Gender Rebalancing in Monster Names / Descriptions / Speech / Messages
issueid=4002 11-17-2015 09:39 PM
Junior Member
Number of reported issues by Kelibath: 25
Gender Rebalancing in Monster Names / Descriptions / Speech / Messages
Add a 'male' descriptor for the counterpart to 'female' monsters or otherwise address the current gender descriptors in the text to improve parity and avoid further alienation of female gamers

This RFE is a request if at all possible to alter the current strange and uncomfortable imbalance between gendered monsters; specifically, female variants being encountered far less often, and the strange disparity between 'male' monsters having no referenced gender and 'female' monsters of the same kind being described foremostly by their gender.

I'm a massive long-term fan of ADOM and came to the entire genre of roguelikes through it. I'm also female. As a female ADOM fan, this issue actually impacts on me quite seriously and continues even now to make me feel marginalised as a player. I love the fact that the main character can be of either binary gender, and the overwhelming detail that has gone into the game in every respect, and having 'female creatures' is definitely a step up from simply assuming that all of the standard monsters in the game are male by default. Nevertheless it's really quite glaring when a 'female' variant of a known monster suddenly shows up. When the game was first being conceived this probably seemed like a progressive step forwards as female monsters were finally being consciously included, but what it actually serves to do is to normalise every monster without the 'female' descriptor as male and therefore make female monsters seem strangely unusual. When I started playing this game it was postcardware and I wasn't as aware of the wider repercussions from this sort of representation - so I just enjoyed something but felt I had absolutely no place to criticise it for one stylistic choice I wasn't happy with. I've been thinking it would be great to change it for going on twelve years, though, and have finally got the courage up to submit a report to that effect. Now that ADOM is a priced commodity which being released to Steam and a public audience, I see this as a much more pressing issue. There'll be a vast new player base encountering 'female orcs' and 'orcs' for the first time; many of whom might be offended, and some of whom might well post about the issue on social media. I do appreciate that not everyone will be affected by this problem to the same extent (some more, some less, after all, I'm certainly still supporting the game!) but it's something that -does- get noticed, -does- affect at least some players and -may well- garner negative attention.

I would like to see a finished version of ADOM where there is no default gender assumption for either the player or any randomly generated standard monster that they encounter.


My suggestions for how improve on this issue follow:

First, remove the 'female' descriptor from monsters with a 'standard' and 'female' alternate. Generated creatures should instead be assigned a gender on first generation according to a global or per-species algorithm which alters their name (when appropriate), art (if possible), description and the pronouns used (he/she/they/it) in their attack messages and 'l'ook description.
Secondly, I suggest adding this to all applicable/humanoid creatures, not solely the types that already have a 'female' variant, excepting where these are prohibited from one or the other gender by canon or game mechanics.
Ensure the pronouns within descriptions for all monsters currently without gender variation are listed as 'it' or 'they' instead.
I'd also like to up the encounter frequency percentages, now that differing names are not required, to something more like 50% chance per gender (distributed differently by species as required).
Standardise gendered monster names that won't work without the 'female' prefix - notably Swordsman, Lizardman. Suggestions include using swordsman/swordswoman/swordfighter to match their pronouns and lizardfolk/lizardkin/lizardlings.
Maybe add some variant gender names in the same way to current elite forms of the normal monsters, as well - Ogre Queen, Werewolf Queen, Minotaur Queen - whatever works for canon.
NPCs that are generated as 'named' should probably generate their gender first, and then draw from a list of appropriate names afterwards - shopkeepers and artifact guardians, etc.
Some few sections of dialogue also still need to be parsed to avoid accidental use of the wrong pronouns for the PC.



These changes are the easiest way I can think of to introduce the necessary alterations and more reasonably balance the Drakalor Chain. This would present the continued impression of a diverse and balanced world in ADOM without any gender being singled out as more exotic to the player by default, and some suggestions would also allow for the incorporation of non-binary gender to be represented in the game.

My original suggestion was that for every monster with a 'female' alternate, add the 'male' descriptor to their 'standard' opposite. In this manner 'male orcs' and 'female orcs' would show up without any major coding changes being requisite - I have now discarded this in favour of the more streamlined option of removing prefixes entirely. It was originally included because it seemed like the fastest fix. There are also other aspects that would also add to the rebalancing of this issue that might make good suggestions for further gender balance and to link with the above. For example, incorporating female shopkeepers (if not already done) by using names randomised from a list which includes those suitable for both genders (maybe change the HMV shopkeep to female by default), increasing number/balance of set female NPCs, implementing gender parity in Terinyo and Dwarftown by having the graphics for 'farmer' and 'goodwoman' randomly select per foo from the two tiles available (and therefore change the second monster name to 'villager' or similar) and replacing 'female dwarf' with 'dwarves' with RNG'd appearance.. We could even add a third 'other' option to the current character select screen for gender (incorporating a +1 to say, Toughness, and a third gender quest). But I see these more as hopeful future developments after the main, essential suggestions above have been implemented.

Either way, though, this is an issue which has my sincerest attention, and one I honestly think is a necessary change to be made before the game is completed.
Issue Details
Issue Number 4002
Issue Type Feature
Project ADOM (Ancient Domains Of Mystery)
Category All
Status Suggested
Priority 3
Suggested Version ADOM r61 (v2.0.0)
Implemented Version (none)
Milestone (none)
Votes for this feature 26
Votes against this feature 16
Assigned Users (none)
Tags (none)




11-17-2015 09:57 PM
Ancient Member
I see what you mean, although I'm conditioned to not see the gender bias, being a bit old-school in my upbringing as far as what the default gender is.

