GameBanshee Forums

I think your point's well-taken. Until KotoR, Bioware continued to offer the stereotypical female thieves, clerics and mages; and I suspect the only reason they departed from it in KotoR was frankly because they needed a damn good jedi to play the romantic interest for a male PC. Let's face it: the whole D&D genre is riddled with rote characters: Scottish-sounding dwarves, bio-friendly elves, eccentric gnomes, etc. It's enough to make one wish for the pre-TSR era, when good authors wrote fantasy based on their own conceptions--or amended those that came before 'em in original ways.

Originally posted by Boris
Maybe I'm very old-fashioned - I know the official rules haven't used Prof. T's word since the days of the original 3 books + Greyhawk. But I don't know *anyone* who actually says "Halfling" in normal conversation...

You should get around more.

Originally posted by Boris
P.S. Is it possible to put together an all-female party? Seems to me that BGII is very stereotypical - most of the big, tough fighters are blokes, while most of the women are relegated to "nurturing" roles, apart from a token or two...
Even if I were to take my PC as a fem. fighter (which I wouldn't), I still don't see how one could form a balanced but all-girly party, though I'm sure there are plenty of all-boy options...

With respect to gender issues, I don't know whether BG2 itself is stereotypical or whether a lot of players just see it that way. (For example, why wouldn't YOU play a female character?) But in the end, it doesn't make much difference to me, because it doesn't affect my enjoyment of the game.

To some extent, a game that tries to be realistic SHOULD reflect the real world, and in the real world, men have more brawn than women and, with few exceptions, able-bodied men are better suited for physical combat than able-bodied women. For example, my own genes and gender limit my brawn, and that's simply an acknowledgement of reality. I'm 5'3" and I'm not that strong. Are Imoen, Nalia, Aerie, and Viconia--or even Mazzy and Jaheira--supposed to be stronger than someone like me? It might have been nice if BG2 had a female warrior with stats like Shar Teel's (from BG1), but then you might be arguing that Shar Teel's man-hating attitude is also a bit tiresome and stereotypical (and I would agree). In any case, if you think the way that stats are distributed in BG2 is "stereotypical", so be it. I think the game is simply trying to make the women of BG2 seem like real women.

But despite that limitation, the game is NOT chauvinistic. BG2 does not put any limitations on women that don't also apply to men. All other things being equal, women are just as powerful as men. If you roll up your own female character, she can be just as strong as any man. If you made a character identical to, say, Minsc or Korgan and simply changed the sex to female, you wouldn't notice any difference at all in combat.

In the real world, there are exceptions to the rule, and it's easy for me to imagine women who have extraordinary prowess. I think that's where BG2 gives women a chance to shine. Whether you play a male or a female character, your character--and the NPCs you meet--are extraordinary people. And frankly, I don't think you realize how powerful the female characters in BG2 really are. I mean, "nurturing"? Try telling that to the hordes of monsters that my female characters have flipped about like pancakes. If all you want to do is beat things to death with a sword, then I guess the female characters in BG2 might not impress you because none of them are very strong physically; but with the proper strategies, they can do a lot more than just wield swords.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be implying that big, strong Fighters are the most important class, and the Mages, Clerics, and Thieves merely play a supporting role. You can certainly play that way if you like, and most people can expect their Fighters to make most of the kills, especially early in the game. I happen to like Fighters--they get the job done. But there ARE alternatives, and IMO, the failure to see that is just another form of "stereotyping" applied to D&D parties. When I play, I don't automatically relegate my spellcasters to a "support" role--I let my Fighters support them.

