Gender-based Tolerance

[Deadmanwalking]

Because the male-dominated gaming world has consistently and often shamefully propagated negative stereotypes...which we can call "chainmail bikinis, helpless captives, and dancing Twi'leks"...so it takes extra vigilance to counter those images, even if sometimes the transgression seem harmless.

I'd like to note that I totally agree with this. Making a world where sexism simply isn't the norm is a laudable and reasonable goal (and I strongly approve of that being the official tack TOR has taken), and you certainly shouldn't ever include content in your games that's traumatic and/or legitimately unpleasant for the players.

Because we may say "women are as strong as men in our imaginary world" but an NPC who believes otherwise suggests that it's not really true.

This, however, I profoundly disagree with. As a GM in various games, I've portrayed characters who believed in genocide of lesser races, that torture was both fun and morally acceptable, and a host of other unpleasant things. That in no way inherently implies those things are actually true in the world in question. It can, if the GM makes the world agree with them, or makes everyone fel that way and never presents evidence otherwise, but it can also simply be a reflection of that individual NPC's unpleasantness.

As noted above, you certainly shouldn't do this if it will make players uncomfortable...but I see no issue with making an NPC a bad person barring that. NPCs manifestly believe many things that aren't true. Unless you make the belief ubiquitous and never present evidence of it being untrue (which would, indeed, be a bad decision) I'm not seeing how saying "This guy thinks women are incompetent.' means 'Women are incompetent in this game world.'

And, yes, even if the source texts justify benign sexism.

Ehhh....the text is what the world is based on, and if aiming for a proper simulation of the world aiming to reflect the attitudes of people shown in the text is a reasonable goal. It doesn't trump caring about the issues involved in sexism or similar things, and shouldn't be used to justify the world rules themselves being sexist or otherwise unpleasant...but the people in the world being sexist? Yeah, it can justify that.

Again, ignoring this is entire subject is also reasonable (and, indeed, vastly preferable if you have any players it might make uncomfortable)...but including it is also a valid choice that doesn't necessarily imply sexism on the part of the person doing it, and seems a reasonable aesthetic choice if you want to explore those issues.

[zedturtle]

As someone who avoided the gaming world for a long time specifically because of many of the gender issues that surround it, I agree with Glorelendil on this one. In regards to Zed's OP, my reaction is that reversing the situation is not the same, because men do not face the same institutionalized sexism that women do, even if they encounter prejudice in a specific situation (which can and does happen to men)...

Therefore, there are some situations in which the tolerance of an NPC being raised or lowered makes sense based on diversity (or gender lines), but in most situations if it was specifically around gender (or race), it would make me, the player, uncomfortable. My PC is a product of Tolkien's world, and so would probably have no problem with it.

Thank you for pointing this out. I felt obligated to step through the iterations in my post, even though the first one (a female NPC reacting better if there are female heroes around) is the only one under consideration right now.

There are a lot of awesome things in the source material. There are a few unfortunate things as well. Whether they are there because that makes it true to the "original author", emulates the material that provided the inspiration or were the personal opinions of Tolkien doesn't matter quite as much as that we have an opportunity to do better.

As Jussi Marttila says, adventurers are exceptional people. And as Bilbo says, "Not the Gandalf who was responsible for so many quiet lads and lasses going off into the Blue for mad adventures?"

So I guess I will proceed carefully and thoughtfully before committing to anything.

[Rue]

it would make me, the player, uncomfortable.

May I ask why? (I understand if you don't want to elaborate, it's probably very personal, but I'm curious, and being a white male I rarely experience prejudice)

I mean, as a game master, I often have to play horrible characters. I don't overdo it, and try to keep away from the most sensitive issues, but still, a villain is a villain. And sometimes an NPC is not a villain, but is still pretty bad. If it's a) not a joke, b) clear that the LM does not condone and c) not supported by the rules, does it still make you uncomfortable? I'm not trying to prove a point, I'm asking because I don't want to make my players uncomfortable, but it's a theme I use often.

I believe (hope) that what's important is the way you play women (or dark-skinned characters), not the way you play people who underestimate them. But as I said, I'm a white male, so what do I know...

I think if a, b, and c were all true then I would have no problem with it. The times I tend to care (and this is just me personally), would be if an LM (or other player, or whoever), used "less tolerance for women" (or some other iteration like that), as shorthand for why the PCs are no good. Basically, as other posters have stated, if there is a reason for the character's prejudice and it plays into their unique story, then I am usually fine with it--and I can think of some very good reasons why a female NPC's tolerance might be raised if there was at least one female PC in the group (to go back to the original example). If it's the LM's go-to reason for something because they're lazy? I'd be uncomfortable, as I'd take it as a sign of their real-world beliefs showing up in-game.

