Campaign ends

It also depends on how many female PCs/NPCs there are, and if it made sense for the character to do so.

If even the most independent, asexual woman somehow found her way into being a loving housewife, and it was treated as if this was the only right and proper thing for her to do, that's kinda sexist.

Remember, what a PC counts as "settling down" or "normal housewife" has basically nothing in common with either.

They're probably still hunting dragons for a juicy steak dinner and taking out entire armies of bandits and goblins every time they go shopping for groceries.

"Running a few errands, be back before lunch" means that they're traveling halfway across the world through transportation magic to overthrow a tyrant, then maybe slaughtering a cult that was sacrificing innocents to summon their Dark Lord.

I think the point he's making is that there's a difference between voluntarily stepping back and popping out a few kids and doing so because that's literally our only other function in society after your heroic activity is over.

That said, bad-ass retired hero momma bear is a trope for a reason, so...whatevs.

Honestly I think that speaks more to the young-adult fear of commitment of raising a child than anything else.

Once you reach a certain age putting all that shit behind you and just focusing on raising a family once you have stability and a loving partner sounds WAY more appealing then burrowing through dragon shit.

Yes, it is absolutely sexist. How dare they engage in the most basic urge of all life instead of becoming barren cat ladies. Their characters need to meet horrible ends to teach those filthy breeders a lesson.

it is sexist, but if it doesn't bother you everything is fine, I think?

Did the males not eventually settle down and become fathers?

I always liked the cliche of the retired hero entrancing their brats with stories of their badassery

Nah, everyone should settle down once they've done the quest. It's just sensible.

Women being housewives and raising children isn't sexist unless they're being forced into it. If it's their decision, I don't think it's a problem.

No, it is you who is sexist for trying to impose your gender roles on them.

Is it in character?
No

Is it not in character?
Possibly
Depends on the personality, goals, and previous behavior of each NPC

I don't see this as sexist, and who says, after the child are raised, they can't be back in adventuring business?
but I am a filthy male after all...

>Should this bother me?
This is the new Veeky Forums, everything should bother you.
Even if it's just comically inept bait threads with OP providing so little meat that you can't make gravy, no matter if we stretch it to 300 posts anyway.

Depends on what direction their characters were heading and what their goal were. If the female barbarian just wanted a man strong enough to be worthy of her husband than settling down and raising a dozen strong sons is a perfectly logical ending, but if the female wizard wanted to run her own school for wizardry and just ends up marrying the party fighter and become a housewife than it is pretty retarded.

However at the end of the day all that really matters is that the players are happy with their endings.

she is a clever girl

This. Veeky Forums is flooded with endless shitty bait threads repeated ad nauseam which don't even bother to provide basis for discussion, derailment, make others laugh or at least post something lewd. Such low quality of baits is insulting.

Your ancestors hide their faces in shame, OP.

>06

NEET life.

>our
Fuck off

What did the male characters do?
Become husbands and fathers?

>Should this bother me?
Yes, it's far more likely that they all die from disease.

To be fair, exceedingly few of the women from that time period used to be anything like adventurers.

I'm not sure its sexist, but it certainly shows a view that parenthood and procreation is all that matters in life and your genes matter more than yourself.

Well, obviously. If you don't pass on what you've learnt to your children, your legacy ends. And even the most powerful swordswoman would want to have a relationship and kids, preferably with a husband who is at least equally powerful.

>becoming mother is sexist

Do men becoming fathers feel the same way?

>female character - gladiator-slave turned high general of a kingdom
>female player that is a self-described feminist
>campaign ends
>Settles down to be wife and mother

You're good, OP.

>All the races look different, even gnomes and halflings (who should for all intents and purposes be the same race)
>Even within the same race she avoids sameface as much as possible (except for the twins but... well, they're twins!)
I love this woman!

I guess Laius and Farlyn have a bit of sameface going on too (when her eyes are open at least), but again: they're siblings. It only makes sense for them to look alike.

