fighting characters in D&D - at least, I think so. Fighting characters are not the only type of characters in D&D, though, and on a wider overview, I don't think you could really consider that principle to stand up to any great degree...

 

Yup. You're character is created, not randomly sampled, so she doesn't need to represent a typical member of society. You can play a Nikki Fuller-type character if you want.

 

 

Revan is stating that in the typical fantasy universe, females are weaker than males.  I don't see any evidence of that in D&D, at least that I've seen.  

 

I was thinking about games, movies or books, not p&p rulesets (by the way, the older D&D versions had inferior strenght cap for females - they removed them in the newer versions just to allow players to create every character they want, I guess -, and also I've not read stories based on D&D settings but I do think that most of the regular soldiers are men, as it is in games such as BG, IWD and NWN). For example, in The Wheel of Time women usually hold more power than men, but that is because they can use magic while men go mad after using saidin for a while (and so are forbidden to use it or hunted down). Regular soldiers are men, there are women that go to war with them but they are sorceresses. There's pretty much the same situation in The Witcher series (Triss, Yennefer, Philippa and the Lodge are arguably more powerful than Geralt, but their source of power is magic, not their combat prowess and the regular fighters/soldiers are men).

Then again, there are women who rise up to become good fighters in many fantasy stories (Eowin in LOTR, Brienne in ASOIAF, etc.) but they are not common and don't represent the average woman (who shares the pros and cons and the traits of real world's women).

 

highlighted is untrue.  as o' 3e, the d&d rules specifically note that women (not just pc women) is as strong as men in greyhawk (the core d&d world at 3e release.)  subsequent editions have followed suit.  pathfinder has also stated in their rules that women is equal strong.  while we ain't read pathfinder or d&d novels o' the past 20 years, the game worlds 'pon which they is based is normalizing male and female strength. am unsure of dragon age lore, but we would be incredible surprised if the biowarian social progressives had not made special note that women is equal to men in all things in their world.

 

all o' which is complete beside the point 'course. the initial revan complaint is largely meaningless with recognition that tyranny, like so many other fantasy rpgs, would be ill-advised to handicap women players who wish to play their women characters equal strong as men.  the fact that there is equal numbers o' women seeming represented in tyranny world military units is about as non a factor as a non-factor can  possible be.  is admitted not possible in real life.  so what? in a fantasy world where developers control the biology and the physics, why wouldn't they create equality?  misplaced notions o' verisimilitude? is a freaking game... a fantasy game.  

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited June 6, 2016 by Gromnir

[Revan91]

 

I was thinking about games, movies or books, not p&p rulesets (by the way, the older D&D versions had inferior strenght cap for females - they removed them in the newer versions just to allow players to create every character they want, I guess -, and also I've not read stories based on D&D settings but I do think that most of the regular soldiers are men, as it is in games such as BG, IWD and NWN). For example, in The Wheel of Time women usually hold more power than men, but that is because they can use magic while men go mad after using saidin for a while (and so are forbidden to use it or hunted down). Regular soldiers are men, there are women that go to war with them but they are sorceresses. There's pretty much the same situation in The Witcher series (Triss, Yennefer, Philippa and the Lodge are arguably more powerful than Geralt, but their source of power is magic, not their combat prowess and the regular fighters/soldiers are men).

 

Then again, there are women who rise up to become good fighters in many fantasy stories (Eowin in LOTR, Brienne in ASOIAF, etc.) but they are not common and don't represent the average woman (who shares the pros and cons and the traits of real world's women).

 

highlighted is untrue.  as o' 3e, the d&d rules specifically note that women (not just pc women) is as strong as men in greyhawk (the core d&d world at 3e release.)  subsequent editions have followed suit.  pathfinder has also stated in their rules that women is equal strong.  while we ain't read pathfinder or d&d novels o' the past 20 years, the game worlds 'pon which they is based is normalizing male and female strength. am unsure of dragon age lore, but we would be incredible surprised if the biowarian social progressives had not made special note that women is equal to men in all things in their world.