I think it bleeds over from "in-character problem" to "out of character problem" when the situation isn't handled the way deadmanwalking was demonstrating. Luckily for me, no one on this forum or with whom I've played TOR has ever behaved in such a way, and it's one of the things I love about the community here. I don't feel like I have to hide that I'm a woman, and that's a sadly rare thing for women to say online.

Basically the thing I wanted to add to the conversation is that whether or not a player/LM feels like they are being sexist, what matters is how their co-gamers experience it. In all of the examples in this thread, I would not feel like the sexism of an NPC was how the LM thought or felt about women. Therefore it's no problem.

Now, that said, I am white and I am also from a privileged class. So, like the women we see in Tolkien's work, I can use class to trump gender in much of my life. The same can't be said for all women(gamers) and so I appreciate that the LMs on this forum are taking the time to think about and discuss how their gaming choices affect their games/gamers. You guys rock.

[Stormcrow]

You and I read this very differently. In my opinion, that whole bit about the "no living man" prophecy clearly implies that she was justified in not playing her assigned part, and that she achieved heroism just fine.

And afterward it satisfied her not a whit. It took turning from war toward peace for her to be happy. It was Faramir who taught her this.

War must be, while we defend our lives against a destroyer who would devour all; but I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend: the city of the Men of Númenor; and I would have her loved for her memory, her ancientry, her beauty, and her present wisdom.

[Stormcrow]

This article about Eowyn and what the movies got wrong is pretty cool:

That article has a feminist agenda and misinterprets what's going on to support that agenda. Eowyn is putting words in Aragorn's mouth, because she's angry and wants to build a straw man to knock down. Aragorn is in no way saying she has to stay because she's a woman, nor has anyone else said that; Theoden leaves her behind because the people love her and they need someone to lead them, and because she accepted the role.

As for not leaving behind a man, Aragorn blows that out of the water: "‘But as for you, lady: did you not accept the charge to govern the people until their lord’s return? If you had not been chosen, then some marshal or captain would have been set in the same place, and he could not ride away from his charge, were he weary of it or no.’"

[zedturtle]

This article about Eowyn and what the movies got wrong is pretty cool:

That article has a feminist agenda and misinterprets what's going on to support that agenda. Eowyn is putting words in Aragorn's mouth, because she's angry and wants to build a straw man to knock down. Aragorn is in no way saying she has to stay because she's a woman, nor has anyone else said that; Theoden leaves her behind because the people love her and they need someone to lead them, and because she accepted the role.

As for not leaving behind a man, Aragorn blows that out of the water: "‘But as for you, lady: did you not accept the charge to govern the people until their lord’s return? If you had not been chosen, then some marshal or captain would have been set in the same place, and he could not ride away from his charge, were he weary of it or no.’"

Actually, I would say that both approaches point out a strength of Tolkien: he gives both Aragorn and Eowyn interesting and coherent viewpoints that are not wrong, but not in agreement either. That's much more interesting than one side or another being 'obviously' wrong (or right).

[Falenthal]

So I brought this up before, with some mixed feedback, but I'm once again thinking about this:

If you Encountered someone and her Tolerance was lower if the group did not include at least one female hero, what would you think of that?

And to be fair, flip either the gender of the Encounter or the required gender or both. (I.E. he wants 1+ females, he wants 1+ males, she wants 1+ females, she wants 1+ males).

I'll try to give my opinion just to the OP, and not enter a discussion about sexism in RPGs.

The same as with the Traits for characters, if something like that appears I'd say "that is REALLY important to that character". And that could be a clue to this character backstory and, maybe, to events that matter for the plot of the adventure.
I mean, I'm not against any kind of prejudice or whatever bad trait in a game, but as a LM I always ask myself before playing anything like that "Is it important to that character and to the adventure?" If the answer is yes, then go with it.

Remember that another option would be not to increase or lower Tolerance, but to make some tests harder for certain tests. For example, a male who despises women can have a hard time being impressed by them (raise Awe tests by +2), but can also be pleased when they "stick to their place" and use Courtesy or Song (lower those TNs by -2).

I've never had a problem with any of this things. And, normally, it is a trait of character that appears in the company of other despicable traits, making of him an untrusty NPC. His sexism, racism, etc is just a way of showing this.

[Yusei]

Aragorn is in no way saying she has to stay because she's a woman, nor has anyone else said that; Theoden leaves her behind because the people love her and they need someone to lead them, and because she accepted the role.

Did they bring any women along? They could have refuted Eowyn's "strawman argument" simply by pointing to them. Now, she does mention shieldmaidens, so they have female warriors, but it's possible that they are only assigned to the defense of the villages.

