Yeah you can justify pretty much any set of demographics with a bit of thought and magic. What I don't like is when they just have a set of strange demographics without any thought as to why they're that way.

It's kind of like Medieval settings without any sexism. No problem at all with setting having that but I'd like a little bit of thought as to the reasons why patriarchy was so common in the real world and the logic as to why those reasons don't apply to the setting (magic reducing maternal mortality, birth control herbs, etc. etc.).

Quote from: Daztur;787723[...] I'd like a little bit of thought as to the reasons why patriarchy was so common in the real world and the logic as to why those reasons don't apply to the setting (magic reducing maternal mortality, birth control herbs, etc. etc.).

One of the reasons I couldn't get through the Deed of Paksenarrion without wincing.  In addition to the presumption that women can be heavy infantry just as well as men, there's a birth control herb served with every meal.

Women being able to control their own fertility, along with the huge reductions in infant mortality/death in childbirth brought by magical or mundane healing, totally upends any kind of pre-20th century social structure.

Re: birth control herb...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silphium

Quote from: daniel_ream;787793In addition to the presumption that women can be heavy infantry just as well as men...

The presumption was that some women could be heavy infantry just as well as some men. And the protagonist, Paksennarion, was not some petite, sheltered, courtesan but a big strapping farm girl.

Quote from: Bren;787801The presumption was that some women could be heavy infantry just as well as some men. And the protagonist, Paksennarion, was not some petite, sheltered, courtesan but a big strapping farm girl.

In another thread there was reference to optional human sexual dimorphism in the Creatures Book of Avalon Hill RuneQuest. Thing is, those rules don't allow for the full spectrum of real-world sizes. A woman with SIZ 30-something would have more HP and twice the damage bonus of the largest man the rules allow (and there have of course been men larger than her).

But it doesn't take such an extreme. I'm exceptionally short for a modern American man, but perhaps about average for an ancient Roman. And ancient Teutons were I think bigger than them, women as well as men. Didn't keep the little Romans from conquering an empire; didn't keep 'em from watching out for the women of Gaul (by some accounts more ferocious than the men) either.

Just how the society in the Paks tales is supposed to collapse because of birth control and a few female soldiers is a mystery; perhaps the person who suggested that can illuminate us.

I am not going down the "women are exactly the same as men except PATRIARCHY" SJW rabbit hole with you fruitbats.

Nothing wrong with women being heavy infantry if you have birth control herbs in steady supply. Seems sensible to me. Just don't like "just like the Middle Ages but no sexism because *handwave*"

Quote from: daniel_ream;787809I am not going down the "women are exactly the same as men except PATRIARCHY" SJW rabbit hole with you fruitbats.

... Yes, because pointing out stereotypes are only ever true on a large scale and individuals vary a lot, and how certain characteristics don't matter as much as people might think is TOTALLY SJW.

I realize it's easier to throw a bunch of tribal bullshit up in the air and duck for cover rather than, you know, argue a point, but it makes you look like a kneejerking moron.

Quote from: daniel_ream;787809I am not going down the "women are exactly the same as men except PATRIARCHY" SJW rabbit hole with you fruitbats.

The adult response to realizing that you unthinkingly wrote something stupid is to correct what you wrote and possibly apologize. But instead of doing the adult thing you decided to invent a strawman contrasting argument to point at as you run away from the conversation. Classy.

Quote from: daniel_ream;787793Women being able to control their own fertility, along with the huge reductions in infant mortality/death in childbirth brought by magical or mundane healing, totally upends any kind of pre-20th century social structure.

Oh really? From what point in time? In what way does it upend society? If a birth control herb discovered in 1100 AD would upend feudalism. How about 500 AD or 300 BC oh wait they did have a birth control herb then. Did not  make society of that era any less patriarchal did it?

In the Deed of Paksenarrion, the tradition of women military service stems from a combination of the influence of the Fellowship of Gird, Elves being an equilaterian society in regards to sex, and the fact the deities of the setting manifested their power and picked women champions.

Fellowship of Gird is that way because of the founder's effect of Gird allowing women full participation during his revolt against the mage lords.