 

all o' which is complete beside the point 'course. the initial revan complaint is largely meaningless with recognition that tyranny, like so many other fantasy rpgs, would be ill-advised to handicap women players who wish to play their women characters equal strong as men.  the fact that there is equal numbers o' women seeming represented in tyranny world military units is about as non a factor as a non-factor can  possible be.  is admitted not possible in real life.  so what? in a fantasy world where developers control the biology and the physics, why wouldn't they create equality?  misplaced notions o' verisimilitude? is a freaking game... a fantasy game.  

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

I'm not advocating for giving strenght penalties for females during character creation or anything like that, I've spent more than enough time arguing about why having so many women in armies is incoherent (while on the other hand they would have the same chances as any man to become good spies, diplomats, rulers and whatever) and doubly so in a world dominated by an evil overlord who should care only about having the strongest soldiers possible, not about social equality (which also, as devs and players should considered, makes little sense in settings culturally as advanced as Medieval or Roman/Greek times, where the opinion on social issues was quite different than today, but this is a separate topic).

I think I've provided enough arguments and examples to support my thesis, but I can see that we're not going anywhere If I have to continue to state the same things other and other because "it's a fantasy, they can do whatever they want". It's not a very big issue, either, it makes the world less believable but the game can still be good (or great, hopefully) regardless.

[Gromnir]

revan has short memory.  

 

"I was thinking about games, movies or books, not p&p rulesets (by the way, the older D&D versions had inferior strenght cap for females - they removed them in the newer versions just to allow players to create every character they want, I guess -, and also I've not read stories based on D&D settings but I do think that most of the regular soldiers are men, as it is in games such as BG, IWD and NWN)"

 

again, your conclusions is untrue.  d&d didn't simple remove strength differential for player characters.  were similar for pathfinder and dragon age.  largely equal female representation of women in military roles in numerous editions o' d&d and other game Worlds has been noteworthy only insofar as it has been non-noteworthy-- nobody cares. the verisimilitude shattering overrepresentation o' women in the lore o' d&d since 3.0, and in pathfinder and dragon age were a complete non factor.  good.

 

as an aside, am going to posit that strength differential has never been the main reason for pre-industrial real world women exclusion from military.  lack o' dependable birth control and a reasonable bias in favor o' women handling child rearing duties were far more important factors.  takes very little strength to kill, and to kill effective.  women are not as strong as men and when US Congressmen and military generals pretend as if the genders is the same, the results is largely comical.  even so, is not strength that has historical been the reason for exclusion o' women from military roles.  weaker don't = weak.  preindustrial women spent most of their time either pregnant or rearing children, a fact which limited their military opportunities.  

 

regardless, numerous highly popular fantasy worlds has been very successful at full integration o' genders.  has been a non-factor as the developers o' greyhawk and other worlds simple started with the foundation recognition that women is as strong as men in such worlds.  the many thousands o' d&d, pathfinder and dragon age fans accepted the foundational premise o' gender equality with hardly any notice whatsoever.  is not a genuine issue, and is hardly "beyond retarded" for a developer o' a game or fantasy world to embrace such gender indifference.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps does anybody actual say "retarded" nowadays?  

[Revan91]

Dragon Age's setting is **** and so are the games themselves, with the sole exception of Origins. I for one expect better from Obsidian.

Also, what you say about strenght not needed to kill effectively is right today, much less so in a world where duels are fought with swords, axes and spears. 

Btw, you're not answering any of the points I've been making in my posts, you're just repeating the same things such as "other players accept the premise o' gender equality" so "is not a genuine issue", which has nothing to do with what was debated here. First, you implied that I wanted to penalised female players from creating strong characters while I've never said that, now you're insisting on D&D 3.0 and its character creations rules which have nothing to do with worldbuilding and ignoring everything else when convenient, again. 

Fool me once shame on me, fool me twice... go on if you like, I'm done wasting my time with this nonsense.

Edited June 7, 2016 by Revan91

[redneckdevil]

In the wheel of time series, they introduce a character almost right off the bat that can brow beat, track, AND knock most men on their asses. Hell the beginning town, the men walked lightly not only because of women's circle politics but because quite a few could physically overpower a lot of men. Also we can't forget about Birgitte golden hair either, that chick was badass even without a bow.