Personally I don't see anything wrong with society assuming maleness unless femaleness is specified since it could just as easily be out of reverence for the female as contempt for the female--although it's usually neither--the point is it's all in your mind and expectations as to what, if any, prejudice is implied--and when we're speaking of defaults, at the end of the day it has to be one or the other, right? Why assume that assuming a penis means a favourable prejudice toward males or a negative one toward females, as opposed to vice versa?

But if enough people think it's worth the while, fine--I think it would be least obtrusive to foreshorten it: an ogre (m) or an ogre (f) or so, and a configurable toggle to disable the distinction entirely so only the 'l'ook command reveals the sex.

Regarding representation, males are still more represented in combat just due to obvious physical differences. That's reasonable discrimination--observing a difference that is actually there. So I'm fine with a slight lean toward male representation in aggressive monsters, although I think generating a few more females wouldn't hurt.

11-17-2015 10:06 PM
Junior Member
"
ADOM recently introduced unintentional sexist remarks (due to my limited grasp of the English language). The "bitch" references should be exchanged for something else."
This just in from the Creator - so it seems as if he really is concerned with how the game approaches this sort of issue, and I hope my RFE resonates with his intentions.
(Personally, I suggest it be changed to "witch", one letter makes all the difference. It's still gendered but the character is also very clearly female to start with, and, in fact, is actually an icy witch.)

11-17-2015 10:10 PM
Ancient Member
I've never heard of bitch being a sexist insult. Very few slurs are gender-neutral. To me sexism means implying superiority of one gender over the other, and I don't think people who say bitch/bastard are implying that. Maybe it's different where you are from (I'm from England).

11-17-2015 10:20 PM
Ancient Member
I don't really want to see every orc called "male orc" or "female orc" - mainly because I think that would get too busy.

That said, I 100% understand your point about "female orc" showing that "male" is the default by assumption.

I'd suggest removing "male" and "female" as name descriptors - both should be called "orc", but when messages use pronouns, use "he" or "she" and have it about 50%. If that's too subtle, add it to the 'l'ook command as extra info. "You see a male orc. He seems somewhat experienced."

11-17-2015 10:30 PM
Junior Member
Quote Originally Posted by Harwin
I don't really want to see every orc called "male orc" or "female orc" - mainly because I think that would get too busy.

That said, I 100% understand your point about "female orc" showing that "male" is the default by assumption.

I'd suggest removing "male" and "female" as name descriptors - both should be called "orc", but when messages use pronouns, use "he" or "she" and have it about 50%. If that's too subtle, add it to the 'l'ook command as extra info. "You see a male orc. He seems somewhat experienced."
I'm absolutely fine with that. In fact it was my second suggestion - have a look at the paragraph below the attractively verdigris'd one, and that should be in there as an option - including "they", because a sizeable proportion of the gamer population also identify as no gender or as a gender not on the male-female binary. The same randomisation of pronouns can be applied to the monster memory (changing every time it is opened for applicable creatures) and to the 'l'ook command - fantastic idea.

I do disagree that "male orc" would make the message feed any less busy given the additional length of "female orc" as it is, let alone "orc chieftain", "ancient karmic wyrm", "skeleton warrior" and so forth. If Thomas decides to go that way, the only creatures it would impact are the ones that already have the word "female" in their descriptor for the female variant - so the name length won't be majorly affected. It's only a major issue if female orcs for example are less common.. ehe.



Quote Originally Posted by auricbond
I've never heard of bitch being a sexist insult. Very few slurs are gender-neutral. To me sexism means implying superiority of one gender over the other, and I don't think people who say bitch/bastard are implying that. Maybe it's different where you are from (I'm from England).
I disagree, mostly because the implications and meanings behind the two terms are different. Their general, daily use is not necessarily as sexist as it is simply insulting, but the etymologies can be.
Masculine slurs are more likely to compare a man -with- a woman to belittle him or to otherwise erase his status, whereas feminine slurs focus more frequently on whether the woman is a hassle or impediment to the speaker in some way.
(And yes, I'm British. I am coming at this from the perspective of someone in the minority group affected, though, and who has been supporting similar causes and social causes generally for several years now. I appreciate I'm not aware of your gender or privilege level, but this is mine.)


In answer to your original post, as you replied even as I was reading Thomas' above comment:


I completely disagree with your assertion that having a male:female combatant imbalance is reasonable discrimination.

In the real world the main barrier to female combatants is endemic sexism and a traditionally gendered attitude. If you go back far enough into history at the point where tribalism was the main structure of society, female fighters actually become the norm rather than the exception - the Amazons are the obvious example but also various African tribes and even as late as the Viking / nordic warriors of the medieval era.

Secondly - within the bounds of the Drakalor Chain itself, there's no need for gendered disparities save for the choice of the creative team. ADOM is already set up so that male and female characters have a very, very minor difference in character stats based on their gender - +1 strength or +1 dexterity respectively. Both attributes are physical and both are combat-oriented in differing ways, as well as both being very simplistically trained to the point where the starting variation isn't going to matter anyway. This shows an intention to maintain both genders as more or less equally combat-suitable, and to recognise the 'obvious physical differences' you mention without translating them into different levels of overall -functionality-. In addition to this, aside from the canon differences already instituted (natural affinities for Strength/Dexterity and natural responses to their Charisma/Appearance, the latter of which is an issue in and of itself), there is no canon argument for there to be a physical disparity between genders or an accompanying lean toward male representation in aggressive monsters. This game has a fantasy setting and the majority of the creatures you're describing as 'naturally more aggressive when masculine' or 'naturally stronger when masculine' do not exist in the real world, neither do they have real world parallels; there's every chance that female orcs might be stronger and tougher than their counterparts. Why not? They live in a tribal system, after all.

