What's the fundamental difference between a male paladin and a female paladin?

/pol/ter/tg/eists

It's stupid for adventurers, who are already exceptional humans (or whatever they are).

Not quite, since adventurers are basically super heroes.

Cant be she follows multiple gods

Hey I know that artstyle! Were have i seen that before, tip of my tongue

wonder woman in full breastplate and knee length skirt= paladin.
wonder woman in tube top bustier and bikini bottom= bard.

Tell you what, give men -4 Wis and I'll stop bitching about it.

That is true. It still seems like having no statistical difference between male and female characters is incredibly odd if you are playing a "realistic" fantasy game though, I guess it all comes down to preference though. Mount and Blade is a good example of it done right I think. The stat differences arent enough to make anything unviable but its its enough to edge it towards (theres a higher chance of male physical classes than female ones)

>-4 strength
>18 max on chargen
>14 is the highest base strength females can have at chargen
14 is a little above average (8-12) while 18 is peak of physical health.
That's a massive fucking penalty just for making your character a woman.
A minus 1 or 2 is all you need to prove a point, but don't fuck someone's idea up just because you don't like Red Sonja.

Their ability to redeem succubi with their dicks.

I'd prefer something like

men have
+2 str
+2 wis

women have
+2 dex
+2 con

I argue for the men have more wisdom because while men do stupid shit they do less fucking crazy shit. Like women throw reasonable logic out the window way more often than guys do. Guys can be stubborn but generally when they are being stubborn its just a "I know you are right, but fuck you anyways" with women its "I literally can't see I'm being retarded and fucking crazy."

how about instead of giving men -4 Wis we give women +4 Dex

Jiggles.

+4 CHA would be more accurate

But user, female paladins can redeem incubi with their pussy.

Naw, see, because we’re not talking about “reasonable logic” here, that’s Intelligence. I will happily admit that men can be excellent scholars and teachers. In small numbers, they can even display signs of self-preservation and cunning. As soon as you get a bunch of ‘em together though, swear to god, you turn into a bunch of apes and invent shit like full contact sports. “Let’s cause ourselves lasting physical injury for no benefit but bragging rights!”

Also, last I checked, women consistently rate higher in terms of perception and empathy, hallmark skills of Wisdom.

Yeah, no deal. If you want to saddle women with -4 Strength to keep us out of the manly warrior races, I want you fucks out of the wise circle where intuitive practices teach mystical ability through communion with The Other. Name me a classic fantasy Priest or Preacher, because the settings are basically dripping with scantily clad holy women.

Ara ara.

(you)

Beauty is a fleeting thing. When you look at who tends to dominate and lead social groups, it tends to be men. I'm not seeing the Charisma bump.

All the best data shows that there's only about a 10% difference in physical capability between male and female athletes. -4 STR is A LOT more than 10%, in literally every situation.

It doesn't make any damned sense to make a rule that is attempting to simulate reality only to make it so fucking absurd that it's utterly unrealistic.

>Paladins
>Being empowered by a god
The class you're thinking of is Cleric.

>Name me a classic fantasy Priest or Preacher

>men lack wisdom

Jesus Christ, Ghandi, Martin Luther King Jr. Abraham Lincoln, Plato, Confucius, FDR, Winston Churchill, Benjamin Franklin, Charles Darwin

What about JRR Tolkien who arguably created modern fantasy? What about Gary Gygax that created the game itself? Or maybe we should talk about the men that invented computers and the internet? Or the men that harnessed electricity, steam, and mechanical energy? What about the men that created atomic bombs capable of eradicating entire cities? Or what about the men responsible for launching spacecraft into space? Or what about the men that have created and manned vehicles that have traveled far beneath the sea?

But its okay in the recent years with active pro femanist movements where women are given extraordinary, even unfair opportunities compared to men in many fields in an effort to try and "even out" the genders in society women have accomplished??? Shitposting on Tumblr?

Oh sorry, there is Harry Potter.

>10% difference in physical capability between male and female athletes
LOL show me this data, I'm interested to see it.

You're off by quite a bit there. For instance,

>27.8 mph - Usain Bolt (fastest male footspeed on record)
>21.3 mph - Florence Griffith Joyner (fastest female footspeed on record)
That's more than a 30% difference, or triple what you suggested. Keep in mind also that +4 STR has difference significance depending on system and edition.

