Forums of the Megaverse®

Ok, I'm gunna get blasted on a PC level for this but here goes...

Does anyone else think that having equal attribute roles (especially for humans) between men and women is "realistic"? Anyone with common sense knows that the average male human is stronger and usually quicker than the average female human. And reversely, one could argue that the average human female could have a higher mental affinity than the average human male. I know there is a balance between "real life" and "game balance" but there are other species in the palladium universe that have different attribute rolls between males and females of that particular species. I see stats all the time where a 5'1'' 100lb woman is stronger than a 6'0'' man who weighs 200lbs. Sorry, doesn't make sense to me(unless augmented via bionics or magic). Please, chime in on your thoughts.

I don't mind giving men +1 to strength and women +1 to MA, seems fair.
I've thought about giving males +1 to PS, PE and hitpoints, +10 to SDC and giving females + 10 to PPE and +1 to spell strength. That would actually change the world slightly but I like it.

1d6 to PB for female and that is it

Alejandro wrote:

Mech-Viper wrote:1d6 to PB for female and that is it

Not all women are attractive...certainly not enough to warrant every woman on Earth getting an extra 1d6 to her attractiveness over men.

see my rifts earth is fulled with good-looking women and ugly guys

technically, this has already been covered in the books. Take a look at the ludicris spell 'metamorph:opposite sex' it does give bonuses to each gender. they're not very much, but they're something.

Misfit KotLD wrote:You want realistic in a game with mages, laser pistols, and nuclear reactor powered armor?

you forgot one eye aliens, vampires , mutant animals , gods . aliens , humaniod bug, crazy robots and american indians in a sci-fi theme game

Lord_Coake wrote:From what I've seen and experienced, Women have a higher pain tolerance then men. The reason is abvious. Also, women are better at handling stress. Case in point: Women have proven to take Submarine duty much better than then the majority of men. Also, they handle heavy G-forces better.
.

Where and when was that proven? To my knowledge the only navy in the world that allows women is the Canadian.

Nack to the original issue, yes it is a little unrealistic but it is simpler and less likely to cause PC fanatics to reach for their lawyers number.

You have to remember the RPG industry in general has a lot of bad press already with the masses. If RPGs started doing different stats for men and women through out the industry it would be another issue for them to hit us with.

That aside, if you want to change things for your games, then do so. Just dont tell anyone on the phone, Mr. Bush might be listening and send the Religous Reich after you!

Misfit KotLD wrote:

Toc Rat wrote:Where and when was that proven? To my knowledge the only navy in the world that allows women is the Canadian.

There's no women in the US Navy? What century are you in? There's women in the Corps these days too. Or do you mean as combat pilots?

women in the military , when did this happen this is not good

darkmax wrote:Actually you can unbalance it by adding 1d4 to a female's PE, MA, Spd and PP. Then add 1d4 to STR.

If you question why the increased in PE for a female, it's been proven that female are physically stronger than a male.

They also live longer.

I'd like to see the proof for this. Heck, I'd like to see EVIDENCE for this...since the military ran tests and found women to be significantly weaker in all physical respects.

Alejandro wrote:

Toc Rat wrote:

Lord_Coake wrote:From what I've seen and experienced, Women have a higher pain tolerance then men. The reason is abvious. Also, women are better at handling stress. Case in point: Women have proven to take Submarine duty much better than then the majority of men. Also, they handle heavy G-forces better.
.

Where and when was that proven? To my knowledge the only navy in the world that allows women is the Canadian.

I thought Israel used female pilots too

We are not talking about pilots, we were talking about Submarines. The US has female pilots too. That is not under discussion

Misfit KotLD wrote:

Toc Rat wrote:

Alejandro wrote:

Toc Rat wrote:

Lord_Coake wrote:From what I've seen and experienced, Women have a higher pain tolerance then men. The reason is abvious. Also, women are better at handling stress. Case in point: Women have proven to take Submarine duty much better than then the majority of men. Also, they handle heavy G-forces better.
.

Where and when was that proven? To my knowledge the only navy in the world that allows women on submarines is the Canadian.

I thought Israel used female pilots too

We are not talking about pilots, we were talking about Submarines. The US has female pilots too. That is not under discussion

There, now your point comes across. You left a couple of important words out.

How did the original statement, if one had actually bothered to read it, leave out the fact females serving on Submarines was the subject?

Since it was stated clearly, naturally I felt no need to repeat myself.

Misfit KotLD wrote:Submarines suffer from extreme g-forces? You were unclear and it showed. You know what you meant, WE did not.

Hmm, perhaps you are not reading the entire post? The original posters comments have a period between the part discussing G-forces and the part about Submarine duty. My post directly addressed the Submarine portion of that post. I will post it again here "Where and when was that proven? To my knowledge the only navy in the world that allows women on submarines is the Canadian."