And despite all these factors the author still had women being a minority within the military. It was further limited to distinct regions of her setting. I.e. the northern kingdoms of Fintha, Tasia, and Lyonya. It was specifically remarked that other regions considered the presence of women warriors to be unusual.

Quote from: Daztur;787811Nothing wrong with women being heavy infantry if you have birth control herbs in steady supply. Seems sensible to me. Just don't like "just like the Middle Ages but no sexism because *handwave*"

As I recall, it makes no pretense of being just like the Middle Ages. It's very obviously close to Tolkien's Middle Earth, perhaps a Fourth Age. And also obviously close to the usual D&D-Land.

Quote from: estar;787625I will add that medieval russia and eastern european is a great source for making plausible demographics for a D&Dish setting. You don't have use their culture per say but rather read up why their settlements were the way they were. Basically clumps of settled lands with miles of true wilderness in between.

If anyone actually did that, that'd be one thing.  Except, of course, they don't.

Medieval Russia had three characteristics that went hand in hand with its demographics that you don't find in published settings: low tech level, lack of wealth and consumer goods and vast distances between settlements.  If PCs don't mind getting paid by the thankful villagers in chickens, don't mind that the blacksmith's asking them for the iron before he makes them new swords (and laughs, "And where you'll find enough I've no idea!"), and has no problem with several days' travel over empty steppe to get anywhere ... but we're talking a setting that makes Harnworld look like Renaissance northern Italy.

Quote from: Phillip;787806In another thread there was reference to optional human sexual dimorphism in the Creatures Book of Avalon Hill RuneQuest. Thing is, those rules don't allow for the full spectrum of real-world sizes. A woman with SIZ 30-something would have more HP and twice the damage bonus of the largest man the rules allow (and there have of course been men larger than her).

But it doesn't take such an extreme. I'm exceptionally short for a modern American man, but perhaps about average for an ancient Roman. And ancient Teutons were I think bigger than them, women as well as men. Didn't keep the little Romans from conquering an empire; didn't keep 'em from watching out for the women of Gaul (by some accounts more ferocious than the men) either.

Just how the society in the Paks tales is supposed to collapse because of birth control and a few female soldiers is a mystery; perhaps the person who suggested that can illuminate us.

But he sexual dimorphism in humans isn't just about size. Women have lower muscle mass and muscle density than men. That is just a thing its not dependent on any setting or background its just a thing.
Now the D&D rules in particular only differentiate up to the top 0.5% of the population so is it possible that the top 0.01 or one in 10,000 women is physically stronger than the top 0.5% of men well if you look at numbers ..
The 75KG female snatch WR is 131 KG  the men's 75KG male snatch is 175 KG the lightest male category is 56 KG and the record there is 137KG.
So big strong women are roughly as strong as small (56 KG s tiny...) strong men.
Now I have no issues with female warriors, I prefer them to use technique over brute strength and the ability to use finesse in 5e might enable that. I just want to make sure that strong female warriors look more like Brienne than Brittany.

Quote from: Phillip;787806But it doesn't take such an extreme. I'm exceptionally short for a modern American man, but perhaps about average for an ancient Roman. And ancient Teutons were I think bigger than them, women as well as men. Didn't keep the little Romans from conquering an empire; didn't keep 'em from watching out for the women of Gaul (by some accounts more ferocious than the men) either.

It took me a while to realise that even women who are much bigger than me are not nearly as strong as me. The difference in upper body strength between men and women is enormous. I recall reading that if you take away body fat, humans are the most sexually dimorphous of all the great apes.

So, a little Roman man was likely still stronger in the upper body than a big Gaulish woman. Which is why historical female fighters (who were rare) tended to be light support troops such as archers, not heavy infantry.

Quote from: Daztur;787811Nothing wrong with women being heavy infantry if you have birth control herbs in steady supply. Seems sensible to me.

If women could be effective melee infantry you wouldn't need birth control. Chastity has the same effect. You'd have battle-nuns, for instance.

Birth control in the 20th century allowed women to have sex without getting pregnant. It thus removed a traditional incentive to marry - so you could have sex. It makes fielding mixed sex armies somewhat more practical, but does not have a big effect IMO - plenty of female soldiers still get pregnant. Sex-segregated units would be a lot more effective than voluntary contraception; they'd probably be more combat-effective too.