For a more directly STR-related event, and to show it's not an isolated example:

>263 kg Clean & Jerk - Hossein Rezazadeh (men's record holder)
>187 kg Clean & Jerk - Zhou Lulu (women's record holder)

This is more than a 40% difference. Where did you get a 10% strength difference?

Or he's playing 4e.

Or he's playing in the Forgotten Realms.

Or he's playing Dungeons the Dragoning, like a cool dude.

>measuring run in pure speed

And yet their completion times in the 100m dash are 9.58 and 10.49 for Bolt and Joyner, respectively, and given that time is the actual performance measure of a fucking race, and that's only a 9.something% difference, shut the fuck up please.

The data comes from mining Olympic results. There are variances between different competitions (like how you pointed out that women lift only about 2/3's the total weight that men do), but it averages out to roughly 10% overall, across all competitions. This has been an established, well-known fact in the athletic world for fucking decades. I'm not going to go google up a bunch of sources because you're some unread, ignorant jackass that has no idea of what you're trying to talk about.

Also, +/-4 STR is significantly more than 10% in D&D, in any edition, for pretty much any fucking check, given that a +1 on a d20 is just shy of +5%.

> Jesus Christ, Ghandi, Martin Luther King Jr. Abraham Lincoln, Plato, Confucius, FDR, Winston Churchill, Benjamin Franklin, Charles Darwin

Favored soul who only casts low level spells, Charismatic commoner, Charismatic commoner, Charismatic commoner/noble, Intelligence (Knowledge: Philosophy), Intelligence (Knowledge: Philosophy), (failed my History check here, I know when, but not why he’s relevant), Knowledge (Tactics), Knowledge (Science), Knowledge (Science)

Naw, I see all of those gentlemen working fine with a maximum Wisdom of 14, at least in a paradigm where we’re assuming every fantasy swordswoman is making do with the same.

> Oh sorry, there is Harry Potter.

Wizard. Or, assuming you mean the author, hey, Craft (Literary Work) is a Wisdom skill

Personally, I’d have gone with Buddah.

I'd just like to not that the -4 STR meme started with a discussion in a d100 system, like Rolemaster. 4 points there mean 4% of a roll, so it's representative of a +1 in a d20 stat as stat bonuses aren't applied multiple times. STR in d20 is for both Hit and Damage, while damage in d100 games is table-based according to your hit total, and it's quite hard to miss a hit once you factor in level modifiers.

I'm refering to the fact that I'm pointing out real examples of intelligence and wisdom as opposed to fake examples like you want to. We're talking about realistic physical differences between the sexes and the reflected attribute that come from that within the game.

If you want bonus wisdom maybe women should start doing, idk, literally anything, at all, fucking ever. As soon as men figure out how to artificially give birth without side effects women will be fucking worthless.

>massive fucking penalty
Especially under 1e and 2e, where STR below 16 was essentially just your carrying capacity with no other utility.

+4 STR is literally +10% chance on a d20 roll. The problem with the +4 meme is men aren't 10% more likely to do something strenght-related right, they just do that something 10% better. That's like someone dealing 33 damage instead of 30 while having the same hit rate, no flat bonus on anything.

>Resurrection and Regeneration are low level spells

Huh, who'd have thought?

In both oly lifting and powerlifting the difference is FAR greater than 10%

I truly believe you are pulling this '10%' out of your ass,

The top IPF male in the 83KG class has a total 300 kilos heavier than the top woman in the in the 84KG class

Female oly world records are roughly 20% below male across the board and this was seen as a huge improvement for women in general when it started to happen.

10% is wrong

-4 str was never a rule. What people were thinking of is that there was a weird little rule for women in OD&D, and this was BEFORE stat modifiers existed for str etc.

All it did was determine what weapons a woman could use and a teensy bit of encumbrance (less so than in later D&D editions). A str 2 female melee char was perfectly viable. Low str females couldn't use morningstars, flails, two handed swords, and a couple other weapons effectively, but they could get +1 with daggers, and no penalty with lances, 1HD swords, maces, or hatchets.

And this rule only applied way back in OD&D, pre-Greyhawk. Female chars would use 1d8+1d6 for str, in one dragon magazine.

Care to respond to the other, actually strength-related example?

I like how you're comparing ALL Olympic events, including events that would be DEX or CON and not STR at all. Are you even aware of the position you are trying to defend?

You also didn't actually read their post, considering they already mentioned that -4 STR wasn't necessarily in reference to a D&D-style d20, yet you felt the need to add a paragraph on it.