As one can see, I did not mention G-forces, only submarines. Thus it is obvious pilots did not factor in to my statement.

In any event, it really doesn't matter. I posted exactly what I meant too. That question still hasnt been addressed by the original poster, Lord_Coake. I would like to know where he got his information from regarding women being better then men for submarine duty.

Misfit KotLD wrote:

Toc Rat wrote:Where and when was that proven? To my knowledge the only navy in the world that allows women is the Canadian.

There's no women in the US Navy? What century are you in? There's women in the Corps these days too. Or do you mean as combat pilots?

I just now saw your post, did you perhaps not read my entire statement? Or the one I was talking about? I did NOT, by any stretch of the imagination say there are no women in the US Navy. That would be a stupid and rather ignorant comment. One of my sisters was in the Navy, so I should think I would know that women are allowed in the US Navy.

My question specificly asked about LC's comment about women being superior to men for submarine duty. I would very much like to know where he got his data. I posted that to MY knowledge only the Canadian navy uses women on its submarines.

I will post my original question again with the post from Load Coake so that you can clearly see I made no mention of women not being allowed in the US Navy.

"From what I've seen and experienced, Women have a higher pain tolerance then men. The reason is abvious. Also, women are better at handling stress. Case in point: Women have proven to take Submarine duty much better than then the majority of men. Also, they handle heavy G-forces better." Lord_Coake
.



"Where and when was that proven? To my knowledge the only navy in the world that allows women is the Canadian." Toc Rat


I hope this clears up any misconception you had.

Wow, I didn't know that my post would turn into this. Oh well, it's all good discussion in my book anyway.

As far as the comments about women having a higher pain tolerance, all remarks that support that theory I have seen reguard the endorphine rush during child birth only and not on a day to day basis. Let's be realistic, how many sports can you name in which strength, hand eye coordination, agility, speed and toughness(P.S., P.E.,P.P., SPD) are used in which men don't dominate women? I can think of gymnastics off the bat as the only one in which women might be better. You can always name a woman or two that can hang with the average man in these situations but they are the exeption, not the rule.

And yes, I do know we are talking about a game in which we have magic, aliens, monsters, etc... That's why in my original post I said there is a balance between reality and game balance; game being the operative word here. As much "non-realistic" stuff there is in RIFTS I still don't know of any player that doesn't shoot for some sort of "reality" in their games. And of course to each their own. Everyone will play it differently and that's the beauty of it. Like the new d20 Star Wars. Every mention of a character or class in those books is refered to as "she". I only brought this up for discussion and to see what everyone else does in their games. I just think it's worth discussing, that's all.

Randomfist wrote:Wow, I didn't know that my post would turn into this. Oh well, it's all good discussion in my book anyway.

As far as the comments about women having a higher pain tolerance, all remarks that support that theory I have seen reguard the endorphine rush during child birth only and not on a day to day basis. Let's be realistic, how many sports can you name in which strength, hand eye coordination, agility, speed and toughness(P.S., P.E.,P.P., SPD) are used in which men don't dominate women? I can think of gymnastics off the bat as the only one in which women might be better. You can always name a woman or two that can hang with the average man in these situations but they are the exeption, not the rule.

And yes, I do know we are talking about a game in which we have magic, aliens, monsters, etc... That's why in my original post I said there is a balance between reality and game balance; game being the operative word here. As much "non-realistic" stuff there is in RIFTS I still don't know of any player that doesn't shoot for some sort of "reality" in their games. And of course to each their own. Everyone will play it differently and that's the beauty of it. Like the new d20 Star Wars. Every mention of a character or class in those books is refered to as "she". I only brought this up for discussion and to see what everyone else does in their games. I just think it's worth discussing, that's all.

i think that most female Pc's would be the exception to the norm.

While I do feel it is more realistic to give a +1 or 2 to different stats for different genders, I also see it as a very minor issue, and no player I've ever ran with has ever brought it up (including male and female gamers). As far as the 5 Ft 2 In, 100 pound female out strengthing the 6 Ft 6 In 200 Lbs male, that's just an error on the players part, for not matching a phsyical discrption with what your stats really are.

Cinos

Cinos wrote:While I do feel it is more realistic to give a +1 or 2 to different stats for different genders, I also see it as a very minor issue, and no player I've ever ran with has ever brought it up (including male and female gamers). As far as the 5 Ft 2 In, 100 pound female out strengthing the 6 Ft 6 In 200 Lbs male, that's just an error on the players part, for not matching a phsyical discrption with what your stats really are.

Cinos

Actually, I see this in NPC's from the books all the time.

darkmax wrote:

Subjugator wrote:

darkmax wrote:Actually you can unbalance it by adding 1d4 to a female's PE, MA, Spd and PP. Then add 1d4 to STR.