I also cannot emphasise enough how much I disagree with your comment on the emphasis of femaleness as other as "all in your mind and expectations as to what, if any, prejudice is implied". To have one gender counted as the default, and the other seen as the perversion or variation, massively reinforces the first gender as holding all importance and power. From your reply I appreciate that you very likely haven't experienced what it is to be on the other side of such an assumption and it is a difficult thing to understand until you have, but it very literally marginalises the gender seen as secondary - and by 'marginalise', what I mean is that a group of beings that makes up 50% of the beings of that type in existence winds up with about 20% of the overall respect, power and attention. Making any gender 'the exception' screws it over for no good reason. I wouldn't want to see it done to men any more than to anyone else. It is that exact same marginalisation which has led to fewer female roguelike fans in the first place, and to this issue being missed for so long (or not seeming like an issue to other players). What's more - as I have said before, I am raising this issue -as a member of the affected group- and saying very clearly that it is an issue for many of us.

-I'm- fine with a slight lean toward any representation in any type of monster that makes canon and world-building sense, but, I see very little reason to incorporate whatever disparity the game DOES include even to the point of bigoting non-dialogue messages, or any real need to perpetuate disparity rather than to increase parity.

11-17-2015 10:33 PM
Ancient Member
I don't think this is really a problem, as ADOM is based on a medieval fantasy world, and the medieval age was, well... deeply sexist. You didn't see many female adventurers around at that age.

That said, I don't oppose this change either. After all, it's medieval fantasy. So we can imagine a world with parity, why not. So I don't vote either yes or no.

If it's done, I think just removing the "female" descriptor BUT using the right pronoun ("You attack the orc and slay him/You attack the orc and slay her") would be fine, at least for the monsters that currently have this. Some monsters should remain locked to a single gender (e.g. dark elf priestess). Others would need different names if they are to be extended to both genders (swordsman/swordswoman).

What I wouldn't like is everything to be removed (i.e., no distinction at all between male and female monsters) as this would make the world much less rich. Leaving it as it is is OK by me, making this kind of changes is also OK with me, but simplifying is a big no!

11-17-2015 10:35 PM
Ancient Member
As for "bitch", well, the character saying that in game is a deeply evil minion of ChAoS... he is to expected to be evil in many ways, sexism can be such a way.

11-17-2015 10:45 PM
Junior Member
Absolutely. This RFE is categorically not a call for simplification. I too love the world of ADOM in all its richness and variety. It's just that there's a difference between having multiple genders of orc, and having one of them being notable but one not.


Quote Originally Posted by Al-Khwarizmi
I don't think this is really a problem, as ADOM is based on a medieval fantasy world, and the medieval age was, well... deeply sexist. You didn't see many female adventurers around at that age.
German war-whoopers, Boudicca the Iceni warrior-queen, British and other celtic warriors in general, Themiskyrans, Vikings, just off the top of my head.


Quote Originally Posted by Al-Khwarizmi
That said, I don't oppose this change either. After all, it's medieval fantasy. So we can imagine a world with parity, why not. So I don't vote either yes or no.
If it's done, I think just removing the "female" descriptor BUT using the right pronoun ("You attack the orc and slay him/You attack the orc and slay her") would be fine, at least for the monsters that currently have this. Some monsters should remain locked to a single gender (e.g. dark elf priestess). Others would need different names if they are to be extended to both genders (swordsman/swordswoman).
This is my previous point in a nutshell, actually. Because it is a fantasy world, it really doesn't matter whether medieval accuracy is upheld, except in the mind of the Creator who has the final call on everything here and deserves it after all his work (although I do hope, if you're reading this, my arguments have made some helpful impact). However, we've come to a different conclusion on the matter - because to me, if it doesn't actually matter for any reason, then there's absolutely nothing to stop people voting Yes as allies to this and the change going through because what it will make a difference to is the large number of newly interested female gamers out there. I do sincerely hope by saying this that I can change your mind on this matter. If not changing the terminology currently present ends up negatively impacting real people (or even the game's reputation) and changing it damages nothing - let's change!

Loving some of your suggestions though. I don't mind either way whether we add 'male' or remove 'female' as long as gender variation -remains within the game world in a non-discriminatory manner-.. other than that proviso, I am frankly open to anything. I think 'orc' and such need the descriptor because people may assume male by default otherwise anyway. Since the real world isn't perfect, either. But it would be decent to create a few counterpart monsters for the ones that are already single-gender - Priestess is a direct Lolth reference, Lord and Princess basically equate, but Female Swordsman is something that has always felt a little odd...!


Quote Originally Posted by Al-Khwarizmi
As for "bitch", well, the character saying that in game is a deeply evil minion of ChAoS... he is to expected to be evil in many ways, sexism can be such a way.
Thomas has already changed this, hence why I felt even more empowered to post this RFE.

11-17-2015 11:09 PM
Ancient Member
Quote Originally Posted by Kelibath
I disagree, mostly because the implications and meanings behind the two terms are different. Their general, daily use is not necessarily as sexist as it is simply insulting, but the etymologies can be.
The operative word here is 'sexist', I don't know what you mean by it (already told you my definition).

The common parlance, and above all, the intent, is what I think anyone should care about. You seem to be eating around the edges of the implications here instead of talking directly: are you talking about 'bitch' implying assuming a certain mating position?

Masculine slurs are more likely to compare a man -with- a woman to belittle him or to otherwise erase his status, whereas feminine slurs focus more frequently on whether the woman is a hassle or impediment to the speaker in some way.
Ok, maybe. You'd have to cite examples. I'm not sure what your point is though.

(And yes, I'm British. I am coming at this from the perspective of someone in the minority group affected, though, and who has been supporting similar causes and social causes generally for several years now. I appreciate I'm not aware of your gender or privilege level, but this is mine.)
It should continue to be that way (irrelevant).