4 points is a gigantic discrepency though. 11 is already above average, and 12 is approaching carnival strongman levels. 4 points? utterly ridiculous. I'd allow your average woman is probably 9 strength.
I'm not sure what system other user is using that says 18 is peak of human health. Wish I had my phb so I coild look at the carry weight math to figure out roughly how strong each point of strength makes you.

I dunno, there's a reason nuns are feared. Remember, cha is force of personality.

I find that when people quote shit that has been "known in such and such field for decades" they tend to not actually know much about it and are just spouting trivia they picked up. Pretty fuckin sure the athletes of today are wildly different than the athletes of 1970.

Wisdom corresponds more with awareness and perception. Men tend to be more aware of physical things while women tend to be more aware of social things. Trying to decide which has the high wisdom score is tough since men get Perception(wisdom) while women get Insight(wisdom).

See, and this is what I’m getting at. The “Joke” of -4 Strength would place a peak strength woman at about half the power of a peak strength male in setting, whereas the athletic records place it closer to a 2/3rds. Mechanically, that’s a -1 Str.

So, gee, shock and amazement, maybe I get just as pissed off at the stale -4 Str meme as you seem to be about the insinuation that your gender is a bunch of drooling malcontents.

That made me laugh too.

>the data says that
what data?
>all of it lol
>uh, it's a composite
>go look it up yourself
>et cetera

I don't think anyone here has actually agreed that with modern standards such as in D&D 5e/Pathfinder a -4 str mod would be realistic. I think one person said +2 for males which seems pretty reasonable since by max stats thats 10% of 20 but it maintains a realism of 12 v 10 or 10 v 8 whatever you would prefer for the average person.

I'd say most men with a combination of genetics and societal roles are 20% stronger than the average woman.

Lol, are you a fucking autistic dipshit faggot retard? Where the hell did you pull that stat out of, your sandy-ass vagina?

lol why are people even posting. you have some serious complexes

At most, it's a +1 Str for males and +1 Con for females (thanks to that backup X chromosome). Men and women are (in my experience) a complete bunch of drooling retards most of the time, and people who rise above that are in the minority.

>tripfag responds to shitposting

Not helping.

And?
>Hulk is stronger than She-Hulk
>Superman is stronger than Supergirl

Get outta town. Women are often strong and skilled and great and wonderful in real life as in fiction - but worth doesn't come from one-to-one equivalency on all criteria. If your feminism or self-worth depends on that, you should find yourself a new set of values to operate on.

They are exactly the same. Both take vows of complete chastity and when not fighting are focused on charity and religious observance.

The relative width of their hips after puberty starts, genitals, and depending on the setting, social expectations.

>Yeah, no deal. If you want to saddle women with -4 Strength to keep us out of the manly warrior races, I want you fucks out of the wise circle where intuitive practices teach mystical ability through communion with The Other.

Having wheel of time flashbacks. That entire series is prime example of why we should keep the differences between men and women to a minimum.

...

Best (serious) post I've seen all day

WHM user, you're rad.

I'm thoroughly enjoying the rage-fest that your comments have caused.

>keep us out of the manly warrior races
lol what?

Oh, they're trolling. Cool. Though why you consider being corrected over and over a "rag-fest I don't know.

user, you're making the assumption that you are correct.

See now the difference between the strength penalty and the wisdom penalty is that we have a vast amount of evidence showing that women are weaker. What evidence do we have that women are wiser? If they are wiser, would they not make for more prosperous and successful leaders than men? So why is it that men are the ones that built and lead the great civilizations of history? If you're going to get buttmad over facts and try to make other people just as buttmad, at least stick to using facts as well.

Best post in thread.

So naturally it's ignored.

...

Yeah, that's actually pretty unfortunate.

Aggregated data of absolute strength indicates that females have, on average, 40-60% the upper body strength of males, and 70-75% the lower body strength.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_dimorphism#Humans

What's the fundamental difference between OP and a faggot?

Stop shitposting.

I could point out your incarceration rate.

What was it again? 197% more likely to be convicted with a 63% longer sentence?

I'd say you guys could stand to learn to game the system a bit more.

>If you want bonus wisdom maybe women should start doing, idk, literally anything, at all, fucking ever.
You know, I have never really thought about this before, but this is pretty much correct. We've been saddled with shit like being the primary caregiver for children for so long that we haven't really done anything, and it's hard to develop a body of work when you have millenia of catching up to do, little competitive advantage, and the things holding you back haven't really been mitigated all that much, only called out.