>Doing x after finishing doing y shows a view that x is all that matters.
>Passing on your genes diminishes you in any way.
2/10

That's why our birth rates are plummeting. Women are being told that becoming mothers is somehow "unworthy", unless you're a single mother who also works 40 hours a day and barely has time to make her child a microwave meal.

> >campaign ends
> >all the male PCs and NPCs eventually settle down to become farmers and merchants
Should this bother me? Is my group sexist? It's awkward to ask

WOW, IT'S LIKE DESIRE FOR PEACEFUL LIFESTYLE IS PREDOMINANT AMONGST PEOPLE OR SOMETHING.

>no female settles down and has kids because "muh gurl power"
>100 years later
>humans are extinct

I mean... all heros retire eventually, voluntarily or not is another thing.

If they have the luxury of planning their retirement, settling down and having a family is certainly the most common way of doing it. The family experience can be very rewarding, and they can pass down their heroism to their children.

My character was male, and his plot point was because of his set of skills, he needed to be separated from his heavily pregnant wife to assist with the issue.

When he finished he simply went back home and got his reward, to be with his family safe again...(until the DM and friends didn't want me to retire the character, so a Demon attack and some other things happened after that...)

Simply put though, the family stage is a normal part of life, and people who don't partake in it are the outliers.

There's an obvious solution to this: all the male PCs and NPCs eventually settle down to become housewives and mothers(male). That is also my fetish.

To be fair, I'd love to stay home with the kids and clean and cook if we could afford to live just on the lady's salary.

Yeah, same, especially since I already clean and cook on my own despite leaving alone, and then I have to work, and then I still have time remaining for my hobbies.
Imagine if I didn't have to work. How much time I would have left for my other hobbies?

Ignore most of this thread, they just have ptsd from the feminism wars and assume any topic mentioning women is the SJWs returning for their young.

It, as soon many things do, depends. If there was a blanket decision by the GM, maybe bad. If the same kind of thing didn't happen to the men, maybe sexist. If it contradicts established motives it's a bad ending either way.

this, this will help you determine if it's sexist

Pro tip: If OP asks a stupid, obvious, and possibly inflammatory question and then never returns to respond or clarify, then you're in a bait-thread my friend.
Typically a poor one at that.

At least 40% of threads are bait, but remember that this is Veeky Forums and not /v/. Whether a thread is bait or not, it is only as good as we choose to make it.

Not all settings are comedic high fantasy.

I always liked the cliche of the retired hero keeping their own adventures a secret because they don't want that sort of life for their kids. Bonus points if the kids grow up hearing stories from travellers about the great heroes without knowing the stories are actually about their parent.

Agreed.
However, See
>OP providing so little meat that you can't make gravy
Sometimes, there's too little to work with unless you simply manufacture a derailment.

Oddly enough, I made that image and posted it for the first time in ages a few moments ago in another thread. Weird.

New Question:
What's the best retirement story your PCs received?

>Oddly enough, I made that image and posted it for the first time in ages a few moments ago in another thread. Weird.
Then I guess a "thank you" is in order.
Thanks m8.

No probrem. I rike to contribute.

Most of us do that anyways. Out of the people I know who can have kids, I can count on my hands how many of us didn't have kids by the age of 30. 10. Out of those, most of them haven't had kids because we aren't in a position to do so; I can't have kids, but aren't in a position to adopt.

It's in our nature to do so, as sexist as it sounds.

received a full pardon (not that he really wanted one, but the party was offered a full pardon for unrelated events and he accepted) - reformed his order and subsequently quit

married and elven sorceress and settled down in a remote fortress, spent the rest of his life in contentment and occasionally adventured - became a well respected trainer sought after by would be heroes or villains, his heir is through magical shenanigans possessing of a demigods powers

Real feminism, the old school sort, would argue that since they voluntarily became housewives, there isn't a problem. Female empowerment is about giving women a full array of choices- not forcing them into specific roles that are "more powerful". Being a housewife is a fully valid life. Now, if you made a female character and tried to keep adventuring or became a ruler or whatever at the end of the adventure and the GM or players told you to become a housewife- THAT'D be sexist.