If you question why the increased in PE for a female, it's been proven that female are physically stronger than a male.

They also live longer.

I'd like to see the proof for this. Heck, I'd like to see EVIDENCE for this...since the military ran tests and found women to be significantly weaker in all physical respects.

Many people in the scientific world can attest to this. But if you are talking about physical strength and speed, a male is almost always the better of a female. However, females tend to out-endure, cope better with stress, and live longer. These facts are quite well known.

yup and half the money and all the kitten

darkmax wrote:

Subjugator wrote:

darkmax wrote:Actually you can unbalance it by adding 1d4 to a female's PE, MA, Spd and PP. Then add 1d4 to STR.

If you question why the increased in PE for a female, it's been proven that female are physically stronger than a male.

They also live longer.

I'd like to see the proof for this. Heck, I'd like to see EVIDENCE for this...since the military ran tests and found women to be significantly weaker in all physical respects.

Many people in the scientific world can attest to this. But if you are talking about physical strength and speed, a male is almost always the better of a female. However, females tend to out-endure, cope better with stress, and live longer. These facts are quite well known.

Living longer, yes. Show me the studies that support endurance and coping.

They are *not* quite well known. Quite the opposite, they are known NOT to be better at endurance tasks or there wouldn't be a separate record for women in marathons and other endurance events. The coping - how many 'how to deal with...' books do you see that are written for men?

I am not down on women. They have amazing abilities that men do not have. The ones you're referring to are just not them.

Sub

darkmax wrote:Well, honestly I am not one of those female movement supporters, so I had my doubts when I first heard it. But it is true. Crying and screaming, believei it or not, is a form of de-stress.

You will noticed that there are many more men who came back from war that require therapy. And it is the gals who are giving the these therapies.

I have to admit that them going all berserk in the face of danger is also what I often experience with the 3 women in my life.

This is why I said that I have my doubts but it really has been proven.

Crying and screaming is a way to de-stress. That would tend to indicate that they cannot handle the stress they're given and need to release immediately. Guys tend to suck it up and wait until later. Which is more effective in handling the immediate threat? Dealing with the stress and hurt later.

It's not just women that are providing therapy, and the delivery of therapy does not mean one handles stress better. A doctor can help fix a significant wound without being even remotely tough. Ditto therapy and mental wounds.

Sub

Here's an interesting thing that I learned in a psych class in college, from a feminist no less. Since women have been entering the work force more, especially since the 70's, their life spans and those of men have slowly been getting closer. The stress of a daily job away from the house is attributed to this. Another thing I learned. We all have heard how girls physically mature faster than guys right? Well, in 1900 the average age of the start of menstration in girls was 14. Now it is 12. Again, this isd attributed to outside factors, such as the hormones used in the meat we eat and such. I wish I knew that when the girls were talking about being more mature in jr. high school. If I was on testosterone, I would have matured quicker.

All this being said, women are essential to men. Men who have a women in their life live longer, are happier and are generally better people. In life, women don't need men but men need women.

Randomfist wrote:Does anyone else think that having equal attribute roles (especially for humans) between men and women is "realistic"?

Yes, but it should be noted that the attributes in Palladium games aren't particularly realistic to begin with. Given the system's penchant for characters who are supernormal in some fashion (whether it be in power or ability), I don't think real-world averages of human capability can be applied to either gender (not to mention race, nationality, education, etc.).

Anyone with common sense knows that the average male human is stronger and usually quicker than the average female human. And reversely, one could argue that the average human female could have a higher mental affinity than the average human male. I know there is a balance between "real life" and "game balance" but there are other species in the palladium universe that have different attribute rolls between males and females of that particular species. I see stats all the time where a 5'1'' 100lb woman is stronger than a 6'0'' man who weighs 200lbs. Sorry, doesn't make sense to me(unless augmented via bionics or magic). Please, chime in on your thoughts.

I see this as more of a disconnect between the character's stats and the player's image of the character. Realistically, a character with high (natural) physical strength should be fairly large and brawny for its race and sex, in mass if not in height. But realism isn't a requirement of the game, and shouldn't be forced on the player (though realism can be more enjoyable at times).

Interestingly enough, while adults are treated the same, teenagers seem to have slightly different stats depending on sex, if the Chaos Wizard in Chaos Earth: Rise of Magic is any indication.

Lord_Coake wrote:From what I've seen and experienced, Women have a higher pain tolerance then men.

fidgewinkle wrote:Just to set the record straight, Women have a lower pain threshold than men do. That is what the science says.

I call baloney on both counts. Men and women have entirely different ways of handling different kinds of pain. While women have been shown to feel pain more intensely than men in general, some forms of pain are still more intense for men, and even then, the ability to endure pain does not strictly bias one sex or the other. There are plenty of guys who can shrug off a chair to the back of the head, but there isn't a man alive who can squeeze a watermelon through his genitals and be back on his feet within a week.

