I never said anything about realism because I knew that someone would immediately make this tired and meaningless argument. Would you be happy with humans bleeding iced tea and sweating Gatorade then trading it to the elves for free movie tickets even though movies don't exist in the setting? No, because that's stupid and completely inconsistent. So are identical sexes in humans.
Obvious strawman is obvious. You've gotta be trying to troll me, there's no other explanation. (Which is funny, I have to love your attempt at irony.)
I don't quite follow how you got to that conclusion. I made up something unrealistic that was as unrealistic as magic but allot stupider considering the subject material to show that realism has nothing to do with it.
Well I thought that was blatantly obvious. That's why we're arguing. Isn't it?
What it is, is this.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anachronism
If I was, sorry.
If I was right, well, you need to realize that we're talking about a game, something that's supposed to entertain people. An RPG whose purpose is to allow you to play someone who is the exception to the rule, someone who defies conventions and stereotypes, someone who is unique. If you can't atleast understand that, then you're the one with the problems, not me.
This last bit is hard to come up with a response to. It seems like it was just an overly drawn out way of saying "I don't care what you're trying to say or why. I'm right and you're wrong. Also, you're mentally unstable." Can't really argue with that kind of attitude.
Two points:
1) starting a thread specifically to continue an arguement is probably not a good idea unless you can keep it civil.
2)
This last bit is hard to come up with a response to. It seems like it was just an overly drawn out way of saying "I don't care what you're trying to say or why. I'm right and you're wrong. Also, you're mentally unstable." Can't really argue with that kind of attitude.
While the last sentence of his arguement was uncalled for, his arguement is sound. What he's saying isn't "I dont care." Instead, he's pointing out that the PCs are by their very nature supposed to be heroes, and therefor exceptional. Most people in Dnd settings are assumed to have few, if any, class levels in an NPC class. The PCs can become high-level warriors and mages capable of going toe-to-toe with hellspawn.
What I think Khagan is saying is that with such a noticeable difference between commoners and PCs of the male variety already in place, its not absurd to regard the same stating of the sexes in DnD as declaring that Female heroes are heroes too, and are exceptional examples of their gender. This allows them to be at least as capable as their male counterparts.
Is this an exception to the rule? Yes, but so are 4 out of 5 characters in any campaign.