That's also not only talking bout the aiel society and also one of the trinity's wife was a force to be reckoned with with him having to go all out to save his skin from her.

 

Sigh, can't believe I got sucked into this. It's fantasy, that's like saying the reason is "SCIENCE!!!", "Magic", or "Aliens!!". You could go in with the assumption that "real life" mechanics are at play but ya gotta throw that out the window when the "whatever" gives multiple examples that it doesn't.

Old men aren't always weaker than youngins, youngins ain't always dumber than elders, women aren't always weaker than men, and magic doesn't always win against steel or even good old fashion trickery. It's fantasy. Nuff said.

 

Back to topic-when is tranny gonna be out? It's says this year but steam still won't let me preorder.

[Elerond]

Dragon Age's setting is **** and so are the games themselves, with the sole exception of Origins. I for one expect better from Obsidian.

Also, what you say about strenght not needed to kill effectively is right today, much less so in a world where duels are fought with swords, axes and spears.

Btw, you're not answering any of the points I've been making in my posts, you're just repeating the same things such as "other players accept the premise o' gender equality" so "is not a genuine issue", which has nothing to do with what was debated here. First, you implied that I wanted to penalised female players from creating strong characters while I've never said that, now you're insisting on D&D 3.0 and its character creations rules which have nothing to do with worldbuilding and ignoring everything else when convenient, again. 

Fool me once shame on me, fool me twice... go on if you like, I'm done wasting my time with this nonsense.

 

Strength isn't that important when you are fighting with those weapons, you need just enough to wield weapon (which is something that both men and women can quite easily achieve especially in time most of the house hold work was done with similar tools, especially farmers [and there was no farming house where women didn't partake in reaping, and other heavy duties, because they could not afford not to]) without problems, but then you need skill, speed, hand eye coordination and understanding how your opponent can move and most likely move. This is because sharp sword, spear or axe needs quite minimal force to wound and kill person. Strength also plays quite little in in armored combat, because additional force that you can put behind weapon isn't that much without risking losing control over it which is when you opponent most likely wins the duel, you are better of to find spot where there isn't armor.

 

So women not being part of fighting force was never really issue of their lack of strength, but their lack of schooling in using weapons. So it was more of social issue than anything else. Although in richer classes women often avoided physical work because they were able to afford to hire people to do work for them and it was socially excepted behavior.

[Gromnir]

Dragon Age's setting is **** and so are the games themselves, with the sole exception of Origins. I for one expect better from Obsidian.

Also, what you say about strenght not needed to kill effectively is right today, much less so in a world where duels are fought with swords, axes and spears. 

Btw, you're not answering any of the points I've been making in my posts, you're just repeating the same things such as "other players accept the premise o' gender equality" so "is not a genuine issue", which has nothing to do with what was debated here. First, you implied that I wanted to penalised female players from creating strong characters while I've never said that, now you're insisting on D&D 3.0 and its character creations rules which have nothing to do with worldbuilding and ignoring everything else when convenient, again. 

Fool me once shame on me, fool me twice... go on if you like, I'm done wasting my time with this nonsense.

am suspecting that you is "done" if only 'cause you can't string out the falsehoods much longer.  as we keep pointing out, the aforementioned settings didn not simple apply equal strength to women for player characters.  the world of greyhawk makes women and men equal strength-- not just pcs.  is same for pathfinder and dragon age.  *zoom* point missed.  also, we never implied that you wanted females penalised.  we specific said that the issue is "moot" as there ain't no way that tyranny would penalize.  again, is much different as you is representing.  

 

and elerond is correct 'bout strength.  women is weaker, but they got more than enough strength to use spears and swords.  has been more than a few cultures with relative small Males who were more than capable warriors, even when facing considerable larger foes.  strength has never been the primary issue.... which is, again, beside the point.

 

HA! God Fun!

[Mr. Magniloquent]

Also, what you say about strenght not needed to kill effectively is right today, much less so in a world where duels are fought with swords, axes and spears.