Lord_Coake wrote:The reason is abvious. Also, women are better at handling stress. Case in point: Women have proven to take Submarine duty much better than then the majority of men. Also, they handle heavy G-forces better.

On the G-Force thing, this isn't actually related to stress-handling but to internal anatomy. Without getting graphic, it turns out that the muscles involved in child-bearing also work well at keeping the brain full of blood under high-G situations.

The ability to handle stress really isn't a biological issue at all, unless perhaps for some mutant whose brain produces abnormal levels of endorphin. Reactions to stress are ultimately mental in nature, and vary between individuals much more sharply than between genders.

Randomfist wrote:All this being said, women are essential to men. Men who have a women in their life live longer, are happier and are generally better people. In life, women don't need men but men need women.

[insert prison joke here]

In RL men are stronger then women, they have more upper body strength, and given the same amount of exercise a man will gain more muscle mass then a woman. There's no doubt about it, men are stronger.

Having said that, I would walk out on a game in which the GM insisted on giving males and females different stats, because it indicates an awe inspiring level of anal-retentiveness on the part of the GM. I've never in nearly 20 years of gaming had a positive experience with a GM who obsessed about realism.

Understand that I have nothing against a certain level of realism in games, I happen to get somewhat nuts at the thought of a character taking a couple of .45 slugs in the chest and shruging it off because it was only SDC damage. The thing I object to is adding rules to a game for the sake of adding rules.

A few things I always ask myself when pondering rule changes.

1. Does this rule add something positive to the game or fix a problem with a current rule?

2. Does this rule make the game more complicated? If yes, is it worth the added complexity?

3. Does this rule affect combat in the game? If yes, does it speed combat up or simplify it? Or does it slow combat down? If the rule slows combat down, do the benefits outweigh the costs?

Ideally, these questions need to be asked by both the GM and the players involved. The GM because it's his game and he's the one responsible for keeping track of the rules. The players because they're the ones who will be playing in the game world, and they are the ones who have to deal with whatever new rules the GM comes up with.

IMO giving the two genders different stats adds a needless layer of complexity to a game without adding any tangible benefit. It's pointless niggling over details. Give everyone the same stats and get on with it.

Kalinda wrote:Having said that, I would walk out on a game in which the GM insisted on giving males and females different stats, because it indicates an awe inspiring level of anal-retentiveness on the part of the GM. I've never in nearly 20 years of gaming had a positive experience with a GM who obsessed about realism.

IMO giving the two genders different stats adds a needless layer of complexity to a game without adding any tangible benefit. It's pointless niggling over details. Give everyone the same stats and get on with it.

I said the same in my first post on this thread. At some point the players and GM must decided which is more important, good drama/cinematics or realism.

Tinker Dragoon wrote:but there isn't a man alive who can squeeze a watermelon through his genitals and be back on his feet within a week.

This is not a valid comparison. A woman's birth canal is significantly larger than a man's urethra, and no baby has the volume of an average watermelon (though they do have the same mass sometimes).

A more accurate comparison would be a marble through one's urethra, and I've done it. Kidney stones my friend, and the marble that come out was spiked no less. I drove home after passing that one. Heck - my gout hurt worse than that!

Sub

Kalinda wrote:Having said that, I would walk out on a game in which the GM insisted on giving males and females different stats, because it indicates an awe inspiring level of anal-retentiveness on the part of the GM.

The entire post was excellent, but this sums it up nicely.

Agreed!

Well to keep it to the in game discussion. I have never bothered with different stats for males and females since first ed d&d (I think that was it its been that long and neither as a player or a GM.) It is a game after all and while there may be examples from reality for any POV you want to take the game is about story with cool characters who are not your average joe (or jane) down the street and either have that special personality quirk, destiny or physical ability to just go be something special.

darkmax wrote:

Subjugator wrote:

darkmax wrote:Actually you can unbalance it by adding 1d4 to a female's PE, MA, Spd and PP. Then add 1d4 to STR.

If you question why the increased in PE for a female, it's been proven that female are physically stronger than a male.

They also live longer.

I'd like to see the proof for this. Heck, I'd like to see EVIDENCE for this...since the military ran tests and found women to be significantly weaker in all physical respects.

Many people in the scientific world can attest to this. But if you are talking about physical strength and speed, a male is almost always the better of a female. However, females tend to out-endure, cope better with stress, and live longer. These facts are quite well known.

Uh, no.

Endurance is the ability to carry on in a sustained Physical Exertion.

Physical Exertion is itself sustained, in part, by oxygenation of the Muscle Tissues.

Females have on average 30% LESS Vital Capacity (as in the lungs) than men do.

They also have considerably lower levels of Muscle Density which in large part determines Physical Strength -and you can thank good ol' Testerone for that.