I completely disagree with your assertion that having a male:female combatant imbalance is reasonable discrimination.

In the real world the main barrier to female combatants is endemic sexism and a traditionally gendered attitude. If you go back far enough into history at the point where tribalism was the main structure of society, female fighters actually become the norm rather than the exception - the Amazons are the obvious example but also various African tribes and even as late as the Viking / nordic warriors of the medieval era.
I'm not familiar with this (and I thought the amazons were speculation or even myth). I would be curious as to why--what gives rise to the idea that females have the greater fitness for being warriors that causes them to put the idea into practice. Maybe it's to do with population control. A pregnant woman holding a spear seems pretty dicey.

Secondly - within the bounds of the Drakalor Chain itself, there's no need for gendered disparities save for the choice of the creative team. ADOM is already set up so that male and female characters have a very, very minor difference in character stats based on their gender - +1 strength or +1 dexterity respectively. Both attributes are physical and both are combat-oriented in differing ways, as well as both being very simplistically trained to the point where the starting variation isn't going to matter anyway. This shows an intention to maintain both genders as more or less equally combat-suitable, and to recognise the 'obvious physical differences' you mention without translating them into different levels of overall -functionality-. In addition to this, aside from the canon differences already instituted (natural affinities for Strength/Dexterity and natural responses to their Charisma/Appearance, the latter of which is an issue in and of itself), there is no canon argument for there to be a physical disparity between genders or an accompanying lean toward male representation in aggressive monsters. This game has a fantasy setting and the majority of the creatures you're describing as 'naturally more aggressive when masculine' or 'naturally stronger when masculine' do not exist in the real world, neither do they have real world parallels; there's every chance that female orcs might be stronger and tougher than their counterparts. Why not? They live in a tribal system, after all.
I had not considered it that way but I agree with all of this. I also submitted an RFE myself on the gender bias in shopz.

I also cannot emphasise enough how much I disagree with your comment on the emphasis of femaleness as other as "all in your mind and expectations as to what, if any, prejudice is implied". To have one gender counted as the default, and the other seen as the perversion or variation, massively reinforces the first gender as holding all importance and power.
I think that that--what you just said-- is also in your mind. Also to repeat myself: intent is paramount. Who cares what's endemic if you have the power to rise above it. If you're a powerful female, you'll rise to a position of power. Sexism will have no power to sway you if you aren't sexist yourself; if you don't allow it to exert psychological pressure on you and discourage you when a male OR female invokes that as their best argument for why you should step down. Feeble!

I do think male humans, or even whatever we were prior to having evolved, do joust for dominance to increase their mating prospects in a way that women seldom do, and so they're seen more often as the 'player' on the world's stage. I don't think this is mere societal conditioning, I think there is an evolutionary element to it. Not to say that women cannot be players. Unless there is someone actually forcing women to assume a certain expected role, I don't have a problem with trend-observation. It's for women to rise above it and prove it wrong, if it is wrong.

From your reply I appreciate that you very likely haven't experienced what it is to be on the other side of such an assumption and it is a difficult thing to understand until you have, but it very literally marginalises the gender seen as secondary - and by 'marginalise', what I mean is that a group of beings that makes up 50% of the beings of that type in existence winds up with about 20% of the overall respect, power and attention.
Is that anyone's fault? You seem to think that it is the prejudices and stereotypes that held women back from assuming their fair share of the power and recognition, but I think you might have chicken and egg mixed up. Say what you like about her, but noone questioned Thatcher because she had a vagina and a womb, just as an example. If you step up and prove your worth, and you don't live somewhere like Iran, you can be a part of whatever small percent of women are bearers of respect and authority. The go-getters of those positions don't whine about how prejudices held them back, they just smack any opposition around the chops with the truth that they are not going to assume the role you assumed they would.

Making any gender 'the exception' screws it over for no good reason. I wouldn't want to see it done to men any more than to anyone else.
I would not care (male here, if you would have guessed).

It is that exact same marginalisation which has led to fewer female roguelike fans in the first place, and to this issue being missed for so long (or not seeming like an issue to other players). What's more - as I have said before, I am raising this issue -as a member of the affected group- and saying very clearly that it is an issue for many of us.
I don't think it is. I think it's an issue for those that say it is an issue for them. I would like to see the broad surveys done though and have you make me eat my words.

-I'm- fine with a slight lean toward any representation in any type of monster that makes canon and world-building sense, but, I see very little reason to incorporate whatever decisions the Creator prefers in the game's non-dialogue messages, or any real need to perpetuate disparity rather than to increase parity.
I think the differences in the sexes should be acknowledged, if not celebrated. The exception being The differences that are wrongly assumed to be there, and which those are is not uncontroversial.

11-17-2015 11:14 PM
Junior Member
Agreed that the game defaulting to maleness is inappropriate. I've been playing the game for 20 years and have never gotten used to it. This issue came up once or twice in the old days, if I remember correctly, but it never got fixed.

It's just awkward. We don't speak of a "female human" as if she were the opposite of a "human," or divide felines into "cats" and "female cats." We distinguish gender, but we do so with pronouns and appearance, not with half a set of adjectives.

Regarding the issue of sexism, yes, I'm afraid it really is there, though I in no way believe it was intentional. As the OP said, Thomas has gone to great lengths to ensure that the sexes are treated equally in the game. Thomas is not a sexist.

The specific tendency to view maleness as being the default status of a species hails back to centuries of Western history wherein "man" was the default noun for our species and women were literally chattel, and those tendencies are still present in Western culture today, especially in games that tend to feature brawny heroes slaying hordes of monsters.

There's no such thing as "positive prejudice" when it comes to gender, though - viewing women with more reverence than men is every bit as sexist as seeing them as inferiors. Most men historically have done both, treating women as being little more as children, to be loved and cherished and even adored, but never taken seriously as equals. Many, many men still do this today, usually without even realizing it.