Strength isn't that important when you are fighting with those weapons, you need just enough to wield weapon (which is something that both men and women can quite easily achieve especially in time most of the house hold work was done with similar tools, especially farmers [and there was no farming house where women didn't partake in reaping, and other heavy duties, because they could not afford not to]) without problems, but then you need skill, speed, hand eye coordination and understanding how your opponent can move and most likely move. This is because sharp sword, spear or axe needs quite minimal force to wound and kill person. Strength also plays quite little in in armored combat, because additional force that you can put behind weapon isn't that much without risking losing control over it which is when you opponent most likely wins the duel, you are better of to find spot where there isn't armor.

 

 While I have no desire to discuss gender in gaming, I will make a point of interest. The above statement by Elerond is horrendously false. They have no idea what they're talking about. Strength is critical in wielding a melee weapon. It influences everything. Endrance. How easily you can maneuver it. The ability to break through a parry. The ability to effectively parry. How precisely you can place a strike, and yes, the severity of a blow. All of this is also true in instances with armor.

 

Source: 6 years Aikido, 3 years of Fencing, 2 years Okinawan Kenpo, 1 year of Kendo.

[Gromnir]

 

Also, what you say about strenght not needed to kill effectively is right today, much less so in a world where duels are fought with swords, axes and spears.

Strength isn't that important when you are fighting with those weapons, you need just enough to wield weapon (which is something that both men and women can quite easily achieve especially in time most of the house hold work was done with similar tools, especially farmers [and there was no farming house where women didn't partake in reaping, and other heavy duties, because they could not afford not to]) without problems, but then you need skill, speed, hand eye coordination and understanding how your opponent can move and most likely move. This is because sharp sword, spear or axe needs quite minimal force to wound and kill person. Strength also plays quite little in in armored combat, because additional force that you can put behind weapon isn't that much without risking losing control over it which is when you opponent most likely wins the duel, you are better of to find spot where there isn't armor.

 

 While I have no desire to discuss gender in gaming, I will make a point of interest. The above statement by Elerond is horrendously false. They have no idea what they're talking about. Strength is critical in wielding a melee weapon. It influences everything. Endrance. How easily you can maneuver it. The ability to break through a parry. The ability to effectively parry. How precisely you can place a strike, and yes, the severity of a blow. All of this is also true in instances with armor.

 

Source: 6 years Aikido, 3 years of Fencing, 2 years Okinawan Kenpo, 1 year of Kendo.

 

resume time? we got a partial scholarship to University of Pennsylvania for fencing.  considerable more than 3 years with sabre. we also wrestled for many years including having made varsity since sophomore year at one o' the better known wrestling schools in chicago. did not go to state, but it were close. boxed from youth through first couple years in college.  admittedly weren't anywhere near golden gloves, so we ain't even gonna pretend we were something-something, but we did have experience in the ring. worked probation for a few years and went through MAB training which we used on a near daily basis.

 

*shrug*

 

one-on-one, mano v. mano fighting is Not same as military.  bigger and stronger is indeed huge advantages, but is not dispositive particularly in military battles.  if you got smaller and weaker soldiers, you is gonna use 'em accordingly.  there is a reason why not all units is heavy infantry or heavy cavalry, yes? 

 

http://www.thearma.org/essays/knightvs.htm

 

average 16th century samurai were 'tween 5'3" and 5'5" and ~135 lbs.  the size o' the average dutchman is, surprisingly, not much different today than they were in 16th century... go figure. the samurai fared well enough against europeans in those limited melee combats that took place. 

