> No, not really. I suggest you rethink it. It does mention that
> Orlanthi really means 'Orlanthi and Vingans' and Ernaldans means
> 'Ernaldans and Nandan.'
>
> I would hardly call it discrimination, all things considered.
We're
> playing a game set in ancient times, are we not?
No, we're not. We're playing a game set in a fantasy world, where anyone can do most anything with magical aid, where gender restrictions (outside of biological specialities - I'll ignore Nandan as long as I can) have no reason to appear in the first place. And anyway, it most certainly IS descrimination, by any reasonable definition of the word. Whether it's fair descrimination is another thing, and I agree that it realistically reflects ancient societies. Whether it's necessary to do so in a game, as a character selection restriction, is another thing - the obvious result I can see is an ever more unrepresentative set of female characters (where there are any at all), with more and more Vingans and non-Ernaldans/Orlanthi. That 15% is going to get a lot more noticeable. While TR does indeed provide an excellent selection of deities for male characters in all walks of life, it provides not one female combat-oriented option, without invoking the Orlanthi 'all' on the gender restriction (an option nowhere actually stated).
Wulf
Powered by hypermail