I think the best solution would be to just drop the "female" descriptor altogether, and just rely on pronouns and graphics to convey gender, as many other roguelikes do.

11-17-2015 11:18 PM
Senior Member
To me this is a p11. I agree that using speech which could make people uncomfortable should be avoided (re: calling only female players bitch). The fact that this fantasy world doesn't mimic proportions seen in our real world seems like a non-issue to me. Maybe just dropping gender from descriptors is fine.

It's a fine concept to keep in mind as development continues, but it seems like a waste of effort to go back and change what's already there.

11-17-2015 11:22 PM
Ancient Member
Quote Originally Posted by hapro
To me this is a p11. I agree that using speech which could make people uncomfortable should be avoided (re: calling only female players bitch).
Males are called 'biatch'. ;)

11-17-2015 11:37 PM
Junior Member
Quote Originally Posted by hapro
To me this is a p11. I agree that using speech which could make people uncomfortable should be avoided (re: calling only female players bitch). The fact that this fantasy world doesn't mimic proportions seen in our real world seems like a non-issue to me. Maybe just dropping gender from descriptors is fine.

It's a fine concept to keep in mind as development continues, but it seems like a waste of effort to go back and change what's already there.
The priority I chose is based on the degree to which I have been affected.
I haven't heard from many other female players on here yet (it's only been a few hours!) but my reading of other threads around the site is that this is an issue for several people, that at least some other users have already been vocal in stating that they were uncomfortable with the present set-up as it is, and I've even seen some posting that they'd considered an RFE on it themselves.
To me, this makes or breaks the game for some players, and is thus high (though not top, #1 style) priority. Maybe it's as low as 5, but 11 to be honest seems low enough for the issue not to be fully understood.
To be clear, I'm not insisting that every single aspect of the RFE is implemented. What I've written are a long list of positive possible changes and suggestions - all of which would be useful and improve the game for some players in various ways, all of which are at least relatively feasible things to incorporate (hopefully..!) given the gender system already partially in place, and all of which I'd like to be considered even if only a few come to pass.
The problem with just dropping gender is that, unless every single monster in the game then ends up as a "they", that actually -diminishes- the female representation even farther.


Quote Originally Posted by auricbond
I see what you mean, although I'm conditioned to not see the gender bias, being a bit old-school in my upbringing as far as what the default gender is.

Personally I don't see anything wrong with society assuming maleness unless femaleness is specified since it could just as easily be out of reverence for the female as contempt for the female--although it's usually neither--the point is it's all in your mind and expectations as to what, if any, prejudice is implied--and when we're speaking of defaults, at the end of the day it has to be one or the other, right? Why assume that assuming a penis means a favourable prejudice toward males or a negative one toward females, as opposed to vice versa?

But if enough people think it's worth the while, fine--I think it would be least obtrusive to foreshorten it: an ogre (m) or an ogre (f) or so, and a configurable toggle to disable the distinction entirely so only the 'l'ook command reveals the sex.

Regarding representation, males are still more represented in combat just due to obvious physical differences. That's reasonable discrimination--observing a difference that is actually there. So I'm fine with a slight lean toward male representation in aggressive monsters, although I think generating a few more females wouldn't hurt.

In my previous reply to you I'm sorry to say I wasn't entirely fair in how I answered - I basically picked up on the points you made that I considered unreasonable, 'reasonable discrimination' and 'this could be out of reverence' being the major issues. What I didn't do is address the really decent ideas you had to offer to the mix.
So-! First off, thank you for still being open to this concept, and I hope some of what I wrote before is helpful to you in return by demonstrating how the concepts you've been brought up with now come over.
I love the idea of foreshortening the title to "ogre (m)" or the like. To me, it seems clunkier, but what matters in the end is the taste and preference of the majority as well as of the game team.
Looking works very well also and someone else has suggested that seperately so I've incorporated it into the original RFE.


You've answered since, too, though - so I'll address anything from that reply that wasn't covered (or can't be googled easily-!).


Quote Originally Posted by auricbond
The common parlance, and above all, the intent, is what I think anyone should care about. You seem to be eating around the edges of the implications here instead of talking directly: are you talking about 'bitch' implying assuming a certain mating position?
Honestly, I'm just trying to be polite, and I don't swear by choice myself. An example, then - http://feministing.com/2013/06/03/th...s-swear-words/ - From your comment, b***tard comes from having no status by being illegitimate (born of the wrong woman, as well) and b*tch comes from various sources - to be cursed, to be likened to a dog fit mainly for breeding. It's also a MAJORLY crude word http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=bitch
Bitch, literally meaning a female dog, is a slang pejorative for a person, commonly a woman, who is belligerent, unreasonable, malicious, a control freak, rudely intrusive or aggressive. When applied to a man, bitch is a derogatory term for a subordinate.
Its original use as a vulgarism, documented to the fourteenth century, suggested high sexual desire in a woman, comparable to a dog in heat."


Quote Originally Posted by auricbond
I'm not familiar with this (and I thought the amazons were speculation or even myth). I would be curious as to why--what gives rise to the idea that females have the greater fitness for being warriors that causes them to put the idea into practice. Maybe it's to do with population control. A pregnant woman holding a spear seems pretty dicey.
When compared to being a pregnant woman on the other end of one?
The Amazon tribe was certainly real. The furore around them is less so, but they did feature large groups of warrior women who were absolutely committed to their cause. One oft cited (possibly true) example is the removal of a breast to aid in bow accuracy.
Your question here is basically hitting the nail on the head of the point I'm trying to make. You're asking "how did a group of people ever think females were fitter for being warriors than males?" The reply is, "Why perceive males as fitter than females?" Both cases are almost entirely cultural. If I were going to answer I'd probably start with the fact that physicality isn't in fact the full measure of a good warrior and can be trained to relatively close levels in any gender regardless. You only need X strength to draw a bow or pierce skin; if a person can reach X, then they're a potential fighter. Beyond that it's fitness, quick wits, training and talent.
I will say though that this is getting VERY off topic if we reply any further!