 

which again, is all beside the point.  in any number o' fantasy settings, a foundational premise is that men and women humans is equal strength.  such settings do not implode from implausibility.  d&d since 3.0, pathfinder and dragon age is all examples that quick come to mind where women is equal strong as men and wherein militaries is often populated by men and women with equal frequency.  starting point of equal strength has not overstrained credulity or destroyed verisimilitude.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps not that it is actual relevant, but am gonna once again reiterate that we recognize that women is, on average, not as strong as men.  am also recognizing that strength is a vital quality in many military and civilian roles.  we want our marines to be able to carry their own pack.  we want firefighters to be strong enough to carry the average adult male out of a burning building.  when government actors bow to political pressure and reduce minimum essential strength thresholds just so that more women can be represented in fields that has not produced anything approaching gender parity, we get a bit unhappy.  am not saying that women can do anything that men can do.  men and women are different.  that being said, strength is not the quality that has historically prevented women from serving in Most militaries.  after all, the number o' small and weak males that has been conscripted into militaries over the centuries is likely beyond counting. 

Edited June 7, 2016 by Gromnir

[Humanoid]

One wonders how much more popular the Legion route would have been in New Vegas if they were still warmongering jerks, but equal-opportunity warmongering jerks. I don't know anyone personally who went with a Kaizar playthrough, and I imagine the whole premise of their societal structure put people off from even considering it at all. Just an example of how this kind of thing, even with best intentions, can have a detrimental effect on gameplay - dozens of hours of content that likely will go unseen by the majority of the playerbase.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

ps does anybody actual say "retarded" nowadays?  

 

Outside of 4chan? Not much.

[Bartimaeus]

In the wheel of time series, they introduce a character almost right off the bat that can brow beat, track, AND knock most men on their asses. Hell the beginning town, the men walked lightly not only because of women's circle politics but because quite a few could physically overpower a lot of men. Also we can't forget about Birgitte golden hair either, that chick was badass even without a bow.

That's also not only talking bout the aiel society and also one of the trinity's wife was a force to be reckoned with with him having to go all out to save his skin from her.

 

On the other hand, the few women I've recommended the Wheel of Time series to (about 3 or 4, all told) all stopped reading the series because they hated how Robert Jordan wrote the women characters so much that they couldn't get through it. Something about the women being so consistently stupid and stubborn all of the time and the main men characters listening to them way more than they should, and about how Robert Jordan should never write a woman character ever again...

 

...which I can sympathize with, given that Elayne was quite possibly the most stupid and annoying character, PERIOD - regardless of gender - that I've ever had to spend a significant amount of time reading about...but I dealt with that by just skimming over her parts as fast as possible and hoping she was dealt a quick death ASAP. Alas, it was not to be.

Edited June 7, 2016 by Bartimaeus

[Elerond]

 

Also, what you say about strenght not needed to kill effectively is right today, much less so in a world where duels are fought with swords, axes and spears.

Strength isn't that important when you are fighting with those weapons, you need just enough to wield weapon (which is something that both men and women can quite easily achieve especially in time most of the house hold work was done with similar tools, especially farmers [and there was no farming house where women didn't partake in reaping, and other heavy duties, because they could not afford not to]) without problems, but then you need skill, speed, hand eye coordination and understanding how your opponent can move and most likely move. This is because sharp sword, spear or axe needs quite minimal force to wound and kill person. Strength also plays quite little in in armored combat, because additional force that you can put behind weapon isn't that much without risking losing control over it which is when you opponent most likely wins the duel, you are better of to find spot where there isn't armor.

 

 While I have no desire to discuss gender in gaming, I will make a point of interest. The above statement by Elerond is horrendously false. They have no idea what they're talking about. Strength is critical in wielding a melee weapon. It influences everything. Endrance. How easily you can maneuver it. The ability to break through a parry. The ability to effectively parry. How precisely you can place a strike, and yes, the severity of a blow. All of this is also true in instances with armor.

 

Source: 6 years Aikido, 3 years of Fencing, 2 years Okinawan Kenpo, 1 year of Kendo.

 

 

I stand by words as person that has practiced sport judo for 20 years, hema for 15 years and who has taught both men and women to fight with swords, spears, axes, halberds, bows, rifles, knives, daggers. From my personal experience I have come to conclusion that if person has enough strength to wield weapon with ease (which means that person needs to have enough endurance to fling weapon for sometime) then in duel person's strength don't really play in when it comes to who will win the duel. People that fare best in in hema tournaments (or even judo tournaments) aren't really never come from the end that has people with most strength. They don't come even from tallest end even though reach plays more in advantage than strength in duels.

