Gender-based Tolerance

[Glorelendil]

The thing I would avoid is situations such as a male NPC having lower tolerance if women are present because he "thinks they are weak" or something of that nature

Why? This would be a negative aspect of that NPC, for sure, but is it worse than an Elf NPC who is prejudiced against dwarves? I don't mind some of my NPCs being jerks, as long as is isn't too much of a disadvantage for the woman PC. I mean, some of my NPCs kill people.

Also, Tolkien did create Eowin and the "no living man" line.

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.

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.

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

[Yusei]

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.

What NPCs believe does not influence the game's rules. Players know for a fact that women are as strong as men because the rules say so.

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

But they do not. They clearly suggest that sexism is unjust.

Now, one does not have to use all of the themes in the source text. If one is uncomfortable with gender issues, then it is fine to ignore it. But I can clearly see how a player could want to "play Eowin".

[Stormcrow]

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.

Hence my original post. If you look too closely, it falls apart. Equal-opportunity Middle-earth is not something that Tolkien wrote.

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

But they do not. They clearly suggest that sexism is unjust.

No, they suggest that sexism—and classism—is a normal part of life, and by playing your assigned part you achieve heroism.

Eowyn was not treated unjustly according to the mores of the Rohirrim. She wanted to abandon her duties for glory. No one told her, "You can't go because you're a woman" (that's another movie-ism); they told her she couldn't go because she had other duties. Eowyn is the one who made it a gender-issue, incorrectly.

And when she settles down with Faramir, it's not because the woman has been put in her place; it's because Eowyn has figured out that living in peace and love is a better thing that making war.

Meanwhile, all through the Silmarillion we have stories of men who go off to war, leaving behind wives. The only female action heroes in Tolkien are Luthien and Eowyn, and both are going against the rules of their societies, one justly, the other unjustly.

And remember, Samwise because a hero of the War of the Ring because he was the best servant he could be. Classism is just as prevalent in Tolkien as sexism. With both, they're so ingrained in society, people don't even mention it.

[Glorelendil]

Ok I really don't want to get in an argument over this so this is my last post on the topic. But let me explain by way of analogy: I also wouldn't ever create an NPC who simply doesn't like people with dark skin, and therefore has lower Tolerance if a "swarthy southerner" is in the company. I don't need to include that kind of racism in my game in order to tell a good story because it won't be fun for players who have been victims of it in real life.

Now, if my NPC had been fighting people from those lands for generations and thought of them as enemies, then having lower tolerance specifically for people from those lands would be fine.

Your mileage may vary. Play the game however you like.

[Yusei]

No, they suggest that sexism—and classism—is a normal part of life, and by playing your assigned part you achieve heroism.

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.

Anyway, let's not go into an argument about what Tolkien meant. My point was just that Eowyn does exist in the books, and I largely reuse the concept for my NPCs. Nobody complained yet, but it's pretty clear from the way I play women that I am not sexist.

[Jussi Marttila]

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

And it hinges on a key scene from the book that they left out completely. In it, Aragorn tells Eowyn that she can’t come with him on The Paths of the Dead because her people need her and that renown isn’t really all it’s cracked up to be. He’s not wrong, exactly, but he basically tells her it’s her duty to stay behind, something he would never say to her uncle or brother.

And she calls him on it. Flat out. She tells him, “All your words are but to say: you are a woman, and your part is in the house. But when the men have died in battle and honour, you have leave to be burned in the house, for the men will need it no more. But I am of the House of Eorl and not a serving-woman. I can ride and wield blade, and I do not fear either pain or death.”

Think about that for a moment. Not only is she calling him out for sexism, she lays out why it’s sexist and does a pretty damn fine job of distilling down the lot of women in this culture. To whit: if there aren’t men around, you don’t really matter, and you definitely don’t get to decide for yourself how you live OR die if you’re a lady. That’s very powerful, especially in a series that deals a lot with the trappings of war and glory from a distinctly masculine point of view.

http://www.themarysue.com/the-story-of-eowyn/

[Rue]

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.

[jacksarge]

@Jussi Marttila
An excellent quote. What stands out for me is this phrase: "But I am of the House of Eorl and not a serving-woman. I can ride and wield blade, and I do not fear either pain or death." I think this is reflective of the rather Anglo-Saxon nature of the Rohirrim in particular, and perhaps other cultures in Middle Earth. Prior to the Norman Conquest women of a noble house held considerably higher status within culture, were property owners, leaders, peacemakers and in the case of Aethelflaed, Lady of the Mercians, could be queen, wife, mother and field marshal.

[Yusei]

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...

[Jussi Marttila]

As far as gender goes, we could take a wider view of adventurers.

They're not actually representative of their cultures at large: one of the major points of The Hobbit and LOTR is that Hobbits don't generally tend to leave home and they dislike the idea of adventures. Likewise, the average Beorning is a smallholder, Mirkwood Elves tend to keep to themselves most of the time, Dwarves do wander around but usually while practicing a trade.

Adventurers tend to be somewhat of an exception in general, so if there's a more gender-equal situation among them, that would be rather natural.

In addition, in the various microhistorical/mentalities history schools people tend to talk about "common exceptions." For instance, in Finnish culture, it was unusual for women to tend to horses and men rarely tended to cows. However, it did happen (my great-grandma was famous for her talents with horses) and it wasn't out of the ordinary enough for people to make a serious note of it. In Middle-Earth, the same could go for women who want to go see the world and fight the good fight.