I had not considered it that way but I agree with [gender imbalance being unnecessary in a fantasy game world]. I also submitted an RFE myself on the gender bias in shopz.
Awesome. That's about 1/3 of what I was trying to say, and I am glad you do! I'll look into the RFE shortly.


I think that that--what you just said-- is also in your mind. Also to repeat myself: intent is paramount. Who cares what's endemic if you have the power to rise above it.
That is the entire point - we do NOT have the power in the same way that an equivalent man does in our position, and because there ARE equivalent men, we get shafted. Gross oversimplification of a very complex concept, but, powerful women don't do as well as they would have done if they'd been male. This isn't a matter of the woman being "swayed by sexism" but it is a matter of endemic, insititutionalised blocks against women and control by men at every single level of society - that is the actual definition of sexism (rather than the incorrect common-parlance one). None of this is 'in my mind' - it's confirmed, repeatedly evidenced and proven sociology. To explain further would basically be to explain the entire field of patriarchal issues, the concept of privilege and the understanding that people starting from different stages in a race have different chances to end up as the victor.


I do think male humans, or even whatever we were prior to having evolved, do joust for dominance to increase their mating prospects in a way that women seldom do, and so they're seen more often as the 'player' on the world's stage. I don't think this is mere societal conditioning, I think there is an evolutionary element to it. Not to say that women cannot be players. Unless there is someone actually forcing women to assume a certain expected role, I don't have a problem with trend-observation. It's for women to rise above it and prove it wrong, if it is wrong.
Some and some. Women are less competitive and confident in part (and this is also proven) because we are raised to be; we're taught not to answer back, that leadership qualities are bossiness, that we should be attractive rather than assertive. it's not 'someone' forcing women into expected roles but -the entirety of society-. What you're missing here is that even though men as a group have more tendency towards aggressiveness and dominance displays, the culture in which this -results in success- is what causes men to rise above others. Comparison. Imagine if we only elected the compassionate, reasoned and those who saw the big picture, and that aggressiveness or confidence were actually seen as flaws. Suddenly, having male pattern hormones is a huge disadvantage.


Lastly your gender and the position you are coming from is -absolutely- relevant, because if you aren't female, you aren't as aware of how it feels to be treated poorly and excluded because you are female. Ditto any marginalised group. As you say, I guessed correctly - the reason I was able to do that is because - with no offence whatsoever intended - you sound like a person who has not experienced institutionalised discrimination on the basis of a physical and inherent trait. If you asked me to be more specific then for the same exact reason I would assume you were probably a white, heterosexual, Western, young or at least not elderly, healthy-bodied natural male. This may not all apply but on average the more positions of underprivilege someone comes from the more appreciative they are of the concept, and means you're less likely to have really come across the idea before.


You do also keep asking me to provide you with evidence and surveys and normally I would be really happy to, but, I've been on these boards now for hours.. as we're in the same country you probably know it's past midnight here so there's a limit to how much I can reply - plus, it's a bit inappropriate on this section of the board already, and has the potential to spark a massive discussion. More importantly though everything I have said is solid and can be backed up with reams of evidence that you can easily Google now if you'd like to - please do, some of them are an absolutely brilliant read. I'm willing to discuss this more in PM if you like but don't want to clutter this thread more. For now if you're interested, here are some of the concepts behind what I've been saying.

http://twentytwowords.com/what-will-...our-privilege/
http://www.enotes.com/homework-help/...nalized-469991
http://knowledge.insead.edu/leadersh...e-heights-3817
http://curt-rice.com/2011/11/02/peer...and-law-firms/

11-17-2015 11:46 PM
Junior Member
Quote Originally Posted by Wigdaddy
Agreed that the game defaulting to maleness is inappropriate. I've been playing the game for 20 years and have never gotten used to it. This issue came up once or twice in the old days, if I remember correctly, but it never got fixed.

It's just awkward. We don't speak of a "female human" as if she were the opposite of a "human," or divide felines into "cats" and "female cats." We distinguish gender, but we do so with pronouns and appearance, not with half a set of adjectives.

Regarding the issue of sexism, yes, I'm afraid it really is there, though I in no way believe it was intentional. As the OP said, Thomas has gone to great lengths to ensure that the sexes are treated equally in the game. Thomas is not a sexist.

The specific tendency to view maleness as being the default status of a species hails back to centuries of Western history wherein "man" was the default noun for our species and women were literally chattel, and those tendencies are still present in Western culture today, especially in games that tend to feature brawny heroes slaying hordes of monsters.

There's no such thing as "positive prejudice" when it comes to gender, though - viewing women with more reverence than men is every bit as sexist as seeing them as inferiors. Most men historically have done both, treating women as being little more as children, to be loved and cherished and even adored, but never taken seriously as equals. Many, many men still do this today, usually without even realizing it.

I think the best solution would be to just drop the "female" descriptor altogether, and just rely on pronouns and graphics to convey gender, as many other roguelikes do.

Thank you so much for commenting on this thread - your words above are more or less exactly how I feel about this issue and why I think a change would be a net positive for ADOM and its players both. I hope it inspires other readers.
The only thing we disagree on is the descriptor. That is, I'm very happy to see it dropped (as per my second suggestion), but in that case I very definitely want to be sure that the gender variation already present within the game will otherwise remain at least as prevalent and positive as it is now. Some monsters (preferably approaching 50% of organic monsters) need to still be female either way!