Let's look the women in BG2. I'd be happy to have any of them in my party, and I'd enjoy making an all-female party with them. Jaheira, Mazzy, and Viconia aren't as brawny as most of the men, but they're as tough as you can get, and Imoen bails you out before anything else happens in the game. Admittedly, Aerie and Nalia whine a lot, but so do most of the male NPCs (or else they're just plain glum). But in the end, it doesn't affect their ability to kill monsters, and that's what counts. You might be surprised (and it does require patience and persistence), but Aerie and Jaheira are particularly powerful at high levels, and as UserUnfriendly might put it, they make the monsters wet themselves. Imoen and Nalia don't wear a certain family heirloom around their necks, but aside from that, there's nothing "wrong" with their spellcasting abilities, and they can do some pretty awesome things. At 28th Level, Imoen can mop the floor with Irenicus and scrub the tub and toilet, too. (An analogy to "women's work"--you like that?) With the right equipment, Mazzy is just as effective as any other high level Fighter (although she lacks the special abilities of a Berserker or a Deathbringer, just like everyone else). And Viconia can do anything that a male Cleric can do. If she's not as impressive as some of the multi-classed or kitted characters, that's only because of the limitations of her class, not her sex. Honestly, all six women are good characters.

Why NOT play a female main character? Her abilities would be exactly the same as a male's. I'd put any of my warriors or spellcasters up against Korgan or Sarevok any day of the week. You want a well-balanced all-female party? Try playing a whole game with Jaheira, Aerie, Mazzy, Imoen, and any type of character you can think of for your main character (or substitute Nalia, Viconia, or Tashia for any of them). What other skills do you need? If you can't beat the game with a party like that, then you just don't know how to equip your party and take advantage of their skills.

I played a couple of all-female parties in BG1. One of them included a female Fighter (the main character) who was stronger and faster than Minsc or Kagain; Imoen (dualled to a Conjurer); Viconia; Dynaheir; Jaheira; and Shar Teel (dualled to a Thief). They did as well as any all-male party I've ever played. My other all-female party was very special: a Cleric/Ranger and Imoen. (I recruited Coran temporarily when Imoen dualled to a Conjurer and temporarily lost her Thieving abilities, but I could have used Safana instead.)

My Cleric/Ranger and Imoen continued their adventures in Shadows of Amn and Throne of Bhaal. If I hadn't installed the Ascension MOD, I probably could have finished the game with just those two, but when I reached the final battle, I decided that I needed another melee warrior. I wasn't deliberately trying to limit my party to women, so I made a choice between Keldorn and Sarevok because of their skills and ended up choosing Sarevok because I liked the idea of pitting the Three Bhaalspawn against The Five. But if I had wanted to limit my party to women, I would have been happy with Mazzy. Brawn just isn't as much of an issue in Throne of Bhaal; equipment and abilities are far more important.

I hope that answers your question. Even if the women in BG2 might be a little stereotypical, they can be just as powerful as the men, so I don't think it's a big issue. Fable makes a much stronger case about stereotypes when he says that "the whole D&D genre is riddled with rote characters: Scottish-sounding dwarves, bio-friendly elves, eccentric gnomes, etc." If you want to do away with stereotypes, I'd start there.

@VonDondu, your points are well-taken. I think everything that's been said about the gender stereotypes in BG2 can be seen as applying much more forcefully to such games as the Ultima series (which towards the end completely eliminated women from playing the Avatar), or even Betrayal at Krondor (one of my all time faves), where women never joined your party in any of its many chapters.

That said, if adventurers are a special breed in these games, then it logically follows the people who become them would exhibit unusual survival traits. And I wish Bioware had pushed the envelope to include a female fighter or (especially) paladin.

My other comments about stereotypes hold. Korgan's dialog is masterfully done (especially his filthy euphemisms, which are dead-on in the spirit of Elizabethan England), but the accent just furthers a stereotype which developed in the last 20 years and which younger fantasy fans now believe has been around since the dawn of time. When I moderated and served as a DM in an MMORPG a few years back, some of our players tried to tell *us* that there was only one kind of thief roleplaying that was permissable, and that shops all looking like *this* back in the Middle Ages. Bad writing and rigid thinking are everywhere in the fantasy genre, I'm afraid.