So, again, no.


Femmes excel just fine in other areas that Men don't (creativity, for example; and this trait just MAY have been artificially "bred" into our Species by hundreds of thousands of years of Women being the Caregivers, Doctors, and Artisans while the Menfolk went out and hunted)...but on average, pound for pound, they don't in Strength or Endurance.

Have you been overdosing on "Xena" and the "Serenity" Movie again???

darkmax wrote:Wrong. Females are known to suffer less from overworking. Their endurances have been proven to be better than males. You are talking about endurance that is tied to physical strength, that is not what constitute endurance.

In this day and age, ther are a great many people who re-define Terms to suit their worldview.

I just don't allow it to go unchallenged.
When you finish looking up the DICTIONARY definition of "Endurance," not some new "definition" that you just made up, come back and discuss it.

Let me explain what I have meant. I don't know about the US society, but in the traditional Chinese society, married females have to start at 5-6 am in the morning, cleaning floors of the entire house, cooking the meals, taking care of the children, going to the open-air markets to buy groceries, carrying something like 5 kilos in each hand, with the baby on her back, rear the sheeps/cows, milk them, take of the elders who live whom they live with, etc.

And???

In nearly EVERY Agrarian Society, the Female Human spends nearly her entire day taking care of the Homestead....while the Male spends nearly his entire day gathering food for the Homestead. One series of Tasks is simply more "physical" than the other, that's all.

Just because the Division of Labor in the average Human Household doesn't apparently meet with your politically correct ideal, doesn't mean that the Division of Labor is "uneven.

I do not know the full list of things but that is all in a day's work. And they do this everyday except for one. I'll say that is both physical and mental endurence.

And again, depending on the Society in question, the Males spend their days...sometimes SEVERAL days....out gathering food.

"One" Hunting Expedition or "one" Full-time job on the part of the Males isn't numerically the same as "four or five" sets of Chores performed by the Females; but, in the grand scheme of things they are roughly an equal amount of work and between the two, Male and Female, they get the job of Raising the Family done, and get the job done well.

doesn't this argument belong in sound off...

darkmax wrote:It seems that I don't meet your political view, so you are becoming increasingly personal in your rebuttal. I am merely stating something I have gathered from Discovery Channel some years ago.

If you have a problem with the information, go sure the Discovery Channel.

As I mentioned some replies earlier, I for one, have my doubts about the facts of those statements. I never really think a female would be as strong or endure longer. What I said is what I have gathered over the years. If you have a problem with something like this, go inside in your own box.

I have my beliefs and personal opinions too. Merely stating it does not necessarily make me the guilty party, for I commit no crime or sin.

Are you "Jeebus??"

Case in point: Women have proven to take Submarine duty much better than then the majority of men.

sorry but after 7 years in the submarine force i have only witnessed 7 females on a submarine and that was for a training cruise that only lasted 12 hours and they were the whiniest buncha swabbies i ever seen. also never mind the facy that women dont serve on submarines in the USN anyway. (unless that has changed since i got out of the service in 93 but im fairly sure it hasnt.)

Misfit KotLD wrote:

darkmax wrote:

finn69 wrote:Case in point: Women have proven to take Submarine duty much better than then the majority of men.

sorry but after 7 years in the submarine force i have only witnessed 7 females on a submarine and that was for a training cruise that only lasted 12 hours and they were the whiniest buncha swabbies i ever seen. also never mind the facy that women dont serve on submarines in the USN anyway. (unless that has changed since i got out of the service in 93 but im fairly sure it hasnt.)

I heard a rumor that it could be due to the majority of males on a sub are... well, "hornier" . They fear the amount of sexual harassment that might happen.

Hornier than what, not-men?

Hornier then men who aren't confined in a sub with no privacy and little time to 'read' playboy?

darkmax wrote:

finn69 wrote:Case in point: Women have proven to take Submarine duty much better than then the majority of men.

sorry but after 7 years in the submarine force i have only witnessed 7 females on a submarine and that was for a training cruise that only lasted 12 hours and they were the whiniest buncha swabbies i ever seen. also never mind the facy that women dont serve on submarines in the USN anyway. (unless that has changed since i got out of the service in 93 but im fairly sure it hasnt.)

I heard a rumor that it could be due to the majority of males on a sub are... well, "hornier" . They fear the amount of sexual harassment that might happen.

I seriously doubt that. Unless you implying that all men who serve in the armed forces are undisciplined, sexist, bigots that can't control themselves around women? I take offense to that as a male that has proudly served my country for nearly 9 years now. Oh and before you think about something "Tail hook" ...Dont. There are always people that slip thru the cracks of any large orginization, even the military but to call or even think that every male in uniform is some kind of molester waiting to happen is just plain wrong.