 

But if person has strength and endurance to work 10 hours on the field during harvest then they have enough strength and endurance to wield sword, spear or axe.

 

EDIT: To add, in my experience it isn't strength that put women in disadvantage in judo for example, but that fact that they are 20-40 centimeters shorter than me and weight 30-50 kg less than me. Because I have much more reach and they need to use much more strength to throw me. Meaning that I have easier time to get holds and for them fight is more tiring. But if I match with woman of my size then things are much more equal even if I can lift from bench more, then determining factors are usually skill, mistakes, tactics. In sword fight reach is thing that gives you most advantage (but shorter people need to just use tactics that aims to negate that advantage, but of course it still gives you advantage), strength plays much more in because you don't need to try to throw your opponent or anything like that but only wield your weapon. And as stronger person I can't put all my strength behind the hits because then I can't react to what my opponent is doing. In spear fighting even advantage from height starts to disappear because weapon itself has massive reach already and strength plays quite little in because you need quite little strength to get massive force behind your jabs and thrusts with spear, it is more about speed which you make it move than strength that you but behind it.  In parries and binds strength can play in bit more, but even then it is technique that plays more in than who is the strongest. Knife and dagger fights are closer to judo, but even them weapon equals the field.  

 

EDIT2: After reading my post again I realize that I let my annoyance over comment by some anonymous person in internet to cloud my judgement, which has lead me to fail full heartedly in this debate because not only I appealed to authority, but I made myself (an anonymous person in internet) that authority. So I just let myself out and leave this topic to people that actually can debate without doing beginner's mistakes.

Edited June 7, 2016 by Elerond

[Hurlshort]

I attended a free karate lesson once when I was about 9 years old, and I do some yoga.  I also used to be able to shoot my kids nerf bow and arrow really far, but the dog ate all the arrows so I am out of practice.  

[Gfted1]

Pffft. I can do 12oz curls for hours on end!

[Gromnir]

I attended a free karate lesson once when I was about 9 years old, and I do some yoga.  I also used to be able to shoot my kids nerf bow and arrow really far, but the dog ate all the arrows so I am out of practice.  

y'know, Gromnir actual tried yoga once.  were back in college and a cute girlfriend requested that we join her for a session.  is hard to recall all the things we has done over the years for no other reason than to impress a cute girl/woman, eh? went twice and we actual did our bestest.  we got pretty good flexibility, so we don't believe that we were humiliating our self or anything, but the looks we were getting from the instructor were...

 

...

 

is kinda funny to reflect these decades removed, but never has we had to endure such contemptuous stares.  am not sure if the glances were 'cause we were a man or a jock or... whatever. if we had come into her studio, squatted down and took a big steaming dump, we doubt we woulda' been able to elicit a more disgusted look from the woman instructor. *chuckle* we gave up on yoga almost immediate 'cause a 5'-nothing, middle-aged, woman yoga instructor made us feel bad 'bout our self? 

 

apologies for going complete off-topic.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited June 7, 2016 by Gromnir

[Hurlshort]

I guess it is a bit on topic, since my wife can pretty much whoop my butt when it comes to the majority of yoga poses.  The only ones I have an advantage on are the upper body strength poses, which are few and far between.  I rotate through a few different youtube instructors to mix up routines, and the majority of them are women, and they all kick my butt.  

[Gfted1]

I should try to get into yoga. The other day my lower back was a little achey so I bent over to try to touch my toes, and to my great horror, I could not reach. Then I farted.

[kirottu]

I should try to get into yoga. The other day my lower back was a little achey so I bent over to try to touch my toes, and to my great horror, I could not reach. Then I farted.

Yeah, but did it work? Good fart can work miracles.

[Zoraptor]

 

..Robert Jordan should never write a woman character ever again...

 

 

You could safely reassure them that he won't ever write a woman character again.

 

So no more tugged braids, smoothed dresses or sniffing noses, ever.

[the_dog_days]

. . .Robert Jordan should never write a woman character ever again...

He won't, as he's five years dead.