Shinoskay
 member, 71 posts
Thu 30 Jan 2020
at 08:26
Pathfinder?
Anyone else notice how paizo and pathfinder says 'she' a lot?
Isida KepTukari
 member, 334 posts
 Elegant! Arrogant! Smart!
Thu 30 Jan 2020
at 08:31
Pathfinder?
No.  They just alternate between using He and She in examples, whereas earlier editions of many roleplaying games only used He, so it seems like there are a lot more Shes than there are.  Now it's just equal.
byzantinex
 member, 178 posts
Thu 30 Jan 2020
at 14:47
Pathfinder?
In reply to Shinoskay (msg # 1):

Actually, WoTC started this with the D&D 3.0 book specifically because of the gender bias in writing for the past several thousand years. Ok, for all the years. :D

I'm not a dude feminist or anything, but that's the reason they did it. The masculine pronoun 'he' has almost always been used to describe both genders. So WoTC did that in 2000 as a way to challenge the status quoe.

That's the reason Paizo does it too I bet.
gmpax
 member, 1170 posts
 {insert witty quote here}
Thu 30 Jan 2020
at 18:04
Re: Pathfinder?
byzantinex:
Actually, WoTC started this with the D&D 3.0 book specifically because of the gender bias in writing for the past several thousand years. Ok, for all the years. :D


Yes, this.  I distinctly remember one or another of the earliest 3E splatbooks going with She exclusively; it was jarring at first, but only because it was really eye-opening to just how much I expected my own gender to be the default represenation.

I'm glad more books now are moving away from "male pronouns as default/only", nowadays.
NowhereMan
 member, 343 posts
Thu 30 Jan 2020
at 21:15
Re: Pathfinder?
Some books use "she" as the GM and "he" as the players. I've always found that a bit unsatisfying as far as equality is concerned, since most books reference PCs a whole lot more often than the GM.
Drackler
 member, 89 posts
 That is not dead
 Which eternal may lie
Fri 31 Jan 2020
at 21:21
Re: Pathfinder?
As I recall, the Pathfinder books try hard to use the pronoun of the iconic character of each class, when applicable. I find it kind of satisfying.
praguepride
 member, 1534 posts
 "Hugs for the Hugs God!"
 - Warhammer Fluffy-K
Fri 7 Feb 2020
at 05:25
Re: Pathfinder?
I thought White Wolf did that as well.
Varsovian
 member, 1508 posts
Fri 7 Feb 2020
at 18:39
Re: Pathfinder?
That's true. I like it. And, after reading a lot of WW books, I started to find it grating whenever I read some other RPG book and noticed that the book was written using only the "he" pronoun...
praguepride
 member, 1537 posts
 "Hugs for the Hugs God!"
 - Warhammer Fluffy-K
Mon 10 Feb 2020
at 20:53
Re: Pathfinder?
Personally I would prefer more descriptive words like "the player" or "the GM" instead of "He can approve this" or "She then rolls the dice".

Personalized pronouns don't really belong in text books like this unless you're referring to a specific player. For example in a lot of "example play" they have a cast of players playing a cast of players so that makes sense.

Using that throughout the whole book like GM Max or Player Gwen throughout the entire book would also solve that problem as its no longer a "choice" per se but you're using a character as an example throughout the whole book which sidesteps people upset about inclusiveness and people upset about non-inclusiveness.
NowhereMan
 member, 344 posts
Tue 11 Feb 2020
at 06:21
Re: Pathfinder?
quote:
Personally I would prefer more descriptive words like "the player" or "the GM" instead of "He can approve this" or "She then rolls the dice".


It comes down to avoiding repetition of nouns. "The player must roll to determine if the player succeeds on the action the player is undertaking" is awkward.

I personally use the singular they in everything I write. It's inclusive to everyone, regardless of whether or not they fit into a binary gender, and it's generic, so I don't have to worry about accidentally using the wrong pronoun when I can't remember if "Player" or "GM" was the one using She/Her.

It helps that I play with a diverse group, so inclusivity has always been an important element, gender and otherwise.
byzantinex
 member, 185 posts
Tue 11 Feb 2020
at 16:26
Re: Pathfinder?
In reply to NowhereMan (msg # 10):

English lacks a good, generic descriptive word other than "they." One of the things I typically use is "beings" instead of "people" since in a fantasy setting people usually means humans. But when you're talking about a room full of a bunch of fantasy races (elves, dwarves, halfings, half-orcs, and more...) "beings" is the only word I've come up with that I like.
tibiotarsus
 member, 123 posts
 Hopepunk with a shovel
Wed 12 Feb 2020
at 11:32
Re: Pathfinder?
In reply to byzantinex (msg # 11):

"folk".

I actually haver a lot on applying words typically applied to humans to other sentients, and tie myself in knots to avoid the question...it feels kind of disrespectful to call, say, a female elf or kobold a "woman", like calling all animals dogs, yet equally disrespectful to use Earth terms for non-sapient animals, even if the term "she-orc" does sound mildly epic.

Totally in agreement with using the old-fashioned indefinite "they" in manuals unless referring to specific example characters, though. Inclusive, apolitical, and less likely to draw a big red arrow pointing out the author's subconscious prejudices.
byzantinex
 member, 186 posts
Wed 12 Feb 2020
at 19:10
Re: Pathfinder?
In reply to tibiotarsus (msg # 12):

Folk seems so "country bumpkin" haha

I do always try to simply use male/female instead of woman/man unless I am specifically referring to a human.
tibiotarsus
 member, 124 posts
 Hopepunk with a shovel
Wed 12 Feb 2020
at 21:16
Re: Pathfinder?
Ha! That's the first time I've been called a bumpkin. Still, appropriate for premodern settings, especially if you have Randomly Scottish Dwarves, which seems to be a thing now.

See, that feels far too "animal" to me as well, like you wouldn't say "There's a male at the bar asking to see you" or "she's a nice female," it sounds like you're going to try and breed them like guinea pigs. Plus a whole load of assumptions/meta reveals when it comes to races that aren't particularly sexually dimorphic (or don't have reproductive capacity, but might have picked a gender, like constructs).

I do tend to have elves refer to humans like that, though, just to show how species-centric referring to your race with people terminology and others with generic animal terminology is. I don't mind practicing ways to get out of that kind of jam, though. Referring to folk by profession/perception and then slipping a pronoun in generally works for description (e.g. "the stranger pulled her hatbrim a little lower, leaning on the bar to wait), and if any situation comes up where gender matters more than species in a mixed group there's always catchall generics, e.g. "guys, these are your baths, ladies, down the hall..."