(Sorry for the offtopic discussion, but it seems the original question has been answered)

[Stormcrow]

Did they bring any women along?

Probably not, but we don't really know. As I said earlier, Tolkien's cultures are all quietly sexist and classist. I mean this in a non-negative way. People know their places, and those who try to reach beyond their stations end up causing trouble. This is a basic message of Tolkien (e.g., Morgoth).

This is not to say that Eowyn was causing trouble just by wanting to go to battle. The issue was never that she was a woman—that's just the excuse she comes up with. The real issue was always that she had already agreed to lead the Rohirrim left behind, and her duty required her to continue to do this.

I have no doubt that, if Eowyn were free of that duty, Theoden would have allowed her to go to battle. It would have been unusual for a woman to go, but not forbidden.

The only real difference between Eowyn and some other marshal or captain who might have taken on that duty is that the marshal or captain couldn't have complained of sexism like Eowyn does.

Now, she does mention shieldmaidens, so they have female warriors, but it's possible that they are only assigned to the defense of the villages.

Maybe, we don't know.

Now, for the game, it's best to just ignore all of the argument we've seen above. As I said from the beginning, if you play the sexism card in a game, it's going to cause the players to start examining gender roles in Tolkien exactly the way we've been doing. This is why The One Ring goes out of its way to depict female adventurers; it wants to avoid dealing with the issue. It also avoids dealing with classism; any adventuring vagabond can rise in Standing to become a great figure in his or her homeland. Adventurers are the exception, never the rule.

If you WANT to consider these issues in a game, of course, go right ahead. Don't expect must talk about it in the rules, and if you bring it up here you'll inevitably get this argument.

[Deadmanwalking]

Probably not, but we don't really know. As I said earlier, Tolkien's cultures are all quietly sexist and classist. I mean this in a non-negative way. People know their places, and those who try to reach beyond their stations end up causing trouble. This is a basic message of Tolkien (e.g., Morgoth).

I'm deeply unsure if I agree with this. I'm not the Tolkien scholar a lot of people on this board are, but I'm not at all sure if Elven or Hobbit culture are meaningfully sexist (based on the evidence), for example. Both certainly have other issues, but I'm not at all clear sexism is one of them.

As for classist...every society of any meaningful scale that's ever been is classist. Some people are considered above others, that's just the way human beings work. The primary distinctions between an unpleasantly classist society and one that isn't unpleasant is the degree to which such things are based on merit rather than things like who one's parents were or what gender one happens to be, and we have precious little evidence of the degree to which that's true in any of Tolkien's societies.

And given the number of people reaching beyond their station that work out rather well n Tolkien (Bilbo's whole arc in The Hobbit, Eowyn going with the army, Sam following Frodo, and even Aragorn's courtship of Arwen), I think saying his message is anything resembling 'don't reach beyond your station' is deeply inaccurate...and not particularly fair to Professor Tolkien.

This is not to say that Eowyn was causing trouble just by wanting to go to battle. The issue was never that she was a woman—that's just the excuse she comes up with. The real issue was always that she had already agreed to lead the Rohirrim left behind, and her duty required her to continue to do this.

I have no doubt that, if Eowyn were free of that duty, Theoden would have allowed her to go to battle. It would have been unusual for a woman to go, but not forbidden.

The only real difference between Eowyn and some other marshal or captain who might have taken on that duty is that the marshal or captain couldn't have complained of sexism like Eowyn does.

And again, I'm really not sure it's remotely that clear-cut. Eowyn coming along is, in many ways, portrayed as a good thing (heck, it results in the destruction of the Lord of the Nazgul! And has her meet Faramir). If it were really intended by the author to be as clear-cut a negative as you're making it out to be, you'd think there'd be some legitimately poor consequences...which there mostly aren't. She's perhaps not entirely right, but the narrative certainly doesn't treat her as entirely wrong either.

Maybe, we don't know.

This is true.

Now, for the game, it's best to just ignore all of the argument we've seen above. As I said from the beginning, if you play the sexism card in a game, it's going to cause the players to start examining gender roles in Tolkien exactly the way we've been doing. This is why The One Ring goes out of its way to depict female adventurers; it wants to avoid dealing with the issue. It also avoids dealing with classism; any adventuring vagabond can rise in Standing to become a great figure in his or her homeland. Adventurers are the exception, never the rule.

I agree that that's the best tack for the game to take, yeah.

If you WANT to consider these issues in a game, of course, go right ahead. Don't expect must talk about it in the rules, and if you bring it up here you'll inevitably get this argument.

Is that a bad thing? Arguing about the prejudices inherent in a particular text can be entertaining.