I agree with Von Dondu, BGII is well balanced from RPG point of view, with male NPCs with higher strenght and more melee oriented as it is in normal life, but that doesn't involve that a all female party is going to be weak. As stated male NPC have generally better str., but str. is one of the least important stats, due to the many str. enhancing items (plus potions and spells!!), while if you take into account the other stats they are equally distributed among the gendres.
In sum a party with Jaheira, Mazzi, Vicky, Aerie, Imoen and a Kensai/mage (not taking into account NPC from mods) is a very powerful party.
The only advantage of male party (and lack of BGII respect real life) is that there are much more male NPC than female (11 vs 6) so you have more variety on the choice, but that's all.

Upper body strength, @Lompo. Women equal leg strength in men, possess better stamina in general, and better respiratory distribution. Logically, rather than provide women with a bonus to charisma (which is pretty sexist, when you think about it) or dexterity (which is silly), a bonus to constitution actually makes good scientific sense.

Quite a post there, VonD.

Just to clarify a few personal misconceptions -

1) I'm not averse to playing female characters in general - in p&p D&D at least half my chars are women, inc. the most powerful ever developed in my gaming circle. But I wouldn't feel comfortable playing out-of-gender in BG - for some reason, it seems more personal, esp. with the Romancing, an' all...

2) I'm certainly not a hack & slay fighter-type - not playing a spell-caster is boring! My fave class is M/T, coz they get to do a bit of everything (except healing). But I have found that spells are decreasingly useless at the higher levels of ToB, since most enemies seem to be resistant to most magic. On my first run-through, my only pure fighter was Minsc & I really struggled in the later stages, but increasing the party's fighter-strength has made subsequent games much easier. I wish it weren't so, but Seami the F/C overwhelms his opponents much more quickly than Seani the M/T ever could...

3) BTW (& a propos nothing), Boris is not my real name, but that of my fave (p&p) Half-Orc fighter. But I haven't even tried converting him to BG, coz I just couldn't take him seriously as a demi-god! Torturing Kobolds, then coming a cropper against serious enemies & needing to be bailed-out by Sharilla the M/T is more his style...

As for the "stereotypical" issue, it's a bit complex. I DMed for an all-women group for years & was constantly harassed with complaints that fems couldn't be as strong as men (except for Half-Orcs) - we only played First Edition AD&D, since 2nd is a dumbed-down obscenity & we haven't gotten round to 3rd. I used to argue that the then-rules were merely a reflection of real life, but was always met with the argument that in a fantasy world, anything should be possible. Eventually I succumbed...

Now, I know that BG doesn't apply such limitations, but feel they are de facto in operation for the female NPCs - none of whom have significant Str. Why not at least have the choice of a female Sara-type? Again, I know I could play such a PC, but see pts. 1-3 above for why I don't want to.

BTW, I've been round the loop considering should gender affect ones stats, eventually deciding that it shouldn't. But the best suggestions I've heard are that females should get a Con. increase (as described above), while the *males* should get a Cha. bonus, since men are typically more likely to push themselves forward (however undeservedly) in a "leadership" role.

More generally, the issue that got me thinking about gender stereotypes was an excellent article about the Romancing options (sorry - can't remember the author or link off the top of my head - think it might've been off the WeiDu site?). Also coz when I had the notion to surround myself with women (is that sexist?), I realised there wasn't a 2nd fighter to be had (J. is v. good & I wouldn't ever do without her, but she's just not a full-blown thug).

Anyway, that's quite long enough for one post,

B.

BTW, I've been round the loop considering should gender affect ones stats, eventually deciding that it shouldn't. But the best suggestions I've heard are that females should get a Con. increase (as described above), while the *males* should get a Cha. bonus, since men are typically more likely to push themselves forward (however undeservedly) in a "leadership" role.

I would have to disagree, at least, in the US. Women have nearly as many leadership places as men in most urban professions associated with corporate business, politics, law enforcement, etc. Of course, such figures as exist do not apply to nations where a "machismo" culture still exists, or where religious/traditional culture acts as a break upon the assumption of changing gender roles within the community.