Source; mother is a lesbian and a moderately important member of the feminist movement in years past- when I was growing up she cooked the family food, did laundry, and cleaned the house. Because she wanted to. And was a bit of a cleanfreak, bless her heart, while me and my other mother were slobs.

What's so sexist about basic biology?

>Real feminism, the old school sort
>The sort that wanted equal voting rights but didn't want to be conscripted, yet actively shamed men who didn't join the military
Feminism has never not been cancer. At this point, to defend feminism you have to go the "it has never been tried" communist route.

Pfff. Sure buddy.

>Is it sexist

Not if it's a choice. But if they later regret the decision it somehow magically is.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_feather#World_War_I

>Feminism has never not been cancer. At this point, to defend feminism you have to go the "it has never been tried" communist route.
Not that user, and not gonna against those words, but I am gonna ask you this:
Are you suggesting that fighting for women's rights is inherently cancerous, or inarticulately acknowledging that fighting any opposed cancer will result in cancerous behavior?

You are one who have something wrong with.
By even considering that person choosing this as "profession" choice.

Have you seen feminism? Their whole ignoring neurology and biology because they insist everything is a social construct? There is a reason they're always fighting trannies and shit.

A feminist would argue that me bringing biological trends and patterns into this is sexism. Feminism is humanism, and humanism is built upon ostensibly false premise of "universal experiences", so they automatically assume variation is always social and learned rather than the truth: it's both innate/ingrained and learned.

While this never actually happened due to the game dying, I had a scary-as-hell tiefling woman who I intended to settle down and open a children's home near a war-torn nation. In spite of her talent and training in brutal terror-based combat, she loved her daughter and had finally found a sort of fulfillment in caring for her. This, along with her own orphaned background made the idea of providing a safe and defended home for the war-orphans of the region very appealing for her.

>Are you suggesting that fighting for workers' rights is inherently cancerous, or inarticulately acknowledging that fighting any opposed cancer will result in cancerous behavior?

>women's rights
It's about as cancerous as fighting for men's rights (ironically a movement feminist love to stomp on). The problem is that, from day one, feminism wasn't about women's rights or equality between men and women. It was about giving women as many goodies as possible with as little obligations as possible. If you disagree with me, explain why the White Feather campaign was never accompanied or counteracted by the forming of voluntary female militias, begging to be disemboweled by German artillery fire.

A fine paraphrasing of my question.
I wonder if user will answer either one.

I LOVE BARBARIAN MARCILLE!

>campaign ends
>all the male PCs and NPCs eventually settle down to become stay-at-home dads

>It's about as cancerous as fighting for men's rights
So you're going with "inarticulately acknowledging that fighting any opposed cancer will result in cancerous behavior"?
Gotcha.

>The problem is that it was about giving women as many goodies as possible with as little obligations as possible.
A group of people saddled with obligations yet denied rights, liberties, choice, and other "goodies" try to gain "as many goodies as possible with as little obligations as possible."
Huh.
Yeah, that sounds about right as a reasonable response, invariably taken too far by many.

>the White Feather campaign

...had nothing to do with feminism.

Shaming men who don't want to fight as "unmasculine" is full patriarchy.

It puts people in a hierarchy of manhood, where more manly = better than, and equates violence with being manly.

Also, in your specific example, the British white feather campaign was started by a man.

>If you disagree with me, explain why the White Feather campaign was never accompanied or counteracted by the forming of voluntary female militias, begging to be disemboweled by German artillery fire.

>In August 1914, at the start of the First World War, Admiral Charles Fitzgerald founded the Order of the White Feather

I've agreed with you this far, but
>This was joined by some prominent feminists and suffragettes of the time, such as Emmeline Pankhurst and her daughter Christabel. They, in addition to handing out the feathers, also lobbied to institute an involuntary universal draft, which included those who lacked votes due to being too young or not owning property.[4][5][6]
is directly taken from that white feathers article on wikipedia.