Toc Rat wrote:

darkmax wrote:

finn69 wrote:Case in point: Women have proven to take Submarine duty much better than then the majority of men.

sorry but after 7 years in the submarine force i have only witnessed 7 females on a submarine and that was for a training cruise that only lasted 12 hours and they were the whiniest buncha swabbies i ever seen. also never mind the facy that women dont serve on submarines in the USN anyway. (unless that has changed since i got out of the service in 93 but im fairly sure it hasnt.)

I heard a rumor that it could be due to the majority of males on a sub are... well, "hornier" . They fear the amount of sexual harassment that might happen.

I seriously doubt that. Unless you implying that all men who serve in the armed forces are undisciplined, sexist, bigots that can't control themselves around women? I take offense to that as a male that has proudly served my country for nearly 9 years now. Oh and before you think about something "Tail hook" ...Dont. There are always people that slip thru the cracks of any large orginization, even the military but to call or even think that every male in uniform is some kind of molester waiting to happen is just plain wrong.

Woah there simmer down now I dont think that Darkmax was implying anyhting of the sort. However I saw just last night a thing on TV about military "bible school" that used bible teaching to help control these urges so evidently there is a concern, if not a problem, with infidelity in the military. They are taught: "No infadelity, No flirting, No pornography, & No masterbation" they are also taught to: "Use bible verses to control ones thoughts" and to "avert ones eyes from members of the opposite sex that they find attractive".

Seems to me that there is an issue that they are adressing with these classes or maybe they are just for "fun"?

darkmax wrote:No no no! Don't get me wrong. I meant it that they are the ones in all the military forces, whom are away from home most of their service time.

Pilots get to go home on a more regular basis, so does land forces and associated divisions.

But like I said, it was just some rumor.

Thank you for clearing that up.

Thinyser wrote:Woah there simmer down now I dont think that Darkmax was implying anyhting of the sort. However I saw just last night a thing on TV about military "bible school" that used bible teaching to help control these urges so evidently there is a concern, if not a problem, with infidelity in the military. They are taught: "No infadelity, No flirting, No pornography, & No masterbation" they are also taught to: "Use bible verses to control ones thoughts" and to "avert ones eyes from members of the opposite sex that they find attractive".

Seems to me that there is an issue that they are adressing with these classes or maybe they are just for "fun"?

I, as one who has served over 8 years in the US Army, have never gone to or recieved a "Bible studies course" from the US Army. Where did you get this information? Not to sound cliche or in anyway insult your intelligence but not everything on TV is true. Perhaps a muslim military?

I can tell you that everytime a unit (battalion, division, regiment, etc.) comes back from a deployment (Iraq, Afghanistan, Korea, etc) we do have to attend a series of mandatory classes called "Re-intergration Training". The stated purpose of which is to "prepare us for the adjustment back to "normal" life here in the states. Now part of that training includes classes (more like lectures) on "Dont beat your wife, dont beat your kids, dont beat your dog."
That is the closest I can think of to what you are talking about. Also included in those "classes" or lectures on "Dont kill someone who cuts you off on the freeway, dont kill the burger counter guy cuz he messes up your order, dont do 200+ over the speed limit for the rush."

Aside from those lovely hours long lectures, the military has the same EO (Equal Opertunity) classes any corperation has. If you have ever had to go to one then you know what I mean. The classes where the talk to you about "What is sexual harrasment or what is a hostile environment". Just like in the civilian world, no mention of the bible or religous teachings is made. Can you imagine the lawsuit that would cause? I dont think the thousands of Hebrews, Muslims, etc. would take kindly to that.

To summerize I have never even heard of the US military teaching bible studies in the way you are speaking of. We do have EO classes, just like in the civilian world but nothing more. It is not because the military is at a higher risk then say wal-mart, Bank of America, K-mart, Cal-Tech, etc. They have those classes because they want to do all that is in their power to prevent anything bad from happening.

Toc Rat wrote:

Thinyser wrote:Woah there simmer down now I dont think that Darkmax was implying anyhting of the sort. However I saw just last night a thing on TV about military "bible school" that used bible teaching to help control these urges so evidently there is a concern, if not a problem, with infidelity in the military. They are taught: "No infadelity, No flirting, No pornography, & No masterbation" they are also taught to: "Use bible verses to control ones thoughts" and to "avert ones eyes from members of the opposite sex that they find attractive".

Seems to me that there is an issue that they are adressing with these classes or maybe they are just for "fun"?

I, as one who has served over 8 years in the US Army, have never gone to or recieved a "Bible studies course" from the US Army. Where did you get this information? Not to sound cliche or in anyway insult your intelligence but not everything on TV is true. Perhaps a muslim military?

Nope, Try ABC News which is usually a pretty credible source IMO.

And BTW Muslims don't study the Bible they study the Koran.