As for pushing yourself forward--that's not how I would view Charisma. It's something that causes others to turn to you for leadership, given a certain set of pre-existing circumstances. Charisma is usually a matter of luck, planning, intelligence, and good decision-making skills. Making it a separate attribute was a rather silly decision on TSR's part, IMO. Had they called it "Craftiness" instead, I might have accepted the matter. But charismatic people aren't made. You can be extremely charismatic and as ugly as Richard Nixon, inside and out, but if you're a scheming, intelligent, ruthless type, you'll be able to get others to push you forward and listen to you without lifting a finger.

Perhaps women should get a luck bonus on their sixth sense (women feel things easier than man) and men should have a small bonus apllied to strength modifiers, because of the way the sexes have evolved you know.

Originally posted by Luis Antonio
Perhaps women should get a luck bonus on their sixth sense (women feel things easier than man) and men should have a small bonus apllied to strength modifiers, because of the way the sexes have evolved you know.

I don't know. Meaning no offense, but women don't feel any thing more or less than men, and that's been scientifically tested. Nor are they more or less prone to emotional displays than men. It's all a matter of how a specific culture trains them from early infancy--the expectations of each sex, and the roles they will assume.

Originally posted by fable
Upper body strength, @Lompo. Women equal leg strength in men, possess better stamina in general, and better respiratory distribution. Logically, rather than provide women with a bonus to charisma (which is pretty sexist, when you think about it) or dexterity (which is silly), a bonus to constitution actually makes good scientific sense.

i think i read somewhere that women in general are actually stronger, constitutionally than men, but that a greater percentage of their metabolism is geared tword reproduction, so men tend to be physically stronger...

all female parties rock!!!

aerie, nalia, mazzy, jaheira, imoen, and pc/sorceress are seriously fun...but i tend to drop mazzy since her preachy ways are really annoying...

jaheira is a superb and frankly, in many ways a better tank than korgan, saravok, keldorn, minsc...

blade barrior, aura of flaming death, globe of blades, regeneration, improved haste, hardiness, armor of faith,chaotic commands, ironskin and free action, she turns into a walking talking(nagging) cuisinart...i've often mentioned jaheira as the best tank in the game...with enough spells, she can whip korgan, saravok, minsc and keldorn easily...some spells she casts herself, others are cast on her, but its her lethal combination of spell casting and decent fighting ability that makes her so lethal.

and of course aerie, and her implosions in chain contingency makes her more powerful than edwin at comparable levels...

Originally posted by VonDondu
I suspect that few people ever use those spells, but I would not dismiss them as being "weak" or useless. Armor of Faith, Doom, Barkskin, Resist Fire/Cold, Summon Insects, Dispel Magic, and Call Lightning are all useful, wonderful spells, and it's a shame that people don't use them more often.

i've argued in the past that minsc is the best tank, and i think i've made valid points...

armor of faith and hardiness are better than ac bonuses, since most creatures in tob have about a -10 thaco, so they always hit you, regardless of what the ac class of a fighter is...but armor and hardiness resists damage!!! only minsc, of keldorn, saravok, korgan and mazzy can cast both spells...give him the defender of easthaven on dual wield, and he can block huge hordes of attacking monsters, letting your ranged fighters and spell casters do their thing...which is the very definition of tank anyway...

of course jaheira also can tank up like minsc, and has more offensive spells to boot...most times jaheira and minsc (sk into archer) are the only fighters i bother getting...

Originally posted by UserUnfriendly
armor of faith and hardiness are better than ac bonuses, since most creatures in tob have about a -10 thaco, so they always hit you, regardless of what the ac class of a fighter is...but armor and hardiness resists damage!!!

But are you factoring in time? Rounds spent casting self-spells are rounds not spent attacking enemies. If your boss foe isn't a spellcaster, well and good, but if they are, the time you waste powering up is the time they spend doing the same--or casting things at you.

More on Gender Differences

"women don't feel any thing more or less than men, and that's been scientifically tested."