You're right. It did improve the thread!

>>This was joined by some prominent feminists and suffragettes of the time, such as Emmeline Pankhurst and her daughter Christabel

>When the First World War began in August 1914, Emmeline and Christabel considered that the threat posed by Germany was a danger to all humanity, and that the British government needed the support of all citizens. They persuaded the WSPU to halt all militant suffrage activities until fighting on the European mainland ended. It was no time for dissent or agitation; Christabel wrote later: "This was national militancy. As Suffragists we could not be pacifists at any price." A truce with the government was established, all WSPU prisoners were released, and Christabel returned to London. Emmeline and Christabel set the WSPU into motion on behalf of the war effort. In her first speech after returning to Britain, Christabel warned of the "German Peril". She urged the gathered women to follow the example of their French sisters, who – while the men fought – "are able to keep the country going, to get in the harvest, to carry on the industries".

I dunno, sounds like they had their heads on straight to me.

>having babies is sexist
Its called keeping the entire species alive, with all the villagers that die over the course of an adventure it likely needs some repopulation

>Should this bother me? Is my group sexist? It's awkward to ask

No. Settling down is the logical stopping conclusion to basically any story that doesn't end in tragedy.

You wouldn't ask the same if it were a men.

You're the sexist for automatically ascribing less value to a woman's choice just because it's a woman's choice.

Polite sage.

people shag a lot, it's natural

They do?

that's what I experience. Statistics also confirm!

What happened to the dudes?

O-oh.

don't worry, there's enough food for everyone!

Did the GM just decide what all the PCs did post-campaign? I mean some direction I get but surely that's something the players would have a hand in, at least indirectly. The only campaigns I've played where the GM hasn't directly worked with the players to determine what happens in the 'epilogue' was the one where my character's entire motivation for going out and adventuring was to get his ship back so he could go and be a god damn space pirate again.

He got his ship back.
Yes he was a Mal expy.

>praise me praise me!

But muh travel

Lets be generous and call the homosexual population 10% of those many still want kids. Of female heroes thry are still female, mid to upper 20 and 30s most woman want kids, they probably started adventures and such at 16 to 15 if this is a fantasy setting, so 10 years of crawling around in sewers caves and shitty towers for loot fame and humanity they might beva good time to have a few beers and get married...
Your average high level adventurers could sell off their crapiest gear and live like a prince for 4 life times.... do you expect them to open an inn? Maybe having kids is the normal want for men and women over 25 who aren't lardass autistics....

talking shit about housewives, heh?

>Should this bother me? Is my group sexist? It's awkward to ask

>DM determining the outcome of player characters afterward.

Both you and your group have failed to see the real problem.

The people pushing girl power would approve.

1960: some choices are just WRONG for women!

1990: all kinds of choices are great! Telling women they can't make certain choices is wrong!

2020: some (different) choices are just WRONG for women!

I know lots of strong women. Some settled down and had families. Some didn't and are content. And some didn't because they told themselves they shouldn't, and now they're staring down the barrel of 50 and are consumed with bitterness and regret.

I was just about to say that. If its the perogative of the player to have their female characters hang up the ol' sword and shield and squirt out a few babies, that's fine (especially if you want to roll up a new character, but let them have a share of that loot you amassed previously), but if the DM has basically made a blanket "All women just become hausfraus the moment they stop rolling for initiative" then you might have a problem.

Personally, I'd be completely content if my male character's fate after a campaiign end was that he settled down with all his riches, built a farm and had a shitload of kids.

It's a cathartic ending to a busy adventurer's life

>implying desirable woman do not live in a 24/7 state of 'taken'

This.

>received

I believe you mean achieved. I don't give my players their own endings, I merely end the current adventure.

That said, the wizard and his hat went back to being a janitor. After marrying his crush of the entire campaign.

>everyone taking it

I can't tell if Veeky Forums is just really sincere and naive or retarded. Notice how OP hasn't bothered responding? It's a fucking troll you idiots