I can tell you that everytime a unit (battalion, division, regiment, etc.) comes back from a deployment (Iraq, Afghanistan, Korea, etc) we do have to attend a series of mandatory classes called "Re-intergration Training". The stated purpose of which is to "prepare us for the adjustment back to "normal" life here in the states. Now part of that training includes classes (more like lectures) on "Dont beat your wife, dont beat your kids, dont beat your dog."
That is the closest I can think of to what you are talking about. Also included in those "classes" or lectures on "Dont kill someone who cuts you off on the freeway, dont kill the burger counter guy cuz he messes up your order, dont do 200+ over the speed limit for the rush."

Aside from those lovely hours long lectures, the military has the same EO (Equal Opertunity) classes any corperation has. If you have ever had to go to one then you know what I mean. The classes where the talk to you about "What is sexual harrasment or what is a hostile environment". Just like in the civilian world, no mention of the bible or religous teachings is made. Can you imagine the lawsuit that would cause? I dont think the thousands of Hebrews, Muslims, etc. would take kindly to that.

To summerize I have never even heard of the US military teaching bible studies in the way you are speaking of. We do have EO classes, just like in the civilian world but nothing more. It is not because the military is at a higher risk then say wal-mart, Bank of America, K-mart, Cal-Tech, etc. They have those classes because they want to do all that is in their power to prevent anything bad from happening.

Well its not any part of Reintegration training, and just because you dont know about it doesnt mean it isn't happening. Now I dont think this is mandatory training like Reintegration training but it is there and I'v never seen anything like in in any corperation that I have ever worked for.

Thinyser wrote:Nope, Try ABC News which is usually a pretty credible source IMO.

And BTW Muslims don't study the Bible they study the Koran.

I

Well its not any part of Reintegration training, and just because you dont know about it doesnt mean it isn't happening. Now I dont think this is mandatory training like Reintegration training but it is there and I'v never seen anything like in in any corperation that I have ever worked for.

No really? Muslims study the Koran? I had noooo idea.

I was speaking in general terms of a religous holy book, not the christian bible in specific. I spoke of muslim armies because their countires tend to be none secular. There are of course expcetions to that rule as with every rule but in general it is muslim countires that do not have a seperation of church and state. NOTE: I am mearly stating fact and make no judgement on that practice.

I will check out this link and see what it is about. I can tell you that I have never heard of any such thing as you are describing. I have served in more then a few places with the US army and in different units. Never have I been exposed to mandatory religous training.

I got out of the Navy last year, and while I received my fair share of Sexual Harrassment and EO training, NEVER did they bring up any sort of morality.

Just, "Don't do this because it is illegal and we will throw you in prison forever."

Right and wrong seemed pretty secondary...

OK, just read the article. It is about a PRIVATE RELIGOUS GROUP, operating on its giving bibles and "kits" to soldiers in Iraq that are interested in that kind of thing. It is by NO means a military supported, paid for and sanctioned operation.

It is as I thought, NOT a military program. Can you imagine if it had been? Soldiers forced to read the bible even if they were of other religions?

Randomfist wrote:Ok, I'm gunna get blasted on a PC level for this but here goes...

Does anyone else think that having equal attribute roles (especially for humans) between men and women is "realistic"? Anyone with common sense knows that the average male human is stronger and usually quicker than the average female human. And reversely, one could argue that the average human female could have a higher mental affinity than the average human male. I know there is a balance between "real life" and "game balance" but there are other species in the palladium universe that have different attribute rolls between males and females of that particular species. I see stats all the time where a 5'1'' 100lb woman is stronger than a 6'0'' man who weighs 200lbs. Sorry, doesn't make sense to me(unless augmented via bionics or magic). Please, chime in on your thoughts.

Most role-playing games don't exactly strive for realism, so I don't feel the need to stress it in character generation.

Toc Rat wrote:

Thinyser wrote:Nope, Try ABC News which is usually a pretty credible source IMO.

And BTW Muslims don't study the Bible they study the Koran.

I

Well its not any part of Reintegration training, and just because you dont know about it doesnt mean it isn't happening. Now I dont think this is mandatory training like Reintegration training but it is there and I'v never seen anything like in in any corperation that I have ever worked for.

No really? Muslims study the Koran? I had noooo idea.

I was speaking in general terms of a religous holy book, not the christian bible in specific. I spoke of muslim armies because their countires tend to be none secular. There are of course expcetions to that rule as with every rule but in general it is muslim countires that do not have a seperation of church and state. NOTE: I am mearly stating fact and make no judgement on that practice.

I will check out this link and see what it is about. I can tell you that I have never heard of any such thing as you are describing. I have served in more then a few places with the US army and in different units. Never have I been exposed to mandatory religous training.

I just told you that I doubt if it is mandatory...