Dunno about "feel", coz that's a bit of an imprecise word, but I've read several reports that they're better at sensing. Better at facial & body-language recognition, plus a whole buch of practical subjects. Typically not as single-minded as males, being busy with many things, so don't come across as so "strong" (cf. earlier posts re charisma)
And I sometimes think that women are so tied to RL that they miss-out on the imagination of men...

In our world, the genders are different to each other, on account of the fact that that's what genders are *for*. Our "technology" (information systems, etc.) has been recording that for a while now, fortunately... Personally, I always like it when science starts to catch up with common sense!

I'm blethering here, but the point is (any previous posts notwithstanding), that Fs probably *do* feel more than Ms, and that *has* been scientifically tested...

Mind you, I can't imagine that the most cutting-edge psychology or most in-depth statistical analysis can yet accurately describe either ourselves or our differences - i.e. it'll take a lot more brain-mapping afore yer average bloke has the slightest idea what it is his woman *really* wants!
Apparently, blokes' brains are basicly reptilian, while "birds" have the enlarged mamalian nodes...

B.

P.S. I take the "women are equal leaders in the USA" comment to be the baloney it is. When the Presidents of the country and major corporations don't have external genitalia I might believe it, but not until then. Having a bunch of women middle-managers rates the US the same as the rest of the West, but well short of the more progressive Europeans...

Originally posted by fable
But are you factoring in time? Rounds spent casting self-spells are rounds not spent attacking enemies. If your boss foe isn't a spellcaster, well and good, but if they are, the time you waste powering up is the time they spend doing the same--or casting things at you.

that's what the rest of the party is for...

and i don't think that's applicable...i mean sure, saravok is ready to attack without bothering to cast prebuff spells, but that applies to all of them, saravok, korgan keldorn and minsc...

minsc doesn't really need armor of faith and hardiness for every encounter, but you have that option to activate his powering up spells before certain very tough ones...and armor of faith and hardiness lasts a decent amount of time, so prebuffing is definately do-able...

Re: More on Gender Differences

Originally posted by Boris
Dunno about "feel", coz that's a bit of an imprecise word, but I've read several reports that they're better at sensing. Better at facial & body-language recognition, plus a whole buch of practical subjects.

For such studies to be scientifically accurate, they would have to take into account the acculturated training of the subjects, both individually and as a group. One study that did so discovered that women in Africa are considerably better at sensing body language than women in the US, the latter being approximately equal to men in the US. Sub-cultures factor in, as well. If you want to get into this, perhaps the best place is in SYM, Speak Your Mind, our spam forum, where we actually ran a lengthy thread on this subject about a year ago, I think. As I recall, it helped that one of our main posters is/was a neuro-biologist who could actually post international study results and links to other, important sites. I can try and find that thread and link to it, if you'd enjoy reading it.

P.S. I take the "women are equal leaders in the USA" comment to be the baloney it is. When the Presidents of the country and major corporations don't have external genitalia I might believe it, but not until then. Having a bunch of women middle-managers rates the US the same as the rest of the West, but well short of the more progressive Europeans...

First of all, watch the heat in your posts. I don't care whom you're aiming it at, conduct your arguments in this forum in a friendly, non-sarcastic fashion. Argue with me or anyone else all you like, but don't start tossing pejorative labels around about individuals or about nationalities. That's not what GB is all about, and neither I nor the site owner cares what the rest of the Web thinks. People have been banned for ignoring this. Fair warning.

Second, please don't insult my intelligence by assuming my remarks about "women having nearly as many leadership places as men in most urban professions associated with corporate business, politics, law enforcement, etc" refers to middle-level management in the US. I was referring over time to state legislative whips of many of our fifty states, quite a few heads of industry, the chief officer of law enforcement in the US (under our last federal administration), current heads of federal agencies, CEOs and CIOs of top-rated Madison Avenue advertising agencies, Wall Street investment firms and top-ranked national legal firms. I did not bring up Europe, nor did I intend any comparisons between the US and any other continent or culture; so if you want to do so, some research on the specific representation of women in these fields in the US might be in order before getting into a redundant contest about whether Western Europe is ahead, behind, or moving in tandem with the US on these issues--and whether such a comparison serves any purpose other than an invidious one.