11-18-2015 01:32 AM
Junior Member
Quote Originally Posted by Kelibath
Thank you so much for commenting on this thread - your words above are more or less exactly how I feel about this issue and why I think a change would be a net positive for ADOM and its players both. I hope it inspires other readers.
The only thing we disagree on is the descriptor. That is, I'm very happy to see it dropped (as per my second suggestion), but in that case I very definitely want to be sure that the gender variation already present within the game will otherwise remain at least as prevalent and positive as it is now. Some monsters (preferably approaching 50% of organic monsters) need to still be female either way!
Didn't say we should drop female monsters or change the gender variation in any way, only that we should rely on pronouns and graphics, rather than the "female" label. We're totally on the same page her. I mean here. :)

11-18-2015 01:58 AM
Junior Member
All that being said (and I'm speaking as a card-carrying feminist here), I don't think it's inappropriate for characters in the game to be sexist or even racist, as long as the game itself doesn't promote it, as it does with the issue at hand. This goes double for villains. Nastiness of this sort is a valid literary technique that promotes realism, as anyone who's ever watched an episode of Game of Thrones can tell you.

Racism and sexism are real-world problems, and depicting them in fiction as problems should not be off-limits. Bloodshed, violence and explosions are unpleasant realities too, but nobody's calling for any of that to be removed from the game. It wouldn't be much of a game if we did.

There's a wonderful graphical rougelike out there right now called "Pillars of Eternity" that rivals Adom in its scope and complexity, and it features full-blooded swearing, racism, sexism and homophobia, but nobody accuses it of promoting any of those things itself. People in real life are frequently all of these things, and depicting people that way in fiction makes the fiction all the more compelling.

Not everything has to be sanitized of offensive language and ideology in order to be inoffensive itself.

11-18-2015 02:25 AM
Junior Member
And Auricbond: bitch is the second most sexist word in the English language. Period.

11-18-2015 04:23 AM
Junior Member
Quote Originally Posted by Al-Khwarizmi
As for "bitch", well, the character saying that in game is a deeply evil minion of ChAoS...
Wait, I thought it was Yggaz! Do you know something I don't?

Anyway, +1 to just randomly choosing a grammatical gender for each sentient monster without putting "male" or "female" in the name -- already it's annoying how "female" can make messages longer with something that has no gameplay effect, and I wouldn't want to make it worse for all monsters. And as someone mentioned, you'd want to fixup the name sometimes, so you'd have swordswomen and ogre queens.

11-18-2015 02:30 PM
Ancient Member
Quote Originally Posted by Kelibath
In my previous reply to you I'm sorry to say I wasn't entirely fair in how I answered - I basically picked up on the points you made that I considered unreasonable, 'reasonable discrimination' and 'this could be out of reverence' being the major issues. What I didn't do is address the really decent ideas you had to offer to the mix.
So-! First off, thank you for still being open to this concept, and I hope some of what I wrote before is helpful to you in return by demonstrating how the concepts you've been brought up with now come over.
I love the idea of foreshortening the title to "ogre (m)" or the like. To me, it seems clunkier, but what matters in the end is the taste and preference of the majority as well as of the game team.
Looking works very well also and someone else has suggested that seperately so I've incorporated it into the original RFE.
Fair enough.

Honestly, I'm just trying to be polite, and I don't swear by choice myself. An example, then - http://feministing.com/2013/06/03/th...s-swear-words/ - From your comment, b***tard comes from having no status by being illegitimate (born of the wrong woman, as well) and b*tch comes from various sources - to be cursed, to be likened to a dog fit mainly for breeding. It's also a MAJORLY crude word http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=bitch
Bitch, literally meaning a female dog, is a slang pejorative for a person, commonly a woman, who is belligerent, unreasonable, malicious, a control freak, rudely intrusive or aggressive. When applied to a man, bitch is a derogatory term for a subordinate.
Its original use as a vulgarism, documented to the fourteenth century, suggested high sexual desire in a woman, comparable to a dog in heat."
Intent > etymology.

When compared to being a pregnant woman on the other end of one?
Yeah?

The Amazon tribe was certainly real. The furore around them is less so, but they did feature large groups of warrior women who were absolutely committed to their cause. One oft cited (possibly true) example is the removal of a breast to aid in bow accuracy.
Your question here is basically hitting the nail on the head of the point I'm trying to make. You're asking "how did a group of people ever think females were fitter for being warriors than males?" The reply is, "Why perceive males as fitter than females?" Both cases are almost entirely cultural. If I were going to answer I'd probably start with the fact that physicality isn't in fact the full measure of a good warrior and can be trained to relatively close levels in any gender regardless.
WHAT. This is nonesense, what bubble do you live in? The strength potentials are MASSIVELY greater in a man. There's a reason males and females have separate categories in sport. Men are stronger, faster, and smarter. There's a pretty salient reason males were considered fitter combatants.

You only need X strength to draw a bow or pierce skin; if a person can reach X, then they're a potential fighter. Beyond that it's fitness, quick wits, training and talent.
I will say though that this is getting VERY off topic if we reply any further!
Oh sure, I don't mind veering off-topic, as long as it doesn't upset others or drown them out. I do think the role of the mind and nervous system is there, but it is only because of technology that brute physical power has not been the rate-limiting factor on those other qualities, and the time we've spent evolving without that technology is BY FAR the largest of our history. All the recorded history you cite is a flea on the back of our evolution. Amazon's may as well have been yesterday.