Ziggy78eog wrote:

Randomfist wrote:Ok, I'm gunna get blasted on a PC level for this but here goes...

Does anyone else think that having equal attribute roles (especially for humans) between men and women is "realistic"? Anyone with common sense knows that the average male human is stronger and usually quicker than the average female human. And reversely, one could argue that the average human female could have a higher mental affinity than the average human male. I know there is a balance between "real life" and "game balance" but there are other species in the palladium universe that have different attribute rolls between males and females of that particular species. I see stats all the time where a 5'1'' 100lb woman is stronger than a 6'0'' man who weighs 200lbs. Sorry, doesn't make sense to me(unless augmented via bionics or magic). Please, chime in on your thoughts.

Of course it is realistic. I am a guy, but I know of several women who are stronger, faster, more intelligent, ect., than I. Of course when you put in ridiculous extremes such as the example you have provided, you argument makes sense, until you realise that it a ridiculous extreme. Use some common sense when making your characters.

Its not a ridiculous extreme, its actually a mild extreme. Its quite easy for the dice to produce a 5'1" 100 lb woman that is FAR stronger than a 6' 200 lb man... this wont happen very often in real life.

The average man will be stronger and faster and more endurrent (of physical exertion though probably not "hardship") than the average woman, but the dice don't agree with this.

What I would do (if this was even an issue for my players) is simply add some "+"s & "-"s to the 3d6

Something like:
IQ Same for both genders, though thier thought processes are different I don't think there is a real difference in "intelligence"
ME Same fore both genders, There are differences but on average I don't think that one or the other has an advantage
MA females get a +1 as they are generally more well mannered and "likeable" than males and are more "trustworthy" though males should have a higher "intimidation factor"
PS Males get a +1 while females get a -1 giving a 2 point swing toward the male's advantage
PE same as PS -1 women +1 for men
PB reverse of PS and PE as generally the averge female will be more attractive than the average man
Spd Same as PS and PE on average men will be faster than women if due to no other reason than thier stride length.

Thinyser wrote:

Ziggy78eog wrote:

Randomfist wrote:Ok, I'm gunna get blasted on a PC level for this but here goes...

Does anyone else think that having equal attribute roles (especially for humans) between men and women is "realistic"? Anyone with common sense knows that the average male human is stronger and usually quicker than the average female human. And reversely, one could argue that the average human female could have a higher mental affinity than the average human male. I know there is a balance between "real life" and "game balance" but there are other species in the palladium universe that have different attribute rolls between males and females of that particular species. I see stats all the time where a 5'1'' 100lb woman is stronger than a 6'0'' man who weighs 200lbs. Sorry, doesn't make sense to me(unless augmented via bionics or magic). Please, chime in on your thoughts.

Of course it is realistic. I am a guy, but I know of several women who are stronger, faster, more intelligent, ect., than I. Of course when you put in ridiculous extremes such as the example you have provided, you argument makes sense, until you realise that it a ridiculous extreme. Use some common sense when making your characters.

Its not a ridiculous extreme, its actually a mild extreme. Its quite easy for the dice to produce a 5'1" 100 lb woman that is FAR stronger than a 6' 200 lb man... this wont happen very often in real life.

The average man will be stronger and faster and more endurrent (of physical exertion though probably not "hardship") than the average woman, but the dice don't agree with this.

What I would do (if this was even an issue for my players) is simply add some "+"s & "-"s to the 3d6

Something like:
IQ Same for both genders, though thier thought processes are different I don't think there is a real difference in "intelligence"
ME Same fore both genders, There are differences but on average I don't think that one or the other has an advantage
MA females get a +1 as they are generally more well mannered and "likeable" than males and are more "trustworthy" though males should have a higher "intimidation factor"
PS Males get a +1 while females get a -1 giving a 2 point swing toward the male's advantage
PE same as PS -1 women +1 for men
PB reverse of PS and PE as generally the averge female will be more attractive than the average man
Spd Same as PS and PE on average men will be faster than women if due to no other reason than thier stride length.

Thanks for defending me. I didn't think it was an extreme either. I see all the time where a petite woman in a game is stronger than a large man. I see it in NPC's all the time too. I have to say that although I started this thread, I never have female and male characters roll differently for their stats. I was just wondering if anyone else did and how they did it. And again, I know we are all playing a fantasy game so the real world doesn't apply. I just know plenty of people who try to inject realism into their games wherever they can; such as having the average woman not being as strong as the average man. The funny thing is I see a lot of people saying that they know plenty of women who are stronger than them. I'm talking about what is the general truth and not the exceptions here. You need look no further than sports. Name one woman in the NBA, MLB, NFL or NHL. You can't. I see keeping it how it is for game balance purposes but I see a lot of denile about how things really are and that men are stronger than woman. I don't see how a rational person can say otherwise and point out the one in 5,000 exception as their "proof".