Had you written that there was still plenty of room for improvement, I would have been in an immediate agreement with you. I have been part of the progressive movement in the US for a little more than thirty years, now, trying to break down boundaries of all sorts regarding race, religion, sex and sexual orientation; and there have been enormous strides made that have actually achieved parity in some fields. One of the things that most annoys me is when somebody from outside the US automatically jumps to attack the nation that I've been pushing, prodding, petitioning and screaming at for so long--and usually with nothing besides national prejudice to throw in my face. If this doesn't fit you, well and good. If it does, consider dissing your own country before you take on my own, especially when I've not said a word against other cultures.

Originally posted by UserUnfriendly
that's what the rest of the party is for...

and i don't think that's applicable...i mean sure, saravok is ready to attack without bothering to cast prebuff spells, but that applies to all of them, saravok, korgan keldorn and minsc...

I thought that Keldorn and Saverok came with certain pre-existing resistances. Is this wrong?

Re: More on Gender Differences

Originally posted by Boris
P.S. I take the "women are equal leaders in the USA" comment to be the baloney it is. When the Presidents of the country and major corporations don't have external genitalia I might believe it, but not until then. Having a bunch of women middle-managers rates the US the same as the rest of the West, but well short of the more progressive Europeans...

You mean it's like this in the rest of the West?

(That article was originally published in America's finest news source, The Onion.)

Originally posted by fable
I thought that Keldorn and Saverok came with certain pre-existing resistances. Is this wrong?

not sure about savvy, but you're right about keldorn...inquisitors have excellent saves, they would not need the helm of charm protection, for example...

but i was talking about physical combat only...the definitive role for a tank...

but at least keldorn and korgan with berserk, have definate advantages in spell and sword combat...

but i think i was trying to make the point that if korgy has berserk, keldorn has paladin save bonuses, minsc has armor of faith...

which do you like? its up to the player...

Originally posted by UserUnfriendly
not sure about savvy, but you're right about keldorn...inquisitors have excellent saves, they would not need the helm of charm protection, for example...

but i was talking about physical combat only...the definitive role for a tank...

But UU, is there such a thing as "physical combat only" in ToB? Arguably, the innate magical resistance of Keldorn makes him a better physical tank, because he's less likely to have his brain turned into a side order of hash browns before the claw types arrive. Even if our tank never takes on attacking a magic user, he's got to *defend* against 'em all the time. Magic, like brotherhood, knows no boundaries--certainly none of distance, when that emaciated guy in the enemy's backrow casts something at our tank struggling away at the front.

Still, like you say, it's all a matter of opinion. I'm only voicing my own opinion about tanks that have to cast spells before entering battle, and even then, find themselves still susceptible to mind-messing. Just my POV.

Originally posted by fable
But UU, is there such a thing as "physical combat only" in ToB? Arguably, the innate magical resistance of Keldorn makes him a better physical tank, because he's less likely to have his brain turned into a side order of hash browns before the claw types arrive. Even if our tank never takes on attacking a magic user, he's got to *defend* against 'em all the time. Magic, like brotherhood, knows no boundaries--certainly none of distance, when that emaciated guy in the enemy's backrow casts something at our tank struggling away at the front.

Still, like you say, it's all a matter of opinion. I'm only voicing my own opinion about tanks that have to cast spells before entering battle, and even then, find themselves still susceptible to mind-messing. Just my POV.

oh i completely agree there is no strictly physical combat in tob...hmmm...

i guess i was trying to rationalize why i take minsc...i find keldy patronizing, saravok annoying, and mazzy too darned sanctimonius...so i pick party based on personality, and try to make the best of them after i pick them...