That is the entire point - we do NOT have the power in the same way that an equivalent man does in our position, and because there ARE equivalent men, we get shafted. Gross oversimplification of a very complex concept, but, powerful women don't do as well as they would have done if they'd been male. This isn't a matter of the woman being "swayed by sexism" but it is a matter of endemic, insititutionalised blocks against women and control by men at every single level of society - that is the actual definition of sexism (rather than the incorrect common-parlance one).
I can't get behind that definition, since it's circular. The definition of sexism is institutionalised sexism?

None of this is 'in my mind' - it's confirmed, repeatedly evidenced and proven sociology. To explain further would basically be to explain the entire field of patriarchal issues, the concept of privilege and the understanding that people starting from different stages in a race have different chances to end up as the victor.
My point is one of the power of attitude. A fictitious institution (not saying that the one you describe is fictitous) that you fully believe is real, has more oppressive power over your mind than a very real, entrenched one that you have so much contempt for that you barely see it.

I believe we live in a free enough economic 'eco-system' that women have the room to maneuver around such blocks if they are real (and let's just say also that the prominence of these blocks will vary from place to place, town to town, business to business, person to person). if women have the worth to assume the power, they will If they join a company and can't rise up the ladder because of a male-dominated atmosphere then maybe it takes a woman starting her own. Then who can she blame, and who can the women under her leadership blame?

I believe best medicine for prejudice is competence. Be the example of why the prejudices are untrue. If some men jeer at a woman saying she can't pitch a ball because she's a woman, and then she pitches it perfectly, that shuts them up. Whereas if se just whines about their sexist remarks and runs off, that would not gain any respect. And so on on a much grander scale. Expecting someone to adopt a completely new way of thinking is a tall order, but noone can argue with what is in front of their eyes.

I think being focused on the prejudice itself can just entrench it. Take for example, a woman who bristles at the door being held open for her, because she assumes they think she can't do it for herself. But maybe that person would have held it open for anyone and just considers it polite? If you immerse yourself in these issues you might start seeing the prejudices everywhere out of more of a confirmation bias than any real objectivity, and so people will take you less seriously and a worthwhile message might get lost.

Some and some. Women are less competitive and confident in part (and this is also proven) because we are raised to be; we're taught not to answer back, that leadership qualities are bossiness, that we should be attractive rather than assertive.
Who is saying this? I haven't seen it in teachers or parents.

it's not 'someone' forcing women into expected roles but -the entirety of society-. What you're missing here is that even though men as a group have more tendency towards aggressiveness and dominance displays, the culture in which this -results in success- is what causes men to rise above others. Comparison. Imagine if we only elected the compassionate, reasoned and those who saw the big picture, and that aggressiveness or confidence were actually seen as flaws. Suddenly, having male hormones is a huge disadvantage.
Ironically no, that would just result in the compassionate and reasoned people becoming dominant and adopting the behaviours. You seem to be confusing threat-displays and blow-hard-ism with genuine power. People who are quitely confident are not constantly huff-and-puff. Beating your chest (figuratively or literally) is not a measure of worth, just a declaration that you think you possess it, nor is it an affector of the outcome. It doesn't mean you get to be more of a social climber or less of one.

'Male hormones'-- I assume you mean testosterone, which is not a male hormone-- just affect the stakes--people with high testosterone (of either sex) feel heightened positive/negative emotions at winning and losing, whereas low T people feel less change.

Lastly your gender and the position you are coming from is -absolutely- relevant, because if you aren't female, you aren't as aware of how it feels to be treated poorly and excluded because you are female. Ditto any marginalised group. As you say, I guessed correctly - the reason I was able to do that is because - with no offence whatsoever intended - you sound like a person who has not experienced institutionalised discrimination on the basis of a physical and inherent trait. If you asked me to be more specific then for the same exact reason I would assume you were probably a white, heterosexual, Western, young or at least not elderly, healthy-bodied natural male. This may not all apply but on average the more positions of underprivilege someone comes from the more appreciative they are of the concept, and means you're less likely to have really come across the idea before.
Ok, but telling me of my inadequacy to understand the concept I could just as easily say is your own failure to communicate it. I am still a believer that if I was under such pressures, it would be on me to step up or shut up, so to speak--to prove the naysayers wrong--or right.

You do also keep asking me to provide you with evidence and surveys and normally I would be really happy to, but, I've been on these boards now for hours.. as we're in the same country you probably know it's past midnight here so there's a limit to how much I can reply - plus, it's a bit inappropriate on this section of the board already, and has the potential to spark a massive discussion. More importantly though everything I have said is solid and can be backed up with reams of evidence that you can easily Google now if you'd like to - please do, some of them are an absolutely brilliant read. I'm willing to discuss this more in PM if you like but don't want to clutter this thread more. For now if you're interested, here are some of the concepts behind what I've been saying.

http://twentytwowords.com/what-will-...our-privilege/
http://www.enotes.com/homework-help/...nalized-469991
http://knowledge.insead.edu/leadersh...e-heights-3817
http://curt-rice.com/2011/11/02/peer...and-law-firms/
Yeah, I'll have a look when I get the time, although telling me why they're worth my while would be helpful.

Quote Originally Posted by Wigdaddy
And Auricbond: bitch is the second most sexist word in the English language. Period.

I don't know what definition of 'sexism' you are operating under. Saying "all women are bitches" would be sexist, but calling one woman a bitch is just an expression of contempt. Doesn't matter what the origins of the word are, people seldom mean insults literally anyway (I doubt if someone calls me an SOB or a POS that they actually think I am the son of a female dog or a piece of fecal matter).

Once again, intent > etymology.

11-18-2015 02:33 PM
Junior Member
Auricbond - Please PM me to further discuss this particular issue, rather than replying here again - I replied against my better judgement because refusing to defend one's assertions is a terrible faux pas, but this thread is about ADOM rather than the state of the Western world, and as I said before I really don't want to clutter it too much to the point others feel they can't respond. Let's stay on topic.

+ Reply