It's probably not been replied to because the topic was covered earlier, though not in as much detail.

See, this matches with my personal experience in life. Honestly I feel pretty trivialized when people blow hard about "hurr men aren't that much stronger than women!"

I weight train, I eat right, I'm considered very strong among my gender and genotype, and men who pay a decent amount of attention to their physical fitness are markedly stronger than me, as a matter of class and not degrees. And yet here I am, still enjoying my physicality.

But most stupid males and females who haven't really bothered to strengthen their bodies and compare with the other sex will simply have a gut-reaction to the topic and ignore or report rather than acknowledge the difference, learning nothing and stewing in their self-important ignorance instead.

Women don't game the system. The system is gamed for them.

Don't forget all the statistics from the US army that place the top percentile of women among the lowest percentile of men.

One has a -4 penalty to strength.

Laws were made mostly to control men and protect their possessions. Being most capable, men were most dangerous, and ended up in prison a lot more.

Game the system all you want, won't stop the fact that every convenience you enjoy was designed and built by men. You're like the cat that thinks that the humans that feed and shelter it are so far beneath them, oblivious to the reality of it's sheltered existence.
I'd normally interject something here to get the thread back on topic, but this is a shitty bait thread anyway, so I guess nothing of value is being lost.

And intelligence

but +8 to charisma

This reply is so retarded lmao

Getting a pussy pass is gaming the system now? lol

depends entirely on their comeliness score, though

Sure, man. We lucked into a system where you’re half again as likely to be the victims of violent crimes and nobody gives a damn.

We’re either canny, or ya’ll need to get your shit together.

Apples and oranges. was referring to the system of law and justice that results in increased incarceration rates for men.

You are referring to the societal systems that make women both more desirable and more vulnerable as targets. As for not giving a damn, the law does and society does - at least as much as when it happens to men, anyway.

Society in general isn't geared towards victimhood; victimhood isn't something that anyone wants, male or female, but it doesn't achieve much either. It's not a judgement, it's just not the most useful consideration to preoccupy ourselves with.

>self-important ignorance
Like your self-important infallibility is any better?

>knowledge
>better than ignorance
Of course it is, user. Every time.

I think the implication is that men are victimized more regularly, but when violent crimes happen to women it’s reported on with more fervor. In effect, women aren’t actually more desirable or vulnerable as targets (otherwise they’d be victimized more?), but they are perceived to be.

So, if men are the more common perpetrators, and victims, in a system designed by and presided over (primarily) by men, why are the penalties leveled more frequently and harshly against men?

Not really sure what the point is, we don’t judge children against the full weight of the law either.

>So, if men are the more common perpetrators, and victims, in a system designed by and presided over (primarily) by men, why are the penalties leveled more frequently and harshly against men?

Pussy pass. Most dudes are both instinctually wired and socially trained to give women an easier time.

What do the repeat offender rates look like based on gender lines anyway?

If a stab-happy ex-girlfriend is getting out of jail in a third of the time, some data indicating she won't stab the next dumb fuck to dip his wick in her would be nice.

One has an outie and one has an innie.

Show up, spout ignorant shit, and get proven wrong. So what do you do, fervent believer in well-known facts in the athletic world?

Dis-a-fucking-pear, apparently. Good to know the ones dumb enough to believe this shit on gossip are the ones too stunted to admit when they're wrong.

>de la Chapelle syndrome doesn't exist

Spoken like you did shit.

I see the summer-times are truly upon us.

As far as my sources go, female paladins have less will and mindbreak to porcs or fura daemonesses after maximum two pages.

I'm willing to admit I'm wrong, for one thing. So yeah, I look down on people who aren't.

Marxist Lucifer King is a poor example. FDR must be your idea of a joke.

Man, shit-posters aren't "wrong" because they don't believe the shit they spew in the first place.

9-1 odds WHM isn't even a woman.

>Show up, spout ignorant shit, and get proven wrong.
...who are you talking with?

...

You can say a thing insincerely and still be wrong.

>And intelligence
No, that is what men get a penalty to.

...

>It might be more than 10% in strength related activities but when you include non-strength based activities the difference in strength is less!

I guess we're going to ignore centuries of being confined to a role or face being ostracized.